Navigator logo

It’s time for Canada to cut its ties with the monarchy

Canada has changed and the time has come for our relationship with the Crown to change with it.

No, I don’t mean the estimated £100 million the coronation is expected to cost British taxpayers, nor the nearly $60 million the Crown costs Canadians each year.

Rather, I mean the numbers on King Charles’ popularity here in Canada.

They’re not pretty, nor do I believe they are fleeting. A recent Angus Reid poll found that 60 per cent of respondents opposed recognizing Charles as King of Canada. Only 28 per cent had a favourable view of him. Given that only 9 per cent of Canadians are even looking forward to the greatest show on earth — his coronation — even that spectacle is unlikely to meaningfully improve his popularity.

And so, like any relationship where awkward conversations are delayed, Canadians need to have an adult conversation about the monarchy’s role in our country.

Now, I don’t need to be lectured on the many arguments for retaining our ties with the House of Windsor. In a previous life, I was convinced. I grew up an Anglican. I was an active monarchist. I believed in the important role the Crown played in the history of our young country.

And, I absolutely admired Elizabeth II, truly the greatest exemplar of service before self in recent memory. Her omnipresence, throughout my entire life, was a source of comfort and continuance.

But Canada has changed and the time has come for our relationship with the Crown to change with it. And as we look at that change, there are, of course, parts of the relationship worth preserving, first among them is our relationship with the Commonwealth.

On this matter, Elizabeth was ahead of her time. She understood, innately, that her realm was transforming and that the Commonwealth was the most effective way to “keep the best and change the rest.”

That’s sound advice. And, as Canadians, we ought to apply it to our current circumstance. After all, we’re at an inflection point and there’s plenty worth changing.

Here’s why.

First, those damning numbers on Charles’ popularity are only likely to get worse. As we say in politics, there’s no path to victory for Charles. There would seem to be no publicity stunts left for him. No sustainability endeavours. No speeches extolling the advantages of wool. No, there seems to be nothing left that can win over new Canadian hearts, especially the hearts of new Canadians.

And perhaps this truth has already dawned on him. While Charles brags that he’s paid 18 official visits to Canada over 50 years, his first out-of-country trip was not to Canada — or any other Commonwealth country for that matter — but to Germany (after France cancelled).

Which brings me to my second reason.

Since the last coronation in 1953, obviously our nation has fundamentally changed. We’re larger, stronger and more diverse. As a people, we are more committed to, and proud of, being a ‘mosaic and not a melting pot’ than we are our new King.

But can we actually believe that furthering our collective cohesion is best achieved by, among other things, asking millions of new citizens and public servants to swear an oath of allegiance to a 74-year-old white man imbued with mythical powers? Do we really need to be reminded what century we’re living in?

Of course, it will be an enormous challenge for Canada to cast off the monarchy. And a good argument can be made that that time would be better spent fighting inflation, fixing the challenges in our health care system and ensuring we keep our commitments to our allies, who do more to defend us than we do to defend them.

But, again, the same rules apply as in any personal relationship. There is never a good time to leave. Always one more Christmas. One more family event. But the truth is sometimes one party just outgrows the other and it comes time to leave.

That time is now.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on April 30, 2023.

READ MORE >

Fox News settlement: a greater blow to media accountability than to Fox itself

Much like a joyrider paying a speeding ticket, Fox has been forced to cough up — but won’t for one second consider slowing down.

As the world now knows, Fox News has settled with the Canadian firm Dominion Voting Systems for a jaw dropping $787 million — that’s real U.S. dollars, not our dollerettes.

Justice is served! Truth in reporting lives on!

But as the propaganda machine appeared to sputter, a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction emerged.

Sure, the gargantuan settlement says all that needs to be said about Fox’s culpability in this tawdry affair. But does it represent a genuine admission of guilt? A sincere expression of real remorse? Or is it simply a cynical, strategic corporate tactic to avoid devastating — perhaps even fatal — public humiliation?

I don’t think there is any doubt about the answer to those questions. It’s the latter. Much like a joyrider paying a speeding ticket, Fox has been forced to cough up — but won’t for one second consider slowing down.

Even if justice was served this time out, it was at the expense of truth.

To be sure, the payment is a bitter pill. But, for Fox News, it’s a necessary one. Why? Because to survive Fox must hold that remarkable spell it has cast over its audience. And these legal proceedings represented an existential challenge that threatened to break the spell. That’s because the proceedings threatened to give viewers a never-before-seen peak behind the curtain; one that revealed how that spell was created — and, crucially, sustained.

The network’s lawyers were, like greyhounds at the slip, eager to defend their client. Their strategy was simple: drag Fox’s alternate reality into the courtroom and argue that it was reasonable for Fox to take Trump and his attorneys at their word. After all, they would argue, Team Trump continually assured the network there was evidence to support claims of election fraud. This narrative would absolve Fox of any responsibility, the argument would go, as they were merely treating the president as a reliable source.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on April 23, 2023.

READ MORE >

Democrats can fight fire with fire by choosing Jon Stewart as their leader

What begins as a whisper will rise to a shout. What starts as a tepid suggestion will graduate into an alluring exhortation.

Wait for it, because here it comes: Democrats across the United States will call for comedian and TV personality Jon Stewart to run for their party’s nomination in 2024.

Don’t believe me? It’s started already.

Last month, a tweet about his prospective candidacy amassed a million views in only one day. Even well-known disc jockey Howard Stern is joining the chorus. A couple of weeks ago, he used his platform to urge Stewart to run, claiming that he “owes it to his country.”

Appeals for the former “Daily Show” host to run for office are nothing new. They’ve arisen before. Each time, he has summarily shut them down.

So a reality check. I take Stewart at his word.

That said, I am sure calls for him to run will grow far stronger as the campaign draws closer. Crucially, these calls represent a clear, urgent message: Democratic voters want, no make that need, a fighter in 2024.

Why a fighter? Two reasons.

First, in politics, when you are most discontent, you turn to your best fighter, your rhetorical gunslinger. And conservative courts have given American progressives plenty of reason to be raging mad.

Earlier this month, a Texas judge ruled in favour of a Christian advocacy group that asked the court to reverse the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a pill (taken in concert with other medications) that induces abortions. At the time of writing, it’s a move that sets the stage for the pill to be banned nationwide.

Moreover, last week Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation that would ban most abortions after six weeks in Florida. This is not Margaret Atwood’s imagined Gilead, but a real one. Justifiably, alarm bells are ringing. The outrage is rising.

These are but two examples. There are plenty of others. But the larger point is one that the Trump phenomenon illustrated all too well in 2016: When voters are angry, they go with the candidate who channels that anger best.

For American moderates and progressives, that individual, bar none, is Jon Stewart. With an impressive legacy spanning over two decades, Stewart has relentlessly laid waste to media figures and politicians on the American right, skilfully calling out their hypocrisies with passion and humour.

Secondly, Democrats will have to confront the reality that their presidential candidate, whoever it is, will likely need to face off against, believe it, Donald Trump on the debate stage.

It won’t be ideal if that candidate needs the assistance of an oxygen mask to reach the podium. It might be even more disastrous if, in response to Trump’s jabs, all he can manage is “C’mon man!”

While Trump can nickname him Sleazeball Stew, the fact remains that Stewart possesses tenacity that Trump has never before faced on the debate stage, enabling Democrats to — at last — fight fire with fire. He is for moderates, what Tucker Carlson is to MAGA supporters, if Carlson was a scrappy New Yorker ready to rage against the machine with a razor-sharp intellect and rapier-like wit.

So while it remains highly doubtful that Stewart will run in 2024, here’s the wider, more significant, picture. By packing courts across the land with right-wing lunatics, the Republican Party may well have dug its own grave heading into 2024.

That’s why many think Joe Biden has it in the bag. I see things slightly differently. While I agree Democrats are in the pole position, the painful truth, but one that nonetheless must be heard, is that a geriatric candidate could seriously jeopardize that advantage.

What Biden ought to do is the responsible thing: pass the torch to the next generation.

The answer might not be Jon Stewart. But if the calls for him to run grow any louder, it could prove to be the wise choice.

Artemis II mission shows Canada has what it takes to be an innovation economy

It’s a startling thought that it’s been over half a century since Neil Armstrong and his fellow explorers bridged the lunar frontier in an event that captivated the world.

This week, as NASA prepares for its Artemis II mission — the first to carry humans around the moon since 1972 — it was announced that the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) will play a significant role, with Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen selected as one of its four crew members.

For members of my generation, the moon landing was a seminal moment. One that truly ushered in a new era. But the half-century since has seen few comparable, equally cinematic, or paradigm-shifting endeavours in outer space.

So, Artemis II, which promises to finally revisit this frontier, will be keenly anticipated. What’s more, Canadians will and should be proud that one of our own has been selected for such an important mission. As the prime minister noted, Hansen will be the first non-American to observe the full sphere of the Earth.

Canada has a proud history of space exploration, exemplified by none better than Marc Garneau, the first Canadian in space, long-time MP and former cabinet minister, who announced his retirement from Parliament earlier this year.

But our parliamentarians must realize another important lesson from this Canadian success story: Canada can, and should, punch above its weight. And when we do, it is good news because exploration and technology development have positive implications for two areas where Canada is badly lagging our peers: innovation and defence.

In both domains, we are only offering limp-wristed flails.

First, on innovation. The CSA has limited resources compared to other agencies, yet it holds a commanding presence on the International Space Station (ISS) and in the astronautical community. Incomprehensibly intricate robotic arms, developed by the CSA, are deployed on the ISS to conduct repairs and other automated tasks, and several Canadian aerospace companies are on the rise building rovers and other equipment to be used in future missions.

These examples can help signal to the world that Canada has what it takes to be an innovation economy. While the recent federal budget contained lots of talk about innovation, its disparate tax incentives are unlikely to make a meaningful difference in any specific industry or help grow and protect Canadian intellectual property. Further, we lack a national strategy to bolster private sector research and development spending.

Our success in space shows that R&D is essential to innovation, yet we continue to rank among the lowest of G7 and OECD peers in this regard.

Our defence capabilities are, frankly, even more embarrassing. This week, as Finland’s flag was raised at NATO headquarters in Belgium, we gained yet another multilateral ally who is willing to proportionately outspend us in shared defence commitments and do more to protect global rules-based interests.

Despite pressure after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine to step up to the plate, our defence spending remains well below the two per cent of GDP required by our commitment to NATO and is forecasted to only be 1.43 per cent by 2025. This is an indictment on our multilateral credentials and gives others good reason to consider us a pipsqueak.

Space is an important ingredient in improving our defence credentials. The war in Ukraine has highlighted, among other things, the growing consequence of satellites in warfare. It’s no secret that Russia and China have territorial ambitions in the Arctic and respectively have begun integrating satellite systems to increase their surveillance and navigation capabilities in the region. Unless we sharpen up and leverage our partnership with the Americans in aerospace to include greater defensive capabilities, we will be at severe risk.

Ultimately, this Canadian victory needs to propel ambition in other areas, namely innovation and defence. Canada’s presence on this historic mission shows the power of daring to dream. I hope it can motivate our politicians to unleash our capabilities for other critical policy imperatives.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on April 9, 2023.

READ MORE >

Why criminal charges against Donald Trump aren’t likely to help Ron DeSantis

Donald Trump carries a deep personal appeal for many millions of Americans. An appeal that not even criminal charges can or will erase.

Thank goodness. We can all stop worrying. Finally, we can sleep soundly at night.

A Manhattan grand jury has indicted Donald Trump.

Hallelujah.

Surely, that ought to do it. Surely, his spell over the MAGA horde has been broken. Surely, the Republican faithful will now see him for who he truly is and, collectively, turn away.

Yeah. Right. If only things were that easy. Sadly, they’re not. And Thursday night’s historic announcement means only one thing: the road ahead for American democracy just got a whole lot bumpier. Buckle up.

And yet, despite all the warranted hoopla — we should not forget there’s still an ongoing race for the Republican party’s presidential nomination. So the million-dollar question becomes: what impact will this latest development have?

Well, if you think these charges will do anything to dampen Trump’s support, think again. Even before charges were formally announced, Trump was effectively fundraising off just the threat of this legal action. But now that this threat has materialized and Trump’s victim narrative is approaching its climax, his devotees will be doing much more than opening their wallets.

Indeed, I believe that only if Trump is behind bars will he lose the Republican party’s nomination race. A race in which he faces one serious challenger: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Though he’s not formally declared his candidacy, DeSantis has distinguished himself in national and state-by-state polling as the lone player who can release Trump’s stranglehold over the GOP. With two new polls showing DeSantis running competitively in the key early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, pundits claimed his camp had strong reasons for optimism and hope — even weeks ago.

But here’s the rub: weeks ago, I’m pretty sure they were dead wrong. Dead wrong because DeSantis’s strategy left him with only one realistic road to victory — Donald Trump’s arrest and, crucially, conviction. So it’s only after this past week’s events that they might be somewhat correct.

Still, that strategy has been and is flawed in two fundamental respects.

First problem. With DeSantis, Trump is not taking any chances. Diving into his usual bag of tricks, he’s branded DeSantis a traitorous lackey. Both Trump and DeSantis understand their support significantly overlaps, but only Trump, thus far, has been willing to bet his is stronger. And it is. Meanwhile, DeSantis has, far from criticized Trump, only defended him.

Second problem. The greater one. To date, DeSantis’s sales pitch has amounted to this: I’m Trump, but without the baggage, and therefore more electable.

You need only consult the myriad documentary evidence of DeSantis plagiarizing Trump’s every move, to appreciate the pupil is copying his master. But it’s a political rule that when voters are presented with the choice between the real McCoy and a copycat, they’ll go for the genuine article — essentially every time.

It’s not because voters can’t imagine the alternative might be preferable. Instead, experience tells us voters go with what they know as opposed to what they don’t.

And this is where DeSantis and his strategy “Trumpism without Trump” crumbles. It fails to account for a truth that so many try and wish away: that Trump carries a deep personal appeal for many millions of Americans. An appeal that not even criminal charges can or will erase.

So, don’t get confused, the GOP is still the party of Trump. What better proof than the fact the sole realistic challenger to Trump is Trump-lite, the wannabe, the counterfeit? Indeed, so long as Trump is a free man and therefore a choice in the primaries, most Republicans will back the King, not the pretender to the throne.

However, if Trump’s candidacy goes up in legal flames, as it well might, DeSantis will be perfectly positioned as his heir apparent. But, in the meantime, no matter how much he practices in the mirror, the student won’t be dethroning the master any time soon.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on April 2, 2023.

READ MORE >