Category: Chairman’s Desk

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.

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.