Category: Chairman’s Desk

The fall of Kabul to the Taliban cast a long shadow across our world last August. No one felt its darkness more acutely than the many brave Afghans who supported, in one way or another, the work of western nations in their country.

Afghan journalists were among those who made an outsize contribution. Reporting on the ground — right up until the fall of Kabul on Aug. 15 — and supporting outlets from western countries like Canada, they played the most visible of roles and, in doing so, put themselves at extreme risk of retaliation and torture.

As Canadians, we owe them an enormous debt. For over a decade, our country and its news outlets worked with these Afghans. They kept our journalists safe and informed, and their contributions helped define our role in the conflict. Simply put, they are heroes.

And yet, right now, tragedy looms over thousands of them. Having escaped or been forced from Afghanistan, these journalists remain stuck in temporary places of refuge in Pakistan, North Macedonia and other “lily pad” countries.

For each of them, the clock is ticking. As their temporary visas expire or death threats metastasize into real, imminent danger, their situations will become dire in a matter of weeks.

Reasonably, they have turned to Canada for support and for a chance to seek refuge in a country that owes them so much. Thus far, we have failed them.

For assorted reasons, the Trudeau government and its representatives recognize this as a vexing situation. Immigration is a difficult file at the best of times, they say. Compounded by a crisis like Afghanistan, it is rife with complexity and practical hurdles.

We have heard the same arguments repeated over again:

Processing visas for this group is nearly impossible. There is an overwhelming demand for spaces in our country. We cannot get funds or support to them in terror-prone regions like Pakistan without circumventing international rules.

That may all be true, but it is high time for the government to look past these issues and act with the conviction and compassion every decent Canadian expects.

After all, these same roadblocks faced governments in the U.S. and the U.K., yet both countries have already found workarounds to carve out unique visa programs for Afghan journalists. Pathetically, Canada has not.

Instead, the government has thrown the mantle to a series of NGOs, veterans’ organizations and private charities.

These groups have done their best to step up. But the reality is, this is a job for government.

Since the pandemic began, we have seen the need for government, especially the federal government, to respond to challenges that only the public sector can address — ones that private citizens cannot.

Now, on an issue directly related to actions taken by our government, Ottawa has had the nerve to ask private organizations to step in. It is simply unacceptable.

Our federal cabinet must find the political will to get this done.

The government should earmark at least 1,000 spaces specifically for journalists and their families. Failing that, they should come up with a workable solution that can be implemented in time to save hundreds of lives.

I recently heard from Shakor Kamran, a journalist forced to leave Afghanistan after reporting on Taliban abuses of power. He spoke proudly of his past work with two organizations focused on strengthening civil society by improving women’s access to health care and education.

I cannot imagine a clearer reflection of what this government calls “Canadian values.”

Journalists like Kamran stood up for those values, and now want the chance to live them. They most certainly have earned that chance.

And after so many years talking about Canada’s gentler role on the world stage and about our support for human rights and press freedom, it is time for our government to walk the walk. These journalists can wait no longer.

After a long period at the top of the polls, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is staring down the barrel.

Furor is intensifying around revelations that he and his staff not just broke, but repeatedly flouted, his own government’s COVID restrictions — the very restrictions he imposed on the rest of the country. Now the opposition, the public and indeed Johnson’s own backbenchers are out for blood.

But perhaps most contemptible of all have been the prime minister’s own attempts to save his skin, clawing at any opportunity he has to abdicate his responsibilities.

There is no strategy here. I can only surmise that Johnson and his advisers are betting on either the desperation, alienation or stupidity of their electorate. I am not sure which is most offensive to the British people. Take your pick.

To recap for those not following this saga: the PM was caught red-handed attending several parties that occurred, of all places, at his official residence, 10 Downing Street — in direct contravention of his government’s own stringent restrictions at the peak of lockdown. At a time when most Britons couldn’t leave their house except for essentials, Boris permitted drinks and mingling in his own back garden.

Most humiliatingly, he was obliged to publicly apologize to the Queen for a party that took place on the eve of the late Prince Philip’s funeral — a funeral at which Her Majesty chose to very publicly observe the lockdown measures and sit alone.

Shameful doesn’t even begin to describe it.

First, Johnson claimed that he was not aware the “bring your own booze” events (astonishingly, that was actually included in the invitations) were social occasions. He then said the parties were co-ordinated by his rambunctious staff without his knowledge or blessing. More ludicrously, he later suggested that he was not informed of the rules banning such gatherings — despite having signed off on them himself!

The entire pathetic ordeal has led me to the grim conclusion that in Britain, as in many corners of the world, a period of sustained disruption and reliance on government has endowed elected leaders with an air of hubris. But as Johnson is learning, it is a mistake to equate a “rallying around the flag” response with a free pass to behave as you like.

One of the fundamental tenets of crisis response is that there is no substitute for leading with compassion. Johnson’s actions not only represent an appalling indifference to his responsibilities as prime minister — they are also a total abdication of leadership.

By blaming the culture within his office, Johnson has opted for the lowest excuse possible. And now, his plan is to use an external investigation to throw his team under the bus, in another abandonment of his leadership duties.

As a rule of thumb, if you need an investigation to assess your own conduct, your problem is almost always one of principles.

A true leader, or at least what we used to consider a leader, would have fallen on their sword and accepted responsibility for the rotten culture oozing from Number 10. And ironically, in doing so, they may have saved their own hide.

But not Boris Johnson. In a cheap ploy to win back hearts and minds of the Tory backbench as much as the British public, he even went so far as to lift virtually all pandemic restrictions.

But our British cousins are not alone. We’ve seen our own political leaders behave badly as well.

Time and again, we allow our politicians to mask their abject failures through the new-found, outsized role they play in our lives. Hiding behind the ups and downs of a pandemic, they behave as though adversity has made people completely passive.

It is high time to prove them wrong, by reminding ourselves that behaviour in public life matters — particularly when so much has been asked of our country.

As countries around the world grapple with the issue of mandatory vaccinations, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt the Biden administration’s approach a major blow on Thursday. It blocked the president’s workplace vaccine mandate, allowing only a significantly diminished provision for federally funded health-care providers.

The court ruled that Biden had crossed a bridge too far. He was not alone in his disappointment. Here in Canada, efforts to increase vaccination uptake are becoming increasingly necessary, even as they become more fraught with legal challenges.

The Omicron surge has brought with it significantly increased impatience with the unvaccinated, as well as growing support for further penalties against the unvaccinated. The result? A sudden and unexpected exigency for political leaders across the world.

For Canada, a middle power that has long been able to straddle the varying interests and customs of its allies, the divergence in global responses is becoming painfully clear.

Quebec Premier François Legault’s proposed imposition of a health tax on the unvaccinated is aligned with the more drastic measures taken by some European nations. Given that Quebecers favour stronger restrictions on the unvaccinated compared to the rest of Canada, the premier’s unforgiving approach may play well politically — at least at home.

Yet in his eagerness to appease the exasperation of the vaccinated majority, Legault’s tax policy failed to provide clarity on exemptions or process, raising questions about its legality — never mind, from a policy perspective, its impact on marginalized groups.

The province is not the only Canadian jurisdiction facing obstacles in its attempts to pressure the unvaccinated.

Recently, the prime minister has been markedly hostile toward the unvaccinated, referring to them as racists and misogynists. In riling up the vaccinated majority, Justin Trudeau was following French President Emmanuel Macron. And given the difference in his English and French remarks, one is left to wonder if Trudeau was playing specifically to a Quebec audience with his tone.

The federal government, having largely retreated by designating mandatory vaccinations a provincial matter, managed to fumble its own attempts to ratify mandatory vaccinations for truckers crossing the U.S. border this week.

Even though the Canada Border Services Agency said Canadian drivers would be exempt, a day later, Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said that was an “error” and, in fact, drivers would be subject to the measure. The predicable result was an instant protest by the trucking industry and dark warnings that the last-minute measure will exacerbate supply shortages, estimating it could lose 10 to 15 per cent of its workforce.

All of these challenges reflect a serious concern for political leaders intent on meeting the demands of pandemic-weary constituents. While public opinion is very supportive of widespread government intervention toward vaccination, the legal dimensions and the international perspective are a different beast.

The case in the U.S. will no doubt be cited as a significant legal litmus test of the ability to enforce sweeping orders, and might well cause a knock-on effect in other jurisdictions.

For Australia, the Novak Djokovic drama made this all very real last week. It demonstrated above all that politicians now face overwhelming public pressure to clamp down on behaviour that makes a mockery of the sacrifices people have made — even if it involves the world’s number one tennis player.

Djokovic’s flaunting of the restrictions and the revelation he had gained a questionable travel exemption were just too much. For a country that had endured some of the most severe lockdowns and border restrictions, the eruption of anger was predictable.

Yet, while Australians sit at one end of the spectrum, we cannot forget that six well-educated and informed Supreme Court justices sit at the other.

Understanding that gulf of opinion is crucial for dealing with the anti-vaccine issue. With our health-care system facing another crushing spate of infections and public patience wearing thin, our options are running out.

The House of Windsor is no stranger to a good scandal: The abdication crisis. Charles and Camilla. “Megxit.”

But far from an episode of “The Crown,” which contains the fallout within a neat 58 minutes, all of these crises have had long-term repercussions for the institution of the monarchy. Specifically, they have undermined its image as being the paragon of those quintessential British values: probity, having thick skin and above all, steadiness.

Yet, for all these issues, Queen Elizabeth II still reigns, Buckingham Palace still stands and the Commonwealth remains an important political force in the world. Indeed, the British monarchy is matched only by the Vatican as a centuries-old institution that has maintained its stature in a rapidly changing world.

That was, of course, until Prince Andrew.

New revelations emerged this week about the Duke of York’s efforts to stymie a sexual abuse suit launched by one of Jeffrey Epstein’s accusers. For years, the Royal Family has been rocked by Andrew’s long-time association with the convicted sex offender. And for years, Andrew has done the bare minimum to deny any wrongdoing.

But now, as his legal team pushes back hard against accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the charade seems to be ending.

Having botched his primary attempt to publicly refute the claims — an interview with BBC heavyweight Emily Maitlis — Andrew has instead tried to weasel his way out of the conversation altogether.

First, he tried to avoid being served with legal papers.

Failing that, his team now contends that Andrew is immune from the civil suit under the restrictions of a previous Epstein settlement.

To make their point, they have claimed that Andrew qualifies as a “potential defendant” in Giuffre’s earlier case against Epstein. For all the legal complexity of the assertion, it seems to put the lie to Andrew’s claim to never having met Giuffre.

No one who has seen Andrew’s BBC interview will be surprised. As time goes on, his excuses grow more brazen, contrived and bizarre. What’s more, the tactics of his legal team represent a new low for the monarchy in their depravity and detachment from reality.

And therein lies the real problem.

In the past, when scandals have thrown the royals’ unsavoury private lives into public view, the moral and religious authority of their brand has been eroded. But the stain of Andrew’s accusations is something different. Unlike the litany of affairs, divorces and other human failings, his alleged behaviour appears criminal — and his response, simply unacceptable.

Rather than clear his name, the duke seems content to feign indignation at the idea that he should be accountable to anyone. In doing so, he has left his family with little alternative but to remain silent about the allegations. The result makes them appear entirely out of touch at a time when they urgently need to appear modern and suited for the moment.

For example, Andrew retains his military titles and remains a member of the Royal Family — albeit one removed from public life. This seems bizarre given his nephew, Prince Harry, was stripped of his own military titles for abdicating his royal duties and leaving Britain.

It stinks of hypocrisy.

All this takes place amidst a major shift for the House of Windsor. Nearly 70 years into her reign, many are certain it will be impossible for the queen’s successor to enjoy the same popularity and presence on the world stage. After all, the British royals are the exception, not the norm, among a litany of European monarchies whose faces are entirely unknown outside their own borders.

If Prince Andrew settles his case with Giuffre — likely to the tune of millions of pounds — he and his family could ultimately pay a much greater price. Not only does the duke run the risk of being confirmed as a sex offender, but he could also potentially be confirmed a liar. And what’s even worse, one whose own family abetted his lies.

If 2020 was a test of our capacity to survive, 2021 became a test of our resolve to adapt, to move on and re-engage with a world that looked very different from the one we left behind.

2022 will continue to test that resolve in new ways. The pandemic will put up new roadblocks for Canada, and the world around us will be rife with challenges to democracy and comity. In short, it will be another season of uncertainty, defined more by the unexpected than anything else.

And all the while, our political system faces a turning point. Herewith, three key questions which will help us understand the axes of political change in 2022.

1. Can O’Toole capitalize on the foreign policy weakness of the Trudeau government?

It is no exaggeration to say that for most of this government’s tenure, foreign policy has been the last thing on its mind. At a time when domestic challenges appropriately took precedence, this inward focus paid off — and to his credit, allowed Justin Trudeau to deliver electorally popular programs at home.

But 2022 will be fraught with foreign policy challenges, from a looming Russian invasion of Ukraine to a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics. In this context, a passive footing on foreign policy invites disaster.

Enter the leader of the Opposition, a military veteran with mastery of the foreign policy file who looks and sounds increasingly like someone who could be prime minister. If Erin O’Toole can spotlight the inevitable failures abroad without undermining Canada’s position (politics stop at the water’s edge and all), he may expose the soft underbelly of the Trudeau machine.

2. Can the Liberals press on with their election promises?

We cannot forget that this government was sent back to Ottawa with a long to-do list: child care, affordable housing and billions in other new spending.

In contrast, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s economic update was cold comfort for those seeking a government that will transform their lives, especially as the COVID situation worsens dramatically. Ottawa will have some very difficult decisions to make about its priorities and the state of our coffers.

If the havoc of Omicron demands even more massive spending, the government will be strained to move forward with its campaign promises. The result may be a breaking of the essential compact the government has with voters, something that may prove fatal. After seven years in office, expectations are high and patience has grown thin.

To be fair, it may be that major action comes in the spring budget. However, whether that is soon enough for Canadians remains to be seen.

3. Will Trudeau lead us into 2023?

Of course, the biggest question of all is whether the prime minister intends to serve out the year in his post.

There have been rumblings around this for some time, but consider the facts. No one can argue that Trudeau has not achieved anything. For better or worse, he has changed our country.

What’s more, he has led us through the worst of an era-defining crisis and reshaped the Liberal party in his image. So, for all the talk of his unsettled legacy ambitions, I would argue that his legacy has largely taken shape.

Besides the legacy question, who would replace him?

His deputy is the obvious choice — but Freeland is the face of COVID recovery, which could prove a liability more than an asset.

There are a few rising stars. Perhaps most impressive is Defence Minister Anita Anand, who understands that responding properly to rampant sexual misconduct will be a matter of communication as much as action.

But for the most part, it is hard to imagine a competitive Liberal party without Trudeau. Whether he sees that as his problem or theirs, is the fourth fundamental question. The answer to which will have consequences for not only the party, but even more so for all of us.