Category: Chairman’s Desk

For Ontarians, this week has been a stark reminder of just how truly unalike their provincial and federal governments are. For Premier Ford, that may be very welcome news.

On the one hand, we awoke on Tuesday to news that federal Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland will table her first full budget since taking on the role—and the government’s first in two years—on April 19.

On the other, Ontario’s minister of finance, Peter Bethlenfalvy was delivering his first budget as well, the third fiscal update provided by the province since COVID-19 began last spring.

It is a remarkable study in contrasts that speaks volumes about each government’s political priorities. For the Ford government, accountability and transparency are the hallmark of their appeal to voters, but they have also focused squarely on their core competencies within their jurisdiction – investing in health care and education.

The federal Liberals, alternatively, have focused more on delivering big ticket items throughout their pandemic response.

Unsurprisingly, the differences did not end there.

In “finishing the job” they began last year, Ford and Bethlenfalvy have tried to strike a difficult balance between fiscal stewardship and pandemic response until vaccines are in every single arm. To do so, they’ve tabled a budget that relies on a measured approach, bolstered by claims to focus specifically on the “lives and livelihoods” its title invokes.

Not only does the budget commit multi-billion-dollar spending to vaccine rollout, hospitals, testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, and long-term care, but it also makes a concerted effort to shore up funding for business supports, skills training, and parental supports.

These commitments will be crucial at a time when many Ontarians are experiencing cognitive dissonance between the good news they’re hearing and the less rosy facts on the ground. We have a way to go yet—and investments likes these will be the ones carrying us over the finish line.

The same goes for additional investments in long-term care and their ambitious commitments to provide 30,000 new long-term care beds over 10 years. True to his record, Bethlenfalvy wants to be seen not as delivering one-offs but rather making capital investments that will pay off in the long run.

To be sure, the spending taps are open (to the tune of $190.3 billion this past fiscal year) but they are flowing less freely or widely than those in Ottawa. It’s a difference in approach that Canadians will notice, and the Ford government is betting that Ontarians will appreciate the value of their method.

Don’t expect them to play on the contrast, however. Having watched Trudeau for the past few months, Premier Ford is keenly aware that Canadians have no appetite for divisive politicking until the pandemic has been managed and decisively put to bed by mass vaccination.

Instead, expect Ford to let his government’s approach speak for itself. And once the vast majority of Ontarians have been vaccinated in the fall, expect the Premier and his cabinet to launch a full recovery plan in the form of an election budget to carry them into the next campaign.

The good news is that until then, they have committed to doing and spending more than enough to keep Ontario afloat.

As for the deficit—Bethlenfalvy has conceded that it will be with us for a decade at least and he will certainly not be alone among governments, not only across the country but around the world, in that legacy.

That will be cause for fiscal hawks to gripe, but at the end of the day, the Tories can argue: who better than Ford and his team to chip away at that deficit?

All they will to need to do so, they can conveniently claim, is four more years.

In one sense, Erin O’Toole’s first policy convention as party leader came at a tough time. The party cannot gather in person because of the pandemic; the prospect of another virtual event was admittedly difficult to get excited about, and O’Toole himself would need to deliver one of the most important speeches of his career to a dead silent room.

In another sense, the timing was just right. The convention comes on the heels of an advertising campaign introducing O’Toole to Canadians (“Just Erin” goes the tag line). Speculation is ramping up for a spring election, with many Canadians taking a fresh look at political leaders.

Plus, the party’s old fractures were beginning to show, and something was going to need to be done — or said.

All of this meant that even in virtual form, the stakes were high for O’Toole’s speech on Friday night. Though the format freed him from the confines of conventional delivery, O’Toole and his team ultimately chose not to take creative advantage of the medium.

Instead, he delivered a classic, workmanlike address that sought to broaden the party’s tent, gesturing towards the centrist direction he hopes to lead the party, if not exactly bolting towards it.

Prior to the convention, social conservatives were organizing to win delegates, but ultimately their push for pro-life policies foundered on procedural grounds. (The party capped the number of motions at precisely 34 and chalked it up to the virtual format — another benefit of hosting the convention now.)

Instead, the party took up an environmental resolution, recognizing that climate change is real and committing the party to action.

What “action” exactly remains to be seen. He explicitly turned down an opportunity to answer that burning question in his speech Friday night, even as he acknowledged the party has fought and lost two elections “because voters did not think we were serious” about climate change.

All scuffles over the agenda of a policy convention and the parsing of the leader’s address mirror the conversations and debates that conservatives are having across the country. If the number of recent leaks and anonymous complaints is any indication, those conversations are not always favourable to O’Toole.

Despite having only been leader for six months, under the very unusual and restrictive circumstances of the pandemic, the running complaint is that O’Toole needs a clearer vision and a distinct identity in order for the party to pose a compelling alternative to Trudeau’s Liberals.

Sadly, “Just Erin” will not be enough to dispel this criticism, and O’Toole’s speech on Friday was his greatest opportunity to date to articulate his vision for the party. The answer is largely to be found in the newly unveiled “Canada Recovery Plan,” which packages together the party’s various post-COVID policy preferences.

But equally as important was O’Toole’s signalling that the party would no longer rely on Trudeau’s own scandals as the basis for his defeat.

Instead, O’Toole called for the party to find “the courage to grow” as it becomes “the party for all of Canada.” He made a proactive appeal to women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ Canadians. This tack towards the centre is not without precedent, even in O’Toole’s short term.

Back in September, shortly after becoming leader, O’Toole delivered a Labour Day message that clearly hinted at the direction he planned to take. He spoke then of “solidarity” and called for an economic policy that amounted to “more than just wealth creation.”

On Friday, he reiterated that desire to make inroads with new audiences, including organized labour, calling for a change in the party’s approach to win unions’ trust.

Even as he continues his outreach and appeals to those beyond the party’s base. O’Toole’s next real challenge as leader is to bring the party along with him.

That has not been easy during COVID, since it is much harder to corral a caucus when they cannot meet in person. Many of the party’s MPs are from Western Canada, and they have not thrilled to O’Toole’s move to the centre.

But they wanted a clear vision, and on Friday, O’Toole answered.

By now, it has become tiresome to point out just how long Canadians have waited since the Trudeau government tabled its last federal budget.

Week after week, Opposition MPs and partisans have piled on with the effect of lending the whole debacle an air of legitimacy, as though many are simply taking potshots at a government besieged by extraordinary circumstance.

But the reality is, this is no partisan matter. It is a travesty. It’s been 726 days and counting — the longest interlude between federal budgets in our nation’s history.

The government will argue that the singular challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic justifies a pass. That it explains nearly two years without a comprehensive fiscal plan. That the prime minister and his cabinet shouldn’t be troubled by the distraction of something as marginal to the country’s administration as a budget.

Parliament’s oversight of the nation’s finances, they argue, can wait while the government carries out its crusade to save us all from this wretched pandemic.

It is a tale as old as the Greek mythology it calls to mind. In this particular political version, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is cast as Odysseus, conquering the demons of the wider world while his kingdom awaits his return, and with it a chance to hear his postwar plans.

And it is a tale that is working for the prime minister. A recent Nanos Research poll shows that more Canadians trust the Liberals with the country’s finances than any other party.

The Canadian electorate is then like Odysseus’ devoted wife Penelope, siting patiently and faithfully by, as they await the return of their leader and a peek into his fiscal plans.

But as Odysseus learns in Homer’s epic, other suitors will arrive — and even the most patient subject will grow weary of waiting.

And so, watch for the prime minister to use the budget, and all the promise inherent in it, as the kickoff to a spring election.

Expect a co-ordinated effort by Trudeau and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland, to ensure that Canadians understand exactly what is at stake for them in the upcoming election. That we all understand that we must return the Liberals to power if we want the benefits promised in the budget.

Here’s the playbook the government is likely to follow. Freeland will stand in the House and introduce a decidedly progressive budget designed to appeal, at a high level, to the government’s base and those to its left. It will also contain a series of measures with particular appeal to target groups and priority electoral districts.

And then, as soon as she sits down, Trudeau will walk over to Rideau Hall and ask the acting Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

And if he does, it won’t be the first time Canadians have seen that movie. The 2011 budget pulled the Harper Conservatives’ into a successful election campaign and in 2019, the Liberals’ budget framed the coming election in terms of the middle class.

On balance, with the vicissitudes of vaccine distribution being the one caveat, the opportunity looks to be ripe for the taking. A well-crafted budget — one that assuages Canadian’s post-pandemic anxieties and doesn’t entirely ignore the very real concerns about our ballooning debt — may just be the ticket to a majority government.

And there is evidence that isn’t a crazy idea. That Nanos poll gives the Liberals a nine-point lead over the Conservatives on trust to manage the country’s finances, And as every partisan knows, a Conservative party unable to earn the trust of Canadians when it comes to the public purse, is dead on arrival.

No wonder the Liberals feel as through they have wind in their sails.

And for Erin O’Toole, making up that nine-point gap will not only be a Herculean task, it will be an asymmetrical fight.

On one side, the government with the ability to deploy a budget for all its worth. And on the other side, an Opposition leader with few tools at his disposal to do the job.

The rest of us? As we have for 726 days, we will simply have to wait and see.

It has been a long, winding and unnecessarily tortuous journey, but finally, the federal government is about to recognize all Canadians’ right to a peaceful death.

Back in 2016, when the Trudeau government first introduced legislation that legalized medical assistance in dying (MAID), the government described it as “the responsible first step.”

It would have been more honest to describe it as “hiding behind the skirt of the court,” as Parliament only acted after being pushed by those in the ermine robes. 　

But despite being mandated by the Supreme Court, legal challenges to the law’s many restrictions would begin within weeks. After all the twists and turns of the various cases and rulings were settled, these challenges would oblige the government to, once again, revisit the matter. All very predictable, I suppose.

And so now, after four delays, a bill is back before the House, having undergone surprisingly expansive amendment by the Senate. And once again, a deadline is staring the government in the face. It must now pass by the end of the month, unless it asks again for a fifth extension.

Eliminating the requirement that a patient’s death be “reasonably foreseeable” is the most significant change in this bill. But of course, that was also the basis for the Charter challenge that prompted the reforms in the first place.

The current disagreement has been reduced to the time at which those suffering solely from mental illness could become eligible for MAID. The House wants a period of two years; the Senate a year and a half.

But this petty dispute overshadows a far more egregious reversion. The version of the bill sent back to the House by the Senate included an amendment, which would have allowed those who fear dementia or Alzheimer’s eroding their future competence, to make advance requests for MAID. The government has, regrettably, stripped this amendment from the version of the legislation that is now poised to pass later this month. (The current regime requires informed consent right up until the scheduled date of death, making it an option that’s out of grasp for dementia patients.)

The Senate amendments were well supported: in a poll commissioned by Dying with Dignity Canada, 78 per cent of Canadians agreed a “waiver of final consent” should be available in cases where the individual was assessed, approved for MAID, but lost capacity before the scheduled date. Even more (83 per cent) supported allowing those with dementia to make advance requests for MAID. (Full disclosure: my consulting firm has previously worked with Dying with Dignity in an advisory capacity.)

From a policy perspective, the mechanism required to make this work is not especially complex. Those diagnosed with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease or other neurologically degenerative diseases could be empowered by law to create a checklist, the conditions of which, once met, would constitute their advanced consent to receiving medical assistance in dying.

This checklist would not be evaluated by family members or those with a vested interest in the outcome, but remain the exclusive responsibility of medical professionals.

Too many of us have seen what these diseases can do to our quality of life and basic dignity as humans.

I count myself among them. One of my most painful experiences has been bearing witness to my own mother’s slow decline. Having held my mother at the bedside of her husband as my father died, and of my sister as she died, I know the choices my mother would make now if she could.

Medical assistance in dying remains one of the most ethically complex and difficult issues to legislate, even if public opinion is clearly agreed on outcomes. Were it not for COVID, the government’s proposed legislation and the back-and-forth with the Senate would likely be the leading story out of Ottawa. Instead, it seems that the legislation is unfortunately destined to pass quietly in its much-diminished form.

In recognizing the 2016 legislation as merely a first step, the Trudeau government showed a rare streak of modesty. The reforms they are proposing now are important. And long overdue. And, once again, court mandated. But this time, they are disappointingly modest.

The government’s failure to go further and address the expectations of Canadians when it comes to medical assistance in dying is more than unfortunate. It represents a cowardice unbecoming of caring government.

Black History Month presents an annual opportunity to reflect on the achievements and legacy of Black Canadians. But the month itself is more than that. It is also a good time to consider the impacts our systems of public policy development and implementation have in terms of anti-Black racism.

And for many, like myself, it is also a time to listen, to recognize our own limitations and engage in dialogue that deepens our understanding. An understanding that leads to more thoughtful and effective action.

And that extends to those who work in the orbit of politics. For them, this month should provide a chance to consider the role policy development and government action plays in building a society that is more equitable, more inclusive and more just.

To that end, there are important opportunities to be taken to address the roots of anti-Black racism and create targeted supports for Black communities. One such example came this fall, when the Trudeau government established a $221-million loan program for Black entrepreneurs.

Targeted support for Black-owned businesses and entrepreneurs has also been a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s approach to COVID recovery.

In a speech earlier this month to business executives, U.S. treasury secretary Janet Yellen commented on the disparities in economic outcomes for Black Americans.

“Economic crises,” Yellen said, “hit people of colour harder and longer.” An important objective of Biden’s relief plan, she went on, is “to make sure that this pandemic isn’t another generational setback for racial equality.”

Secretary Yellen is correct in her assessment. It is an assessment that extends to Canada too. Bolstering economic opportunity and expanding its reach, is an essential way to address the structures that underlie systemic racism and disadvantage Black communities.

At the same time, the issues exacerbated by the pandemic — access to housing, viable employment — preceded the pandemic and will continue once we return to some sense of normal.

And that is when the test will come. Will new policies effectively deal with the underlying structural issues which have existed for so long? Policy focused on anti-racism is, of course, crucial. But the answers are not simple. That’s because neither the issues we need to address nor the policy solutions that support them are one dimensional.

A prime example of this is the federal government’s revised Canada Child Benefit. The CCB was introduced in 2016 as a way to simplify spending on child benefits and to bolster federal support for low- and middle-income families.

By 2019, the policy was already lauded as being a tremendous success. It has contributed to a decline in child poverty from 11 per cent to nine per cent.

The CCB has, rightly, not been touted as an anti-racist policy. That’s because its target expands well beyond BIPOC communities. But in many ways, it is particularly impactful for improving equity and addressing barriers for Black and minority Canadians.

We know that child poverty, like so many aspects of our society, is a racialized issue. Research tells us that it disproportionately impacts Black and Indigenous communities. In Canada, both groups are overrepresented in the child welfare system as a result of systemic insecurity when it comes to food, housing and other needs. The CCB helps to not only address the welfare of children but also helps lift families out of poverty.

When it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of programs like the CCB, consideration needs to be given to the extent these programs played a role in remedying some of the great challenges that face Black Canadians and other minority groups in our country.

So, as Black History Month comes to a close, let’s keep in mind that a lens of diversity, equity and inclusion is needed to evaluate all policy — even that which is not explicitly race-based. That in combating systemic racism, the tools we have should be as broad and as deep as the multitude of issues that contribute to systems of oppression and inequality.

And let’s also keep in mind that, as important as the month of February is, the work must carry on. Every month of the year.