Category: Chairman’s Desk

It was only four years ago today that Ontario Progressive Conservative organizers, staff and candidates were consumed by an all-out sprint to elect a new leader — while managing the predictable party infighting, desperate as they were to present a viable alternative to the Wynne Liberals.

Back in 2018, perfectly naturally, many assumed that this would be the strangest, most unpredictable election of Doug Ford’s career. But they would turn out to be wrong.

Now, less than three months away from Ontario’s 43rd provincial election, Premier Ford and his challengers share one common predicament: uncertainty.

The chronic resurgence and retreat of COVID-19, combined with a convergence of social, economic and political changes, have contributed to an incredibly volatile opinion environment in which it’s difficult to measure even the immediate priorities of the electorate, let alone forecast where they are headed.

There is a sense that Ontarians have had “one lockdown too many,” as a Toronto resident put it to me. As public health restrictions are gradually phased out, I am increasingly optimistic that this election will be about much more than managing the pandemic, focused instead on charting a better path forward for Ontario.

Of course, politics is a game of managing expectations. Just as the Trudeau Liberals campaigned on an expansion of temporary pandemic relief programs and an articulation of longer-term priorities last year, the Ford government will have to balance competing pressures.

Key to their success will be outlining a coherent vision that feels relevant and forward-looking, while at the same time anticipating the probability that Omicron is neither the last nor the worst variant we will face. To put it more simply, they need to get on with the great pursuits of government.

Presently, leaders of all major political parties appear to be in a state of paralysis, keeping their cards close until closer to the writ period. For example, earlier this week the Ford government quietly passed legislation that will delay the spring budget without penalty, a move that’s transparently motivated by a desire for a pre-writ, election-friendly budget document.

While Liberal and NDP leaders have criticized the move, neither have taken it as an invitation to fill the void with their own platforms.

In this instance, timidity will do far more harm than audacity. Rather than waiting to communicate a perfect post-pandemic road map, parties should embrace the uncertainty, resist ideological orthodoxies and demonstrate their willingness to evolve as circumstances change at breakneck speed. It will be messy, and Ontario voters will get a meaningful look at the capabilities of their political leaders.

Being adaptive does not mean being unprincipled. Rather, one of the core tenets of strong political leadership is presenting a value set that is resilient to changing circumstances. To that end, Premier Ford can return to his roots as a champion for affordability — a positioning that was central to his 2018 win.

If it worked well in peacetime, it may prove even more relevant after the economic fallout of COVID-19. Or in the face of an unjust war with massive repercussions for logistics, deliveries and consumer prices. For voters with no elasticity in their budget, these are not abstract problems.

Recent commitments to cancel toll roads and scrap licence plate renewal fees have been right on the mark, but Premier Ford’s more persistent affordability challenge will be rising gas prices. While largely out of his control, this challenge has added pressure around his government’s unmet promise to lower prices by 10 cents a litre.

Issues of this scale and complexity are challenging to address publicly during the best of times, let alone when accompanied by the disorder of an election campaign. However, there is no question that Ford’s re-election prospects will be shaped by his ability to rise to the challenge.

Whether additional variants or international developments throw new hurdles in those plans is anybody’s guess. What’s certain is that the peculiarities of our 43rd provincial election are only getting started.

Any discussion of Russia-Ukraine should begin with an acknowledgment that millions will be devastated by Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion. Lives will be lost and a great price will be paid in terms of Ukraine’s political viability and long-term prospects.

It is heartbreaking to watch a country that has made such profound and hard-won progress fall prey to the whims of an autocrat. Yet, it is our duty to watch. To bear witness. To remember.

Indeed, it is the tragedy of our modern world that technology has given us unprecedented windows into human suffering around the globe, while our political reality has made it harder to do much about it.

Western governments are trying. The sanctions announced this week will devastate Russia’s economy. What’s to come will be even worse. And yet, it’s hard to escape the feeling that our response does not amount to much.

Western citizens are now used to watching helplessly as despots trample the international order. While the reality on the ground could not be more different, the surreal emotions of this week echoed those of August, as we watched the Taliban enter Kabul.

For good reason, political leaders have decided that the alternative is far worse. Direct military engagement with a nuclear power is off the table — particularly one as volatile and brazen as Russia. And even if the U.S. were prepared to respond with force, European allies would not condone it. Inaction is nonetheless a bitter pill to swallow.

The Western role, then, is by and large a moral one. NATO allies will condemn Putin at every turn and assert their support for Ukraine. The UN Security Council will consider motions to chasten Putin, but they are unlikely to pass. Adding salt to the wound, Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya is presently serving as president of the council — an egregious conflict of interest in any other setting.

The failings of multilateral organizations to prevent this egregious violation of international law will not easily be forgotten, and we can expect to emerge from this a more divided world.

Centre stage in all this is U.S. President Joe Biden, a man determined to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors. His measured approach is informed by both history and memory.

Various lawmakers have invoked the legacy of appeasement and British PM Neville Chamberlain’s failure to stop Hitler in his tracks. The metaphor is powerful but self-serving. Perhaps instead of Czechoslovakia in 1938, Biden is thinking more of Afghanistan and Iraq — to say nothing of Bosnia, Vietnam or other examples of American intervention gone awry.

Yet, Biden has not explicitly made the case against intervention, choosing instead to laud NATO and emphasize his sanctions. To the bafflement of many, the U.S. will watch as Kyiv is trampled under the feet of a dictator.

In his first State of the Union address this Tuesday, the president must remind Americans why engagement is not an option — and crucially, lay out his vision for a reimagined world order. In short, he must offer a “Biden doctrine,” rooted in the lessons of certain conflicts and tied to a faction of the intelligence community that is highly skeptical of American intervention.

As we’ve seen, this administration is keen to share the rationale and context behind their decision-making, even publishing classified intelligence with unprecedented zeal.

Now it’s time for the president to do the same before a joint session of Congress, with the entire world watching. It will be the most crucial — and perhaps final — chance for Biden to spell out why the U.S. has done relatively little in the face of so much suffering.

Biden must also set the stage for where the Western alliance is headed, beyond feel-good talk of co-operation. As Biden knows well, his decisions will have consequences for decades to come.

And for once, the American president is all too familiar with those immortal words: “What’s past is prologue.”

Now he must translate that message into method.

“Wedged” has emerged as the buzzword to sum up our current political climate. The term has been deployed by politicians of all stripes to describe the current state of the nation, as disunity and division reach a new, brutally low nadir.

The convoys have exploited the most consequential pressure points in Canadian politics, blurring the lines of right and left, moderate and extreme. What’s more, the movement has become increasingly hard to define or resolve.

It has become the political equivalent of a Rorschach test — an event which everyone interprets slightly differently, projecting their own meaning, shaped by their biases and beliefs.

For some, the demonstrators are libertarians, finally standing up to increasing state encroachment and to so-called “elites.” For others, their causes could not be any less noble: the protesters are anarchists, fascists and perhaps even terrorists.

These varying interpretations and subsequent divisions can hardly come as a surprise. The demonstrations have come to epitomize the political divisions that have not only festered, but been encouraged by the pandemic.

Predictably, politicians have fallen further into this trap. The sad reality is that a national crisis of this magnitude requires the absence of such divisive rhetoric — especially since it is largely to thank for getting us here.

The majority of blame, of course, lies with those who blindly supported the demonstrations, arguing that the ends justify the means, no matter how abhorrent, finding every pretence they can to excuse the actions of these protesters.

But it would be remiss to not partly blame the rhetoric put forward by the prime minister and others that pre-emptively categorized the entire movement as racist and misogynistic, goading its most extreme factions.

Now, as disunity dictates the day and we bear witness to the first-ever enactment of the Emergency Act, surely right-minded people will conclude that the time has come to end the use of these divisive political tactics.

For Conservatives, the credibility of their motion to have the government engage in a plan to roll back restrictions — a position now supported by most Canadians — was hamstrung by the attempts of some of their MPs to capitalize on the convoys.

Similarly, the government has put itself in an impossible situation. By Justin Trudeau’s own admission, the inaugural invocation of the draconian Emergency Act is evidence that our democracy is unhealthy and threatened. The government has added fuel to an already toxic debate.

These current fractures largely ignore the fact that many of the restrictions implemented throughout the pandemic did not have to be forced on Canadians. We jumped into lines for vaccines, and we consented to stay home to protect our health-care system, more so than almost anywhere else in the world.

However, current events demonstrate that consent does not come without limits. The reality on the ground, and along with it Canadian’s expectations, have changed. After two years, what hasn’t changed is politicians’ unfettered willingness to exploit events for their own gain.

Above all, Canadians seek an end to endemic political divisions. They seek both a government and Opposition that can walk and chew gum at the same time. But sadly Canadians have lost confidence in the ability of politicians to collaborate and address common challenges, and with good reason.

The solution out of this mess lies in tabling an agenda that plays beyond political bases. The 2022 federal budget provides a crucial opportunity for politicians to demonstrate their utility beyond finger-pointing. Pressing issues persist regarding affordability, health-care capacity and national security, to name a few. Such areas provide fertile ground for constructive bipartisan collaboration.

The Global Centre for Pluralism sits on Sussex Drive in our nation’s capital, about halfway between the convoy occupation and our prime minister’s residence. Its mission? To champion a philosophy affirming the peaceful and productive coexistence of different beliefs.

Maybe it is time for our politicians to take a break from their day and walk over. It’s not far.

Even setting aside the impact of COVID-19, this year’s Olympic opening ceremony felt decidedly different from Beijing 2008. After all, China’s stance on the world stage has changed significantly, from semi-engaged world power to overarching behemoth.

The consequences of that change were visible in the stands of the Bird’s Nest stadium last week. Unlike in 2008, when Western leaders descended on Beijing, this time you would be hard-pressed to find a democratic leader cheering alongside President Xi Jinping.

Back in 2008, while U.S. President George W. Bush attended the Olympics, Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused a stir by not attending. In this current environment, it is difficult to imagine either leader going anywhere near the festivities.

And yet, despite the diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Games, Chinese President Xi Jinping cheered enthusiastically. And who can blame him? While Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau may have snubbed China, 22 other world leaders showed up, as did the heads of the UN and the WHO. For Xi, those 22 nations represent the future of China’s global affairs — and none more so than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The leaders assembled in Beijing reflect something that many have already said: there is a massive shift in global foreign policy taking place before our very eyes. China and Russia, two countries with a tumultuous history, have cemented a new axis of influence based in recognition of the benefit of mutual co-operation.

And while the fruits of this renewed alliance were on display in Beijing, its roots lie thousands of miles west, in Ukraine.

Ever since Putin amassed over 100,000 Russian troops near eastern Ukraine, the West has contemplated its appropriate response. While most Western allies currently stop short of committing to military action, America has corralled a coalition willing to consider economic punishment of the highest order.

Indeed, the package outlined by President Biden represents the most sweeping sanctions yet to be considered against Russia, with grave implications for both the country’s economy and its oligarchs’ wallets.

Earlier this week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz came to Washington to reaffirm unity among Western allies. While Scholz dodged the question of whether Nord Stream 2 would be included in any sanctions, Biden made it clear that “unity” will include German acquiescence on shutting down the Russian natural gas pipeline.

In turn, Putin is preparing for the worst, knowing that he can rely on China to offset the economic fallout. Xi, for his part, has confirmed that there are “no limits” to the ties between China and Russia. What he really means, of course, is that China will bolster the Russian economy in defence of Putin’s aggression.

For every dollar or euro lost from Russian coffers, China will eagerly offer up a yuan. For every Nord Stream 2, there is a project like Power of Siberia 2, a planned pipeline to move Russian natural gas into China. And ultimately, the tragic implication is that for every NATO aircraft, there will be a Chinese one prepared to deploy.

Whether or not Russia invades Ukraine — “partially” or otherwise — this fundamental shift has taken place in global affairs. The security of Ukraine is essential, but Western allies cannot afford to miss the forest for the trees. After an era of covertly fomenting dictatorships around the world, China and Russia have chosen to openly embrace one another. In doing so, they have formally committed to propping up a system that rivals the Western liberal order.

I believe strongly in Ukraine’s sovereignty and its right to self-determination. With that said, we must remember that this is about much more than Ukraine. For countries like Canada — which has not only supported but greatly benefited from Western multilateralism — the stakes are so much higher.

So, instead of waffling about Canada’s role in the Western alliance, it’s time to imagine where we would be with no alliance at all.

The ousting of leader Erin O’Toole this week was not a referendum on his performance, but rather symptomatic of larger fractures in the Conservative party.

A coalition that was founded to work in spite of — or even because of — regional and ideological tensions now appears incapable of agreeing upon a coherent set of principles for Conservative partisans, let alone Canadians more broadly.

O’Toole, the latest casualty of these tensions, was right to try and modernize the party, with policies characterized by inclusive social policy, a serious stance on climate change and a principled conservative vision for Canadian workers. However, his flailing efforts to appease competing factions created confusion for members, disappointment for voters and inconsistency for Conservative candidates.

As unfashionable as it might be in some circles, I continue to be a proud progressive conservative, and as a result am nothing but distressed with the party’s current positioning. While there were glaring flaws in O’Toole’s execution, his exit should be seen for what it is — a sign that the party has work to do to engage its members and to offer an approach to governing which could appeal to the vast majority of Canadians — rather than what it is not: some providential affirmation of vague social conservatism.

The task facing the Conservative party is not to ignore its history in a misguided attempt to turn itself into the political equivalent of a pretzel. Far from it. As Tories, we need to embrace our history, seriously consider what Canadian progressive conservatism means today, and find our backbone in the process.

Of course, we can expect the process to be a messy one.

A vocal minority within the party has generated intense media fascination, won excessive influence and kneecapped creditable efforts to reconsider the party’s stance on important issues.

The push-and-pull dynamics between populists and institutionalists, westerners and central Canadians, and social conservatives and progressives are not new. However, the rapid shift in the Canadian political centre, hastened by the pandemic, has laid those tensions bare.

The Conservative party’s inability or unwillingness to adequately respond can largely be attributed to its relative success in avoiding electoral catastrophe.

The Liberals, on the other hand, were shocked into change after a series of embarrassing electoral losses to the Harper Conservatives. Their worst-ever result in 2011 — including relegation to third-party status — allowed Justin Trudeau to lead the party to a remarkable renaissance by unapologetically embracing social liberalism, exiling members of the old guard and setting his sights on a younger, more progressive coalition of voters. The result? He was propelled to victory in 2015.

It turns out that a brush with annihilation is a powerful source of courage. If only our party could be so lucky.

Meagre losses have failed to give us that overwhelming mandate for reform. Quite frankly, many have become content with being the first runner-up — really the first loser — and taking painkillers to mask afflictions that actually require more complicated surgery. Rather, continued attempts to maintain an existing but declining base have meant the party has repeatedly failed to take the bold steps required in establishing a broader base that can actually win an election.

Canada needs strong voices who can address its growing affordability crisis and articulate a coherent foreign policy. Voices who can promote economic dynamism that propels young Canadians to enjoy the same opportunities as their parents, or (imagine) even better ones.

I hope that the soon-to-be-announced leadership race is defined by honest conversations about the Conservative coalition, and an acknowledgment that the loudest voices in the room or on social media are sometimes only that.

Maybe, if we are lucky, we will get a new leader who will finally challenge Conservatives to pursue a true north star — one of genuine, admirable and inclusive Canadian conservatism.