It's somewhat whataboutism because the whether the message is truthful does not rely on the source. i.e. Hitler could say genocide is bad, and he would still be correct even though he's Hitler.

It is relevant to the discussion to point out Jim Balsillie's relation to this topic. It's not a refutation of the point being made though. It's entirely possible that he has ulterior motives for making this argument that aren't based on it being morally (or event factually) correct, but it may be correct (or incorrect) separately from that.