Trudeau Freudian Slips Referring to Premier Brad Wall and "His Farmers"

Christmas is supposed to be over and done with but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau provided his western Canadian based critics with a big gift — bow and all — over the weekend. In a TV interview Trudeau was trying to communicate the flexibility that Saskatchewan will have under his carbon tax plan and he blew the opportunity by stating:

“All of the revenue from the carbon pricing will stay in that province and if Brad Wall is concerned about the cost on his farmers or the cost on a particular industry, he can return all the money to them from the carbon tax .”

You can see the video in the tweet from Brad Wall below.

The Trudeau government made some positive impacts on agriculture in its first year, specifically on the trade file with the Canada-EU deal. There is work ahead with TPP and a potential NAFTA renegotiation but I feel confident in Trade Minister Freeland and her team. Good work was also done on the canola deal with China. The Trudeau government was very successful in coming to a resolution in a timely matter that did not adversely impact the very important canola industry.

When compared to some of the recent Donald Trump tweets (on New Years Day he wished Happy New Year to his “enemies” and another where he congratulated Vladimir Putin for his US sanctions against Obama), Trudeau’s is a light offence for a global leader.

Having said that, Trudeau wins no points with this verbal slip and the insincere tone in which it’s delivered.

It’s a slip, but a very big freudian slip in terms of showcasing the lack of attachment he has to Western Canadian farmers. Liberals will defend by saying that it was a wrong choice of words and the Prime Minister truly is committed to agriculture. Critics of Trudeau will disagree adamantly.

Unlike the time his communications department confused mustard and canola, this slip up seems to showcase his lack of compassion in general for westerners and agriculture.

Many are comparing this to the antics of his father, but it seems that his father was more polished and precise where this Trudeau version seems just careless in communications.

The thing is Trudeau campaigned and built his global political brand on being compassionate and caring for all, Saskatchewan farmers notwithstanding. His anti-Harper persona won him many votes during the election from Canadians that wanted a leader that was more inclusive. When you do that and then come across as uncompassionate and uninclusive, you get burned for it.

Saskatchewan farmers are Canadian farmers Mr. Trudeau, and that means they are your farmers. Some of them probably even voted for you. Too bad that you don’t recognize that either.

A word of advice to the Prime Minister:

Even if you don’t care, at least try to make it look like you do.

9 thoughts on “Trudeau Freudian Slips Referring to Premier Brad Wall and “His Farmers”

  1. It is Brad Wall holding up his “Farmers” as to the possible damage from the carbon tax, so why is it a slip for Trudeau to say what Brad can do to support the Saskatchewan farmers? We as Canadians are missing a giant opportunity to take climate change head on and market ourselves accordingly, not just as ordinary but value added.

    1. Curtis,

      Saskatchewan Farmers are also Canadian Farmers. So, Mr. Trudeau should use his words much more carefully. (something he does not seem mature enough to do).

      As Canadians we should abandon all Climate Change initiatives. Why? Because they will cost us $Billions, and will have NO effect on the Worlds’ overall emissions(which are supposedly responsible for climate change). It does not seem like Leadership or a Marketing of Canada to charge our taxpayers a fee which will do nothing overall. (Sigh, but that is how left wing people think!)

  2. Disqus,

    It is your right-wing thinking that leads people literally nowhere in this world. Firstly it would be ignorant to believe that by cutting our emissions, we aren’t directly saving our own behinds in some sort of manner. Take this example: if there were only ever one oil spill, or one storm of acid rain over our entire planet in one year, the world would rejoice. However if that one event so happened to occur in Canada, we would still be pretty discontent here. So, sure our contribution may not have a particularly strong effect on the world at large, but it will definitely help OUR rivers, lakes, forests, air, etc, which I think we can both agree should be the most important thing to us on this matter as citizens.
    Furthermore it is that lack of leadership that will ultimately fail to inspire anyone else to join us in our fight. I’m younger, and I would very much not like to be labeled the generation that could, but decided not to because, well, nobody even tried. Of course, I do believe that Mr. Trudeau and his cabinet could work a little harder to ensure the success of business and families in our country – to uphold a bit more fiscal conservatism in this particular scenario – but to suggest that we do nothing about this very serious and potentially very harming issue is reminiscent of saying we shouldn’t have participated in the World Wars. Which leads me into my next rant.
    The fact that people are still in doubt of the effects of climate change is beyond comprehension for me. Like, of course 98% of the world’s scientists are wrong about this issue that many of them have spent their whole life studying – I actually read recently that we should start pumping the oceans with more oil purposefully because it’s really good for the marine life! Give me a break. 2016 was the hottest year on record (given the fact that there isn’t one ounce of snow on the ground here in Niagara in January I shouldn’t even need to cite my source -but I will – ((http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-hottest-year-copernicus_us_586e9ddfe4b099cdb0fc1943)) ), yet that still isn’t even enough proof. You’d think that on an agricultural website, where the stakes are arguably the highest people would be most concerned, but that has proven to be (counter-intuitively) the opposite.

    Finally I would just like to assert my actual position into the Trudeau comment before I rant any further into your clearly uninformed comment; Trudeau’s words meant absolutely no harm, and from what I can tell indicated no degree of separation. That is simply the way he speaks. If you ever watch him on whatever media provider you use you’d understand that that is his way of giving specific reference to something within a broader context; if he had said miner or logger you would have no problem. Perhaps some different wording would be better next time, but regardless the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.

    1. Jakob,

      Mr Trudeau’s words may have been harmless to a lot of people, but not to farmers of Saskatchewan. Mr. Trudeau wants a Carbon Tax implemented and claims that it can then be refunded in its entirety to Saskatchewan farmers. What left or right wing thinking person would collect money and then refund it? (This concept is definitely a left wing idea).

      How do you involve oil spills in climate change? How do you explain major climate change events of the past that had no involvement of man?(melting of the ice age, creation).

      I am not against reducing greenhouse gases, but there are ways to do it that do not cost a lot and are incredibly simple. Here is one way – If speed limits were reduced to 90 kmh on all major highways greenhouse gas emissions would be cut by 15% in Canada. Here is another way – If pipelines were used to transport oil, less trucks and trains would be needed(which would also increase the safety of the general public).

      Thanks Jakob for being a person of action, but as you should see from my right wing comments, so am I.

      So, lets work together on solutions that are realistic for all Canadians, eh.

  3. I am part of the 50% that have a problem swallowing the premise that climate change can be addressed by us all driving smart cars. K Wynne has dollars signs for eyeballs and J Trudeau wants the world to adore him. Somehow we have been lead to believe that climate change is a bad thing. From the people who believe organic is supreme and GMOs are the devil’s plague.

  4. The planet is hundreds of millions of years old, we have been accurately measuring ocean temperatures for just over 100 years (the first 20 would be suspect). In any other realm of science a conclusion with this level of data would be laughed at. There is not enough imperial evidence to say there is a trend either way. With that said it is always a good idea to reduce our foot print and reduce pollution output.
    Btw Europe has now targeted nitrous oxides as the next green house gas……it is an industry onto itself

  5. Organic Hemp growing in the millions of hectares would be way more helpful to our environment and economy with the 50 000 natural biodegradable products made here in Canada than anything from the Tar sands, GMO crops and all other toxic polluting industries. This is a new for Canada to create positive innovative changes in the way we live and conduct business for ecological reasons.

  6. GMO crops do not belong in tha same category as the Tar Sands + all other Toxic producing industries. GMO crops have helped farmers a great deal in reducing our carbon footprint by allowing us to produce more grain/acre which lowers the amount of fossil fuels used for every pound of food produced.

Leave a Reply

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.