Category: Chairman’s Desk

Most FIFA scandals don’t last longer than a news cycle, simply because no one is surprised anymore. Bribes, rigged bids, a made-up “FIFA Peace Prize” for President Donald Trump. If you tried to keep a timeline, you’d need a spreadsheet and some extra strength Tylenol.

This latest mess, however, is worth pulling from the pile. It shows the specific ire that awaits elected officials who breach the public’s trust. From decades in crisis communications, I know that if the fallout is handled poorly, recovery becomes completely out of reach.

For Canadians who may have stopped paying attention after our team’s knockout round loss to Morocco, let’s get up to speed. Soon after the tournament, news leaked that FIFA president Gianni Infantino secretly planned to sell a 20 per cent stake in the World Cup to private investors. Even high-ranking FIFA executives and advisers had been kept in the dark. Waiting in the wings was Thrive Capital, run by none other than Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Anyone who watched the public’s reaction to the East Wing’s demolition, or the plan to open up Ontario’s Greenbelt, or the abandoned sell-off of England’s public forests could guess what happened next.

The people roared.

Britain’s new Prime Minister Andy Burnham tore into Infantino’s plan on social media: “The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell.”

The idea is so ill-conceived that Infantino leaving out fellow FIFA executives starts to look less like a shocking reveal, and more like the crux of the problem. If they’d been at the table, they might have stopped him.

Instead, that fell to Europe, where member nations voted unanimously to boycott all future FIFA tournaments if the deal moved forward. Imagine a World Cup without Spain, France or England. FIFA shelved the plan and released a statement to acknowledge that “the process should have been handled differently.”

This is the type of nonapology that, rightfully, no one accepts. It failed to provide a clear explanation of what transpired behind closed doors or outline any corrective action. So, the narrative remained intact: This man tried to sell the soul of the beautiful game.

In an “open letter to the football family” three powerful governing bodies — UEFA, which runs soccer in Europe; CONCACAF, which covers North and Central America and the Caribbean; and the AFC, which governs the game across Asia — teamed up to take aim at Infantino. They called what he had done “a fundamental breach of trust” and in their sharpest attack said: “When trust is broken through deception, when an individual places himself above the collective that entrusted him with authority, that duty has been abandoned.”

Suddenly, Infantino’s stroll to re-election is a climb.

Infantino has since gone uncharacteristically quiet. I can remember a time when we’d advise a client to lay low until the storm blew over. That’s nonsense today, in a relentless media environment where silence reads as admission. Here in Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney says he has lost confidence in Infantino. So has the Canadian president of CONCACAF, Victor Montagliani, who co-signed the critical letter and could emerge as a unity candidate when FIFA’s 211 member nations vote in March.

Infantino hasn’t backed down. He’s circling the wagons. Powerful voting members including Mexico and Argentina still support his re-election bid, as does the Confederation of African Football. This is important because nothing builds credibility faster than having respected, independent voices speak out on your behalf. Such voices matter in a crisis. Then, there’s Trump’s.

The U.S. president declared on social media that it would be “a terrible mistake” to remove Infantino. “He is fantastic … If he is gone, [the World Cup] will never be as successful or profitable again!” All this served to do was remind people that Trump personally called Infantino to get the red card against Team USA’s Folarin Balogun overturned.

Whether or not Infantino keeps his job, this latest FIFA scandal is the one that should keep elected officials up at night. A breach of trust will grab the public’s attention and not let go, even in the dog days of summer.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s careful march to a majority has reached the coda. With three byelections set for Aug. 31, the Liberals can put to rest the rumblings about their majority status and earn the halo of legitimacy.

These byelections are about both seats and symbolism because of the unprecedented way Carney came to have a majority in the first place: five floor-crossings and a trio of byelection wins. Never before has a Canadian government leapt from minority to majority status outside of a general election. While impressive as a political act, the patchwork approach invited skepticism, even hostility. Is this a true majority government, or a sleight of hand?

Now, voters in the three ridings up for grabs — North Vancouver—Capilano in B.C.; Beaches — East York in Ontario; and Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in Quebec — can clearly survey the political landscape and deliver a verdict. They will either endorse Carney’s hold on power or pull back on the reins. Importantly, in the Conservative-held Quebec riding, they will deliver a verdict by not only choosing a winner, but a loser.

Carney has been clever

First, though, it must be said that the prime minister has been clever about all of this. The chessboard is set.

Carney called the three byelections for the dog days of summer. He only needs to win one to retain his majority and the two in Ontario and B.C. are Liberal strongholds. In B.C., he’s running his own former deputy chief of staff Braeden Caley, capitalizing on that level of experience and Carney’s own popularity.

In Toronto, he nixed the Billy Bishop airport expansion that might have sent left-leaning voters into the waiting arms of the NDP. Carney opted to not yet call a byelection to fill a fourth vacant seat, Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot-Acton in southwest Quebec.

So, over the next month, the Liberals will be free to focus their resources on the real prize: Chicoutimi–Le Fjord, the Quebec seat Conservative MP Richard Martel recently vacated when Carney offered him a Senate appointment. The polling shows the Quebec riding is a three-way toss-up between the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Carney’s Liberals think they can take it, leapfrogging from their third-place finish in the 2025 election.

If they’re right, they’ll return to Ottawa in September with even more swagger than when they left in June. Such a victory would be a clear signal of how big they’ve built their tent, turning a blue seat red despite Carney’s shaky French.

The flip side is what it will mean if the Conservatives lose the seat — whether to the Liberals or to the Bloc. It would be the latest rebuke of Pierre Poilievre’s leadership and send Conservative MPs searching for whatever level of morale is below rock bottom.

The number of Conservatives who think Poilievre can lead them to victory is shrinking. The byelections could prove to be a turning point for more in-depth conversations about who might lead them next, and how that person could capitalize on an opening when it comes.

Liberals in power 14 years

The next federal election is set for the fall of 2029. Donald Trump will be gone from office — setting aside all bluster of a third term. Canadians will check their calendars and see the Liberals will have been in power for 14 years, even longer than the Jean Chrétien-Paul Martin streak of 12.

Conservatives would do well to remember they can look beyond the rank-and-file to choose who leads them. Perhaps they should try fishing in a pond bigger than their caucus room. Canada is full of impressive people who haven’t (yet) entered politics and as Carney has shown, that can be a good thing.

So, look around. Size up who is doing big things in business or philanthropy or elsewhere and might want to serve their country at the highest level. Start a conversation with Fiona McKean, John Ruffalo, Linda Hasenfratz, or Arlene Dickinson.

What Poilievre’s tenure has taught us is that, for better or worse, voters notice how a politician makes them feel. The Conservatives need someone who can expand the tent, and make a diverse coalition feel welcome at the table. Then, the party can start to imagine its own march to a majority.

No matter how many photographs you’ve seen of Jasper, Alberta, after the wildfire, nothing prepares you for the extent of the devastation. It simply silences you. Sadly, I speak from recent experience.

Picture this. You’re driving up what many say is the most beautiful road in the world, Alberta’s Highway 93. There are bears, mountain goats not to be confused with mountain sheep and elk feeding on lush vegetation.

Then you turn toward Jasper and, suddenly, you’re in the middle of the apocalypse. There are charred trees as far as the eye can see because after the wildfire broke out two years ago on July 22, 2024, it raced through so fast it didn’t burn the trees all the way to the ground. They are still standing, a haunting reminder that Canada’s wildfire crisis isn’t going anywhere.

Canadians know this and it frightens them. The Fort McMurray fire was 10 years ago. Slave Lake burned 15 years ago. Yet the federal government has responded with half-measures, moving much slower than the pace of climate change itself. Our country has been hit with back-to-back-to-back record-breaking wildfire seasons in 2023, 2024, and 2025. And, as I write this column, looking out my window in downtown Toronto the sky has been turned a frighting surreal colour that ought to exist in a science fiction film not in nature caused by fires burning in Northwestern Ontario.

So far, Prime Minister Mark Carney has shown himself willing to fund a visible, deployable wildfire response. This summer, Canada leased 10 new aerial firefighting aircraft. Having them on-call is a meaningful step to support the country’s surge capacity.

But as I wrote in this newspaper two summers ago, there are not enough water bombers in the world to extinguish all the fires that start burning in what has come to be called “wild fire season.”

So what’s the answer to Canada’s wildfire crisis: Stop the fires before they start. And this requires a different approach altogether: structural change. One that’s never been government’s forte. But it just might be Prime Minister Carney’s.

This is the prime minister who removed federal barriers to internal trade and created a fast-track mechanism to approve “nation-building” projects. Who told Canadians that, “hope isn’t a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy.”

What Carney must do is take heed of the 15 recommendations in the recent Senate report “Canada on Fire.” They are thoughtful, thorough, and timely — the Upper Chamber at its finest. The central recommendation is that Canada must create a federal co-ordinating office for wildfires and emergency response, modelled after those in the United States and the United Kingdom, among others.

Some Canadians might bristle at the creation of another new government body. However, the status quo means Canada’s provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous communities and governments are not working in sync.

The Senators heard from people who know that this lack of co-ordination is directly tied to delayed response times, inconsistent planning, uneven access to equipment and personnel, and a system that mobilizes only once disaster is already underway.

What Ottawa should take away from the report is that inaction has had consequences; but it’s not too late to make headway. Canada should establish a national wildfire hazard mapping program like it has to predict droughts and floods. It should also create a national reforestation strategy.

Critically, it must consult Indigenous communities, who have deep knowledge and expertise in fire management. Indigenous firefighting forces should be supported and expanded.

Typically, after a crisis like the Jasper wildfire, people expect accountability. They have questions and demand answers. Did you determine what happened and do something about it? Did you hold someone accountable? Did you make everyone whole? Did you review your policies to make sure they were sufficiently robust? Are you certain this is not part of a pattern? Today, the government gets a failing grade on most of these points.

Now, there is some good news. Jasper is coming back to life. The rebuilding of the commercial core is well underway. New businesses have opened their doors. There are new sprouts of green dotting the landscape. Nature is doing what nature does.

You could spin this as a hopeful story — but it should never have happened in the first place.

Ottawa has until December to respond formally to the Senate’s June report. There has been no indication yet whether the federal co-ordination centre is being considered.

Carney must make good on his promise to do things differently. This is no time for a piecemeal approach. The Senate called for the government to act at “the speed of the crisis.” That’s exactly how we can change course and avert further disasters.

Let’s thank U.S. President Donald Trump for one thing. As Ottawa launches a national competition to restore 24 Sussex Drive, the White House renovations are a lesson in what not to do. A master class, really.

Trump is building to glorify himself. The “goldening” of the Oval Office, the transformation of the Rose Garden into a Mar-a-Lago-style patio designed to please one man alone. Canada’s plan, by contrast, is to build in the national interest.

The new home of Canada’s prime ministers should be dignified, inspiring, and equal to this moment. This is a generational opportunity to build a residence by Canadians, for Canadians. That it comes at a time when our sovereignty is under threat from a hostile neighbour is not incidental. It is the point.

While minds seem set on rehabilitating the existing property, I see things differently. The residence has been sitting vacant for 10 years. The best thing you can say about the place is that they’ve gotten rid of the asbestos, mould, and rodents. Any renovation is going to creep closer to a major construction project.

So let’s start fresh — tear down what stands and build a new home from the ground up.

Naysayers might retort that you’d never tear down the White House or 10 Downing Street. But these aren’t apples-to-apples comparisons. Americans are rightly aghast at Trump’s destruction of the East Wing because it was purpose-built for the nation. The house at 24 Sussex has a different history — not as long or storied as many assume.

Think of Wilfrid Laurier and William Lyon Mackenzie King — giants from our history books who lived somewhere else entirely, at Laurier House in Sandy Hill. Laurier, who once imagined this country as a great cathedral — “I want the marble to remain the marble; the granite to remain the granite; the oak to remain the oak; and out of these elements, I would build a nation great among the nations of the world” — never set foot in 24 Sussex as prime minister. Because 24 Sussex was built in the 1860s as a private residence, a wedding gift from a logging baron for his new bride.

In the 1940s, the federal government expropriated the riverfront property — then couldn’t decide what to do with it. The house slowly degraded in limbo. (Sound familiar?) Finally, in 1950, work began to strip it down to the studs. It was renovated, remodelled, redecorated. The final product would have been unrecognizable to the logging baron and his wife.

Only 10 prime ministers have called 24 Sussex home, from Louis St. Laurent to Stephen Harper. Guests in the later years noticed plastic film on the windows, a sad attempt to keep out the winter draft. The cold crept in anyway.

Ask young Canadians to picture the prime minister’s home and they’ll likely recall Justin Trudeau giving COVID-19 updates in front of Rideau Cottage. The world has moved on.

The property itself, though, is something else entirely. There is no need to change the address. Two hectares overlooking the Ottawa River and the Gatineau Hills, where the landscape opens up and the country itself seems to breathe. Moshe Safdie, the celebrated architect who will chair the jury for the new design competition, called it precisely right: “It’s an extraordinary site with extraordinary potential. Something wonderful can be developed here.” With the right design, this can be a home worthy of the office it serves — and of the nation that office represents.

A few guidelines: the new 24 Sussex must meet modern needs, including a security perimeter and generous reception capacity. The ground floor should be public space, open for tours, showcasing Canadian art and design. The upper floor should be the prime minister’s living quarters — reconfigurable to suit different families.

Canada’s architects are ready. Pressuring them to work within the confines of an existing 19th-century structure would be a dead weight on their imaginations. Cast it away. Consider what happens when someone like Hariri Pontarini is set free: gems like the Tom Patterson Theatre in Stratford and Casey House in Toronto emerge — buildings that feel both rooted in this country and alive to its possibilities.

Getting this right will bolster national pride at a moment when we are seeking to redefine ourselves in a new world order. Renovation is a compromise with the wrong priorities. Build a new home that showcases a new Canada — one that is, as our anthem has always promised us, strong and free.

Graduates crossing the stage this June will be met with hugs, high-fives and a whole lot of hand-wringing.

Much ink has been spilled over their uncertain future. The caricature looks something like this: a generation hunched over their phones, doom-scrolling past stories of rising global temperatures and falling employment prospects. Their degrees hanging in their parents’ house, because they can’t afford one themselves.

But spend an afternoon with an actual graduating class and the gap between this dominant narrative and the people in front of you is striking. On Friday, I celebrated as 800 young people received their degrees from OCAD University, where I serve as chancellor. On that day, I shook hands with the future.

The path they follow won’t be linear. Because it’ll be better than that. Exciting. Surprising. Rewarding. Guaranteed. But not linear.

No ordinary generation

What the consensus view gets wrong is that this is no ordinary generation. These students were just weeks into their university studies when ChatGPT publicly launched, in November 2022. If anyone has seen things change fast and learned to adapt, it’s them.

Furthermore, they’ve never taken stability for granted. After all, Donald Trump has been the U.S. president for one-quarter of their lives. Piling our own fears and anxieties about the future onto these young people is not only tone-deaf, but actively harmful and tremendously unfair.

A trend that emerged over this spring’s convocation season is illustrative. Across the United States, graduating students booed guest speakers who took the stage and opined about the transformative power of artificial intelligence.

In one viral video, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was jeered when he said, “It will touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital, every laboratory, every person and every relationship you have.”

In another ceremony, students booed the CEO of Big Machine Records, Scott Borchetta, when he told them that what they learned during their first year might already be obsolete. Borchetta doubled down: “Deal with it.”

A room of 22-year-olds refusing to nod along when a corporate leader speaks isn’t a generation that’s checked out. It’s a generation that demands to be taken seriously. It’s a generation that intends to grab the microphone.

The reason I think they’re ready is, in part, because of what I described in my own convocation address as artistic intelligence — to distinguish it from the other kind.

There are three things I want the Class of 2026 to remember about themselves as they begin this next chapter:

• First, they have a viewpoint. A position. That’s different from a machine, which does not have stakes in the world, things it needs to say, problems it needs to solve in its own life.
• Second, they are thoughtful and answerable for their choices in a way no machine ever could be.
• And third, they are growing. They will pursue careers over decades. No machine can match the cumulative wisdom that comes from the successes — and failures — of all those years.

What you’ll find is that today’s hiring managers are looking for something that can’t be machine-generated — the judgment, the process, the four years of learning to think these graduands have been fortunate to acquire.

As a country, when we actively root for our youth, it helps to dull some of the negativity they’re inevitably picking up elsewhere — in headlines about mass layoffs or crippling housing prices or media portrayals of them as lost and alone.

Our new governor general, the Rt. Hon. Louise Arbour, got the tone exactly right at her installation ceremony earlier this month when she described young Canadians as true global citizens, well-educated, climate-aware and digitally fluent.

Surprise us

“Unlike the generations before you, you have at your disposal tools that didn’t exist when your parents were born. Surprise us.”

They almost certainly will.

Importantly, Arbour offered Canadians an unflinching assessment of the current situation; the kind she has built her career on: “[Not all youth] are able to reach their full potential as they face the headwinds of inequality. In that, we are failing them. It is our shared responsibility to correct course.”

The challenges the Class of 2026 face are not imaginary, but they are not insurmountable, either. And I am tremendously bullish on them. That’s why the onus is on us to set them up for success.

Then, we must get out of the way. Enough with the finger-wagging. They’ve got this.