Category: Chairman’s Desk

And guess what?

It’s still not working. Not even close.

A $2.4 billion investment in the AI sector? Too little. A new multibillion-dollar plan to finally “solve” Canada’s housing crisis? Too late. The overall budget? Gives new meaning to the phrase “a dollar short and a day late.”

And while the Liberals may be waking up from a long winter’s nap, the polls never took a break — the latest reveal the Conservatives are now leading by 20 points, their largest lead yet.

The first is optimism, a sentiment that breeds a narrow mentality that refuses to engage with the possibility your opponents will assume power and has your government whistling past the graveyard, always believing you will be back to finish your work.

The second is one of pessimism and paralysis. One that believes the clock has run out. One that sees the office water cooler conversations reduced to a “Why bother? The new guys will just undo everything we do.”

The truth is both positions miss the point. As the saying goes, the pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. This approach, of neither misguided optimism nor idle defeatism, but of pragmatic determination is the one Justin Trudeau must adopt in the lead up to the 2025 election; because it is this approach that history proves is the most effective way for the Liberals to make their remaining time count most.

Time and again, newly minted governments trade on the energy and momentum that carries them into office. Immediately, they set about reversing course on the major priorities of the previous government. They make a triumphant show of “turning the ship around.” But here’s the challenge: once the electoral fog clears and that new government is confronted with the serious work of actually governing, it inevitably runs up against the vicissitudes and fundamental difficulties of changing some of these very politicized initiatives around.

Prime examples are, of course, free trade and the GST. For years, Brian Mulroney’s opponents confidently declared they would tear up both once they assumed the mantle of power, yet never did.

The brute reality is, of course, that the Conservatives will undoubtedly uproot many of the Liberal’s major policies. The Tories’ pledge to “Axe the Tax” is no mere idle threat. And it’s equally true that, if they are successful, a Pierre Poilievre government will arrive with many more commitments to which they are equally committed.

While I fully expect that a new Conservative government will implement far more of their promises than has been seen since then-premier Mike Harris took office in 1995, they simply won’t be able to do them all. And here is where the opportunity for the departing Liberal’s comes in.

The Liberals should seize upon those issues that have long plagued us but the solutions for which have not been possible until a government is unpopular and in its dying days.

Those that have required the heavy lifting that no previous government has had the guts to resolve: opening up our economy to greater international competition (particularly those areas where we pay more for services than other countries), eliminating agricultural supply management, ridding us of interprovincial trade barriers, finding new ways to bring our natural resources to market.

Far from being constrained, the reality is the Liberals are actually in a unique position to take far more aggressive swings to solve these problems; problems that aren’t simply solved by spending money we don’t have, but through ingenuity and genuine political courage.

Every once in a while, you can actually rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic with some effect.

Treatise on human nature aside, the bottom line is that not only has prohibition always been a fool’s errand, it always will be. Scripture underlines it — see the original sinners sporting nothing but fig leaves. History proves it — see the utter failure that was the Eighteenth Amendment.

And yet, calls for precisely this are forcefully growing on a new front: social media.

Last month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis banned under-14s from these platforms, while the U.K. has targeted cellphones in classrooms. Closer to home, alongside the ever-raging debate about the Online Harms Act, a TikTok ban seems likelier after the U.S.‘s proposed ban.

This is no casual or ill-intentioned crusade. The motives behind these efforts are clear. And while there are disagreements on the margins, experts uniformly agree that social media is contributing to a mental crisis amongst our youth.

Now, Canadian parents hardly need studies or surveys to evidence the dangers of social media. We can see the facts up close. Everyday. Both in our homes and in our schools. Teenagers captured by exploitative algorithms designed to distract.

Young girls, in particular, are struggling with increased rates of depression and anxiety. And the starkest reality of all: the increased rate of suicide among youth, a grim testament to the despair fostered by social media’s relentless demands and the impossible standards it perpetuates.

Unfortunately, the greater the stakes, the greater the prospect for nonsense. And the highest form, in this case, is the pipe dream that we can simply put the genie back in the bottle and successfully ban social media outright.

While the reasons we can’t are the same that have always applied historically, in this individual case, we must confront pressing new realities. Foremost, is admitting technology will always advance faster than the capacity of legislators in two fundamental respects.

First, their ability to understand it. Just watch the desperate attempts of U.S. senators to grapple with new technologies in recent congressional hearings. If you don’t laugh, you’ll cry.

Second, in their ability to craft legislation that can effectively police it. As multiple failed bills, both here and in the U.S., testify.

But we don’t need anything more than plain common sense to tell us that a blanket ban on social media for children is bound to fail. Any parent will confirm: this new generation is uniquely technically literate and will surely effortlessly outmanoeuvre the most well-intentioned but toothless government restrictions with a few clicks.

Let me be perfectly honest: I am madly rewriting this week’s column. I had written about the disappearance of Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales, from the public eye, the firestorm of controversy that it created, and the public affairs lessons that could be drawn from the episode.

Now, I — along with the rest of the world — sit at my desk shocked and deeply saddened to learn of the Princess’ recent cancer diagnosis.

And all of a sudden, while those lessons still, for the most part, hold, each has been so clearly and powerfully superseded by others — by higher lessons about what truly matters in this life.

After weeks of brutal and, for the most part, mean-spirited speculation about a supposed disappearance, a wife, a mother, a daughter, appeared on a park bench.

And that mother, wife and daughter — and yes, princess — explained to the public that she has “taken time.” Time to process the difficult news. Time to start her treatment. Time to tell her young children that their mother was going to be OK.

Time a raging conspiratorial news cycle could not and did not afford her.

There is still some confusion around her diagnosis and bewilderment around Kensington Palace’s initial response. There is still plenty of speculation; speculation that isn’t going to end anytime soon.

But here is what’s perfectly clear: Kate Middleton has authentically demonstrated that she is a wife, a mother and a daughter first, and a princess second.

And needless to say, she has got the order right.

The final words of Kate’s video message were to those who, like her, are battling cancer. Those powerful words reminded them that they are “not alone.”

Last year, in tribute to my friend Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Ontario’s longest serving lieutenant-governor, I wrote that if the monarchy was going to survive in this modern era, it would not be because of its pageantry or history, but rather because it would be embodied by extraordinary people.

Those who served with as much humility as did our late Queen. Those who encourage us to never give up on our ideals. Who bring out our common humanity.

And so, while this diagnosis will take Kate away from her official duties, her message on Friday, her strength and perseverance, her humanity, is a service unto itself. The kind that transcends conspiracy or news cycle.

That kind that endures.

Peter Mansbridge summarized it best, “The Jays have painted the country blue. The Liberals have painted it red.”

With barely a sliver of blue on the electoral map, the Progressive Conservative party was reduced not to rubble but quarry dust — two seats.

The “grand conservative coalition” fell. The regionalist Reform and Bloc parties rose. And while Brian Mulroney was not on the 1993 ballot, his record was. The Brian Mulroney era was decidedly over.

Observing the sheer scale of the loss, political leaders across this country were quick to draw a lesson.

The wrong one.

Political leaders come to office with fundamentally different views of success. For some, the definition of success is governing in a way that ensures the support of “the base.” This approach posits it was, of course, the base that elected you and it is, to the base, you owe fealty.

Others believe that the political capital that comes with success must be spent to backstop the support of the base, to be sure, but also on both the issues of the day that come across a prime minister’s desk and the transformational projects that build nations.

Brian Mulroney understood this better than any prime minister since Sir John A. Macdonald. And so, spend it he did. Not simply on his own narrow interests but in the interests of the country he was elected to serve.

Today, our leaders must confront that same challenge.

The problems Canada faces are neither transitory nor benign, they are structural. Structural problems require structural solutions. And structural solutions take vast amounts of political capital.

Canada not only has a productivity emergency, it has a political capital deficit. In our hyper-fragmented media landscape, politics has become a game of inches.

And nations are not built an inch at a time.

In Canada, building a national consensus in real-time is almost impossible. That’s why political leaders need to have the courage to act and the willingness to spend political capital BEFORE that consensus emerges.

Anyone living under the fantasy that our problems in housing, homelessness, health care and immigration will be solved by anything less than major, far-sighted, national initiatives is gravely mistaken.

In his time, Brian Mulroney identified the structural challenges that faced Canada and steered a course to meet them. To boost our country’s competitiveness, he undertook permanent structural reform of our tax system. He faced down the pernicious evil of apartheid by using his personal political capital to confront racism in its most vile form.

And, crucially, he spent political capital not just by appeasing his base, but by seizing opportunities. Case in point: free trade. Mulroney knew there would be winners and losers. And that many of those losers would be Conservative voters. But he also understood Canada’s economy desperately required creative destruction in order to create a more resilient, competitive one.

The fact that Mulroney suffered politically as he implemented these structural changes is not to be ignored.

It is to be emphasized.

History speaks for itself. Not one of Mulroney’s successors, even after years of attacking the GST and free trade, dared to significantly alter course on either issue.

And so, at this moment, when it looks like there will soon be another change in our political era, let’s remember the true Mulroney legacy. The legacy of nation building. And in doing so, let’s look at the opportunity for our leaders: not to simply aspire to greatness but to achieve it.

Let our leaders believe in Canada more than we sometimes believe in ourselves. Let them dream of a Canada “fair and generous, tolerant and just.” Let them serve it tirelessly to ensure that dream comes true for all Canadians. For those who are struggling to make ends meet today. For those who feel left behind today.

And in doing so, let them set the table for those Canadians who are yet to come.

What else could there possibly be? A medical calamity? Criminal convictions? Maybe, but not likely.

That’s what will make this election historic. Not that it is the first rematch in almost 70 years but that it will be the first election that isn’t about persuasion but about turnout, in other words, which side can muster their voters to the polls.

Political orthodoxy would say: advantage Trump. The logic is clear. The MAGA crowd is angrier, and that anger, the orthodoxy goes, translates into more voters showing up on the first Tuesday (after the first Monday) in November.

This election will hinge on — give or take — six states and the key districts within them. It’s here that turnout matters most and where the two strategic principles of turnout elections come most forcefully into play.

One, say what needs to be said to convince your supporters to show up on election day. Example, Bill Clinton, “I feel your pain.”

Two, don’t say anything that seriously motivates the other side to show up. Example, Hillary Clinton, “Basket of Deplorables.”

By far, the most improbable and therefore finest of Trump’s circus acts has been walking this tightrope. Seizing upon lightning-rod issues that rile up his base but not holding on so tight that it jeopardizes his electoral fortunes.

Recently, however, he’s taken a fall. And he’s done so as a result of one key issue: abortion.

During his presidency, Trump stacked the Supreme Court with conservative justices who did exactly what he promised they would: overturn Roe vs. Wade and the freedom to choose for millions of American women.

This was a categorical, strategic mistake.

The abortion issue is not abstract. It’s not a distant war in a place in Europe that most Americans will never visit, or a question of age or competency to lead; it’s an issue that has a direct impact on the life of every American woman.

Polling reveals Americans consider abortion to be a fundamental right. And, significantly, it’s an issue that drives Democrats to the polls.

Results speak for themselves. Democrats are riding a historic winning streak. Recent 2023 congressional victories extended into redder states like Kentucky. They’re raking in cash. And, most consequentially, Democrats have over-performed in every election since Roe vs. Wade was overturned.

Just last week, Democrat Tom Suozzi won George Santos’s former seat, further weakening the Republicans’ narrow lead in the House — weakness underscored by a string of legislative embarrassments, including their initial failure to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorka.

Polls are one thing. Elections are reality.

But of course, they are still proxies for the big show. And while Biden and Trump were not directly on the ballot of recent special elections, those elections reemphasize the strategic imperatives for both sides.

Trump needs to shut up about abortion. Unsurprisingly, he’s done the exact opposite. Recent reports confirm that Trump is contemplating sweeping new abortion restrictions, including a 16-week federal ban.

Biden needs to talk about little else and make the 2024 election a referendum on abortion. That means stepping outside his comfort zone: unapologetically asserting that abortion is health care and that Trump and his ilk mean to translate “The Handmaid’s Tale” from fiction into reality.

In turnout elections, where respective strengths and weaknesses are already well known, political gifts from your opponent are exceedingly rare. But the Republican’s unforced errors on the abortion issue is a gift to Democrats. One that’s paid dividends in recent elections and can pay yet again in the 2024 presidential race — if Joe Biden is ready to accept it.