Navigator logo

Month: March 2021

Trudeau’s long overdue budget is a travesty, but it is also an opportunity to launch an election and define the campaign on his terms

Posted on by

By now, it has become tiresome to point out just how long Canadians have waited since the Trudeau government tabled its last federal budget.

Week after week, Opposition MPs and partisans have piled on with the effect of lending the whole debacle an air of legitimacy, as though many are simply taking potshots at a government besieged by extraordinary circumstance.

But the reality is, this is no partisan matter. It is a travesty. It’s been 726 days and counting — the longest interlude between federal budgets in our nation’s history.

The government will argue that the singular challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic justifies a pass. That it explains nearly two years without a comprehensive fiscal plan. That the prime minister and his cabinet shouldn’t be troubled by the distraction of something as marginal to the country’s administration as a budget.

Parliament’s oversight of the nation’s finances, they argue, can wait while the government carries out its crusade to save us all from this wretched pandemic.

It is a tale as old as the Greek mythology it calls to mind. In this particular political version, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is cast as Odysseus, conquering the demons of the wider world while his kingdom awaits his return, and with it a chance to hear his postwar plans.

And it is a tale that is working for the prime minister. A recent Nanos Research poll shows that more Canadians trust the Liberals with the country’s finances than any other party.

The Canadian electorate is then like Odysseus’ devoted wife Penelope, siting patiently and faithfully by, as they await the return of their leader and a peek into his fiscal plans.

But as Odysseus learns in Homer’s epic, other suitors will arrive — and even the most patient subject will grow weary of waiting.

And so, watch for the prime minister to use the budget, and all the promise inherent in it, as the kickoff to a spring election.

Expect a co-ordinated effort by Trudeau and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland, to ensure that Canadians understand exactly what is at stake for them in the upcoming election. That we all understand that we must return the Liberals to power if we want the benefits promised in the budget.

Here’s the playbook the government is likely to follow. Freeland will stand in the House and introduce a decidedly progressive budget designed to appeal, at a high level, to the government’s base and those to its left. It will also contain a series of measures with particular appeal to target groups and priority electoral districts.

And then, as soon as she sits down, Trudeau will walk over to Rideau Hall and ask the acting Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

And if he does, it won’t be the first time Canadians have seen that movie. The 2011 budget pulled the Harper Conservatives’ into a successful election campaign and in 2019, the Liberals’ budget framed the coming election in terms of the middle class.

On balance, with the vicissitudes of vaccine distribution being the one caveat, the opportunity looks to be ripe for the taking. A well-crafted budget — one that assuages Canadian’s post-pandemic anxieties and doesn’t entirely ignore the very real concerns about our ballooning debt — may just be the ticket to a majority government.

And there is evidence that isn’t a crazy idea. That Nanos poll gives the Liberals a nine-point lead over the Conservatives on trust to manage the country’s finances, And as every partisan knows, a Conservative party unable to earn the trust of Canadians when it comes to the public purse, is dead on arrival.

No wonder the Liberals feel as through they have wind in their sails.

And for Erin O’Toole, making up that nine-point gap will not only be a Herculean task, it will be an asymmetrical fight.

On one side, the government with the ability to deploy a budget for all its worth. And on the other side, an Opposition leader with few tools at his disposal to do the job.

The rest of us? As we have for 726 days, we will simply have to wait and see.

Royal Rumble (w/ Danielle Parr and Andrea Ernesaks)

Posted on by

In the wake of a historic interview with Meghan Markle and Oprah Winfrey, audiences are often left to make their own assumptions about what really happens in preparation for a tell-all broadcast.

To dissect this incredible story that has dominated news cycles for days, we are joined by Navigator colleagues Danielle Parr and Andrea Ernesaks to unpack everything that goes on behind-the-scenes to prepare for such an interview.

The trio goes head-to-head in our rapid-fire round to discuss the one-year anniversary of lockdown, the complications of International Women’s Day and the ever-changing debate among generations around the perfect pair of jeans.

Early Years (w/Margaret McCain)

Posted on by
This week, host Amanda Galbraith sits down with the Honourable Margaret McCain for a discussion on early childhood education and its ability to break barriers for Canadian women, while improving educational outcomes for children across the country. Fitting for International Women’s Day, the pair explore a policy proposal that all Canadians can get behind.

Thinking Beyond the Numbers

Posted on by

THIS YEAR’S THEME for International Women’s Day is “Choose to Challenge”, a direct appeal to question and confront gender bias and inequality where we see it. It’s a noble call to action but a difficult thing to do in practice — discussions about equity, diversity and inclusion often elicit strong reactions, particularly in corporate settings.

“Making gender equity a priority means being more than just performative — it means challenging the idea that equity means parity alone.”

As a result, corporate Canada has tended to lean heavily on the numbers. Proportionate representation — or parity — between men and women has become the gold standard of gender equity around the boardroom table. Parity is clear. It’s measurable. And frankly, saying you have gender parity is one heck of an issues management strategy.

However, talking about amorphous ideas like culture, acceptance, respect, and inclusion is a lot more challenging. Messy even. But it’s also necessary. Making gender equity a priority means being more than just performative — it means challenging the idea that equity means parity alone.

To be clear, on the parity front Canada is nowhere near perfect. We appear to do relatively well, ranking in the top 20 of the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index as one example.1 However, our efforts to bridge the gender gap remain very much a work in progress. In January, a Globe and Mail investigative series called “The Power Gap” grabbed the attention of Canadian public and private sector companies.2 It found that across publicly owned corporations, governments, municipalities, and universities, there were “dramatically” more men in high-paying jobs, on executive teams, and leading organizations.

But this was only part of that story. Another key finding in the series was that women face other challenging barriers to success. Reporter Robyn Doolittle relays the story of a female fundraiser who was punished for speaking up against a male executive who was bullying her. She speaks of a scientist who was refused research funding but was asked to appear in promotional materials for her organization because they wanted to appear “more inclusive”. Doolittle also tells the story of an administrator whose boss revoked a promotion because he was frustrated she was pregnant.

A lack of women in leadership roles may be partly corrected with parity. But the roots of the other barriers are cultural and structural in nature. The people within these institutions committed the acts, but the culture and structures within these institutions allowed them to happen.

That’s the problem with talking about parity alone — it gives institutions an “out”. A company might say it is meeting its obligations because it has equal numbers of men and women in certain positions. But what if these women are being paid less than their male counterparts?  What if they are being given less challenging or lucrative projects? Or they are being sidelined when it’s time to lead the company presentations? Public-facing numbers rarely account for these types of details.

That is exactly why parity policies need to be accompanied by real cultural and structural changes too. Behind the numbers, marketing slogans, and exceptional success stories, are less obvious but equally high barriers that need to be challenged. And that requires organizations to take a long, hard, introspective look at themselves — something that can be awkward, uncomfortable, or even risky to do.

But if organizations did this important work, what kinds of barriers might they find?

There are a litany of possibilities, and every organization will be different, but they might find that their existing human resources structures don’t encourage — or worse, foster fear — of speaking out when inequity is experienced or identified. Higher-ranking employees may be given the benefit of the doubt when concerns are raised. Colleagues may be type casted as “squeaky wheels” for coming forward. Colleagues may bring forward an issue but be told to address it themselves.

With high-intensity workplaces, there may be an expectation that employees stay late at the office, come in on weekends or take limited time off. But this kind of flexibility is usually only an option for those employees who don’t have children, family members with complex needs, or other responsibilities during their off hours. A lack of flexibility – whether in terms of when work is completed during the day, or where this work can be accomplished – can be a very real obstacle for caretakers, a significant number of whom are women.

Like many Canadian institutions, an organization may also find that pay equity is a concern. Statistics Canada reports that women are, on average, earning about 0.89 cents for every dollar a man earns.3 Some cases are more dire than others.4 As one example, a recent look into Canada’s largest law practices revealed that female equity partners are earning 25 per cent less — around $200,000 — than their male colleagues. A lack of transparency on salaries and a lack of clarity on performance targets both contribute to the gap. But culture also appears to be a factor — through her work, Robyn Doolittle found numerous studies that revealed that women tend to be judged more negatively when they try to negotiate their own salaries.

An in-depth look at an organization’s workplace culture might also reveal that its leadership has tended to prefer certain characteristics, ways of acting, ways of speaking, or even certain people, over others. The easiest, but by no means only, example is that of an “old boys club” that encourages or even promotes the stereotypical behaviour of one specific group. At best, long-engrained cultural norms like these can make people feel like outsiders. At worst, they can create environments where harassment and bullying can fester unchecked.

These are only four short examples, but you may have noticed that parity isn’t the magic bullet solution to any of the problems identified — cultural and structural changes are. The good thing is that making cultural and structural change — while impacting women and BIPOC individuals most positively — actually benefits everyone. We can all get behind a human resources process that acts when a concern is raised. COVID-19 has proven we can all get behind more flexible work times and spaces. Addressing pay equity ensures a level playing field and embracing a more open culture allows all of us to present our truest selves at the office.

Change requires concerted effort and time, but embracing it can improve an organization’s standing, from staff retention, to morale, to financial performance. None of this work is easy, but it’s worth it. This year, when we think about International Women’s Day, we should commit to change where it matters most and challenge ourselves to start thinking beyond the numbers.

[1] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-power-gap/[3] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410034002[4] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-female-partners-earn-less-than-male-colleagues-at-big-law-firm/

What the Liberals got right — and wrong — in long overdue reforms to assisted dying

Posted on by

It has been a long, winding and unnecessarily tortuous journey, but finally, the federal government is about to recognize all Canadians’ right to a peaceful death.

Back in 2016, when the Trudeau government first introduced legislation that legalized medical assistance in dying (MAID), the government described it as “the responsible first step.”

It would have been more honest to describe it as “hiding behind the skirt of the court,” as Parliament only acted after being pushed by those in the ermine robes. 　

But despite being mandated by the Supreme Court, legal challenges to the law’s many restrictions would begin within weeks. After all the twists and turns of the various cases and rulings were settled, these challenges would oblige the government to, once again, revisit the matter. All very predictable, I suppose.

And so now, after four delays, a bill is back before the House, having undergone surprisingly expansive amendment by the Senate. And once again, a deadline is staring the government in the face. It must now pass by the end of the month, unless it asks again for a fifth extension.

Eliminating the requirement that a patient’s death be “reasonably foreseeable” is the most significant change in this bill. But of course, that was also the basis for the Charter challenge that prompted the reforms in the first place.

The current disagreement has been reduced to the time at which those suffering solely from mental illness could become eligible for MAID. The House wants a period of two years; the Senate a year and a half.

But this petty dispute overshadows a far more egregious reversion. The version of the bill sent back to the House by the Senate included an amendment, which would have allowed those who fear dementia or Alzheimer’s eroding their future competence, to make advance requests for MAID. The government has, regrettably, stripped this amendment from the version of the legislation that is now poised to pass later this month. (The current regime requires informed consent right up until the scheduled date of death, making it an option that’s out of grasp for dementia patients.)

The Senate amendments were well supported: in a poll commissioned by Dying with Dignity Canada, 78 per cent of Canadians agreed a “waiver of final consent” should be available in cases where the individual was assessed, approved for MAID, but lost capacity before the scheduled date. Even more (83 per cent) supported allowing those with dementia to make advance requests for MAID. (Full disclosure: my consulting firm has previously worked with Dying with Dignity in an advisory capacity.)

From a policy perspective, the mechanism required to make this work is not especially complex. Those diagnosed with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease or other neurologically degenerative diseases could be empowered by law to create a checklist, the conditions of which, once met, would constitute their advanced consent to receiving medical assistance in dying.

This checklist would not be evaluated by family members or those with a vested interest in the outcome, but remain the exclusive responsibility of medical professionals.

Too many of us have seen what these diseases can do to our quality of life and basic dignity as humans.

I count myself among them. One of my most painful experiences has been bearing witness to my own mother’s slow decline. Having held my mother at the bedside of her husband as my father died, and of my sister as she died, I know the choices my mother would make now if she could.

Medical assistance in dying remains one of the most ethically complex and difficult issues to legislate, even if public opinion is clearly agreed on outcomes. Were it not for COVID, the government’s proposed legislation and the back-and-forth with the Senate would likely be the leading story out of Ottawa. Instead, it seems that the legislation is unfortunately destined to pass quietly in its much-diminished form.

In recognizing the 2016 legislation as merely a first step, the Trudeau government showed a rare streak of modesty. The reforms they are proposing now are important. And long overdue. And, once again, court mandated. But this time, they are disappointingly modest.

The government’s failure to go further and address the expectations of Canadians when it comes to medical assistance in dying is more than unfortunate. It represents a cowardice unbecoming of caring government.