Category: Chairman’s Desk

Even setting aside the impact of COVID-19, this year’s Olympic opening ceremony felt decidedly different from Beijing 2008. After all, China’s stance on the world stage has changed significantly, from semi-engaged world power to overarching behemoth.

The consequences of that change were visible in the stands of the Bird’s Nest stadium last week. Unlike in 2008, when Western leaders descended on Beijing, this time you would be hard-pressed to find a democratic leader cheering alongside President Xi Jinping.

Back in 2008, while U.S. President George W. Bush attended the Olympics, Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused a stir by not attending. In this current environment, it is difficult to imagine either leader going anywhere near the festivities.

And yet, despite the diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Games, Chinese President Xi Jinping cheered enthusiastically. And who can blame him? While Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau may have snubbed China, 22 other world leaders showed up, as did the heads of the UN and the WHO. For Xi, those 22 nations represent the future of China’s global affairs — and none more so than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The leaders assembled in Beijing reflect something that many have already said: there is a massive shift in global foreign policy taking place before our very eyes. China and Russia, two countries with a tumultuous history, have cemented a new axis of influence based in recognition of the benefit of mutual co-operation.

And while the fruits of this renewed alliance were on display in Beijing, its roots lie thousands of miles west, in Ukraine.

Ever since Putin amassed over 100,000 Russian troops near eastern Ukraine, the West has contemplated its appropriate response. While most Western allies currently stop short of committing to military action, America has corralled a coalition willing to consider economic punishment of the highest order.

Indeed, the package outlined by President Biden represents the most sweeping sanctions yet to be considered against Russia, with grave implications for both the country’s economy and its oligarchs’ wallets.

Earlier this week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz came to Washington to reaffirm unity among Western allies. While Scholz dodged the question of whether Nord Stream 2 would be included in any sanctions, Biden made it clear that “unity” will include German acquiescence on shutting down the Russian natural gas pipeline.

In turn, Putin is preparing for the worst, knowing that he can rely on China to offset the economic fallout. Xi, for his part, has confirmed that there are “no limits” to the ties between China and Russia. What he really means, of course, is that China will bolster the Russian economy in defence of Putin’s aggression.

For every dollar or euro lost from Russian coffers, China will eagerly offer up a yuan. For every Nord Stream 2, there is a project like Power of Siberia 2, a planned pipeline to move Russian natural gas into China. And ultimately, the tragic implication is that for every NATO aircraft, there will be a Chinese one prepared to deploy.

Whether or not Russia invades Ukraine — “partially” or otherwise — this fundamental shift has taken place in global affairs. The security of Ukraine is essential, but Western allies cannot afford to miss the forest for the trees. After an era of covertly fomenting dictatorships around the world, China and Russia have chosen to openly embrace one another. In doing so, they have formally committed to propping up a system that rivals the Western liberal order.

I believe strongly in Ukraine’s sovereignty and its right to self-determination. With that said, we must remember that this is about much more than Ukraine. For countries like Canada — which has not only supported but greatly benefited from Western multilateralism — the stakes are so much higher.

So, instead of waffling about Canada’s role in the Western alliance, it’s time to imagine where we would be with no alliance at all.

The ousting of leader Erin O’Toole this week was not a referendum on his performance, but rather symptomatic of larger fractures in the Conservative party.

A coalition that was founded to work in spite of — or even because of — regional and ideological tensions now appears incapable of agreeing upon a coherent set of principles for Conservative partisans, let alone Canadians more broadly.

O’Toole, the latest casualty of these tensions, was right to try and modernize the party, with policies characterized by inclusive social policy, a serious stance on climate change and a principled conservative vision for Canadian workers. However, his flailing efforts to appease competing factions created confusion for members, disappointment for voters and inconsistency for Conservative candidates.

As unfashionable as it might be in some circles, I continue to be a proud progressive conservative, and as a result am nothing but distressed with the party’s current positioning. While there were glaring flaws in O’Toole’s execution, his exit should be seen for what it is — a sign that the party has work to do to engage its members and to offer an approach to governing which could appeal to the vast majority of Canadians — rather than what it is not: some providential affirmation of vague social conservatism.

The task facing the Conservative party is not to ignore its history in a misguided attempt to turn itself into the political equivalent of a pretzel. Far from it. As Tories, we need to embrace our history, seriously consider what Canadian progressive conservatism means today, and find our backbone in the process.

Of course, we can expect the process to be a messy one.

A vocal minority within the party has generated intense media fascination, won excessive influence and kneecapped creditable efforts to reconsider the party’s stance on important issues.

The push-and-pull dynamics between populists and institutionalists, westerners and central Canadians, and social conservatives and progressives are not new. However, the rapid shift in the Canadian political centre, hastened by the pandemic, has laid those tensions bare.

The Conservative party’s inability or unwillingness to adequately respond can largely be attributed to its relative success in avoiding electoral catastrophe.

The Liberals, on the other hand, were shocked into change after a series of embarrassing electoral losses to the Harper Conservatives. Their worst-ever result in 2011 — including relegation to third-party status — allowed Justin Trudeau to lead the party to a remarkable renaissance by unapologetically embracing social liberalism, exiling members of the old guard and setting his sights on a younger, more progressive coalition of voters. The result? He was propelled to victory in 2015.

It turns out that a brush with annihilation is a powerful source of courage. If only our party could be so lucky.

Meagre losses have failed to give us that overwhelming mandate for reform. Quite frankly, many have become content with being the first runner-up — really the first loser — and taking painkillers to mask afflictions that actually require more complicated surgery. Rather, continued attempts to maintain an existing but declining base have meant the party has repeatedly failed to take the bold steps required in establishing a broader base that can actually win an election.

Canada needs strong voices who can address its growing affordability crisis and articulate a coherent foreign policy. Voices who can promote economic dynamism that propels young Canadians to enjoy the same opportunities as their parents, or (imagine) even better ones.

I hope that the soon-to-be-announced leadership race is defined by honest conversations about the Conservative coalition, and an acknowledgment that the loudest voices in the room or on social media are sometimes only that.

Maybe, if we are lucky, we will get a new leader who will finally challenge Conservatives to pursue a true north star — one of genuine, admirable and inclusive Canadian conservatism.

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.