Category: Chairman’s Desk

This week’s federal budget was a surprise. What’s more, it was a far cry from the Liberal election platform and the worst fears of critics of the NDP-Liberal agreement. In fact, the 2022 budget displayed, if not restraint, at least a refreshing acknowledgment of the reality around us.

That is not to say this budget isn’t worthy of criticism. It contains no long-term vision for the economy, and allocates major funding to programs that are not fit for purpose. But after years of posturing and using divisive COVID politics as a cudgel, with this budget the government has suggested a return to some kind of normalcy and — dare I say — common sense.

Now, the Opposition must respond in kind. Conservatives need to do a better job of outlining meaningful conservative approaches to major policy proposals. For too long our loudest opposition has been defined by negativity, rather than a serious attempt to address important issues on our own terms.

The policies put forth in the Liberals’ budget are no doubt partisan; they reflect the priorities of the NDP as well. But the issues they address — the cost of living, global security, climate change — are not partisan. They are realities that Canadians face every day of their lives. They are realities they expect their parliamentarians to deal with. Conservatives have strong solutions for these issues, but too often find it easier to simply tear down the Liberal approach.

This isn’t easy to do. The role of the Official Opposition is, after all, to oppose the government and hold it to task. Add to that a leadership campaign where the various contenders are trying to stake out their own defendable turf, and make a compelling case to Canadians on the issues of our time.

But consider this approach.

On housing, the government has maintained its tack of increasing access to funding for homebuyers. This approach is insufficient and will continue to fail in making a difference for Canadians. Instead, we should be advocating for a concerted effort to address supply in the housing market, through regulatory levers and other restrictions.

At the same time, Conservatives should loudly acknowledge that housing is a very new area for the federal government, which has not historically played a big role in the sector outside of Indigenous communities. Cities and provinces have a crucial role to play in addressing housing supply, and encouraging their involvement is entirely consistent with conservative principles.

Increased defence funding is one line item that will appeal to Tories. However, the provisions of the new budget are nowhere near enough to make a difference. Much of this funding will be used to simply overhaul outdated equipment; it will not meaningfully change Canada’s stature among NATO allies.

For Conservatives, increased defence spending must come with a plan to address failures in procurement and a plan to actually get new military investments done. Likewise, a renewed focus on the Arctic is meaningless without a long-term plan. Like some past prime ministers, Justin Trudeau has committed rhetorically to an Arctic strategy — but that commitment must amount to more than an annual summer trip and photo op in the general direction of the North Pole.

On the question of national dental care, there is a crucial conservative argument to be made that what Canadians really deserve is a means-tested program that targets funding directly at those who need it most. The reality is that a targeted approach can provide more resources to those who need them, without squandering money on those who don’t.

Personally, I would suggest that a means-tested approach on dental care could open the door to a Conservative-backed pharmacare program that actually supports Canadians and our economy. What a thought.

Whatever specifics we choose matters not. What does matter is that we provide conservative answers to these important questions. Otherwise, our vehement opposition will only get us back where we started: the Opposition.

There is a growing groundswell of support for Canada to play a larger role in international security by providing our allies with energy supplies. While many correctly see this as both an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to the world and as a means to increase our international standing, we must be realistic about what shape that support could feasibly take.

Sadly, after years of underinvestment and political complacency, both our foreign policy credentials and our ability to export Canadian energy have suffered. In practical terms, this means that calls for Canada to step in to displace Europe’s reliance on Russian energy — while politically potent — are misplaced and counterproductive.

We cannot export anywhere near the quantity of energy that Europe needs. The infrastructure required to do so doesn’t exist, and pretending otherwise is irresponsible. Instead, we should be pragmatic and look closer south to make a difference.

Most of the five million barrels of oil we produce daily are sold to the United States; we can’t really send more elsewhere. Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has moved to modestly increase our U.S. exports by the end of the year, conveying that getting more further afield isn’t happening anytime soon — especially not as the government doubles down on its climate agenda.

And while we are the world’s fourth-biggest producer of natural gas, again, we have no logistical capacity to get it to Europe. So, the government has also increased these exports to the U.S., but ultimately the Americans must ship our resources across the Atlantic.

Our energy industry has long argued that Canada’s near nonparticipation in the global market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) would cost us significantly. Given that EU countries still rely on Russia for 40 per cent of their gas imports, those warnings were tragically prophetic.

Yes, ours is a government committed to a necessary transition away from carbon, but it also claims to be a government committed to our allies and to Canada’s unique role on the world stage. The desire to reduce fossil fuel dependence need not cripple Canada’s ability to help our allies when it matters most.

Vladimir Putin has permanently reshaped energy politics, and if we don’t do our part — by stepping into the LNG market, by increasing our exports to the U.S., by making smart investments now — Canada will dramatically reduce its stature in the new global landscape.

Tumultuous times require pragmatism. The U.S. administration shares our government’s long-term vision for a low-carbon future, but right now they are desperately searching for ways to alleviate high prices at the pumps and wean the world off Russian energy. President Joe Biden has moved to withdraw the largest-ever amount from America’s emergency oil reserves, making our moderately increased exports seem pathetic.

He’s also been forced to turn to oil-rich autocrats like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, who in turn have him quite literally over a barrel. As Premier Jason Kenney chimed in that “Alberta oil is better than dictator oil,” he looked to remind Biden of our energy sector’s commitments to responsible development.

But here is the challenge. The Liberal government is unlikely to risk suggesting that the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin will supersede their climate goals. And that means they are unlikely to do enough.

Those conflicting interests require principled compromise. America remains our strongest ally, and this is a critical moment for us to prove our mettle to them and the world. Fine, we cannot supply Europe with energy, but helping where we can will earn Canada a serious role in global security and the energy transition to come.

That means building on carbon capture technology investments together — both government and the private sector. If we are to influence the world toward a cleaner future, we need a seat at the table. And as bombs fall on a European ally and we pledge to do everything we can, now is the time to take it.

This week the prime minister simultaneously took two different risks with two very different opposition parties.

The Liberal “confidence-and-supply” agreement with the New Democrats was a political manoeuvre that provides stability for a minority government, while offering NDP leader Jagmeet Singh reasonable positioning as a conscientious voice in Parliament.

The price? Limiting the government’s flexibility as it copes with a post-COVID world, by locking the prime minister into policies that are both popular and costly.

Notwithstanding those limitations, the decision must have been easy to make with respect to the New Democrats.

In another respect, a gamble has been taken here. The deal presents the Conservative party with a longer runway to develop ideas and campaign tools before the next general election, and provides distinct opportunities for each of the prominent leadership candidates to expand and strengthen their base. Competition to do so will be fierce; it could be the exact environment Conservatives need — if they don’t tear each other apart in the process.

Pierre Poilievre, Jean Charest and Patrick Brown are all licking their chops after the announcement.

As the loudest parliamentary voice against government excess, the deal plays well into Poilievre’s pugilistic strategy. He has amassed an enviable online following and list of caucus endorsements with his harsh criticism of deficits, inflation and incursion on personal freedoms. With this deal, Poilievre can no longer be accused of fighting a fictional bogeyman.

We know that Canadians share his concern for affordability, and many will see Liberal-NDP spending pledges as a bridge too far. When the confidence-and-supply agreement reaches its conclusion, we will no longer be in a pandemic. Our growing debt load, combined with likely increases in interest rates, will be a pain point for governments and taxpayers alike.

Who better to fight against this seemingly inevitable outcome than Canada’s loudest fiscal hawk?

For the seasoned Charest, the deal presents an opportunity to prove he really is “built to win.” His play will be to position himself as the Conservative best able to draw together the progressive wing, through moderate positions on climate change and social issues, as well as a credible appeal to national unity.

With the Liberals drifting away from their traditional centrist positioning — now more than just rhetorically — it stands to reason that progressive conservative voices have an opening.

Charest will have to contrast himself with other candidates, while convincing swing voters and existing party members that his team poses a credible alternative to the current government and is worth investing in.

More than that, Charest needs to convince them that it is worth taking out a membership card and joining. To do so will require not simply a compelling policy platform, but also a ground organization on a scale not seen before in a partisan leadership race.

As for Patrick Brown, he has the chance to cement his base and deploy his urban organizers to attract new members. As mayor of Brampton, he has a diverse coalition of voters to serve as a springboard and a proven ability to win in a Liberal-leaning city — but with a limited profile outside of Ontario, he has considerable ground to make up.

While generally seen as a moderate, Brown did not hesitate to loudly and provocatively decry the new “socialist coalition.” Campaigning against government largesse is hardly a novel strategy in Conservative leadership politics, but the newly formed Liberal-NDP alliance has added fuel to these efforts.

In fact, since the government announcement, Conservative fundraisers have found a real source of excitement and urgency. Hopefully, members will be treated to a much more aspirational debate about the role of the Conservative party — and the role of government — in this changing political ecosystem.

By securing this agreement, Justin Trudeau has made his immediate future as prime minister much more secure, but he has also opened the door for stronger, more coherent opposition in the long-term. The playing field is open for Conservative candidates to take advantage.

When Russia first began its illegal invasion of Ukraine, the entire world seemed to stop for a moment. We watched in disbelief as a European ally — a modern democracy and major trading partner — was invaded by a foreign power.

In short order, the Western world sprang to action, launching the most severe sanctions in history and demonstrating both the unity and the resolve of our alliance. The costs for Russia are real, but even the most optimistic view concedes the sanctions will not deter Vladimir Putin.

Worse yet, his campaign has grown all the more brazen and murderous: shelling residential neighbourhoods, targeting women and children in clearly defined shelters, and using brute force against civilians in an effort to terrorize the Ukrainian people. There is no doubt about it — Putin is committing war crimes, and U.S. President Joe Biden was absolutely right to call a spade a spade.

The president of Ukraine, for his part, has not stopped. For the past two weeks, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has relentlessly appealed to Western governments for military aid and a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over his country. Addressing our own House of Commons, Zelenskyy expressed his frustration that in return, allies “express their deep concern about the situation. When we talk with our partners, they say please hold on a little longer.”

It’s difficult to argue with Zelenskyy, but nonetheless essential to remember that for all its appeal, a no fly-zone would entail NATO forces engaging Russian air power — a bridge too far for an alliance intent on avoiding all-out confrontation.

But as parts of Ukraine are transformed into a hellish theatre of war, the rest of the world is waking up to a new global reality. The consequences are astonishing. Countries around the world have responded to an increasingly hostile landscape with bold action to undo decades of policy consensus, informed by their history.

Germany, for one, has increased defence spending to roughly two per cent of GDP, after decades of extreme self-restraint on its military capabilities. As a result, the world’s most pacifist major power will now instead become its third-biggest military spender.

Likewise, there is now talk in Japan of potentially hosting U.S. nuclear arms on the soil of a country that has never forgotten the pain of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But as Japan sees China revaluating its stance in light of Russian aggression, the only nation to ever suffer a nuclear attack is reconsidering what truly poses the greatest threat to its security.

This shift extends far beyond Japan and Germany, to countries around the world — including China — that are imagining their place within a new security framework.

Canada, for its part, must recognize this transformation and decide what it means for us. Our military procurement systems are among the worst in the Western world, and successive governments have failed to meaningfully secure our Arctic — while Russia has built up its military presence in the region.

Now is the time to change that. It is incumbent on the prime minister to recognize that our authority as a NATO member relies on far more than our “convening” power.

While it seems unlikely now, threats to Arctic sovereignty are mounting as Russia grows more belligerent and shipping lanes become more easily accessible.

Like our allies around the world, Canada seems to be waking up to this new dawn; on Wednesday, American and Canadian forces announced military exercises in the Arctic. It’s a promising sign, but whether it portends a serious effort to beef up our presence remains to be seen.

Simply put, Canada cannot afford to sleepwalk while our allies — to say nothing of our enemies — redefine their stances on global security. Our country once played an important role as a broker and convenor, yes, but also as a military power which upheld its commitments and defended its strategic interests. In a world consumed by change, it’s time to re-evaluate those interests.

You likely didn’t hear about it, as the issue hardly made a splash in the news: during our September federal election, 205,000 mail-in ballots were uncounted. This issue is especially troubling for its outsize impact on Indigenous communities, and stacks on other, similar failures.

There are 274 First Nations communities in Canada that lack access to an on-reserve polling station. This adds to the importance of accessible mail-in ballots. However, the relatively short writ period, combined with the pressing demands of a pandemic election, created a flurry of issues on this front.

Ridings in northern Ontario were especially problematic. In Kenora, election day arrived during multiple First Nations’ traditional hunting season, meaning a wide swath of those communities would be absent. To accommodate this, Elections Canada provided advance polling for fly-in communities to ensure access. But when election day arrived, there were no polling stations provided — and what’s more, multiple voters were issued voting cards with incorrect information.

It is straightforward enough to chalk this up to a failure of communication, but the entire episode speaks to systemic issues in the way Indigenous communities are engaged. First Nations, Métis and Inuit represent priority communities for Elections Canada’s work — and this failure to guarantee the most fundamental of civil rights is a direct affront to the spirit and process of reconciliation.

In the last year, Indigenous peoples have had to contend with the painful discovery of unmarked burials at former residential schools, a lengthy court dispute over Canada’s discriminatory child-welfare system, and persistent challenges accessing the necessary infrastructure so that drinking water advisories can be lifted.

Given our unambiguous failings in these areas, it’s worth pausing to consider the stakes of this past election, and the particular importance for every Canadian voter, including Indigenous people, to have their voices heard.

When Justin Trudeau’s government came to power in 2015, the new prime minister ensured that each incoming minister received notice in their mandate letters that “no relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples.”

But the Elections Canada failure demonstrates an important reality that Indigenous people contend with every day: political will and good intentions alone cannot uproot the problematic systems that define Canada’s relationship with Indigenous people.

We are lucky to live in a country where elections are managed independently — but given the widespread nature of oppression elsewhere in Canada, is it any surprise that independent bodies are marked by the same?

And while Parliament has no role in the day-to-day operations of Elections Canada, our political leadership bears accountability.

In October 2020, Stéphane Perrault, Canada’s chief electoral officer, provided a series of recommendations to Parliament that would strengthen Elections Canada’s ability to execute a fair, safe election. While these changes were considered in Bill C-19, it was abandoned before passage. Ultimately, calling the election was given higher priority than ensuring its fairness.

This issue is not a partisan one, nor is it a unique flaw of this current government. This case is emblematic of systemic racism and the failure to listen to Indigenous voices — from our political leadership, our bureaucracy, and yes, from Elections Canada.

No doubt, the political will for Indigenous reconciliation is strong, even if it may not always translate into effective action. But what needs to change at an equal pace is the way our machinery of government accounts for and engages with Indigenous people.

Elections Canada has vowed to conduct a review, but the problem is clear and has been known for some time. A 1991 Royal Commission explained that Indigenous communities cannot be engaged only once the writ has dropped. Rather, they need to be consulted on an ongoing basis.

Enfranchisement is the most fundamental of civil rights, and work needs to happen now to make certain that it is shared equally by all Canadians at the next election. For those championing reconciliation, this would be a good place to start.