Let’s start with the obvious: politicians have virtually destroyed language as a means of honest communication.

Everyone who writes for politicians shares genes with Stephen Miller and Kellyanne Conway. Twitter, at least, tends to keep their lies short.

Still, language remains the favorite tool of politicians and their minions to manipulate and control — the new working definition of democracy for the ones running the show.

Left or right, they’ve all delivered the same Humpty Dumpty message to the masses: words mean only what the pols need them to mean — which explains why they change so much. They don’t have to keep their word. They just have to update it from time to time.

President Bill Clinton tried to deny having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky by parsing the meaning of “is.” President Donald Trump says the “wall” along the Mexican border might just be a fence, or nothing at all because of mountains and rivers and “other things.”

As for Mexico paying for the wall … he doesn’t really talk about that these days. During the election campaign, that line did more than any other to whip up the bloodlust of Trump supporters at those sweaty political rallies with the Nuremburg production values.

Canada is not immune from the politically-driven destruction of language. Remember candidate Justin Trudeau saying that 2015 would be the last election run under the first-past-the-post system?

Remember how Trudeau claimed that he hadn’t placed himself in a conflict-of-interest by flying off to a billionaire’s island for a holiday because he thinks of his prime ministerial role in such encounters as largely “ceremonial”? In other words, our current PM thinks the heavy lifting of government is better left to others. He may be right.

When Trudeau describes himself as a climate-change warrior even after telling a bunch of Texas oil men that “no country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there,” that’s the English language crying out in pain. (Dirty oil, Justin. What if it had been coal?)

Which brings me to the spear-end of my point. For the umpteenth time, the Trudeau government is attempting to hit the reset button — trying to make good on what voters thought they were getting in the first place when they saddled up the Shiny Pony.

The latest makeover was initiated by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland in an essay in The Economist. In it, Freeland declares that the federal government is about to embark on a course of what she called “progressive internationalism,” a way of capitalizing on rising nationalism and protectionism.

The more amorphous the language, the less it means. The great poet William Carlos Williams said it well: “No ideas but in things.” Progressive internationalism could mean just about anything. Give it to us in plain language, Chrystia.

The Trudeau government is facing a moment of truth. Will it lead, as Trudeau promised during the 2015 election? Or will it merely muddle along? The Trudeau government is facing a moment of truth. Will it lead, as Trudeau promised during the 2015 election? Or will it merely muddle along?

Freeland probably would claim she already has. She does say it means a two-track (why is it always a two track?) approach. Track one is international affairs, where Canada will champion human rights, immigration and freer trade. Track two will be the domestic pursuit of tax reform and improved labour standards. (I wonder if that means no more Timbits at cabinet meetings.)

Because I respect Minister Freeland’s intellect, and because Trudeau undoubtedly gave Canada hope again after the Harper Dark Ages, I will give both politicians the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see what they do. Because they have a lot of lost ground to make up.

On the foreign affairs front, Canada’s reputation is not much better than it was under Harper, except on the Glamour Index. From our recent no-show at the UN over Trump’s decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem to our dreadful silence over his nuclear sabre-rattling with North Korea, it’s getting hard to keep claiming that Canada is “back”. In fact, Canada has fallen curiously silent.

Even on the very things Freeland mentions, any new initiatives must begin with significant damage control. Just a year ago, Trudeau flashed the peace sign on Twitter under the hashtag ‘Welcome to Canada’. His message was aimed at those Muslims who were victims of Trump’s immigration crackdown. “Regardless of your religion,” Trudeau tweeted, “diversity is our strength.”

Compare that to the Trudeau government’s message to 200,000 Salvadorans who are about to lose their Temporary Protected Status in Trumpland. They are not refugees — they are victims of two massive earthquakes in 2001. But they’re still facing summary deportation back to El Salvador — a humanitarian disaster in the making.

Nevertheless, Trudeau has pulled the welcome mat out from under these people, who have enjoyed humanitarian protection in the U.S. for ten years — until it was removed by the Department of Homeland Security. One newspaper described Trudeau’s message to Salvadorans about to lose their homes with this headline: “Please don’t come here.” Haitians will understand the cold shoulder.

If Freeland truly wants to make progress on Canada’s reputation for human rights, I have the perfect place to start: Saudi Arabia and its genocidal war in Yemen, which the UN has called “absurd and futile.” Just last month, Saudi-led airstrikes killed 68 civilians in a single day.

Why is Canada selling massive amounts of military equipment to the Saudis, who are not only slaughtering their neighbors in Yemen, but repressing their own people at home?

As CBC commentator Neil Macdonald pointed out last August, the explanation given by the Saudi embassy — that it is using Canadian equipment to fight terrorists — is beyond grotesque. The 47 per cent surge in Canadian military exports to the Saudis happened in 2016, on the Trudeau government’s watch.

It is noteworthy that some of the munitions shipped to the Saudis have been described by their Canadian manufacturers as “riot control agents.” Not too many riots in Yemen, just bodies to bury. Just before Christmas, a dreadful threshold was crossed there: one million cases of cholera.

Freeland also could do wonders for Canada’s perceived commitment to human rights by not being so tight with foreign aid for development. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Canada was the only G7 country whose level of development assistance has actually declined.

Stuart Hickox is the Canada director at ONE Campaign, an international anti-poverty initiative. Here’s how he read the 5.2 per cent drop in Canadian development aid:

“What the data shows is that while the rest of the G7 was investing more in development, Canada was investing less. At this moment, with all that’s going on in the world and Canada assuming the G7 presidency, frankly, it’s disappointing. It erodes our moral standing and undermines our political leverage at what should be a moment of strength for us.”

The Trudeau government is facing a moment of truth. Will it lead, as Trudeau promised during the 2015 election? Or will it merely muddle along?

Justin Trudeau promised we’d see the rubber hit the road under his government. Still waiting.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.