Category: Chairman’s Desk

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.

Like so many Canadians, I sat transfixed and seized with emotion on Wednesday, as Canada’s House of Commons unanimously passed legislation to ban the long discredited and violent practice of conversion therapy.

It is rare for such an important issue to be handled with such grace in modern politics. Even more remarkable is what Canadians witnessed as they focused their attention on the opposition benches.

It is one thing to see an Opposition leader behave like a prime minister. It is another thing entirely to see an Opposition caucus legislate with the authority and urgency of a sitting government. Make no mistake, the accomplishment here is not just one of policy-making, but also of caucus leadership.

That leadership starts, of course, with Erin O’Toole, but the surprise is it now extends to a wider team of Conservative MPs who are authentically attuned to LGBTQ issues. What’s more, the unanimous motion points to a significant shift in parliamentary strategy and the caucus policy that underlies it.

The moment highlighted rising talent on the Conservative bench. Politicians like Eric Duncan and Melissa Lantsman represent a recent generation of gay and lesbian Conservatives determined to advocate for LGBTQ-focused legislation emerging from either side of the aisle. It’s clear that Duncan and Lantsman are finding their voices in caucus. With a leader keen to support their work, we should all be watching what they do next.

For obvious reasons, this vote was personal for me.

Any LGBTQ Canadian is aware of the nightmare of conversion therapy. Even without first-hand experience, there is a visceral reaction to the idea of being “changed” or “fixed” for something that is inherent to who we are.

Imagine: at the precise moment when young people most need support to understand their feelings and desires, they have those emotions dissected and judged instead. As so many survivors have told us, the fallout can last for years.

But beyond the horrors of conversion therapy itself, Wednesday’s events in Parliament ultimately reaffirmed something I have always known: the Conservative ranks are filled with allies of LGBTQ Canadians.

Indeed, alongside MPs like Duncan and Lantsman were long-standing allies of our community, like Michelle Rempel Garner and Erin O’Toole himself. Their voices, and those of countless other Tories, rang out on Wednesday as loudly as their LGBTQ colleagues.

Even prominent social conservatives in the party should be applauded — perhaps quietly, in private — for coming around to the notion of pragmatic opposition. There were genuine differences of opinion regarding this legislation, and however misguided I feel they may have been, for many MPs they were sincere. The fact that those differences were tamed — every member of caucus was brought on board — is a very positive sign for an Opposition too easily accused of “not wanting to govern.”

It was a sign of decisive leadership, of effective collaboration, and, most of all, a sign that Erin O’Toole’s Opposition government is ready to show its new face to Canadians. A face that is more dynamic, competitive, inclusive and primetime-ready than it has been for a very, very long time.

As a Conservative, it’s exciting to see. But more than that, as an advocate for conservative principles, it’s an encouraging sign that Canada’s centre-right party will be able to focus on the issues that matter most: fiscal stewardship, personal liberty and fairness. For too long, the brand of “conservative values” has been tarred with the stench of hate and social division. Wednesday’s motion puts the lie to that notion.

Looking back on an emotional and historic week, I believe Canadians saw the best of their Parliament. While it remains to be seen how the Senate treats Bill C-4, it actually matters not. Even if a few unelected senators cause trouble, it will only serve to underscore what Team O’Toole has managed to pull off in the House. We all should be very grateful.

History is once again convulsing Europe. As COVID cases surge, the continent is gripped by crisis after crisis, triggering an ugly collision of public health issues and social conflict. Meanwhile, the leadership of Belarus, along with Vladimir Putin, have manufactured a destabilizing humanitarian crisis at the continent’s eastern border.

Canadians can count ourselves fortunate to see a slight ebb in our “fourth wave” rather than the exponential rise seen elsewhere, not to mention the absence of such threats from autocrats.

Nevertheless, experts keep reminding us that the virus isn’t going anywhere — there will be spikes throughout the winter and the holiday season. And as in Europe, these spikes will bring political and social crises with them.

Sudden lockdowns and vaccine mandates have created major issues in Europe. Mass protests are occurring across the continent. Hooligans provoked violent clashes with police in Rotterdam, and the far-right dominated coverage at other large gatherings.

The Austrian chancellor blamed vaccine skepticism as he moved to implement a total vaccine mandate, the first western country to do so. The German health minister offered a warning that eventually “everyone will be vaccinated, recovered or dead.”

The concept of herd immunity has gone full circle to become political dynamite, as leaders in current hot spots grapple with the issue in different ways. France’s government, seeing roughly 30,000 cases a day, has acted similarly to ours — requiring proof of vaccination at many spaces, while shying away from drawing a tougher line.

In Britain, restrictions are virtually non-existent as cases soar over 40,000 a day. While a top health adviser to the government has framed this as a step in reaching herd immunity, one might also pose that Prime Minister Boris Johnson is in no position to implement controversial measures as questions swirl around his leadership.

At home, we need not see this all as a harbinger of doom, but instead must remember managing COVID is largely a game of expectations. And those expectations must be firmly grounded in reality. Pollyannaish thinking will only result in a greater political price later on.

Lockdowns, in the minds of many Canadians, would represent a political failure. Our vaccine uptake has been strong, but questions remain over how politicians can or will act if we see significant surges in cases.

Vaccination mandates are already a source of aggravation for Conservatives, raising the topic again and again — and in so doing, creating space for the People’s Party of Canada and other fringe advocates. Keeping a grip on this issue will be no easy task for the Tories.

Incumbents like Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are once again in the precarious position of managing another holiday season — and with it, another consequential wave of the virus.

To shut down the economy again would be risky for any leader, undoubtedly compounding the anxiety brought on by market indicators, inflation, supply chains and labour shortages.

In September, Doug Ford called vaccine passes our “best chance” at avoiding another lockdown, and it seems unlikely the premier — who is facing an election in June — would risk irking Ontarians again with mass restrictions.

As Ontario sees around 600 new cases a day, Ford must get out in front of this issue and demonstrate that he is working proactively to mitigate both public health risks and public dismay.

Just this week, the premier took steps in this direction, with his government announcing its plan to rollout the vaccine to children ages 5-11, and maintaining control over the proof of vaccination system by extending certain emergency orders until March.

Sustaining this arm’s-length-but-authoritative approach, while continually putting his government and himself front and centre of vaccination efforts, is the right approach for Ford and his peers.

Chaos in Europe has shown that drastic actions without adequate forewarning will activate deep divisions and further jeopardize public health, at a time when there are already more than enough fires to put out.