Month: March 2026

By now, it’s clear that no matter what kind of resolution U.S. President Donald Trump attempts to impose on his latest misadventure in Iran, this conflict and its global repercussions will be far from over.

More likely, it will resemble George W. Bush’s infamous “mission accomplished” moment aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003: a premature declaration of victory that gave way to years of prolonged conflict, with consequences that are still unfolding today.

Whatever branding Trump chooses, it won’t stick.

But the economic consequences will.

As any reasonable observer can see, the ripple effects of this conflict will continue to move through the global economy and, like countries the world over, will land squarely in Canadian households in the form of higher prices.

Canada may be less exposed to oil shocks than it was in the 1970s and 80s, but when prices rise at the pump, the impact is immediate and unavoidable for consumers. And those pressures rarely stay contained. They spill over.

As BMO chief economist Doug Porter explains, higher energy costs cascade through the economy, raising the cost of transporting goods, producing packaging and moving food from farm to table. For example, with the Gulf region playing a key role in the production and shipment of fertilizer inputs, the conflict will increase costs for farmers, compounding pressure throughout the food supply chain.

And this is hitting a market already under strain. Statistics Canada reported food inflation spiking to 7.3 per cent in January, driven by supply constraints and persistent pressure on staples like coffee and beef.

This may not amount to a full-blown recession or stagflation. But that misses the point.

These are price shocks that hit the essentials of our everyday lives, the goods Canadians cannot substitute away from. Groceries. Fuel. The basics.

And that is where political risk lives.

Voters notice these pressures immediately because they experience them daily. And as history repeatedly shows, sustained affordability pain quickly translates into political frustration and then into blame.

That creates both risks and opportunities for the Carney government.

It is an opportunity to demonstrate that they understand the moment and are prepared to act decisively on affordability in ways that the Trudeau government was too slow to do.

The spectre of an affordability crisis should be treated the same way a political opponent is: define it before it defines you.

The Trudeau government hesitated too long to signal urgency on affordability amid rising inflation and global price instability. Pierre Poilievre filled that vacuum, owned the issue, and nearly rode it all the way to 24 Sussex.

The current government cannot afford to repeat that mistake, particularly as we head into what could be a difficult spring and summer economically.

But they are not without options.

On fuel, the federal government could offer temporary relief through adjustments to the excise tax or targeted rebates, even if only for a defined period.

On food, it must work with provinces and industry to reduce interprovincial trade barriers and provide targeted support along the agricultural supply chain to ease cost pressures before they reach consumers.

None of these measures will be a silver bullet.

But in politics, as in economics, marginal gains matter.

Even modest relief signals the government is paying attention to what matters to most Canadians. It demonstrates that the government is engaged, responsive and focused on the daily pressures Canadians are actually feeling.

And just as importantly, it prevents the opposition from owning the issue unchallenged.

Because in the end, affordability is not an abstract economic concept. It is a daily lived experience. Governments that fail to act early and visibly with plans to deal with it rarely get a second chance.

When you read this, the Academy Awards will either be hours away or already behind us.

And the man who is arguably Hollywood’s biggest star, Timothée Chalamet, will either be celebrating a historic night, becoming one of the youngest actors ever to win Best Actor, or quietly reflecting on how, in the span of a few ill-chosen words, he may have fumbled the ball at the one-yard line.

For readers who may have missed the online furor, let me briefly explain.

Chalamet sparked a major backlash last week when he appeared to dismiss ballet and opera as relics; art forms sustained largely out of obligation rather than vitality.

“I don’t want to be working in ballet or opera, or, you know, things where it’s like, ‘Hey, keep this thing alive,’” he said during a CNN and Variety town hall event.

The pushback was both swift and widespread.

Arts commentators rushed in to agree or disagree with his premise. Social media erupted, with critics eager to knock a celebrity down a peg. Opera and ballet companies around the world seized the moment for some clever marketing, offering discounted tickets with promo codes like “TIMOTHEE.” Here at home, the Canadian Opera Company leaned into the moment with videos of young opera fans explaining why the art form continues to matter.

In short, the comment struck a nerve for many.

It certainly did for me.

I’m of the “an attack on one is an attack on all” camp when it comes to the arts. As Chancellor of OCAD University and a longtime supporter of Canada’s cultural institutions, including currently serving on the board of the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, I have spent decades around artists and arts organizations. And what every leader in the sector will tell you right now is simple: these are difficult times.

Public funding and private donations are under pressure. Artificial intelligence is beginning to disrupt entire creative industries, raising profound questions about authorship, ownership and the future of artistic labour. And audiences themselves are being pulled in a thousand different directions.

Yet despite these pressures, the sector continues to punch far above its weight economically. According to research by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canada’s arts and culture industries contributed roughly $65 billion to the national economy in 2024, about two per cent of GDP. Even more striking, the sector has been growing at nearly twice the pace of the broader economy, outpacing industries such as oil and gas, retail and manufacturing.

But economics only tell part of the story. There are much deeper reasons we need the arts now more than ever.

We are living in an era of intensifying division, geopolitical, ideological and cultural. Conflict across the globe is hardening identities and flattening our ability to see one another as fully human.

The 19^th century novelist, Stendhal, once wrote that politics in a work of art is like a pistol shot in a concert, something simply impossible to ignore. Gore Vidal turned that metaphor on its head, observing that in modern times “the pistol shots are the concert, while the work of art becomes the discordant interruption.”

It is a comment that feels increasingly accurate. And the interruption remains precisely what we’re in need of today.

Art interrupts the narratives that turn neighbours into enemies. It complicates the simple stories that conflict depends upon. It reminds us that behind every label, political, national, ideological, there is a human being.

In a world increasingly organized around outrage, speed and tribal certainty, the arts do something radical: they slow us down. They invite empathy. They expand the imagination. They humanize.

Which is precisely why they are worth defending, in all their forms.

So, while Sunday night will produce its usual stories of triumph and heartbreak for actors like Chalamet, the world will keep turning, and we will continue to need that interruption.

At the same time, we will do well to remember the small controversy he stirred and the larger truth it reminds us of. The arts are not relics we preserve out of nostalgia. They are tools we rely on to remain human.

When I first came upon the now infamous photo of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, slumped in the back of a car, a line from Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray” immediately came to mind: “Sin is a thing that writes itself across a man’s face. It cannot be concealed.”

But that hasn’t stopped Andrew and the House of Windsor from trying.

Late last year, I argued that the Royals had failed to follow one of the most fundamental rules of crisis management: get to the endgame fast.

What does that mean? It means that at the first sign of serious trouble, you move immediately to the action that you know will ultimately have to be taken.

In Andrew’s case, once it became publicly known that he had maintained a long-standing relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, decisive steps should have been taken immediately: remove him as a working royal, strip him of his titles, sever all taxpayer-subsidized accommodation and benefits. Instead, we witnessed hesitation and half measures. And the final necessary step, removing him from the line of succession, has yet to happen.

When you fail to move decisively, the damage does not arrive in a single catastrophic blow. It is, in fact, worse. It comes in slow, corrosive drips over time that undermine the entire institution.

Last week, police arrested Mountbatten-Windsor on charges of misconduct in public office over allegations that he shared confidential government reports with Epstein while serving as a U.K. trade envoy in 2010.

Heaven only knows what is yet to come. This can no longer be branded as an isolated, “rotten apple” issue. It is an institutional crisis.

The gravest danger in any episode of elite misconduct, whether in government, business or a constitutional monarchy, is not simply the wrongdoing itself. It is the possibility that the wrongdoing reflected a permissive culture, enabled by silence or wilful blindness.

When that possibility arises, disciplining the individual is no longer sufficient. The scrutiny climbs the ladder. It cuts its way upward to the figure who embodies or leads the institution. And whenever questions of “who knew what, and when?” begin to surface, as they now have around the House of Windsor, you are in a perilous place.

There are flashing arrows pointing toward the only remaining stabilizing move: the King should step aside and allow Prince William to assume the throne.

This is what endgame looks like. It is what remains after years of incrementalism and reluctance. Because the failure to act early leaves only more dramatic action later. And make no mistake: dramatic action is now required.

For decades, the personal popularity of Queen Elizabeth II shielded the monarchy from deeper structural vulnerabilities. Her presence acted as a stabilizing force that transcended criticism.

That buffer is gone. Now, amid cost-of-living pressures across the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, public patience is much thinner.

But that’s not all. The Epstein affair is no routine scandal. It is emblematic of a broader public revulsion toward elite impunity and the perception that the powerful operate by different rules. Of the many horrific allegations that emerged from the Epstein investigations, remarkably only three individuals have faced criminal consequences: Epstein himself, now dead; his principal accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, serving a 20-year sentence; and now Andrew.

Notably, Andrew’s charges are not yet related to the alleged sexual assault of Virginia Giuffre, but on allegations of misconduct in public office. As Sam Sifton of The New York Times observes, it has the feel of prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion.

All this matters because when accountability appears partial or indirect, public suspicion does not dissipate, it intensifies.

Which brings us back to the institution itself.

How sorry would it be for a man who has waited his entire adult life to serve his people as King to have to conclude that the only way to save the very monarchy he loves so much is with his own departure.

How monumental would be a decision at once so historic and yet so deeply personal for not only him but for the House of Windsor itself.

Some will insist that a monarch’s duty is to remain. But the higher expression of duty may well be sacrifice. To relinquish the throne not out of weakness, but out of stewardship and a genuine understanding of the course of history. To allow William and Catherine to inherit not a diminished institution fighting for credibility, but one renewed through decisive leadership.