Category: Chairman’s Desk

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.

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.