Navigator logo

Category: Chairman’s Desk

Pot legalization a lesson in savvy political timing

Posted on by

In politics, there are two factors — over which you have no control — that determine your fate: timing and luck.

In running for office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to have taken his father’s advice that “the essential ingredient of politics is timing” to heart.

Promises, which were the foundation of his 2015 campaign, were each cleverly timed to catch the changing mood of Canadians.

A tax cut for the middle class and those aspiring to join it, deficit spending to fund renewal of our aging infrastructure, the welcoming of 25,000 Syrian refugees, and the legalization of marijuana.

All were easy to promise at a campaign stop. Each would have its difficulties and obstacles when it came to implementation.

In particular, the legalization of marijuana, an issue that at first blush seemed straightforward turned out to be, upon a deeper look, fraught with challenges.

But on the marijuana file, in spite of those challenges, the Liberals forecast exceptionally well.

Political capital is, after all, fleeting. The view of voters, at best, unstable. Those on top one day can find themselves at the bottom just a year later.

That’s why leaders try to use timing to beat the need for luck. That’s why prime ministers often try to accomplish their most challenging political objectives at the start of their mandates.

Trudeau’s Liberals knew they needed to have legalization sorted before 2019. They also knew they had a better chance to bring skittish Canadians along if they did so before the government got into the nitty-gritty business of cannabis.

By starting down this road early, the Liberals were able to establish a thoughtful process for legalization: they afforded significant time for consultation with business, third-party organizations and the provinces. The result was that they were able to accomplish their goal with a year to spare before the next election.

By Oct. 17, the day pot became legal, this endlessly talked about, “earth-shattering” moment in Canadian politics unfolded as just another dry day in the House of Commons. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer did not even mention legalization during question period that day.

The Liberals know, however, that a chunk of Canadians remain firmly against their policy initiative. To mitigate the electoral impact of this, the Liberals are counting on voters to have become distracted by other issues of a new day.

And what about the 30 per cent of Canadians who enjoy marijuana regularly? Here the Liberals hope they will be rewarded for legalizing cannabis when these voters get to the ballot box.

But timing isn’t the only thing. When asked what he feared the most, Harold Macmillan, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” And this is where luck comes into play. American football great Vince Lombardi once said, “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”

And the Liberals found themselves with no shortage of luck on this file.

At the time of his election in 2015, Trudeau faced a very different slate of premiers than he does today. Then, more than 80 per cent of Canadians lived in a province with a progressive-leaning premier who favoured legalization.

Since that time, the political climate in the provinces has changed dramatically and, if the pollsters are correct in Alberta, will continue to change.

The prime minister faced very little scrutiny from the provinces regarding marijuana when he launched his initiative. Manitoba was the only jurisdiction that attempted to derail the legalization process.

More recently, however, premiers who have grown united against Trudeau on several other policy files have begun to make noise about challenges to the rollout of marijuana legalization and the federal government’s supervision (or lack thereof) of the process.

Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford fired his first warning shot on Wednesday. Don’t expect it to be his last.

Imagine if Ford had been there since the beginning, rallying those Canadians who opposed the legalization — and pointing out the flaws in the Liberal plans.

Timing or luck? Why choose?

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist. He is a freelance contributor for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jaimewatt

It is time to polish our humanitarian brand in Canada

Posted on by

In an age of social media and intense global competition, “brand” has become more important than ever. While it was once the exclusive domain of consumer-focused companies, now individuals, organizations and nations alike have become acutely aware of the image they project and the benefits that come with successfully building brand equity.

Whatever you may be selling, branding is the alchemy that transforms a kernel of truth and a dash of exaggeration into gold.

Intellectually, we all understand that a certain toothpaste will not transform our social lives, but on a crowded shelf the brand that’s promoted will still be the one we reach for. The same phenomenon applies to countries. Branding has become an important way to promote that same shelf appeal, to attract foreign capital, top talent, jobs and corporate offices and tourists. If you happen to have a jaunty red maple leaf as a national logo, all the better.

The Trudeau Liberals have been, since their election, exceptionally savvy about national and international branding. They shrewdly played to the deep-rooted belief among Canadian voters that we are a kinder, gentler and more moral society than many others. They championed environmental standards, they spoke fervently about human rights, they pronounced on the imperative for gender equality.

Not only that, they generously gave other countries pointers on how to hold themselves to that Canadian standard of conduct.

One of the most obvious examples of that moral brand extension came in August when Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland used Twitter – in Arabic – to support Saudi activists at odds with the ruling monarchy. As tensions grew, the Canadian ambassador was withdrawn. Public demands by the Saudis for an apology were made and rejected. And the Liberals burnished Canada’s brand as a plucky and high-minded nation that punched above its weight.

All that has come to the fore again, as the mystery surrounding the disappearance of a Saudi journalist – and critic of the monarchy – has deepened. On Oct. 2, Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi embassy in Istanbul to complete some routine paperwork. He has not been seen since.

The international concern about his fate and the outrage at the likelihood that he is a victim of dire retribution, has certainly vindicated Canada’s early stand against an increasingly bold autocracy.

But here’s where the varnish starts to chip: The values that underpin our national brand are not consistent with finger-wagging diplomacy and impassioned rhetoric about the importance of human rights.

Indeed, our own sense of our brand is at odds with reality – and with the perceptions of others. When the Canadian government – first the Conservatives and then the Liberals – agreed to sell armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, they unequivocally forfeited the moral high ground. Sure, they were described first as “trucks” by former prime minister Stephen Harper and later as “jeeps” by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but that deliberate trivialization only makes it worse. The Saudis know that perfectly well and, frankly, so does everyone else.

This is not going to be a one-time news story. Rather it is going to be an issue as Canada’s campaign to join the 2021 UN Security Council ramps up. The effort is already underway, skilfully led by Canada’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Marc-André Blanchard. Given our sense of own brand, Canada should be a strong contender. But remember what happened last time we tried for this prize. Portugal left us in their dust.

And now, we’re competing for a coveted spot with Norway and Ireland, two smaller and quieter countries with less brand equity but perhaps more authentic clout. For all our posturing, the reality is that Norway is a far more generous foreign aid donor (spending one per cent of GDP compared with Canada’s 0.26 per cent) and Ireland has twice as many peacekeepers in the field as Canada.

Just another example of the complexities that middle powers face when trying to give life to their brand and their values in a big, old, complicated and cross pressured world.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Justin Trudeau’s fortunes have changed as provincial Liberal allies fall

Posted on by

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau looks at the political landscape across the country, he must be reminded of just how true is the political axiom that time is your enemy.

When he won a majority mandate just two years ago, the country was in the midst of what could best be described as a love affair with the Liberal Party. Governing in seven provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, the prime minister saw friendly, ideologically aligned colleagues virtually everywhere he looked.

What’s more, things were about to get better. Two more Progressive Conservative governments would soon fall in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador.

And even if some of those provincial governments had only loose ties to their federal cousins, shared voter bases provided more than enough incentive for everyone to play nicely in the sandbox.

It allowed the federal government to move quickly with minimal pushback on a variety of policy issues. Notably, the government’s commitment to carbon pricing received only a murmur of dissent from the provinces. Issues that have caused great acrimony with provinces in the past, such as health care transfers and immigration levels, caused little more than a peep.

No one, it seems, was going to say boo to this mouse.

For many conservatives, it represented a nadir for the movement in this country. After all, try as he might, Brad Wall, the only right-leaning premier left, could only do so much.

How times do change.

Quebec’s election on Monday evening of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) became just the most recent example of a remarkable shift in Canadian politics over the last two years.

CAQ is now the newest party to come to power eager to fight with the federal government. CAQ is particularly concerned about immigration levels and the federal government’s lack of control over our border, but Premier-elect François Legault is also gearing up for a fight with the federal government over the use of religious garb in official governmental positions.

Other fronts have opened, too. Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives have joined a lawsuit with Saskatchewan to fight the federal carbon tax plan, a fight that Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has promised to join.

Just last week, the Progressive Conservatives, led by businessman Blaine Higgs, bested rising-star Liberal Premier Brian Gallant and his government in New Brunswick. Higgs, too, has complained of the federal government’s overreach on multiple issues and has vowed to fight the carbon tax.

And there is more to come.

Alberta’s leader of the United Conservative Party, and a former Trudeau foe in Ottawa, Jason Kenney, looks set to join the insurrection when the province’s election is held this coming spring.

And trouble doesn’t just lurk on the right: British Columbia elected a New Democratic government last year that has fought with the federal government over the establishment of a pipeline in the province.

It is an ominous scene for a federal government that has prided itself on calming rocky provincial-federal relationships. For a government that has branded itself as a unifying one, it is a new world to have so many fronts open on so many key battlegrounds.

So far, the federal government has done little to tamp down the fight. Premier Ford, in particular, seems to enjoy fighting the federal government on any number of fronts: from the carbon tax to refugee politics to Toronto City Council, the premier seems happy to thumb his nose at a government he sees as deeply out-of-touch with Ontarians.

Ford will soon be joined by Kenney, who is a savvy political operator with a bone to pick with the prime minister. The two together will cause headaches for Trudeau in the run-up to his re-election campaign.

While the other premiers will perhaps not be so bold or so loud, they have indicated that they are far more willing than their recent predecessors to stand with the bucking provincial governments than with Ottawa.

Perhaps, in their own funny way, they are uniters after all.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Trudeau will benefit on NAFTA regardless of outcome

Posted on by

The more things change, the more they stay the same. In spite of the acute attention paid to the ongoing negotiations week after week, the NAFTA narrative remains fundamentally the same: meetings take place, another “all-nighter” makes headlines, and so-called deadlines evaporate into thin air.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s talking points haven’t changed much either. We possibly will make the end of week deadline. We are in intensive negotiations. We are not negotiating in public. No NAFTA deal is better than a bad NAFTA deal.

Everyone knows the issues on the table: concessions on dairy, cultural exemptions, softwood lumber and, most critically, the dispute resolution mechanism.

It’s not possible to overstate the importance of NAFTA to our country’s future economic prosperity. It’s a vital agreement that has fuelled growth, created jobs and generated opportunities that wouldn’t otherwise exist.

The American market being open to Canadian firms has benefited us to a degree that is hard to grasp — and for it to close would be deeply damaging. For all those reasons, the long-term political cost of failing to reach a deal would be devastating for any political party.

But with an election less than 400 days away, the short-term political landscape is quite another matter.

The Liberals stand in an envious position: no matter the result of the negotiations, they stand to benefit with voters.

If Canada signs a deal before the 2019 election, Trudeau will be able to campaign across the country celebrating the virtues of his agreement — secured economic prosperity through a wider selection of goods, increased trade, new jobs and the freer movement of professionals and investors across the border.

No matter what the specifics of a negotiated trade pact are, the prime minister can — and will — proudly boast about his accomplishment in successfully negotiating a “Canada-friendly” deal against the erratic, America-first, deal master himself. It will be a feather in his government’s cap — one that has few tangible results to point to three years into its term.

Without a deal, the narrative changes, but it can still easily be spun to the benefit of the Trudeau and the Liberal party.

A failure to get a NAFTA deal opens the door for a federal election fought on how to contend with the current American administration. President Donald Trump’s fans in Canada are few and far between. The president is widely disliked, and when the Liberals have been positioned as counter to the president, their poll numbers have increased.

Should there be no deal, suddenly, the next federal election will become a referendum on Trudeau’s handling of Trump, an issue that Trudeau can own. It will be challenging for Scheer and the Conservatives to campaign against the Liberals when they position themselves as standing up to a bully that many Canadians scorn.

It is important to recall that Trump is using the trade talks as an election tool, too.

An election campaign focused on NAFTA and the unpredictable U.S. president will shield Trudeau and his party from domestic questions that don’t have easy answers — from pipelines to Indigenous issues to spiralling deficits.

Practically, this means it is unlikely that Canada will get a bad deal on NAFTA.

There is little incentive for this government to sign a bad deal — one that simply exposes the government heading into the next election.

Why sign a deal that angers the dairy industry in Quebec? The Liberals know they are vulnerable to Andrew Scheer in rural Quebec.

Why sign a deal that dismantles the dispute mechanism that has benefited Canadian interest time after time?

Why sign a deal that weakens Canada’s cultural industries at a time when our culture is under threat?

The prime minister is in a politically enviable position — regardless of whether he gets a deal or not. Ironically, that means that he is better positioned in negotiations with the United States, too.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Tory divide a painful lesson not learned by all

Posted on by

Ask any Canadian conservative about federal politics during the mid-’90s, and you will be met with a grimace. Just when right-of-centre provincial parties were making substantial headway across the country, the Reform, Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties were insisting on a futile battle for voter support that saw them languish in second, third or even fourth place.

Forming government became a distant dream as Jean Chrétien’s Liberals piled up victory after victory. The Liberals, powered by a divided conservative vote, won dozens of seats. They were able to dominate the federal landscape with the slimmest of pluralities.

The frustration of the divide eventually convinced partisans of its futility and intra-family reconciliation became sensible. Stephen Harper and Peter Mackay led a coalition of the willing into a united party that has proven successful: since the re-unification of the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance, the Liberals have won only one majority government in five elections, and one slim minority.

It was a difficult and sometimes painful lesson. But now it seems it wasn’t a lesson learned by all.

Maxime Bernier has long been a unique character in the Conservative Party of Canada.

One of the Conservative party’s first Quebec members of Parliament, Bernier is a dedicated libertarian who has not always followed party orthodoxy and who ran afoul of Prime Minister Harper more than once.

Bernier, who lost the leadership of the federal Conservative party to Scheer by the slimmest of margins, has spent the last year chafing at the constraints of party discipline. As the year has dragged on, he has grown bolder and bolder with his comments, criticizing the direction of the party more loudly and publicly with each passing week.

Finally, the inevitable happened: Bernier announced that he could no longer sit as a member of the caucus, and that he would be forming his own party, the People’s Party.

Although Bernier’s party reflects his ideological leanings, his intention was clearly to poach from the Conservative base. Out of the gate, Bernier has criticized Andrew Scheer directly on a range of issues.

From Scheer’s commitment to maintaining the unfair dairy supply management system to his comparatively light-handed criticism of Canada’s refugee crisis, Bernier tacked right and did everything he could to position Scheer as a mushy moderate.

Such positioning may have worked in the 1990s with partisans, but the reaction to Bernier’s split among Conservatives was anything but warm. Joined by not a single member of caucus or high-profile Conservative party member, Bernier was left trumpeting that he was the voice for “the people.”

Let me not discount Mr. Bernier here: he is not wrong that there is a significant chunk of Canadian citizens who are frustrated with many of the issues he is championing. There remains a deep well of frustration on the same hot-button issues that got Mr. Trump elected.

What I would caution is that conservatives, both partisans and every-day voters with right-wing values, remember with great frustration the decade spent in the wilderness under a split conservative vote.

When the Reform party undercut the incumbent Progressive Conservative Party so effectively, it was because to a large extent it was able to exploit a significant feeling of alienation among western Canadians with the clarion call “the West wants in.”

The same mood does not exist today. What’s more, the Conservative Party’s most recent decade in power left many partisans satisfied with its advances. And its new leader is a conservative that is deeply familiar with the party membership’s values.

It’s not 1993. Mr. Bernier’s party is not going to take off merely by undercutting the Conservatives. Indeed, if his party is to find any success, it will rely upon scooping up votes of dissatisfied Liberals and Bloquistes in addition to disaffected Conservatives.

More likely than anything? Mr. Bernier’s party will fizzle, much as his parliamentary career did.

He has taken the first step, but that may well have been the easiest one.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.