National
“No public events scheduled”

|
|
The PM is on a national campaign tour. He lies about it every day.
Here’s Justin Trudeau at the Saldenah Mas Camp in Toronto on July 18. Volunteers spend months making costumes every year for the Toronto Caribbean Festival. It’s a fantastic tradition. My father, who lived in Barbados for a while, used to drive us up from Sarnia every year for the parade.
The prime minister’s public itinerary, which is emailed daily to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery and posted on his website, said that on July 18 he’d be in Ottawa for the Change of Command ceremony. It acknowledged no other public event.
The itinerary usually goes out around 7 p.m. each night and lists the PM’s public activities for the next day. Then on the morning of the day, we get an itinerary that either repeats the night-before email, or modifies it. On July 15 the night-before itinerary said the prime minister would be in “Southwestern Ontario” and would have “no public events scheduled” the next day, July 16.
Here’s where it gets a little weird. I never received an itinerary for July 16 that said anything else. The itinerary that went out on the morning of July 16, like the night-before email on the 15th, said “no public events scheduled.” But on the PM’s website, the itinerary that’s there now lists a meeting with Kitchener mayor Barry Vrbanovic.
Later that day, Trudeau was in Scarborough at Junior Carnival. “You could just feel the energy in the air!”, the PM tweeted.
The first I learned of the PM’s meeting with Kitchener mayor Vrbanovic was when reporters received a pool report from a CP reporter, a couple of hours after the meeting ended.
Paul Wells is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Pool reports have been used in many countries for many years. If there’s not room for every reporter or photographer who might want to attend, a smaller number are designated, on the understanding that they’ll share their observations and images with everyone who couldn’t go. It’s not great, because typically the pool reporter is not permitted to ask questions.
Sometimes journalists vote to determine who among them will be the pool. Sometimes it’s a Canadian Press reporter, by tradition and convention. In all recent cases with Trudeau, it’s been a CP reporter — because no other news organization except CP has been informed of these events.
There’s also a separate broadcast pool, in which all the broadcast networks participate. That way one camera goes to pooled events, and every network gets the images and audio.
The CP reporter’s account of the Vrbanovic meeting said Vrbanovic “thanked Trudeau for his government’s programs that provide funding to municipalities.” Trudeau “said he will discuss issues that matter to the region including housing and climate change with Vrbanovic.” At this point, “The pool reporter was then asked to leave the room.” I’ll bet she was.
So here’s what I’m here to write about today. This has become standard operating procedure for Justin Trudeau and his staff during the difficult summer of 2024: they claim in public every day that the the PM has “no public events scheduled.” Even though he is in a different city every day. And he has public events scheduled. In fact, he is in the city in question so he can attend the public events he claims aren’t on his schedule.
And a small number of journalists are told, every day, “for information purposes only” — i.e., on the condition that they not tell other journalists or the public — about the public events the PM has scheduled but is lying about.
On Monday Trudeau’s itinerary said he was in “Northern Alberta” and had “no public events scheduled.” Later on Monday he was in Hinton, AB to “get a briefing on the status of the Jasper wildfire, as well as meet with the province’s premier and evacuees who fled the blaze.” I know this because it was in the CP report. “Trudeau did not speak with reporters while he was in Hinton,” the story adds.
I wrote about this on Notes, Substack’s fun short-form social-media platform. A reader responded (and here I paraphrase) that, well, maybe the PM wanted to do serious business in a crisis situation without having to dodge snarky questions from rude reporters. And, you know what? Fair enough.
Thank you for reading Paul Wells. This post is public so feel free to share it.
Share
But here’s the thing. I’ve covered a lot of political leaders in emergency settings. It’s perfectly routine for the advisory to say what a leader will do today, but to say a given event is “Closed to Media.” Or for reporters to be sequestered in a room, well away from the meeting between PM and premier, with time for questions only after the meeting ends.
What’s rarer — what I’d never actually seen before — is for a PM to fly to Alberta, for his staff to say he’s going to be in Alberta, but for them to claim he won’t be doing anything while he’s there.
Incidentally, the version of the PM’s itinerary for Monday that’s on his website now says he had a meeting with Danielle Smith and with emergency responders. This version was never sent to reporters, either before or after the meeting. Absurdly, the itinerary has also been corrected to put Hinton in “Central Alberta” instead of “Northern Alberta.”
A colleague at a large news organization who’s vocationally preoccupied with following politicians’ schedules tells me this has happened “multiple times” in recent weeks: the itinerary on the website gets updated after the fact, in ways that do not reflect what reporters were told in real time. This is the smallest possible routine coverup, for the smallest possible benefit, that I have ever seen.
Pretty soon, news organizations are going to have to start explaining why Justin Trudeau’s summer schedule is so surprising to us.
Here’s Justin Trudeau making a “surprise appearance” at Vancouver Pride on Sunday. Here’s the PM making a “surprise appearance” at Winnipeg’s Filipino Folklorama pavilion on Monday. I’m here to tell you, reporters were not informed of either event — except the ones who were given a quiet heads-up so there’d be cameras on hand. Although how can you be expected to believe me? The PM’s gaslighting website says he “will attend” Pride on Sunday. At least they haven’t rigged the Monday advisory so it retroactively lies about having told us he’d be at the Winnipeg event.
I suspect today’s post will create some buzz, so I want to be careful to say precisely what I mean to say. Politicians are under no obligation to tell anybody how they spend every minute of their day. (It’s worth noting, however, that the public agendas of leaders in other places are sometimes more detailed than in Ottawa: here’s Emmanuel Macron’s and Joe Biden’s agendas for today. The UK’s Keir Starmer seems less forthcoming.) And it’s routine for leaders’ teams to acknowledge calendar events while also emphasizing that the public and journalists can’t attend. What’s an innovation is this business of claiming the PM has nothing “public” on his schedule when he is, in fact, on tour to do public events for which he will seek tightly controlled media and social-media credit.
It’s become entertaining to learn, after the fact, what the hell has been going on. Last week the PM was on vacation in British Columbia. We receive daily itineraries during a vacation, with no public events scheduled, and I don’t begrudge anyone any vacation time. Then he was back in Ottawa for two days, and then he was back in the “Lower Mainland” of BC with “no public events scheduled.” That was Pride, as it turned out. I’m pretty sure that when the big guy was on an airplane for the second time in as many days, he knew why. Eventually so did we.
Since I’ve started making a fuss about this stuff on Notes, I think the PMO is starting to get nervous. Here’s the itinerary we were sent for today, Tuesday, at 7:03 a.m. EDT:
And here’s the updated itinerary we received at 2:33 p.m.
Thanks for the update! Unfortunately, every event in the updated itinerary occurred before the PMO sent it out. When covering your tracks, try not to be so terrible at it. Fortunately the pool report should be landing in my inbox any minute.
I asked Andrea Baillie, the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Press, for an explanation of the national newsgathering cooperative’s role in these activities. She replied:
“It’s long been part of CP’s mandate to be with prime ministers as they carry out their duties. Alongside major broadcasters, we provide ‘pool coverage.’ That means we gather details on what the PM said and did on behalf of all press gallery journalists, at events where there is limited space. Typically, the PMO provides embargoed information (i.e. times and locations) on the PM’s schedule on short notice so we can get there on time. The pool is bound by an agreement to use this information for planning purposes only until the events take place, at which point the CP reporter provides details on what they saw and heard in a note sent to all press gallery journalists.”
I want to be clear that I intend no criticism of CP, which has come in for some cheap shots from Pierre Poilievre and others. Reporters who are told of politicians’ activities ahead of time routinely keep this information to themselves, as I have done for politicians from many parties. Including, come to think of it, while covering elections in other countries. It’s the only way to reconcile coverage of an event with politicians’ preference for planning in secrecy. In particular, readers who are quick to dream up heroic scenarios for reporters to act as their proxy to sabotage politicians’ schemes — You should just refuse to cover it! You should just shout your questions until they’re forced to answer! — are typically less thrilled when reporters try that stuff against the politicians they like better.
But reporters are obviously getting played here. When the prime minister of Canada deploys half-way across the country, with his staff photographer and videographers; and then tells hundreds of journalists he’s got nothing planned for the next day or the day dawning; and smaller numbers of journalists already know that’s not true; and then the PM meets public officials or crowds of voters, speaks on public-policy issues, and sends out his own shop’s versions of those conversations and professionally curated images; and then (I can’t believe I’m writing this part) his staff sneaks into the website to cover their tracks ex post facto — well, this is a lake of bullshit so deep I can’t touch bottom, and at the very least, we should let you know it’s going on.
Now watch the commenters under this post line up, like iron filings in a magnetic field, to reveal their polarity.
People who hope the Liberals will win will be furious at me for nitpicking. THIS MAN IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY AND YOU JUST WANT TO TEAR HIM DOWN, they’ll say. YOU’RE NO BETTER THAN BOB FIFE. HE’S SMART TO KEEP YOU AWAY FROM SERIOUS WORK.
The ones who wanted him gone years ago will say, AH-HA. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS PLOTTING WITH LIBERALS TO HIDE THE SATANIC PM. YOU HOWLED WHEN POILIEVRE DID FAR LESS, BUT NOW YOU’RE PLOTTING! PLOTTING! WITH YOUR LIBERAL PAYMASTERS.
What’s much rarer will be voters who would actively prefer, say, a Liberal government that doesn’t routinely lie about what its PM is doing. Let me tell you, I sure notice every time a supporter of the Liberals who claims to support the Liberals because they like honest reporting and evidence-based policy suddenly complains about the reporting and evidence that make their guy look bad.
As for Poilievre, I’ve written about his media manipulation at length and, I suspect, will again. These attitudes — good coverage good, bad coverage wicked and worth any artifice to avoid — are widespread and party-agnostic. But it’s worth pointing out that Poilievre now routinely sends out advance notice of his rallies, and has lately been setting aside a few minutes for brief sessions with individual reporters after such events. This one with a Sudbury reporter was chippy but informative; this one with The Gazette’s Aaron Derfel caught Poilievre in a relatively introspective mood.
Mostly I’m not surprised when any public figure avoids scrutiny. Journalistic scrutiny is so rare these days, for reasons I’ve written about at length, that nobody should be surprised when it draws an annoyed and defensive reaction from politicians who view any surprise as an attack. Or, indeed, from anybody at all. “Freedom of the press” loses friends quickly in almost any concrete case.
But again, I’ve never seen this before, a Prime Minister of Canada who demands that his staff enable him as he claims to be taking the summer off even as he’s campaigning for re-election. One more irony: If you’re paying half the salary of most Canadian journalists, even while you’re sending emails to them full of lies about your schedule, you’ve made destroying their credibility a very expensive object of government policy.
Finally, what does all this tell us about the year Justin Trudeau’s having?
I’m not Catholic, but I view this extended fibbing campaign as a venial rather than a mortal sin. It’s mostly kind of baffling.
But it has precedent. In his memoir, Trudeau recollects the times he introduced himself as “Jason Tremblay” or as “Justin St-Clair” as a student or a young adult, to avoid being judged before he could make his case. He learned early how much of himself he wanted others to see.
What’s harder to discern is the point of the artifice. Trudeau gave an extended interview to the CBC days before the disastrous Toronto—St. Paul’s byelection. Within days after the returns from St. Paul’s were in, he adopted this duck-and-cover routine. To what end? Does he seriously hope to pick up 15 points of polling deficit by pushing out Instagram photos of parade floats? Does he think he can keep this up for a year until an election?
While we wait to find out, if I were on the PM’s communications staff and I had pre-existing plans to be working somewhere else in a year, this would be an excellent week to resign, because this week you’d get to do it on principle.
I hear the PM will be in St. John’s tomorrow. Tonight we’ll see whether it’s on the itinerary.For the full experience, subscribe to Paul Wells.
Alberta
The Conventional Energy Sector and Pipelines Will Feature Prominently in Alberta’s Referendum Debate

From Energy Now
By Jim Warren
Like it or not, the supporters of conventional energy production in the West, even those who bleed maple syrup, will be best served by a substantial leave vote. A poor showing on the part of the leave camp would weaken the bargaining power of the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector in their dealings with Ottawa.
The political dust-up between the leavers and the stayers is about to commence.
The petition calling for an Alberta referendum on separation will get the required signatures. And, the Moe government in Saskatchewan may yet decide to do something similar.
And, there is a good chance the federal Liberals and their allies in the environmental movement will launch an anti-separation/anti-oil campaign in response. The Liberals need merely to reinvigorate the flag waving campaign they ran during the federal election. All that needs to change for that tactic to work is the name of the boogeyman—from Donald Trump to alienated Westerners. Government subsidized environmental organizations will help do the rest.
This will present something of a dilemma for some supporters of the conventional energy and pipeline sectors. Should they lay low, stay quiet and perhaps avoid becoming part of the controversy? Alternatively, should they face reality and admit oil and pipelines will feature prominently in the debate whether they like it or not. The federal assault on oil, gas and pipelines is after all one of the principal motivations inspiring many who wish to separate.
And, whether we like it or not, the supporters of conventional energy production in the West, even those who bleed maple syrup, will be best served by a substantial leave vote. A poor showing on the part of the leave camp would weaken the bargaining power of the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector in their dealings with Ottawa. This is one of the immutable laws of the negotiating universe. A union that gets only 20% of its members voting in favour of strike action knows it is impotent should management call its bluff.
This is not to say the leave side will need a majority vote to produce a win for the energy sector—a large minority could do nicely. The Parti Québécois’ goal of “sovereignty association” in the 1980 Quebec referendum was supported by just 40.4% of those who voted. Yet, it nevertheless added leverage to Quebec’s extortionate demands on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. Although, after the separatists garnered 49.4% of the vote in the 1995 referendum (aka Canada’s near death experience), Quebec did even better.
True, the two producing provinces on the prairies lack the electoral power of Quebec. In combination with Ontario, Quebec has been integral to Liberal success in federal elections for decades. The power of the West lies in its ability to generate a large share of Canada’s export revenues. That’s mainly why Quebec is able to count on $14 billion in annual equalization welfare. Threatening separation turns the economic importance of the West into a political weapon.
We can expect a highly divisive referendum debate–potentially far more fractious than the federal election campaign. Signals coming out of Ottawa suggest federal-provincial negotiations over conventional energy and emissions policy are about to take a nasty turn. We could be facing a perfect storm of disunity with Westerners bashing Ottawa while Ottawa denounces separatists and resumes its assault on oil, gas and pipelines.
Chances for lowering the political temperature don’t look good. The prime minister has been distancing himself from his initial pre-election pro pipeline position. Early in the election campaign Mark Carney said he would employ the emergency powers of the federal government to get new export pipelines running from the prairies to tidewater. The next week he told reporters Quebec would have the power to veto the approval of any pipeline crossing its territory. On May 14, Carney presented reporters with a word salad that seemed to be saying he would include evaluation of the potential for new pipelines along with other energy policy ideas being discussed. And, if a consensus favouring pipelines emerged, one might be built.
This is not comforting. These statements cannot all be correct at the same time. At least two, if not all three, of them, are disingenuous.
Exactly who will be included in the consensus building discussions is unclear. Will they involve meetings with the premiers of the provinces that generate huge export revenues for Canada. Will they be restricted to the emissions reduction zealots who dominate the cabinet and the Liberal caucus? Or, is it something Carney will work out at Davos when the World Economic Forum next convenes?
The Liberals and their media allies put a lot of stock in the polls once they showed the Liberals in the lead during the election campaign. They briefly acknowledged election period polling that showed 74% of Canadians support the construction of new export pipeline including 60% of Quebecers. But reporting on the growing popularity of pipelines ended after about a week when Carney’s unqualified support for a pipeline to the Atlantic coast evaporated.
Furthermore, the popular vote totals from the federal election demonstrate that Canadians’ support for the Conservatives and the Liberals was divided fairly evenly, 41.3% for the Conservatives and 43.8% for the Liberals. A slim 2.5 percentage point spread. It seems reasonable to assume many Conservative supporters outside of the prairies shared Pierre Poilievre’s strong and consistent support for conventional energy production and pipelines. The fact people in the producing provinces are not alone in seeing the wisdom of new export pipelines strengthens our position.
If the thumping the voters of Alberta and Saskatchewan gave the Liberals in the April 28 election didn’t convince the government its energy and pipelines policies have caused a national unity crisis, maybe a high vote in favour of separation will. Many people will figure this out and will vote strategically to ensure the leave side wins a respectable portion of the vote. Who would want to try to negotiate a good deal for the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector following a weak performance by the leave camp? The Liberals will claim that a big win for the stay camp shows that Albertans are happy with the status quo.
The anti-pipeline misinformation campaign is already underway. Steven Guilbeault was already at it last week. According to Guilbeault, since the Trans Mountain pipeline is not operating at full capacity we obviously don’t need any more pipelines.
Guilbeault knows full well the pipeline is running under full capacity. The reason being the residual fall-out from the $38 billion in cost overruns the government chalked up, which was in turn due to its own regulatory morass and system pains associated with issues like the poor design features built into the Burnaby terminal. The government expects oil producers to pay exorbitant shipping rates designed to rapidly recoup the embarrassing cost overruns. Producers are not prepared to lose money bailing out the government. Guilbeault also knows most producers making use of the Trans Mountain today had negotiated much lower rates with the pipeline prior to its completion.
We can expect the flow of this kind of misinformation to become a gusher in the days ahead.
One hopes there will be adults in charge of both the leave and stay camps. The cause of Western separation can be expected to attract enthusiasts from the fringes of the political spectrum. There will be crackpots and mean-spirited people cheering for both sides. Unfortunately, we need to prepare for the fact the mainstream media will focus on any loosely hinged eccentrics they can find who support separation. Radical environmentalists and climate change alarmists will be treated like selfless planet saving prophets.
Business
Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election

By Franco Terrazzano
Taxpayers Federation releases pension and severance figures for 2025 federal election
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its calculations of estimated pension and severance payments paid to the 110 members of Parliament who were either defeated in the federal election or did not seek re-election.
“Taxpayers shouldn’t feel too bad for the politicians who lost the election because they’ll be cashing big severance or pension cheques,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Thanks to past pension reforms, taxpayers will not have to shoulder as much of the burden as they used to. But there’s more work to do to make politician pay affordable for taxpayers.”
Defeated or retiring MPs will collect about $5 million in annual pension payments, reaching a cumulative total of about $187 million by age 90. In addition, about $6.6 million in severance cheques will be issued to some former MPs.
Former prime minister Justin Trudeau will collect two taxpayer-funded pensions in retirement. Combined, those pensions total $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates. Trudeau is also taking a $104,900 severance payout because he did not run again as an MP.
The payouts for Trudeau’s MP pension will begin at $141,000 per year when he turns 55 years old. It will total an estimated $6.5 million should he live to the age of 90. The payouts for Trudeau’s prime minister pension will begin at $73,000 per year when he turns 67 years old. It will total an estimated $1.9 million should he live to the age of 90.
“Taxpayers need to see leadership at the top and that means reforming pensions and ending the pay raises MPs take every year,” Terrazzano said. “A prime minister already takes millions through their first pension, they shouldn’t be billing taxpayers more for their second pension.
“The government must end the second pension for all future prime ministers.”
There are 13 former MPs that will collect more than $100,000-plus a year in pension income. The pension and severance calculations for each defeated or retired MP can be found here.
Some notable severance / pensions
Name Party Years as MP Severance Annual Starting Pension Pension to Age 90
Bergeron, Stéphane BQ 17.6 $ 99,000.00 $ 4,440,000.00
Boissonnault, Randy LPC 7.6 $ 44,200.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 2,775,000.00
Dreeshen, Earl CPC 16.6 $ $ 95,000.00 $ 1,938,000.00
Mendicino, Marco * LPC 9.4 $ 66,000.00 $ 3,586,000.00
O’Regan, Seamus LPC 9.5 $ 104,900.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 3,927,000.00
Poilievre, Pierre ** CPC 20.8 $ 136,000.00 $ 7,087,000.00
Singh, Jagmeet NDP 6.2 $ 140,300.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 2,694,000.00
Trudeau, Justin *** LPC 16.6 $ 104,900.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 8,400,000.00
* Marco Mendicino resigned as an MP on March 14th, 2025
** Pierre Poilievre announced that he would not take a severance
*** The Pension to Age 90 includes Trudeau’s MP pension and his secondary Prime Minister’s pension
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Liberals edge closer to majority as judicial recount flips another Ontario seat
-
Alberta1 day ago
Canmore attempting to tax its way out of housing crisis
-
Business1 day ago
The Oracle of Omaha Calls it a Career
-
Alberta1 day ago
Boreal forests could hold the key to achieving Canada’s climate goals
-
Health1 day ago
WHO assembly adopts ‘pandemic agreement’ binding countries to unified response
-
Business1 day ago
Carney’s cabinet likely means more of the same on energy and climate
-
Addictions1 day ago
News For Those Who Think Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
-
COVID-191 day ago
FDA plans to require placebo trials before approving COVID boosters for healthy people