Goodbye Justin – Why is he not Connecting to Canadians

Patrick Gossage • January 14, 2025

The Liberals liked to tell us that the problems they have are not with the wonderful programs they have delivered for Canadians but that they had been unable to communicate them effectively. What if the real problem was the communicator-in-chief, Justin Trudeau, ever more repetitive and tightly scripted, was simply not connecting with the public anymore? In fact, he’s been alienating them?

Why did Trudeau stop connecting with Canadians? In recent months, no matter how much he spent on programs to entice the including dental care and pharmacare and a raft of programs to increase the supply of rental and new housing, his approval remained at the lowest level of any Prime Minister ever. Let’s try and give this a professional analysis. 


Certainly, he was visible enough. Appearing daily on TV domestically fronting every new program in the fall. Plus, landing regularly at head of government meetings and conferences all over the world and getting clips on TV. 


So, the first conclusion is a serious problem well known to political strategists: he has been terribly overexposed. The public simply has become tired of the daily Justin face on TV trying to reach out to them  always using the same words like “continuing to” invest in Canadians. And we’ve grown wary of his self-conscious, self-satisfied smirks when he thinks he’s answered a question effectively when in fact he almost never addresses a question directly. And the profuse use of “uhs” which simply annoy.


Many who dislike him call him a “phony.” One hears that a lot. Also “inauthentic,” it’s hard to see that he believes in what he says – a basic quality of good communication is for the speaker to believe what he or she says and show it. A “showman” who’s all performance - which has been related to his time as a drama teacher. Shannon Proudfoot of the Globe and Mail wrote about the real emotion he finally displayed in his resignation: “…it has been a long time since Mr. Trudeau betrayed anything that seemed like a real reaction that responded directly to the moment.”   

Also, he has almost no humor. A key element in any effective communication. Especially for social media. As is spontaneity which is now very rare as Justin repeats worn talking points at nauseum.


One may well ask what happened to his ability to communicate  after he did such a credible job day after day informing us during the Covid crisis. Perhaps his own fatigue and lack of enthusiasm being such a target of unrelenting attacks and nastiness. He is human and also suffered the departure of his wife. At times like this one tends to fall back on comfortable and familiar ways of expressing oneself.


There is also the tendency in his speaking to say the obvious as if it was a revelation. “Captain Obvious” some might say. The writer and critic Bob Ramsay put it this way: “Trudeau is also a heavy user of the phrase “hard-working,” as in ‘hard-working Canadians.’ This flattery is so tired and fake that it’s cringe-worthy. When we hear him say it, are we really meant to connect more with him, to believe he understands us, that we’re a bunch of hard-working folks bonding over our common cause?” He also repeatedly says when dealing with a serious issue   “ We are working round the clock on this.” As if…


Finally, there is the ill-defined motivation for the overall Liberal program. The obsessive purpose to work for the “middle-class and people working hard to join it.” This was the spine of the Liberal platform in 2015 and has been endlessly repeated. Note this statement made going into the Charlottetown Cabinet retreat in 2013: “We made a commitment to stand up for the middle class, and we will not stop fighting until everyone has a real and fair chance to succeed. As we head into a new Parliamentary session next week, we remain focused on the things that matter most to Canadians: making life more affordable and creating good, middle-class jobs now and into the future.”


This verbose promise to create a “chance to succeed for everyone” and “good middle-class jobs” is so vague as to mean nothing. It is belied by the fact that it is the middle-class that has been hit hard by inflation, and the rising cost of groceries and housing. It is also typical of the Liberals tendency to overpromise and underdeliver, an ironclad rule of political “not to do’s.” And of course, the not stop fighting juvenile description of the Liberal’s unflagging dedication! It’s worth noting that none of these placebos are goes for social media clips so important for so many


Finally, there is the question of who comes to the strong defense of Canada when it is threatened. Certainly not Justin Trudeau, on holiday when Trump launched his bombastic threats to our sovereignty and economy. Bullies need strong resistance, or they keep bullying. Justin has yet to articulate the kind of national pride that Jean Chretien did so masterfully in the Star on January 11, as addressed to Trump: “ What could make you think would ever give up the best country in the world – and make no mistake we are – to join the United States…If you think that threatening and insulting us is going to win us over don’t know a thing about us.” He then lists the key values we all share, like tolerance, and the generous social safety nets we have built. It’s one of the best defenses of our nation I have seen in years. It could have been a memorable part of Trudeau’s farewell. It wasn’t.


In conclusion, the style, content, and mode of expression of Justin Trudeau has steadily led to the increasing lack of trustworthiness of this government ‘s chief communicator. As a former PMO script and media release writer I can only say that his staff have allowed him to fall into a groove which has reduced his authority and credibility. 

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts