Month: December 2021

“A society grows great when elders plant trees under whose shade they know they will never sit.” Versions of the proverb trace their roots to many cultures for a reason: it is bloody good advice.

And it is advice the Trudeau government should take when it comes to making long-term, expensive — and yes, likely politically unpopular — investments in Canada’s national security framework.

At a time when voter priorities are understandably focused on things like affordability and housing, some political strategists may see this as a difficult call. However, the reality is that if our government fails to address this file — even if it is one that does not deliver them a short-term political win — our domestic security will not only be compromised in the future, but now as well.

A report this week from the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) laid bare the shortcomings of Canada’s national security apparatus. Governed by archaic legislation and neglected by generations of politicians, it is now brutally ill-equipped to deal with the array of mounting security risks posed by increasing geopolitical tensions, climate change and technological advancement.

It was in 2004 that a Canadian government last formulated a comprehensive national security strategy. If the world was a threatening place then, it is a tinderbox now.

British Columbia is suffering dire climate issues, yet our security frameworks do not adequately incorporate climate risk. Furthermore, the geopolitical outlook is as tense as ever; autocratic regimes are becoming increasingly emboldened, posing real threats to the free world.

Vladimir Putin has amassed hundreds of thousands of troops on the Ukrainian border, prompting emergency talks with the U.S. president and provoking anxiety across Europe. While in Canada we often see ourselves as immune to these threats, we are not — and we can be sure such complacency will one day haunt us if not eradicated.

CSIS, our own security service, has increased the intensity of its warnings to Canadians and to our government over the past year. Autocracies, particularly China, and various non-state actors are continually looking to exert influence in Canada through shadowy propaganda campaigns and cyberwarfare. What’s more, global security experts have been sounding alarms over the rise of “killer robot” technologies — artificial intelligence with deadly military capabilities never seen before.

The challenge is that the legislation governing CSIS is almost four decades old, yet today’s environment barely resembles the world back then.

The question for our politicians is how to respond to these real-world threats, when Canadians are unlikely to support the massive funds required. Firstly, our government must remember that its foremost duty lies in protecting Canadians, not in winning popularity contests. Second, as recommended in CIGI’s report, they must act with greater transparency to convey just how acute these threats are. It is the only way to do two things: ensure appropriate oversight, and avoid bewildering Canadians in their pursuit of drastic and necessary changes.

Last week the head of MI6 explained that the British intelligence service had to “become more open in order to stay secret.” In Canada, this is even more important. Our government must collaborate with its security forces to explain the threats we are facing, and the action required. As our intelligence chief David Vigneault aptly put it, “people might not care about geopolitics, but it cares about you.”

By not prioritizing foreign policy at election time, Canadians repeatedly give our governments a free ride on national security. Those days are over — time is of the essence to address a changing world.

In its throne speech, the government promised to “review diplomatic engagement.” I hope they will go a great deal further. Only a wholesale restructuring of our security apparatus will protect us from tomorrow’s threats.

Doing so would not only be an act of true leadership, but would honour their oaths to be faithful and true servants of the Crown.

Like so many Canadians, I sat transfixed and seized with emotion on Wednesday, as Canada’s House of Commons unanimously passed legislation to ban the long discredited and violent practice of conversion therapy.

It is rare for such an important issue to be handled with such grace in modern politics. Even more remarkable is what Canadians witnessed as they focused their attention on the opposition benches.

It is one thing to see an Opposition leader behave like a prime minister. It is another thing entirely to see an Opposition caucus legislate with the authority and urgency of a sitting government. Make no mistake, the accomplishment here is not just one of policy-making, but also of caucus leadership.

That leadership starts, of course, with Erin O’Toole, but the surprise is it now extends to a wider team of Conservative MPs who are authentically attuned to LGBTQ issues. What’s more, the unanimous motion points to a significant shift in parliamentary strategy and the caucus policy that underlies it.

The moment highlighted rising talent on the Conservative bench. Politicians like Eric Duncan and Melissa Lantsman represent a recent generation of gay and lesbian Conservatives determined to advocate for LGBTQ-focused legislation emerging from either side of the aisle. It’s clear that Duncan and Lantsman are finding their voices in caucus. With a leader keen to support their work, we should all be watching what they do next.

For obvious reasons, this vote was personal for me.

Any LGBTQ Canadian is aware of the nightmare of conversion therapy. Even without first-hand experience, there is a visceral reaction to the idea of being “changed” or “fixed” for something that is inherent to who we are.

Imagine: at the precise moment when young people most need support to understand their feelings and desires, they have those emotions dissected and judged instead. As so many survivors have told us, the fallout can last for years.

But beyond the horrors of conversion therapy itself, Wednesday’s events in Parliament ultimately reaffirmed something I have always known: the Conservative ranks are filled with allies of LGBTQ Canadians.

Indeed, alongside MPs like Duncan and Lantsman were long-standing allies of our community, like Michelle Rempel Garner and Erin O’Toole himself. Their voices, and those of countless other Tories, rang out on Wednesday as loudly as their LGBTQ colleagues.

Even prominent social conservatives in the party should be applauded — perhaps quietly, in private — for coming around to the notion of pragmatic opposition. There were genuine differences of opinion regarding this legislation, and however misguided I feel they may have been, for many MPs they were sincere. The fact that those differences were tamed — every member of caucus was brought on board — is a very positive sign for an Opposition too easily accused of “not wanting to govern.”

It was a sign of decisive leadership, of effective collaboration, and, most of all, a sign that Erin O’Toole’s Opposition government is ready to show its new face to Canadians. A face that is more dynamic, competitive, inclusive and primetime-ready than it has been for a very, very long time.

As a Conservative, it’s exciting to see. But more than that, as an advocate for conservative principles, it’s an encouraging sign that Canada’s centre-right party will be able to focus on the issues that matter most: fiscal stewardship, personal liberty and fairness. For too long, the brand of “conservative values” has been tarred with the stench of hate and social division. Wednesday’s motion puts the lie to that notion.

Looking back on an emotional and historic week, I believe Canadians saw the best of their Parliament. While it remains to be seen how the Senate treats Bill C-4, it actually matters not. Even if a few unelected senators cause trouble, it will only serve to underscore what Team O’Toole has managed to pull off in the House. We all should be very grateful.