As someone who is a columnist for two great newspapers, and as someone who is acutely aware that newspapers have been and remain in big financial trouble, I say: it is a mistake, and a conflict of interest, for media organizations to take money from the governments they cover.
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) May 26, 2019
The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development blinked. Then he blinked again.
He has just been asked if his government’s “Digital Charter” would apply to his own political party. You know, the governing Liberal Party of Canada.
He doesn’t answer. The host on CBC’s “Power and Politics” genially tries again. Will the Liberal Party agree to go along with the rules it proposes to impose on everyone else? Will the Grits practice what they preach on data privacy?
Navdeep Bains, the Minister with the aforementioned long title doesn’t answer. Again.
Bains rallies. He sternly says the penalties for violating Canadians’ privacy will be “substantial.” The CBC inquisitor asks what that means.
Navdeep Bains doesn’t say.
And so it goes, as with much that the Justin Trudeau regime does: do as they say, but not as they do. Talk the talk, but don’t walk the talk.
Justin Trudeau does that sort of thing a lot: you know, oversell, then underdeliver. Insincerity, phoniness, dishonesty. It’s his brand, pretty much.
And there is no better recent example of that sort of rank hypocrisy than Justin Trudeau’s so-called“Digital Charter.”
Announced a few days back with much fanfare, but not much detail, the “charter” sketches out some basic principles about data protection and online privacy.
Justin Trudeau, as is his wont, revealed the “Digital Charter” in Paris, where he knew his audience was likely to be less critical than the ones back home. Overseas, Prime Minister Chewbacca Socks can still command the occasional round of applause.
Not so much back here in the colonies, where the “Digital Charter” is like so much that Trudeau does – all sizzle, no steak. All talk, no action.
That’s not to say Trudeau’s “Charter” – he calls it that, presumably, because it sounds like he’s serious, when he isn’t, really – doesn’t have some laudable goals. It wants to combat the spread of hate and violent extremism online, and who could be against that?
Except, well, Justin Trudeau has had nearly four full years to do something about the explosion in hate online. Every other Western democracy has done something about it. But Justin Trudeau? He waits until we are a mere 100 days or so from the 2019 election kick-off, and then claims he’s The Hate Fighter™️.
Oh, and his “Charter” isn’t going to become law until (a) after said election takes place, and (b) he is re-elected. The chances of which, all the pollsters tell us, is presently somewhere between slim and none.
It’s a problem. A big one. In an era where Facebook and other online behemoths regularly steal the private information of citizens, and profit from it, Canadians actually need something like the “digital charter.” At the moment, regular folks don’t have the ability to control – or consent to – the way all the political parties use their data, either.
In 2019, when the tech giants steal your private information, they get fined pocket change. And the political parties – when they do likewise – they don’t get fined at all. They get away with it.
The federal Privacy Commissioner, who has saint-like patience, has recently held press conferences about this outrage. He’s even brought along the Elections Commissioner, who has nodded his head and soberly agreed: the Trudeau government needs to be subject to the law, just as every other citizen and corporation is.
But Justin Trudeau refuses.
With less than a month to go until the House of Commons rises for the Summer, not to return for many months, Justin Trudeau needs to put his mouth where our money is. He needs to agree, finally, to practice what he preaches to the rest of us.
Will he? Don’t hold your breath.
But hold onto your data.
(Justin Trudeau wants it.)
On the one hand, I like its founder and the people who work there. My firm has used them in the past.
When the Lavscam scandal broke, however, Mainstreet’s boss took it upon himself to – for lack of a better word – troll each and every opinion I offered on the scandal. In particular, he repeatedly asserted that Lavscam would have little to no effect on Liberal fortunes.
By now, of course, we all know that that is simply not true. Lavscam precipitated a dramatic decline in Liberal support, and the Trudeau Grits have not really recovered.
On the other hand, however, I think we need to take Mainstreet’s latest poll somewhat seriously. It is consistent with a commissioned poll done by Environics, and an earlier poll done by Don Guy’s Pollara, and one that speculated about the effect of a John Tory-led Ontario Liberal party.
But most of all, it reflects what my gut has been telling me for some time – that the Ford folks need to get back the narrative that got them elected nearly a year ago.
It’s a debate that I had with Jerry Agar on Newstalk 1010 early Wednesday morning. There’s no doubt, I said, that Kathleen Wynne’s regime spent recklessly in the final half of its mandate. Equally, there is no doubt that Ford was elected with a clear mandate to cut back on same.
The problem, I told Jerry, is that the cuts lack a coherent underlying story. I reminded him that my boss Jean Chretien oversaw the largest program of government restraint in Canadian history, way back in 1994 and 1995. Chretien pulled that off, and then some. And he was subsequently reelected with a majority.
Ontarians understand that there is a need for cuts. What they clearly don’t understand is why the Ford government is doing them. People are prepared to accept lots of belt-tightening – but you need to be able to tell them why, in 30 words or less.
It’s not too late for the Ford folks to find that short, sharp narrative.
But they need to do so soon, or they may end up being exiled on Mainstreet.
Daisy Group is looking for smart and creative people who love to write, research and advocate. If you fit the bill, send your CV to Rob Gilmour at Rob AT DaisyGroup DOT ca.
Thanks!
Our latest on Sun TV!
@JustinTrudeau’s “digital charter:”
• doesn’t apply to #LPC
• should’ve been done at start of mandate, not end
• won’t come into effect until after election
• does zero to address cyber-hate
• even@TorontoStar says it’s not good enough
Otherwise, it’s great. #cdnpoli— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) May 22, 2019
I used to do this a lot, on the old version of this here web site. So, herewith and hereupon:
IT HAS HAPPENED AGAIN. Another @krispykreme doughnut theft at @DaisyGrp – although the thieves helpfully left behind copies of the excellent new @XPUNKBOOK series from @dundurnpress. I suspect @JoeBiden is the culprit, personally. pic.twitter.com/k8beNynhWu
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) May 22, 2019
The truth.
She says it’s true — the actions of the Liberal Prime Minister should be “of great concern for many Canadians, across the country.”
She says, truthfully, that Justin Trudeau has acted in a way that is “questionable.”
She says what happened her is “a wake-up call” — and, while she’s not happy about what Justin Trudeau did to her, she’s running again.
And — when, say, a Prime Minister Andrew Scheer gives her the legal green light to do so — she plans to tell all.
She plans to reveal what really happened “behind the veil” in Trudeau’s Ottawa.
The true story.
She’s Jody Wilson-Raybould, and she’s speaking out.
In an exclusive interview with the Toronto Sun this week, the former Attorney-General of Canada spoke at length about how she’s feeling, the issues she cares about, and what the future holds for the courageous woman who shook Canadian politics to its foundations in 2019.
It’s been quite a ride for Wilson-Raybould, the Member of Parliament who started the year as the most powerful lawyer in the land — and, just 100 days later, was expelled from the federal Liberal caucus.
For being a whistleblower on corruption. For speaking truth to power. For having the guts to say “no” to Justin Trudeau and the men around him, who refused to take “no” for an answer.
The fundamentals in the LavScam scandal, by now, are well-known.
For four months in 2018, Trudeau, the Minister of Finance, and their unelected apparatchiks bullied and threatened Wilson-Raybould, demanding that she rig the system to help a seamy Quebec company — SNC-Lavalin — escape criminal prosecution for corruption charges.
Wilson-Raybould refused to do so.
By the time the whole sordid affair lurched to a close, Wilson-Raybould and her cabinet ally Jane Philpott had been defamed, demeaned, and dumped from the Liberal caucus.
Trudeau had lost his two closest and most powerful advisors — Principal Secretary Gerald Butts and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick.
And the Liberal Party commenced a truly dramatic slide in the polls.
If an election was held today, in fact, Trudeau’s formerly-invincible party would suffer a humiliating loss to the Conservatives.
With the dust now settled, somewhat, what does Jody Wilson-Raybould think about it all?
“I am still somewhat sad,” she says.
“But, mostly, disappointed over what transpired the last number of months – given how I was removed from caucus through a questionable process and treated for doing what, at the end of the day, was the right thing to do, for the right reasons.”
She adds: “Having said that, I’m embracing my new position as an independent MP for Vancouver Granville and remain inspired by the incredible reception I’ve received from thousands of Canadians and their encouragement for me to stay in politics.”
Are they encouraging her to run again? Will she?
“My time in federal politics is not over,” Wilson-Raybould says, a bit mysteriously. “I will be making a decision shortly. Stay tuned.”
The LavScam scandal — more than the Aga Khan mess, more than the disastrous India trip, more than Trudeau’s policy fumbles on China, NAFTA, pipelines and federal-provincial relations — dealt the deadliest blow to the Liberal leader’s re-election hopes.
Before LavScam, most everyone had seen a second Trudeau majority government as inevitable.
Not now.
Wilson-Raybould agrees.
Says she: “[LavScam] was a wake up call for many – a peek behind the veil of how Ottawa works. I know, like me, many of the class of 2015 who came into federal politics for the first time truly believed there was a different way to do politics. We knew what this was supposed to mean. Unfortunately our experience did not match expectations or the standards we had set ourselves. The last months have led me – and I suspect many of my former colleagues, and I know countless Canadians – to pause and consider the way the system works.”
Can that system ever change? What needs to change? Wilson-Raybould doesn’t hesitate: politics which are “less partisan,” she says.
Freeing MPs to “truly represent their constituents.” And – contrary to what happens in Justin Trudeau’s Ottawa – a Parliament “where truth is expected.”
After all that has happened — after all that she has endured — does Jody Wilson-Raybould still have a truth to tell?
If Justin Trudeau is defeated, and his successor removes the cabinet confidence/solicitor-client privilege gag he’s slapped on her, will Wilson-Raybould finally tell us what happened “behind the veil?”
Jody Wilson-Raybould doesn’t hesitate about that, either.
“I will speak the truth,” she says, adding that she will certainly do so — when she is finally “free to do so.”
Promise to give Jody Wilson-Raybould the freedom to speak her truth, Andrew Scheer.
Put it in your election platform.
The truth, as they say, will set you free.
It may get you elected Prime Minister, too.