Category: Chairman’s Desk

A few weeks ago, I argued that the strongest political opposition to Donald Trump resided right here in Canada.

Turns out, that’s an increasingly dangerous place to be.

As the latest round of tariffs on our automotive sector prove, it’s an increasingly economically painful place to be.

And if Donald Trump’s musings over a third term are to be believed — and they should — that may be the case not just for four years, but for at least eight. A near decade more of economic coercion and geopolitical volatility.

So, the question is: what is Canada going to do about it? Not in rhetoric — we have more than enough of that already — but in substance.

Step One

This is a step we should not still need to take: abandon any illusions that guardrails exist to slow Trump down. No one is coming to curb his ambitions. No one is coming to our defence.

The Democratic Party? Forgive me if, like those progressive commentators, I’m not popping champagne because Democrats won a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Sen. Cory Booker attested for 25 hours straight, or the party gained a few points in a Florida special election. These are symptoms of survival — not signs of a strategic comeback.

Democrats are still in shell shock from November’s election, floundering without leadership and unable to prevent their nemesis steamrolling ahead with his agenda to upend not only the systems of American government but the global world order.

The media? I’ve never seen denialism so confidently expressed. Last week, opinion columnists tripped over themselves to explain that Trump’s talk of a third term was mere theatrics — a distraction from his policy vacuum, a way to shake the lame-duck label.

Perhaps. But this is also the same man who wore a mug shot like a campaign badge of honour. The Constitution has not constrained him before — why would it now?

The institutions of America? The pathetic lack of spine exemplified by top U.S. law firms — too afraid to stand up to Trump’s recent executive overreaches that compromise their independence — demonstrate that institutional courage is in short supply.

Lack of integrity

This abdication of integrity is especially worrying, as corporate America may now be the only element of American society that can act as a bulwark against Trump’s agenda; the other branches of the U.S. government clearly cannot. As markets tumble, a black swan economic event could finally compel corporate America to use its heft to reign in the President.

The rest of the world? To date, they’ve shown little interest in our economic vulnerability.

And now that they, themselves, are subject to punishing tariffs, it is clear this crisis is ours alone to solve.

That puts the spotlight squarely on our current federal election.

While tariffs dominate headlines and Poilievre and Carney spar over who’s better suited to shield Canadians from Trump’s wrath, we risk missing the forest for the trees — at the very moment the entire forest is on fire.

Earlier this week, Tonda MacCharles illustrated the difference between the two leading candidates on Canada-U.S. relations.

Carney’s rhetoric is aggressive. He’s declared the “old relationship” — rooted in tight economic integration and military co-operation — effectively dead. His focus has been on reaction and retaliation.

Poilievre, while more measured in tone, offers concrete policy. His promise to build a “national energy corridor” to bypass the U.S. and get Canadian oil to other markets has potential to be a surgical solution to our economic dependence.

In a few short weeks, Canadians will choose which approach they trust more.

Action required

But here’s the bottom line: rhetoric won’t protect us from Trump. Only action will. We need substance — substance that frees our economy to stand on its own two feet.

What we ought to do now is steal from our enemy. If not in ideology, then in execution. Trump doesn’t nibble at problems — he goes all in. Canada needs that same maximalist mindset.

We need an ambitious, all-hands-on-deck strategy to break our dependency on U.S. trade, diversify our partnerships, and rebuild economic resilience.

That is the best outcome this election could produce — not based on what happens in the campaign’s final days, but in the weeks and years that follow.

I hope whoever wins does so with a strong mandate. Because the real test for Canada’s next government won’t be winning the election, it will be executing a bold national agenda so we can survive what comes after.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on April 6, 2025.

The NDP’s flashy new ads, portraying Jagmeet Singh as a fighter, seem to be borne of an alternate universe. The latest polls aren’t just flashing red — they’re signalling a collapse that could cost the party its official status — Ipsos? 10 per cent. Angus Reid nine per cent. Leger? 11 per cent.

It doesn’t matter which poll you look at. And evidently, it doesn’t matter which Canadian voter the pollsters ask. The federal NDP are on the brink of utter disaster.

While all eyes have been on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to resuscitate the Liberal party, it’s the other major shift — the collapse of the NDP vote — that will ultimately determine the final outcome of the next federal election. More than that, it reveals with absolute clarity what this election will be fought over.

First, let’s be clear about what this downward spiral represents.

For Liberals, it’s Christmas come early. For Conservatives, it’s a worrying sign that progressive voters are consolidating behind Carney. For the NDP? It’s not just a repudiation of their leader, a rejection of their messaging, or even a reflection of voter frustration. Most critically, it is an indictment of their strategy.

In any other context, for any other party, these numbers should serve as a dire wake-up call. What I fear instead is that it will become an excuse factory — none more damaging than the idea that their eventual downfall will be merely the result of strategic voting by “fake progressives” who were never serious about the NDP’s agenda to begin with.

That’s only half-true. Yes, the NDP are victims of the moment. But more accurately: they are victims of their own failure to build a credible political strategy to meet this moment.

There will be a strong temptation within NDP circles to blame ideological divides within the party — that they should have tacked further left, or that they should have abandoned their progressive principles and moved closer to the centre.

That would be missing the forest for the trees at a time when the entire woodland is on fire.

This isn’t about factional divides in progressive politics.

This isn’t even about the party wearing the stain of propping up the Liberals for years, despite Trudeau’s declining popularity.

This is about a fundamental failure to grasp the ballot question of this election: who is best suited to protect Canadians from Donald Trump?

Because guess what? There will be nothing left to be progressive about if Trump’s influence dominates Canada’s economy, trade, and security.

What the NDP still fails to see is that, for voters of all stripes, this election isn’t about theoretical progressive ideals — it’s about safeguarding the progressive policies that Canada already has, policies that could disappear overnight if Trump makes good on his threats.

At this point, the party’s strategy appears depressingly predictable.

While they are reportedly planning to run a full slate of 343 candidates, their real plan is a retreat: consolidating resources into defending the ridings they already hold and making limited plays for a narrow band of additional seats.

In other words, it will be a thinly veiled furniture-saving exercise.

Meanwhile, voters will be focused on who is best to save the country.

So, here’s the bottom line. This election isn’t about finding the best incremental policy on housing or pharmacare — it’s about who is best suited for the leadership required in an unprecedented moment of global and economic volatility.

That should be Jagmeet Singh’s sole focus.

It should be every leader’s sole focus.

Any failure to recognize this reality and prosecute a strategy that meets the urgency of the moment is not just a political misstep — it is an act of outright political suicide and an unconscionable own goal.

If there’s anything to be said beyond vindictiveness, caprice and outright insanity about the first 30 days of the Trump presidency, it’s the appalling lack of a coherent opposition from the Democratic party.

A crisis of confidence and nerve could not have been more painfully on display than the party’s pathetically weak response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress this past week.

Funnily enough, it turns out courage and conviction were hiding North of the border. In our political leaders. In our institutions. In our patriotism and our collective sense of responsibility.

Let that sink in. The strongest, most articulate, the main opposition to Donald Trump now exists outside America. And for the foreseeable future, that’s exactly where it will stay.

Make no mistake — Canada must now prosecute the most consequential political persuasion campaign in our nation’s history.

“Off again, on again, off again” — let’s be clear: the threat of tariffs isn’t going anywhere.

That’s why I use the word “political” very deliberately. Diplomacy will still have its place as part of the cover story, but the real fight — the one that matters most — is a bare-knuckle, down-on-the-ground, political street fight.

As Trump reminds us every day, this is the era of the permanent campaign. And so, fire must meet fire. Just as Trump tries to persuade Canadians that they’d be better off as America’s 51st state, we must continue our full-scale political counteroffensive to persuade Americans that Trump’s tariffs and trade wars (even the threat of them) are making their lives more expensive, more difficult, and more uncertain.

And we need to tie that pain directly to Trump personally.

Reciprocal tariffs are the blunt-force instrument, they trigger economic pain. But tariffs alone aren’t enough. This is a crisis and we need to go to end game. That means realizing the only thing that will change Trump’s mind is political pressure. And therefore, we need a persuasion campaign layered on top to effect that pressure — one designed to convert every ounce of economic pain into political pain, one that ensures every price increase, supply chain snag and lost job is strapped to Trump’s ankles like a lead weight.

And to do that most effectively, we ought to follow three basic rules of political persuasion.

First, define the audience.

The strategy cannot be to simply influence coastal elites and Democrats who already agree that tariffs are, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau echoing the Wall Street Journal put it, a “dumb” idea. That’s not a path to victory. And it’s a waste of time.

We need to convince every last American consumer, no matter how they voted, Trump’s tariffs are making or will make their life worse.

Second, steal what works.

Put another way: use the tactics that are proven to work most recently with your target audience and only pivot if you need to.

Remember those viral gas station stickers — the ones with former U.S. president Joe Biden pointing at the pump price and saying, “I did that!”? That’s the template.

We need to ensure Donald Trump owns the specific price of specific everyday essential items.

Egg prices through the roof? “Trump did that.”

Paying more at the pump? “Trump did that.”

Paying more for a fridge, a sofa, a pack of diapers? “Trump did that.”

Third, underline the disconnect.

The core vulnerability of Trump’s populist brand is that he’s fundamentally out of touch with the reality he claims to champion.

As Congressman Eric Swalwell (in a rare example of effective bite back from the Democratic party) recently put it:

“This guy has gone to the Super Bowl … the Daytona 500 … a UFC fight.

He should go to the f—king supermarket and look at what people are spending to feed themselves, because that’s where they want him to go and he won’t go there.”

That’s precisely the tone and message Canada needs to amplify.

We need to drag Trump — kicking and screaming — to the grocery store, to the gas pump, to the dinner table where families are staring down higher electricity bills and overpriced food.

Here’s the bottom line: Trump didn’t just win, with the margin he did, solely because Americans were fed up with Biden. He won because he made them a simple promise — he would bring down prices. On day one.

That promise is already in pieces and tariffs will only drive prices higher. And our job — Canada’s job — is to make sure every American knows exactly why.

We cannot wait around for the Democratic party or anyone else to drive this political message. This is Canada’s fight — and it starts now.

I understand the temptation.

When you stack Karina Gould’s qualifications to become the next leader of her party and Prime Minister of Canada beside the likes of Mark Carney or Chrystia Freeland, one can easily conclude that the only valid question for this candidate is: what the hell is she thinking?

This line of inquiry, which constitutes about 99.9 per cent of the commentary I’ve read about her candidacy, whilst perhaps understandable, is also spectacularly short-sighted.

Political success isn’t about who looks best on paper. Thank God for that. But more crucially: neither is it always about the race right in front of you. Sometimes, the real game is the next one — the bigger picture. And in that sense, Karina Gould has positioned herself brilliantly.

No doubt, that’s precisely why it’s so easy to tell two wildly different stories about this candidate.

The first goes something like this: she’s too young, too green, too much of a long shot. In a word, quixotic. Despite clearing the first two $50,000 financial hurdles, she struggled to clear the far larger $125,000 third hurdle, and she’ll no doubt find it challenging to meet subsequent targets as the race progresses.

That’s the easy narrative, and the one that goes a long way to explain why many believe she won’t, in fact, come even close to becoming our next Prime Minister.

But there’s another story at play. And it’s one most have overlooked.

Karina Gould represents the future of the Liberal Party of Canada.

She has a record of real achievement, most notably championing the national $10-a-day child care strategy — a policy that will fundamentally improve the country for generations. The youngest female cabinet minister in Canadian history, over the past decade she has served as Minister of Democratic Institutions, Minister of International Development, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, and most recently, Government Leader in the House of Commons, the most demanding job in a minority Parliament.

Her age isn’t a liability — it’s an asset. At 37, she embodies the now largest voting bloc in the country: Millennials. Her presence signals generational renewal and energy.

Her French is stronger than both Carney’s and Freeland’s — a critical advantage in a party where Quebec support can make or break a leadership race.

And most importantly, she is genuine to the core — an increasingly rare quality in Canadian politics.

Of course, these are all impressive credentials. But none are as crucial to her long-term success as the sheer political instinct she’s demonstrating by running in this race.

Because — make no mistake — while she risks the hard scrutiny that comes with a contest of this magnitude, she also gains two invaluable political assets.

First, national profile and experience.

Second, and far more importantly, strategic leverage.

Given the unique preferential ballot structure of this leadership race and the reality that this is likely to turn into a two-horse race between Carney and Freeland, Gould is positioning herself — and her supporters — as the king or queen maker.

That’s a powerful place to be. And you can bet that neither Carney nor Freeland will utter a single negative word about her over the next few weeks. They both know she holds the key to their fortunes.

When a party is at risk of being reduced to ashes in the way the Liberals may well be, you’re not just looking for a leader — you’re looking for a spark. Some ember that’s still glowing in the grassroots of the party, something that can catch and grow into something bigger.

While I see experience, command of the issues, and steady hands from both Carney and Freeland, what I don’t see is the sign of momentum or the kind of energy that stirs something new.

But in Gould’s campaign? I do.

The people behind her at campaign events look like they actually want to be there. The people standing behind Carney and Freeland? I’m sorry to say, they look like they’re being held hostage.

Karina Gould may well lose this battle. But she’s playing a much longer game — and setting herself up brilliantly for it.

And in my view, that’s anything but tilting at windmills. That’s laying the foundation for the real fight ahead.