Category: Chairman’s Desk

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.

“A society grows great when elders plant trees under whose shade they know they will never sit.” Versions of the proverb trace their roots to many cultures for a reason: it is bloody good advice.

And it is advice the Trudeau government should take when it comes to making long-term, expensive — and yes, likely politically unpopular — investments in Canada’s national security framework.

At a time when voter priorities are understandably focused on things like affordability and housing, some political strategists may see this as a difficult call. However, the reality is that if our government fails to address this file — even if it is one that does not deliver them a short-term political win — our domestic security will not only be compromised in the future, but now as well.

A report this week from the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) laid bare the shortcomings of Canada’s national security apparatus. Governed by archaic legislation and neglected by generations of politicians, it is now brutally ill-equipped to deal with the array of mounting security risks posed by increasing geopolitical tensions, climate change and technological advancement.

It was in 2004 that a Canadian government last formulated a comprehensive national security strategy. If the world was a threatening place then, it is a tinderbox now.

British Columbia is suffering dire climate issues, yet our security frameworks do not adequately incorporate climate risk. Furthermore, the geopolitical outlook is as tense as ever; autocratic regimes are becoming increasingly emboldened, posing real threats to the free world.

Vladimir Putin has amassed hundreds of thousands of troops on the Ukrainian border, prompting emergency talks with the U.S. president and provoking anxiety across Europe. While in Canada we often see ourselves as immune to these threats, we are not — and we can be sure such complacency will one day haunt us if not eradicated.

CSIS, our own security service, has increased the intensity of its warnings to Canadians and to our government over the past year. Autocracies, particularly China, and various non-state actors are continually looking to exert influence in Canada through shadowy propaganda campaigns and cyberwarfare. What’s more, global security experts have been sounding alarms over the rise of “killer robot” technologies — artificial intelligence with deadly military capabilities never seen before.

The challenge is that the legislation governing CSIS is almost four decades old, yet today’s environment barely resembles the world back then.

The question for our politicians is how to respond to these real-world threats, when Canadians are unlikely to support the massive funds required. Firstly, our government must remember that its foremost duty lies in protecting Canadians, not in winning popularity contests. Second, as recommended in CIGI’s report, they must act with greater transparency to convey just how acute these threats are. It is the only way to do two things: ensure appropriate oversight, and avoid bewildering Canadians in their pursuit of drastic and necessary changes.

Last week the head of MI6 explained that the British intelligence service had to “become more open in order to stay secret.” In Canada, this is even more important. Our government must collaborate with its security forces to explain the threats we are facing, and the action required. As our intelligence chief David Vigneault aptly put it, “people might not care about geopolitics, but it cares about you.”

By not prioritizing foreign policy at election time, Canadians repeatedly give our governments a free ride on national security. Those days are over — time is of the essence to address a changing world.

In its throne speech, the government promised to “review diplomatic engagement.” I hope they will go a great deal further. Only a wholesale restructuring of our security apparatus will protect us from tomorrow’s threats.

Doing so would not only be an act of true leadership, but would honour their oaths to be faithful and true servants of the Crown.