Category: Chairman’s Desk

On the eve of a provincial election, the NDP were counting their losses. Many of their union members, particularly male workers, were not just flocking to the Progressive Conservatives but doing so in droves after the progressives had alienated them. Policies that had been designed to save public sector jobs ultimately did not represent their interests.

It’s ancient history now, but this story of the 1995 election showdown between then-NDP premier Bob Rae and PC leader Mike Harris could just as easily be the story of the 2022 Ontario election.

On the evidence, Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario have every reason to feel good about their prospects at this stage in the campaign. And one of the key reasons is they have done what few other conservative parties in this country could — win over organized labour.

To be sure, Ford hasn’t won over the entirety of the labour movement, something that would be sure to raise eyebrows among his base. But political observers should take note: Ford has chipped away at the labour establishment and swooped in to win the support of construction unions slighted by the previous Liberal government. The result? A powerful new political coalition.

At the time of writing, six labour unions — the electrical workers, the boilermakers, the painters, the pipefitters, the sheet metal worker and, of course, the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) — have all endorsed Ford.

Together, these unions hold a combined membership of over 50,000 workers. To put that in perspective, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, Ontario’s most prominent teachers’ union, represents about 78,000 members.

This is Ford’s second LIUNA endorsement. After he took office, he never took that 2018 endorsement for granted. Rather, he immediately set to work consolidating his relationship with the union. As a result, the relationship has blossomed ever since, and served as a stepping stone to deepening connections with other labour groups in the construction sector.

Ford also worked to rebalance the scales between workers and employers by improving working conditions for Ontario’s blue-collar and low-wage workers, from Uber drivers to dishwashers, especially in the wake of a global pandemic that exposed how critical these positions are — and how we undervalue them.

To do so, Ford abandoned a number of traditional “red meat” conservative policies. His government raised the general minimum wage, guaranteed digital platform workers the tips they earned and enshrined their protection from reprisal. Ford then went on to adopt progressive policies like the right to disconnect, and washroom rights for truck drivers and delivery workers.

The Ford government also invested in skills development, giving labour unions the funding to train and upskill workers. In 2022 alone, his government earmarked $1.2 billion in skills training, with portions of that funding going directly to unions like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Ontario Pipe Trades Council, LIUNA and others.

In the new labour divide between remote work and essential work, Ford has made clear where he stands.

And that’s the key: the simplicity of Ford’s message of “yes.” Contrast that with NDP Leader Andrea Horwath’s messages around cancelling highway projects and reversing cuts to gas taxes, and guess whose message really resonates with union members wondering where their next paycheque is coming from?

The transformation has been as spectacular as it has been stark. Teachers, nurses and pipefitters no longer see eye to eye on the progressive agenda. Not all, to be sure, but elements of organized labour have now divorced themselves from the left and its traditional ideological home, embracing Ford’s PCs and their populist appeal to the working class in the process.

Ford’s efforts should serve as a model for other conservative politicians who often find they have to struggle to build a winning coalition. Ford has demonstrated that the untraditional pairing of conservative politics and labour unions has the power to fundamentally reshape the political landscape.

Two weeks ago in these pages, I cautioned readers not to look away from pending (and in some cases already implemented) legislation in U.S. states that undermines the rights of LGBTQ Americans.

Now, social progress in America has been dealt another, potentially far more catastrophic, blow. A leaked draft opinion from the country’s conservative-dominated Supreme Court indicates its intention to reverse half a century of legal precedent and the codified right to an abortion.

Lots will get lost amidst the noise and the furor brought about by this unprecedented leak. But again, do not look away; focus on just what’s at stake. The language and reasoning in the leaked opinion reveals a sinister and deliberately vague repudiation of progressive causes, one that we have no reason to believe won’t have implications beyond abortion rights.

In fact, it confirms something that many of us feared to be true: social progress is never truly safe and arguments we thought may be legally benched will rear their ugly heads the second their proponents are given a chance.

Hopes, including my own, that Donald Trump’s presidency would be remembered merely as an innocuous and largely inconsequential historical blip have been proven wrong, beyond doubt. Rather, the court that Trump loaded with socially conservative justices now threatens to reignite the most controversial and divisive issue in America in an ambiguously threatening way.

With the Trump-appointed justices in tow, it is the ultra-conservative Samuel Alito, appointed by George W. Bush, whose leaked draft provides a stark insight into this threat. In the draft, Alito declares the landmark Roe v. Wade decision “was egregiously wrong from the start … its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.” He also argues that the right to abortion has no constitutional criterion, nor is it “deeply rooted” in America’s “history and traditions.”

Whatever you think of abortion rights (for the record, I am strongly in favour of them), dismissing established legal precedent on the grounds that it has no root in distant tradition is alarming rhetoric. This should concern all those in favour of social progress and open debate. Worryingly, Alito is trying not only to renounce the logic and legal protections around abortion rights, but the very idea that “history and traditions” can and should be challenged as new realities develop and as historically marginalized groups find their voices.

Most concerning for me personally is, taken verbatim, these very arguments could be applied to another landmark Supreme Court decision: the one establishing the right to equal marriage. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in that case, has voiced similar fears, being “overwhelmed, scared and concerned about our nation and the rights that we enjoy.”

While Justice Alito was quick to dismiss suggestions that equal marriage might be next on his docket, the foreboding and archaic tone of his draft opinion suggests otherwise. Like abortion rights, it has been excluded from tradition and is not explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, a fact which leaves it vulnerable to attack and misrepresentation.

When Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, it was decided 7-2, with five Republican appointees in favour. Almost 50 years later it stands a real chance of being overturned by Republican appointees. As Trump loaded the court, alarm bells were sounded. But as is often the case with the “slippery slope” argument, its consequences seemed so far away that it was dismissed, just as Chicken Little was. But it now appears the slope was indeed slick, and this draft opinion demonstrates those concerns were well-placed.

Rights, no matter how established, are never immune to challenges or threats. Even though many rights have been won over decades or even centuries, their erosion starts in a creeping and incremental way — and can well end at whiplash speed. The cadence of this draft opinion provides all the confirmation you need.

Now that the starting gun for the provincial election has been fired, there is one thing we know to be true: the campaign will be defined by the affordability issue, and victory will go to the party Ontarians believe will ease the strain on their pocketbooks. With everyone in the province feeling the squeeze of higher prices, it is hardly surprising that our firm’s new research shows seven in 10 of us have identified the cost of living as the top election issue.

As a result, you can expect political leaders to zero in on this theme as they criss-cross the province on the election trail, taking advantage of an issue that plays out not just in increased household costs, but in the emotional toll those costs take on families everywhere.

It is foundational to political strategy that winning campaigns must promise a better tomorrow — one where people have the promise of hope for a sunnier day. Winning campaigns are the ones that convince voters that better days lie ahead and, in this election, “better” is framed around the affordability of daily life.

But the case for a better day needs to appeal to both our head and our hearts; often, it is the appeal to our hearts that prevails. Just ask former British prime minister David Cameron how brutal it can be when that’s underestimated. Cameron learned that very lesson the hard way when his “rational” referendum campaign, based on the economic benefits of remaining in the EU, was upended by Brexit.

Interestingly in this election campaign, this leading issue actually transcends narrow, traditional ideological boundaries and provides opportunities for each of the parties. What’s more, across the board, several other major policy areas like housing — the third-most prominent issue according to our research — are related to the cost of living.

It became clear this week that the campaigns were beginning to take note. Both the Liberals and the New Democrats, currently trailing the Progressive Conservatives in polled support, rolled out promises targeted directly at this issue.

In my humble opinion, the Liberals nailed it with their “buck-a-ride” transit gambit. Striking at the heart of the affordability issue, it was smart retail politics — while questionable policy — that was brilliant in the simplicity of both the idea and the accompanying messaging. Kudos to the team that put together that chart highlighting exactly how much individual commuters would save each month based on where they lived.

However, for a campaign that desperately needs an inspired push, Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca has yet to successfully evoke the same feeling as Ronald Reagan did when, in 1980, he exhorted U.S. voters with the “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” challenge to sitting president Jimmy Carter.

The New Democrats have also taken a stab at owning this issue, this week promising both free dental care and 69,000 new affordable housing units, with the emphasis on affordable. The challenge for the NDP, however, is to rise above ideas that are expected of them to ones which the electorate feels are inspired.

All that said, don’t expect Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford’s team to be left behind. Well aware they need to defend against Reagan’s challenge, Ford’s team took the opportunity to remind voters it was the Liberals who hiked licence plate sticker fees and tolled new highways. Having skilfully set up a contrast with their opponents by mailing rebate cheques to Ontarians last month, they promised that, if re-elected, they would never toll a new highway or charge vehicle fees again. Watch for Ford to re-emphasize his cuts to gas and fuel taxes in the days ahead.

In the heat of a campaign, it is easy for teams to get distracted by a multitude of issues and concerns. In this one, the campaign that stays focused on the rawness of the affordability issue will likely emerge the winner.

It’s less than two weeks from the Conservative party’s first leadership debate, and Pierre Poilievre has established himself as the clear front-runner.

After recently dazzling over a thousand supporters at a packed Steam Whistle brewery event in downtown Toronto, the extent of his lead is such that his competitors have stopped contesting the popularity of his events.

“We have been spending 100 per cent of our time selling memberships,” Patrick Brown’s national co-chair Michelle Rempel Garner told the Globe. Others say that Maxime Bernier also attracted large numbers without it translating proportionally to membership sales or votes.

Both counter arguments hold some truth — but it also goes without saying that any leadership aspirant would kill for the enthusiasm Poilievre has seen across the country, including in unconventional locations like, say, a downtown Toronto brewery.

The question is not whether he leads the enthusiasm race, but rather what this lead means.

Many have questioned if his online followers or rally attendees will purchase Conservative memberships and ultimately vote. That said, it is easy to believe that Canadians willing to wait in line for an hour to attend a political rally during a cold Canadian winter are as likely as anyone to show up in September. His operations team is second to none, and he will benefit from years of legwork building enduring relationships with local riding associations, campus clubs and industry groups across the country.

Critics have also suggested that the tent he has built, while angry and vocal, is simply too narrow to be competitive in a general election. I am not so sure. I think there is a fundamental change in the attitudes of Canadians that many are missing.

While his criticism of the governing Liberals is often hyperbolic, his message to voters is a familiar one for conservatives, characterized by smaller government, a fundamental belief in personal freedoms and attention to pocketbook concerns.

Rather than ask whether Poilievre is too right-wing to be electable, it’s a more useful exercise to examine the “third rails” that have plagued Conservative candidates in the past.

We know, for example, that the Canadian public doesn’t hold the same anti-immigration sentiments as other western nations. Our skills-based assessment process and labour-market need for more qualified workers make large-scale immigration both necessary and popular. That’s why policies that appear resistant to multiculturalism, like the Harper government’s “barbaric cultural practices” hotline, have unquestionably hurt the Conservatives’ brand as a big-tent party.

However, Poilievre appears to understand Canadians’ attitudes, rolling out a plan to speed up wait times for approving foreign credentials as an initial appeal to new Canadians and those who support their participation in the Canadian economy. Surprising many, he has also been willing to depart from social conservatives on issues like abortion and equal marriage, most recently voting with his caucus colleagues to criminalize conversion therapy.

His small-government ethos will inevitably be attacked by labour advocates as an austerity agenda, but he has been assertive and clear in contrasting his own political philosophy versus the current government’s. He argues that endless dependence on printed money drives up the price of goods, only hurting Canadian workers and families.

On other issues, his path forward is less clear. While many Canadians share his criticism of the government’s public health restrictions and inconsistent guidance, an even greater number watched the Ottawa convoy with horror, perplexed that any parliamentarian would stand with an illegal protest as it lay siege to our nation’s capital.

God willing, the COVID-19 debate will be in the rear-view mirror by our next federal election campaign, but Poilievre must work to ensure he is not defined by his most provocative public positions.

Maintaining party enthusiasm while growing the tent has been an unmanageable balancing act for his two predecessors. But with every jam-packed rally, Pierre Poilievre moves that much closer to getting the keys to Stornoway and setting his sights on a bigger target.

As Canada’s housing crisis deepens, touching more and more families as it does, politicians are becoming desperate in their search for solutions. The balancing act is a tricky one: the interests of existing homeowners compete with the economic outlook and raw anger among younger generations, who have come to feel that owning a home will forever elude them. To date, reconciling these positions has proven to be an impossible task.

Recognizing this growing public policy tsunami, which has quickly become very real to everyday Canadians, the federal government made housing a cornerstone of its budget. The budget sought to provide incentives for people to enter the market through a tax-free first home savings account, along with direct payments to those facing housing affordability challenges. And it went further: the government committed $4 billion over four years, in order to build 100,000 new homes.

Sounds good, right? Well, there are a couple of problems. Inflation is threatening to rob people of their purchasing power, and millennials — now the largest generation in Canada — are unable to afford the homes being built.

But never mind that the long-term ramifications of this crisis are a disaster. The short-term consequences may be even worse for our political leaders.

Cleverly, Pierre Poilievre knows this. He has decided to capitalize on this issue and make it a central theme of his Conservative leadership campaign. His latest video features him standing before a clearly overvalued Vancouver house, lamenting inflation and municipal “gatekeepers.”

And so enter another set of players in this drama: Canada’s cities. Or, as the prime minister prefers, “essential partners.” Call them what you will — it is clear that cities have a huge role to play in dealing with this mess. Any federal government will need the help of bold and effective municipal leadership to make tough decisions and fix this issue amidst a foreboding macroeconomic outlook. In short, cities simply need to move faster and more imaginatively than they have before.

And to do that, they need — we need — a housing champion.

With Ontario municipal voters set to go to the polls this fall, their potential champion is waiting in the wings.

The housing crisis is particularly acute in Toronto, and this recent wave of pressure on municipalities serves as an opportunity for Mayor John Tory to cement his political legacy and demonstrate how to solve this national problem from the bottom up.

Presiding over not only the country’s largest municipality but its largest homeless population, Tory can deliver real progress in fixing our housing market. A genuine consensus builder with plenty of political capital and experience working co-operatively with his federal and provincial counterparts, Tory can serve as a model for other municipalities.

Working with council and city staff, he will need to be willing to take risks, sometimes against the wishes of key allies, to help fast-track priority projects. Much of it will be painful in the short term, but the mayor has demonstrated the temperament, experience and judgment needed to advocate for the necessary solutions.

The support of developers has been key to the mayor’s housing initiatives and construction in the city, but there’s not enough elasticity in the market to provide affordable options for everyone. While heeding calls to stop delays, he will also have to surgically ensure that what’s being built is sustainable, affordable and livable, adapting to the needs of modern urban communities.

Tory is a determined and accomplished leader. Now he must get his hands dirty. He must be guided by the proverb “Blessed is the one who plants trees under whose shade they will never sit.”

The housing crisis gives the mayor a chance to plant those trees, to succeed where others have failed, to put his hard-earned reputation on the line to lead on an astonishingly complex issue.