Totalitarianism from below. In the West we are too inclined to see Communism as something imposed from outside, from on top, by Bolsheviks and their goons, by foreign conquest. But Communism is also imposed from below, by people empowered by envy, spite and malice, who hate distinction, independence, and anything that does not smell of themselves. But it can also occur from efforts to be nice, to respect newly invented rights not to be offended. Enforced speech is everywhere.
“The Party doesn’t get its power from spying on its citizens, or turning them into snitches, or punishing sex crimes. All were presented as mere tools of the state. How did it come to wield that control in the first place?
“Orwell, aka Eric Blair, a socialist freedom fighter and a repentant former colonial officer who had a lifelong fascination with language and politics, knew that no control could be total until you colonized people’s heads too. A state like his could only exist with loud, constant, and obvious lies.”
” To be a totalitarian, he knew from his contemporary totalitarians, you had to seize control of truth itself. You had to redefine truth as “whatever we say it is.” You had to falsify memories and photos and rewrite documents. Your people could be aware that all this was going on, so long as they kept that awareness to themselves and carried on (which is what doublethink is all about).”
A tax accountant, Maya Forstater, a woman, in England was fired for saying that people cannot change their sex. The Court ruled that such views were not acceptable and “unprotected”. This from the Guardian:
“A researcher who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women cannot change their biological sex has lost a test case because her opinions were deemed to be “absolutist”.
“In a keenly anticipated judgment that will stir up fresh debate over transgender issues, Judge James Tayler, an employment judge, ruled that Maya Forstater’s views did “not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief”. (skip)
“But in a 26-page judgment released late on Wednesday, Tayler dismissed her claim. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”Advertisement
“In response to the ruling, Forstater said: “I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment, which I think will be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.
“My belief … is that sex is a biological fact, and is immutable. There are two sexes, male and female. Men and boys are male. Women and girls are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life by almost everyone.”
This is the aspect that is so disturbing, as Douglas Murray has observed, that truths which everyone held since conscious thought began are declared by some pompous ass dressed in robes as “unprotected”, and worse, that one can be mobbed, harassed, fired with impunity, and subject to disgrace on social media for insisting the obvious fact that a person born with XY chromosomes is a genetic male, no matter what surgeries he undergoes and costumes he dons.
While it may be polite to address a person by their desired gender, this does not abolish biology.
The core of the case for the judgment was that
“A number of commentators have viewed this case as being about the claimant’s freedom of speech. Employment Judge Tayler acknowledged that there is nothing to stop the claimant campaigning against the proposed revisions to the Gender Recognition Act or, expressing her opinion that there should be some spaces that are restricted to women assigned female at birth. However, she can do so without insisting on calling transwomen men. It is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act 2010.”
Transwomen are men. There, I said it. I have now committed thoughtcrime. And notice how this totalitarian lie is achieved: by excessive niceness. It has become a firing offence to insist that a transwoman is still a man. My feelings are hurt. The tyranny of hurt feelings is the origin of the social compulsion being enforced by courts. Many of my beliefs necessarily involve violating the dignity of others, and so do yours. But if I have made my dignity depend on your addressing me as a woman, or as a Duke, or anything I can imagine – and the rules change every day – am I obliged to treat you as you claim, or as a preposterous mountebank?
Trump has a three point program, on which he and his regime are executing (as the business guys so love to say).
raise American working wages by controlling trade, hence managed trade deals with all trading partners;
raise American working class wages by restricting unskilled and illegal immigration from any source, especially central America;
No wars, so no expenditure on fixing a world that refuses to be fixed.
It is a program so simple you can remember it. Three points. So what are the results? Have working class wages been raised?
The poorest fourth of US wage earners garnered 4.5% wage growth, better than the other income quartiles.
When I listen to all my bien-pensant haters of Trump, and they are legion, I have to remind them that Trump is acting rationally to defend the interest of Americans, as he conceives the problem. His policies are to me utterly transparent. That he fights bare knuckled against the Democrats, the media, and the pretensions of both to govern us, is an entertainment. That he succeeds is a source of happiness. Yet it will be those working class people whose newly improved wages can be felt in their pockets who will put him back for a second term. Why is this not obvious?
He goes further, of course, because our former Prime Minister has bought into the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scam in its entirety. By which I mean he assumes that human energy production is warming the climate, that this warming is potentially catastrophic, unless we do something, and that something can be done at an acceptable political price. I deny two of the three premises of the argument, if you ask me about the politics of it. Though, as regards the first premise, I would hold it quite possible that human energy production of late has had a minor warming effect, and that this is good for the planet.
I observe the the depression in Alberta and the hardships in Saskatchewan are caused in great part by federal energy policy, and that federal policy has been to tax the industry more heavily, to block its exports by obstructing pipelines, and to tax consumers on their projected CO2 emissions.
We are already experiencing the drop in economic activity that green energy policy would have us endure. It is always easy to contemplate the economic woes of the Canadian West from the comfortable perch of Laurentian Canada, and even easier when you are a federal Liberal. You can combine the derision of the enlightened with the assurance of the woke, and say “they deserve it because they are pulling those nasty hydrocarbons from the ground”.
Let me propose an alternative and less popular view. The green energy delusion – for it is a delusion – is the equivalent of Mulroney’s effort to “bring Quebec into the constitution”. Instead of splitting us along linguistic lines, as the Meech Lake Accord did, this one will split us according to whether we produce more energy than we consume, or something like from the east of the Selkirks in BC to the Manitoba border. I think significant parts of British Columbia and Manitoba will side with Alberta and Saskatchewan. I say it will split us because it is already doing so. Look at the results of the last election. The West has given the Liberals not a seat west of Manitoba.
Mulroney proposes that the Conservatives will not attain power unless they cave in on green energy scams and the AGW panic. I shall boldly predict the contrary. Their path to power lies in assembling a coalition that, while concerned with the environment, is skeptical of the pain of higher energy prices and bad technologies, such as wind and solar, and is ready to say so.
While it is necessary and proper to show concern with the environment, the Conservatives will not get back into power until they start shedding some of their forced reverence for the “science” of global warming. In a choice between those who really believe the bullshit of AGW, and those who only half believe, or pretend to believe, the electorate will choose the true believers, until such time as the full implications of the doctrine are borne by the public generally. Then the turn around will begin.
When I have discussed politics with some Conservatives (of the partisan kind) I have been struck by the gap between how they talk among themselves (realistically) with how the media force them to talk , which is out of both sides of their mouths. The average Conservative is not a green, though he or she is concerned with the environment. The leader of the Conservatives in Canada must be able to endure the howls of outrage from the green mobs, the CBC – the voice of the establishment – the Liberals, the NDP and the latest instantiation of the Quebec nationalists, and say, right out loud, the climate scam is a scam. The emperor has no clothes.
Of course, Brian Mulroney won two majority elections, but he also drove the party into near oblivion with his signature policy of appeasing Quebec.
I also want to draw attention to something that Matthew Goodwin said in a recent interview on Triggernometry. After dissecting the recent loss by the Labour Party, which was roughly speaking the dissociation of the concerns of the well educated intelligentsia from the concerns of working class Eng;and, he was asked at the end of the interview “What is the one thing we are not talking about that we ought to be talking about”, at 1:03:45. Hear him: “The politics of climate change is going to be the next huge big disruptive moment in our political world”.
I agree that thinking about environmentalism in a reasonable way is the most sensible thing you can do as a conservative. I do not believe that acting on global warming, to the extent it is occurring, by central planning, predicated on bad science, is the way to go about it.
Matt Ridley is a tonic for the soul. One of the few voices of optimism around.
” The quantity of all resources consumed per person in Britain (domestic extraction of biomass, metals, minerals and fossil fuels, plus imports minus exports) fell by a third between 2000 and 2017, from 13.7 tons to 9.4 tons. That’s a faster decline than the increase in the number of people, so it means fewer resources consumed overall.”
An article from Book Worm Room. A series of pointed comments on the Liberty Arms gun store signs is portrayed.
Molon Labe is explained here. It was the retort of Leonidas, King of Sparta to Emperor Xerxes of Persia. Faced with a demand from the emperor to surrender their weapons, the king retorted: “Come and take them” – or molon labe in Greek. The Persians did so, to their cost, at Thermopylae.
Liberty Arms is on route 25 in Fort Collins, north of Denver, Colorado.
Look, what I described above: any exclusively female, dominant female or female directed portion of society is a crab bucket.
Arguably, absent a toxic female lead, this is not bad for a large family group, within its very limited functions.
It sucks for a society, though.
You know when people wail that girls get discouraged from math or whatever? And feminists attribute that to patriarchy? They couldn’t be more wrong. The people who tell women that liking math or science of wanting to be one of those weirdos who are passionately interested in building things is ridiculous or funny or whatever? Females. Usually same age group females. If you want to encourage girls to excel in science take them out of schools who group by age. Older women can intellectually encourage Odd females. But the same-age groups can’t. Instinctively the different is just “Wrong” and they want conformity. (And yes, females who love math and science are very often Odd. Not because women aren’t smart enough for those subjects, but because they’re BETTER at language processing and thus tend to prefer doing that.)
The problem with not admitting that women in a group default to the crab bucket, trying above all to keep each other in conformity is that this mode is allowed to go into places it should never go: into offices where women play office politics and rumor games to keep everyone in the same median mediocrity.
The personality games can get — often get — so toxic that what they’re actually supposed to do is forgotten in the “I need to take this challenger down now.”
Look, men had to curb the male mode of dominance to function well in groups. Sure, they established it in many ways, instead of having a good punch up (though from what I understand from books written in earlier parts of the 20th century, those might happen too, out of sight) including the inevitable braggadocio about girls. But most of all they were curbed by teaching men the “gentlemanly virtues.” You know, don’t take advantage just because you can. Obey legitimate authority. Concentrate on doing your part, rather than using your power to overcome everyone else. That sort of thing.
Note these virtues are not universal. They’re almost exclusively Western. Other societies dealt with dominance in other ways, including religiously or traditionally determined hierarchies. But for the West, the “gentlemanly virtues” worked.
We’re no longer really teaching them to men. And that’s a problem.
BUT WE NEVER TAUGHT THEM TO WOMEN.
Well, because women in the public sphere were rare enough that most of them learned them by osmosis from the males around them. And when they didn’t, they were usually ineffective enough, back when there was an actual patriarchy. Even if men are blind to female aggression, it not being physical, even men can see it when it’s blatant and in your face. And then they decide this one woman is a monster and all turn against her.
Women are now in public life. Given the nature of work today, there’s no real reason they shouldn’t be.
But unless you want society to come apart in a sea of crab buckets, each pulling the other down, and for men to be run from society by feral, toxic females, we must start training women to be civilized. Teach them to be “gentlemen.” Teach them to be aware of their impulses, where they come from and what the consequences are. Teach them to work in hierarchical groups without continuously testing for dominance. Teach them to compete without undermining. Teach them not to take advantage just because they can. Teach them to value the mission. Teach them not to be tattle tales and rumor mongers.
Is it reasonable to contend that a great portion of the hostility to Trump is that he is so emphatically masculine, and that Hillary Clinton was defeated, at least in part, because enough people from the less urban portions of the country, men and women alike, thought she evinced toxic femininity?
The world is divided between those who believe, with what they consider eminent reason, that things have never been so bad, and the rest of us, who think the world is as it normally is.
On the one side: eco-catastrophists, anti-Trumpers, Remainers. You hear them at every dinner party, in every coffee shop, and in a continuous stream on CBC. On the other: people who think things are not unusually awful, that change is occasionally necessary, that adaptation is required. On this side I firmly place the geo-strategist George Friedman, whose motto I have borrowed for my title.
I came across a typical expression of the other side this morning in The New Yorker, in article about William Gibson, the science fiction writer. [His austere visage is pictured above as snow falls on his rhododendrons.] I confess to continuing befuddlement about the catastrophizers: I don’t know what they are going on about. But they sure do attract media attention, which is hardly surprising, as catastrophizers constitute 97% of the media, it seems.
After mentioning how Trump’s election and Brexit paralyzed the writing of his book, Gibson explains:
“Every so often—and I bet a lot of people do this but don’t mention it—I have an experience unique in my life, of going, ‘This is so bad—could this possibly be real?’ ” he said, laughing. “Because it really looks very dire. If we were merely looking at the possible collapse of democracy in the United States of America—that’s pretty fucked. But if we’re looking at the collapse of democracy in the United States of America within the context of our failure to do anything that means shit about global warming over the next decade . . . I don’t know.” Perched, eagle-like, on his barstool, he swept his hand across the bar. “I’m, like, off the edge of the table.”
Collapse of democracy in the United States: do you see any sign of it? I see a vigorous if unhealthy partizan slug-fest between branches of government and the two legislative chambers. Is Nancy Pelosi under indictment? Hiding from police? Is Adam Schiff in fear of his life?
As to global warming, it was -22C in my nation’s capital this morning. If the IPCC proves correct, there will be a one or two degree centigrade increase in “global” temperatures in this coming century. Is this a “climate emergency”? Is this why we should hand over all power to government to allocate scarcity, or cease burning hydrocarbons, as some have suggested?
My attitude towards the anthropogenic global warming scandal is identical to Conrad Black’s as seen in his interview by Rex Murphy. The idea that AGW is the number one problem in Canada is “one of the stupidest enunciations of public policy I have ever heard”. [See the interview of Conrad Black by Rex Murphy at minute 27:15, when the question is asked.]
It takes a measure of courage to face this world and declare that, regardless of anything you read or hear, it is behaving normally. That would suggest that the world is normally close to chaotic, that struggles for power are continual, that wars are endemic to humanity, that people often die friendless and unattended, that children starve, that the unequal distribution of intelligence is the invisible gravity governing human behaviour.
I do not believe we are at the beginning, middle or end of the equivalent of the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact it is likely that the United States has yet to attain the zenith of its power. I do not think that the Chinese government will be our overlords, though if we do not watch out that might always happen. I do not think that the introduction of managed trade under Trump, and the end of free trade between the US and its trading partners,are the disasters that free-traders insist they must be. Nor do I think that if America gets a grip on illegal immigration, that it will signal the impending fascist state. I do not believe that Britain’s impending departure from the European super-government signals the end of the enlightenment, or of constitutional government in the United Kingdom. And if Scotland and Northern Ireland separate – which I do not believe they will – they will be rapidly forced to get real and stop living off subsidies from England, in the same ways as Quebec would if it separated from English Canada.
I do not think Greta Thunberg marks anything important except the madness of crowds. We will be at pains to remember who she was in twenty years, she is a cork tossed up on the foamy ocean of fashion. In short, the real catastrophe is the horde of intellectuals,their hangers-on, and half-baked savants who have lost their minds. The world is as it normally is, including them, too, unfortunately.
Any time you hear the word “populism” used to describe what is going on in modern western politics, you are hearing the sound of a person severely out of touch with reality blaming the people for their disobedience.
I was moved to write by an article by Sherelle Jacobs (who is young, female, and brown) in the Post: “There may be no way back for Labour now”. Linked in the Daily Telegraph here.
“But it was Labour’s opposition to Brexit that finally lit the match, catastrophically exposing the extent of the party’s emotional alienation from those it claims to represent. Outraged that “their” people made a decision of such national import against their better advice during the referendum, Labour decided that the voters were wrong. They wilfully misinterpreted the Leavers’ craving to move forwards as a sign of their backwardness. Which strikes at the heart of the Labour problem: such an unapologetically patrician movement simply cannot respond to this new era of populism.”
(Disregard for the moment, dear reader, that Sherelle Jacobs uses the word populism and still manages to understand what is going on. Every rule must have its exceptions).
Whenever there is a great disjuncture between the rulers and the ruled, the disjuncture is attributed to “populism”, which is a term designed to obscure the underlying dynamics of power. Despite what many may tell you, the people actually get to vote in a democracy, and however loosely, democratic governments must ultimately have the support of the people. I know this is a revolutionary thought. For decades the disjuncture has been widening into a gulf between what ordinary people want out of government – a reasonable level of public services, reasonable financial management – and what they are getting – attitude adjustment, eco-catastrophist, anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-male, pro-foreigner, we-are-always-wrong .
Jacobs correctly identifies other sources of discaffection between the Labour votes and the Labour elites. The description of Corbyn as a “snotty Islington weirdo who hates Britain like vegans hate Sunday roasts” is accurate and priceless.
Butthe fault is not merely Corbyn’s but those of a precious and self-regarding social class that has invested itself with snobbish attitudes of cultural and moral superiority.
I live at the heart of one of Ottawa’s bien-pensant districts. I know how catastrophic it is to personal relations to disagree publicly or privately with any of the elite luxury beliefs of theirs: eco-catastrophism, intersectionality, the moral superiority of Liberal government, the horrors of Trump. The gap is growing inside Canada, but these people do not feel remotely in error. The elites feel it as the distant rumblings of people “out there” who are in error.
I feel confident that what has happened in the United Kingdom and the United States is coming to Canada. It will take its time, but the same disjunctures between elite opinion and the people’s interests – both moral and economic – are widening in Canada. The elites are out of touch now and the gaps are widening. Recent politics has shown that it is easier for the political right to shift to the centre in economics than it is for the political left to shift to the centre in matters of culture. For the Left to admit it is wrong about its wokeness, that would be a change of heart of which they are not capable. “Wokeness” is the form that totalitariansim takes in a modern liberal society, and the elites are not giving it up without a fight.
The previous government and this one have instituted the mandate letter. It is a series of instructions both general and specific to a minister of the Crown, telling him or her what is expected. I am copying one that came to my attention. If you read it all, as I suggest you do, you will be able to capture the flavour of the innards of Trudeau the Second’s regime. Notice, if you please, how much is attitudinal fluff, how much is pious hope, how much is political correctness, and how much pertains to the actual work of a Minister of Industry. (Bains has been pretty good on a number of files that interest me)
Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Mandate Letter
Dear Mr. Bains:
Thank you for agreeing to serve Canadians as Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.
On Election Day, Canadians chose to continue moving forward. From coast to coast to coast, people chose to invest in their families and communities, create good middle class jobs and fight climate change while keeping our economy strong and growing. Canadians sent the message that they want us to work together to make progress on the issues that matter most, from making their lives more affordable and strengthening the healthcare system, to protecting the environment, keeping our communities safe and moving forward on reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. People expect Parliamentarians to work together to deliver these results, and that’s exactly what this team will do.
It is more important than ever for Canadians to unite and build a stronger, more inclusive and more resilient country. The Government of Canada is the central institution to promote that unity of purpose and, as a Minister in that Government, you have a personal duty and responsibility to fulfill that objective.
That starts with a commitment to govern in a positive, open and collaborative way. Our platform, Forward: A Real Plan for the Middle Class, is the starting point for our Government. I expect us to work with Parliament to deliver on our commitments. Other issues and ideas will arise or will come from Canadians, Parliament, stakeholders and the public service. It is my expectation that you will engage constructively and thoughtfully and add priorities to the Government’s agenda when appropriate. Where legislation is required, you will need to work with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Cabinet Committee on Operations to prioritize within the minority Parliament.
We will continue to deliver real results and effective government to Canadians. This includes: tracking and publicly reporting on the progress of our commitments; assessing the effectiveness of our work; aligning our resources with priorities; and adapting to events as they unfold, in order to get the results Canadians rightly demand of us.
Many of our most important commitments require partnership with provincial, territorial and municipal governments and Indigenous partners, communities and governments. Even where disagreements may occur, we will remember that our mandate comes from citizens who are served by all orders of government and it is in everyone’s interest that we work together to find common ground. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is the Government-wide lead on all relations with the provinces and territories.
There remains no more important relationship to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples. We made significant progress in our last mandate on supporting self-determination, improving service delivery and advancing reconciliation. I am directing every single Minister to determine what they can do in their specific portfolio to accelerate and build on the progress we have made with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples.
I also expect us to continue to raise the bar on openness, effectiveness and transparency in government. This means a government that is open by default. It means better digital capacity and services for Canadians. It means a strong and resilient public service. It also means humility and continuing to acknowledge mistakes when we make them. Canadians do not expect us to be perfect; they expect us to be diligent, honest, open and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.
As Minister, you are accountable for your style of leadership and your ability to work constructively in Parliament. I expect that you will collaborate closely with your Cabinet and Caucus colleagues. You will also meaningfully engage with the Government Caucus and Opposition Members of Parliament, the increasingly non-partisan Senate, and Parliamentary Committees.
It is also your responsibility to substantively engage with Canadians, civil society and stakeholders, including businesses of all sizes, organized labour, the broader public sector and the not-for-profit and charitable sectors. You must be proactive in ensuring that a broad array of voices provides you with advice, in both official languages, from every region of the country.
We are committed to evidence-based decision-making that takes into consideration the impacts of policies on all Canadians and fully defends the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You will apply Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) in the decisions that you make.
Canada’s media and your engagement with them in a professional and timely manner are essential. The Parliamentary Press Gallery, indeed all journalists in Canada and abroad, ask necessary questions and contribute in an important way to the democratic process.
You will do your part to continue our Government’s commitment to transparent, merit-based appointments, to help ensure that people of all gender identities, Indigenous Peoples, racialized people, persons with disabilities and minority groups are reflected in positions of leadership.
As Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, you will continue to help Canadian businesses innovate and grow so that they can create good quality jobs and wealth for Canadians. The new Innovation Superclusters Initiative is an anchor of this work. You will also take steps to support consumer choice and competition to make life more affordable for middle class families. The full responsibilities for science are in your portfolio, including the relationship with the post-secondary research community and the integration of scientific considerations in the Government’s decision-making processes, as well as the transformation of science into commercially successful innovation, new economic opportunities and the industries of tomorrow.
I will expect you to work with your colleagues and through established legislative, regulatory and Cabinet processes to deliver on your top priorities. In particular, you will:
Continue to support innovation ecosystems across the country, particularly those based on partnerships between businesses and post-secondary institutions, to support job creation, technology adoption, investment and scale-up.
Continue to support Canada’s traditionally strong industries – including, but not limited to, automotive, aerospace and agri-food – to increase productivity and innovation, especially as we transition to a low-carbon economy. The ongoing work of the Economic Strategy Tables can guide your work in this regard.
Support the Chief Science Advisor to ensure that the government’s pure and applied science is fully available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work and that scientific analysis from across Canada and around the world is considered when the Government makes decisions. Ensure that Cabinet and I receive regular briefings from the Chief Science Advisor on cross-government science priorities.
As the Minister responsible for the National Research Council, work to continue to drive mission-oriented research to address the great challenges of our age, including climate change, clean growth and a healthy society.
Continue to advance Canada’s commitment to promoting gender equity, diversity and inclusion in the Sciences, and provide funding to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to create academic research grants for studies on race, diversity and gender in Canada.
Use all available instruments, including the advancement of the 2019 Telecom Policy Directive, to reduce the average cost of cellular phone bills in Canada by 25 per cent. You will work with telecom companies and expand mobile virtual network operators (MVNO) in the market. If within two years this price target is not achieved, you can expand MVNO qualifying rules and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission mandate on affordable pricing.
Award spectrum access based on commitments towards consumer choice, affordability and broad access. You will also reserve space for new entrants.
With the support of the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance and the Minister of Seniors, create a new Canadian Consumer Advocate to ensure a single point of contact for people who need help with federally regulated banking, telecom or transportation-related complaints. Ensure that complaints are reviewed and, if founded, that appropriate remedies and penalties can be imposed.
Work with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deliver high-speed internet to 100 per cent of Canadian homes and businesses by 2030.
Co-lead work with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to modernize the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, examining how best to support Canadian content in English and French and ensure quality affordable internet, mobile and media access.
Work with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to introduce legislation by the end of 2020 that will take appropriate measures to ensure that all content providers, including internet giants, offer meaningful levels of Canadian content in their catalogues, contribute to the creation of Canadian content in both Official Languages, promote this content and make it easily accessible on their platforms. The legislation should also consider additional cultural and linguistic communities.
Work with the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to position Canada as a global leader in clean technology.
In partnership with industry and communities, work with the Minister of Natural Resources to install up to 5,000 additional charging stations along the Trans Canada Highway and other major road networks and in Canada’s urban and rural areas, track toward our zero-emission vehicles targets, and expand the existing zero-emission vehicle incentive by providing a 10 per cent rebate on a used zero-emission vehicle up to a maximum value of $2,000.
Work with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to advance Canada’s Digital Charter and enhanced powers for the Privacy Commissioner, in order to establish a new set of online rights, including: data portability; the ability to withdraw, remove and erase basic personal data from a platform; the knowledge of how personal data is being used, including with a national advertising registry and the ability to withdraw consent for the sharing or sale of data; the ability to review and challenge the amount of personal data that a company or government has collected; proactive data security requirements; the ability to be informed when personal data is breached with appropriate compensation; and the ability to be free from online discrimination including bias and harassment.
With the support of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, create new regulations for large digital companies to better protect people’s personal data and encourage greater competition in the digital marketplace. A newly created Data Commissioner will oversee those regulations.
With the support of the Minister of Digital Government, continue work on the ethical use of data and digital tools like artificial intelligence for better government.
As the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada:
Prepare for the long-form census in 2021, including the collection and analysis of disaggregated data;
Support the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth by improving the quality and amount of data collection done by Statistics Canada regarding hate crimes to help create effective and evidence-based policies to counteract these crimes; and
Support the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity andAssociate Minister of Finance to better incorporate quality of life measurements into government decision-making and budgeting.
Work with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to review the Copyright Act.
Work with the Minister of Finance and interested provinces and territories and communities to establish a national approach to beneficial ownership so that law enforcement and the Canada Revenue Agency have the tools to crack down on financial crime in real estate while respecting Canadians’ privacy rights. With the support of the Minister of Finance, conclude consultations with the provinces and territories on the creation of a pan-Canadian public registry for beneficial ownership and prepare legislation reflecting the outcome of those consultations.
Work with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development to support continued gender equality and diversity in Canadian companies.
Support the Minister of Public Services and Procurement in bringing forward analyses and options for the creation of Defence Procurement Canada.
As the Minister responsible for the Competition Bureau, work with the Minister of Northern Affairs to ensure that savings from the Northern Resident Deduction for travel costs benefit citizens in the North rather than transportation providers.
These priorities draw heavily from our election platform commitments. As mentioned, you are encouraged to seek opportunities to work across Parliament in the fulfillment of these commitments and to identify additional priorities.
I expect you to work closely with your Deputy Minister and their senior officials to ensure that the ongoing work of your department is undertaken in a professional manner and that decisions are made in the public interest. Your Deputy Minister will brief you on the many daily decisions necessary to ensure the achievement of your priorities, the effective running of the government and better services for Canadians. It is my expectation that you will apply our values and principles to these decisions so that they are dealt with in a timely and responsible manner and in a way that is consistent with the overall direction of our Government.
Our ability, as a government, to implement our priorities depends on consideration of the professional, non-partisan advice of public servants. Each and every time a government employee comes to work, they do so in service to Canada, with a goal of improving our country and the lives of all Canadians. I expect you to establish a collaborative working relationship with your Deputy Minister, whose role, and the role of public servants under their direction, is to support you in the performance of your responsibilities.
We have committed to an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. I expect you to embody these values in your work and observe the highest ethical standards in everything you do. I want Canadians to look on their own government with pride and trust.
As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant with the Conflict of Interest Act and Treasury Board policies and guidelines. You will be provided with a copy of Open and Accountable Government to assist you as you undertake your responsibilities. I ask that you carefully read it, including elements that have been added to strengthen it, and ensure that your staff does so as well. I expect that in staffing your offices you will hire people who reflect the diversity of Canada, and that you will uphold principles of gender equality, disability equality, pay equity and inclusion.
Give particular attention to the Ethical Guidelines set out in Annex A of that document, which apply to you and your staff. As noted in the Guidelines, you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.
I will note that you are responsible for ensuring that your Minister’s Office meets the highest standards of professionalism and that it is a safe, respectful, rewarding and welcoming place for your staff to work.
I know I can count on you to fulfill the important responsibilities entrusted in you. It is incumbent on you to turn to me and the Deputy Prime Minister early and often to support you in your role as Minister.
Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, P.C., M.P. Prime Minister of Canada