Category: Chairman’s Desk

This has become a dispiriting phase of the pandemic. This week, Ontario slammed the emergency brake on — again.

At times like this, as we enter our second year of missing Passovers, Easters and birthdays — feeling like we are all being held hostage to a string of disheartening failures — it can help to take the long view.

I’ve written in this space before that COVID-19 is the second pandemic that I have lived through — the first one being the HIV-AIDS crisis weathered in the 1980s and 1990s.

And while you can’t comparatively rate loss and pain, despair then seemed endlessly prolonged by a string of failures, and because of the lack of a pharmaceutical salvation.

It has been 40 years since researchers started looking for an HIV vaccine, and the story has been one of failure after bitter failure. Even some of the characters in that pandemic — like Dr. Anthony Fauci — are reappearing in this one, the same then as now.

So it made for some welcome good news this week to learn that, according to a new paper published by economist Jeffrey E. Harris at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all of those failures have amounted to something precious indeed.

Harris finds that more than 85 per cent of the technology powering the COVID-19 vaccine candidates can be traced back to prototypes tested in HIV vaccine trials, from the synthetic mRNA in Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, to the viral-vector model used by Johnson & Johnson in their single-shot COVID-19 vaccine.

There is a certain poetic beauty in this realization. After a long winter of suffering and discontent, there comes a hopeful spring. (This is true in HIV-AIDS research as well, which still has no vaccine, but does have a prophylactic in the form of Truvada, a once-daily pill that can prevent HIV infection, in addition to the breakthrough antiretrovirals that truly turned the tide back in the mid-1990s.)

But in Harris’ finding, there is also an important lesson for the rest of us.

And by the rest of us, I mean here is where politicians and policy-makers can learn from scientists. Success can grow from failure — but only if we are honest with ourselves, rigorous and transparent in our approach, and clear-eyed about what works and what doesn’t.

The difficult part is that we can never know which failures or dead ends today will be redeemed tomorrow. That process begins with a clinical examination of what went wrong, and we are in the earliest stages of that process, even as we continue to grapple with COVID-19 in real time.

Auditor General of Canada Karen Hogan’s recently released report is only the first of what will no doubt become an entire genre of bureaucratic literature: the COVID-19 post-mortem.

In her report, Hogan found that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) was unprepared for the pandemic, with some of the issues marring the early response to COVID having been flagged as far back as 20 years ago.

The picture of the agency that Hogan paints reflects a broader failing of the federal government, which is the atrophying of Canada’s state capacity (i.e., our ability to effectively mobilize its decision-making apparatus in a crisis). For a country that was traumatized by SARS to have a federal public health agency unprepared for a pandemic is inexplicable. It reflects a concerning inability to learn from our past failures.

On the other hand, it is not all doom and gloom. Hogan found that while PHAC’s response was fumbled, other branches of the federal government did an admirable job in quickly ushering out new support payments for workers and businesses in the pandemic’s early days.

If we accept that part of the reason for that decline in state capacity is our general inability to proceed without endless box-ticking and other forms of bureaucratic red tape, the rapid response exemplified by CEWS and CERB were the exception that made the rule. Turns out it actually was possible to move fast and adjust later.

These are our earliest learnings, but the trick will be to not be deaf to them. The trick will be to find the confidence to allow us to have our failure move us forward.

The Supreme Court has spoken. Climate change — and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions — is a matter of national concern.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is constitutional and that the federal government indeed has the authority to implement or require provinces to implement a minimum price on carbon.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Richard Wagner argued that the issue of reducing GHGs to address climate change meets the definition of a “matter of national concern” and thus can fall within Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction.

In the majority’s view, climate change “is causing significant environmental, economic and human harm nationally and internationally, with especially high impacts in the Canadian Arctic, coastal regions and on Indigenous peoples.”

The majority also agreed that the provinces do not have sufficient ability to address climate change independently. Provincial governments, they reasoned, do not have authority to implement a consistent standard across the entire country and, further, the withdrawal or refusal of a single province or territory would “jeopardize its success in the rest of Canada.”

In short: we are all in this together.

The prime minister has used similar reasoning before. Speaking about the pricing act in Parliament in 2016, Trudeau remarked that “because pollution crosses borders, all provinces must do their part.”

The ruling itself is a gift to the Liberals ahead of another election, because it finally settles the prolonged debate over the constitutionality of the law. Opponents will continue to attack carbon pricing in the court of public opinion, but for now at least, the legal challenges have ended.

Beyond that, the language in the ruling is a boon for team Trudeau. Having identified climate change as a matter of national concern, the court’s decision seems to imply that a federal government — regardless of politics — is not just empowered but expected to take appropriate action. Canadians respect the impartiality of our highest court, so the language of the ruling will serve the Liberals well as they gear up for an election.

At the same time, the decision presents a unique challenge for the leader of the Opposition.

Last week, Erin O’Toole attempted to usher in a new era for his party by declaring, in his speech at the CPC policy convention, that the debate over the reality of climate change was “over.”

Not so fast.

Delegates later voted against a motion recognizing that climate change is real (albeit one with wider policy implications). After the vote, O’Toole continued with his stake in the ground by declaring, “I am in charge.”

And while he is indeed in charge, he is going to have to deal with the court’s commentary on the “national concern” standard and the responsibilities attached to it.

But here is where there may be a silver lining for O’Toole.

Notwithstanding the inevitable protests of Western MPs who fiercely oppose any form of carbon pricing, the party desperately needs a sincere strategy on climate action.

It has become rote for pundits — and pollsters — to say that the CPC cannot win another election without a serious climate plan, so why do we keep ignoring them?

My hope is that the settled legal case allows O’Toole some breathing room to develop a Conservative approach to carbon pricing — and in so doing, garner the party enough support in Ontario, and elsewhere, to win an election.

A genuine Conservative climate plan could achieve what O’Toole and his predecessor have failed to do to date: prove to Canadians that the CPC is a modern party, open to change, reflective of and responsive to their concerns.

Let the opponents find support in provincial governments who — like the three dissenting justices — can attack what they see as the law’s jurisdictional overreach rather than climate action generally.

Two elections and, now a decision of the Supreme Court, have settled this matter.

It is now time for the federal Conservatives to pick a different fight.

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.