Category: Chairman’s Desk

This article was originally published in the Toronto Star on May 10, 2020.

Fingers crossed, as the peak of the pandemic fades into Ontario’s rear-view, Queen’s Park has begun to turn its attention to the perhaps even more challenging task of reopening the economy. The province, along with governments the world over, has laid out a framework to guide the crucial next phases of recovery and taken the first cautious steps on the way.

For most leaders, this pivot comes at a time of personal political strength. Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia has earned a 25 per cent bounce in his approval rating; U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is up 18 points; Angela Merkel up by 14. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has gained somewhere between seven and 16 per cent, depending on the poll.

Provincial leaders have also fared very well. While Quebec Premier François Legault now enjoys near-Stalinist levels of popular support at 96 per cent, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is not far behind at 83 per cent.

For Premier Ford, there are, I think, two factors at play: the first is that politics is a game of expectations, and he is exceeding old expectations of both his capability and his performance like a golden buzzer contestant on “America’s Got Talent.” Countless times I have heard committed opponents of Ford acknowledge that he is delivering an authentic and highly competent response to this crisis.

The second is that in every crisis, regardless of the quality of the response, leaders benefit from an effect that political scientists call “rallying around the flag,” which occurs during a crisis when voters are reluctant to criticize their government and instead give them the benefit of the doubt.

The common error leaders benefitting from this effect make is to mistake the temporary sugar high of support during the event for enduring support after the event. It’s a mistake because the evidence suggests they are judged by how they come out of the crisis and not by how they managed in the thick of it. In short, it’s a bounce, not a summit.

Just ask former premier Ernie Eves. After enjoying a significant boost in his approval ratings for managing through the SARS crisis and the 2003 blackout, Eves called an October election that year. He entered into the race with a commanding double-digit lead, which evaporated by election day, resulting in Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals sweeping into power (Disclosure: I was co-chair of the Eves campaign.)

This pattern repeats itself again and again. During the Iran hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter saw his approval rating jump 26 per cent. But in bungling the long-term handling of the crisis, Carter ended up losing the 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan.

In June 2017, U.K. PM Theresa May, holding a 21-point lead and seeking to capitalize on her party’s grip on the Brexit file, confidently called a snap election. The result? She blew her majority and was returned to power with a weakened minority propped up by the fringe DUP. May’s miscalculation and the ensuing debacle prolonged the Brexit crisis.

Already, there are rumours in Ottawa about Liberals considering a fall election. But in addition to the logistical and practical nightmare of campaigning in the midst of a pandemic, the party should read history.

It is far too soon to declare Mission Accomplished when it comes to COVID-19. After all, a long road to recovery — in both public health and economic terms — remains ahead.

But political performance to date has not been for naught. In Ford’s case, his persona and presence are reinforcing the covenant he made with his voters when they elected him in the first place. He has also won a second chance with many other voters who had written off his government but now see the same qualities of leadership that his supporters have long endorsed. By focusing resolutely on the recovery still to come — in both substantive policy and communications terms — the premier stands to build on this strong foundation.

For both Trudeau and Ford, the political challenge will be to continue to remind voters of what they liked about what they saw during the crisis, as the hard, gruelling, unrelenting work of recovery continues.

Executive Chairman Jaime Watt joins Vassy Kapelos to discuss the ongoing Conservative Party of Canada leadership race and how it has been impacted by COVID-19.

This article was originally posted on LinkedIn on May 6, 2020.

This month, Canadian provinces start hanging out the “open for business” signs. From retail stores in Quebec to restaurant patios in Manitoba, golf courses in Alberta to garden centres in Ontario, thousands of companies are welcoming back their customers. Each province has its own list, rules, and timetable, depending on how well it is “planking the curve” of COVID-19. And entrepreneurs face unprecedented challenges, as they consider how to comply with government strictures and still stay afloat.

Many business owners are confused or crying foul, about rules that complicate service or disadvantage certain firms. Manitoba, for example, does not permit gatherings of more than ten people. But how does this affect a restaurant? Are servers counted among the ten, even though they are not always present on the patio? Until May 8, Ontario’s garden centres were limited to curbside pickup and delivery. Yet grocery stores, some of which also sold plants, could have customers walk through and smell the roses. Why the double standard?

And even if businesses follow the rules, how do they reassure clients that it is indeed safe to return? Medical professionals, many of whom can now resume their practices, face an uphill battle. Because of this pandemic, hospitals have seen a dramatic drop in emergency room visits. If people are not seeking help for serious issues including heart attacks and appendicitis, are they really going to get in the dentist’s or optometrist’s chair for a routine cleaning or eye exam?

And then there are employees. Unless they feel their workplace is safe, many may not report back. Some unions, such as the United Food and Commercial Workers’ union, which represents employees at the Cargill meat processing plant in Alberta, have sought stop work orders. In other cases, workers may choose to remain on CERB or student aid rather than risk workplace exposure to the virus. Labour now commands a premium, even though business income is down.

In this new environment, your business needs to do more than just reopen. It needs a reopening strategy. You need to anticipate the expectations of your customers and employees. You need creative thinking to outperform the competition — just because coffee shops can open does not mean clients will patronize your coffee shop. You need to know what will draw them in – and what risks might be keeping them away.

Think of the debate around masks. Will mandatory masks make customers feel safer in your establishment or simply put them off? Already two grocery chains, T and T and Longo’s, have announced that shoppers will need to cover their faces. Should your business follow suit – and if so, what will the protocol look like? Will clients be expected to purchase masks if they don’t have one? Will they be physically turned away if they refuse?

As with every successful strategy, the key is information. With it, you can avoid costly mistakes like a public relations disaster or spending on unnecessary precautions. Thorough research, including focus groups, polling and analysis, can help shape your road map to recovery. But how do you obtain this information, particularly if you are a small to medium sized business already closely watching your bottom line?

That is where strategy and public affairs firms can provide a distinct advantage. Because they work with clients across a variety of industries, public affairs firms can conduct multi-sector research which is cost-effective and comprehensive. They can tease out the information for a specific business without losing sight of the big picture. They monitor trends in government and the private sector which impact your industry. They can connect you with other firms or institutions looking for partnerships which could benefit your business in the short or long term. They can advise you on how to best engage your employees so they feel safe on their return to work – and choose to stay on the job.

This type of strategic thinking is also crucial for supply chain management, which can make or break your reopening strategy. The worst possible move is to over-promise and under-deliver. Getting back to garden centres, many of their websites in Ontario feature plants which are not yet available, due to backlogs in the supply chain. To keep money coming in the door, a company could offer incentives—such as free delivery or bonus items—for customers who pre-purchase certain products. This would set them apart from the competition, as well as avoid frustrating customers who assume the products are already in stock.

Finally, it is crucial to remember that reopening is not a one-shot deal. What works one week may not work the next, and your business must have the agility to pivot as the pandemic runs its course. You need strategies for today but also for tomorrow, including contingency plans in case you are forced to close shop again for a second wave of the virus. The right advisors can help navigate the “new normal”, keep your bottom line healthy and ensure your customers and employees are safe. Everyone can use a hand as we stay apart – but move forward – together.

This article was originally published in the Toronto Star on May 3, 2020.

It’s not right, nor is it fair to compare one tragedy with another. To claim some grief more poignant than other grief.

But it is equally wrong to let new grief submerge the pain and memory of grief past.

As we come to grips with the devastation that COVID-19 has wrought on our communities, our health, our finances, our very way of life, it has also, for some of us, brought back painful reminders of another pandemic: HIV/AIDS, which has infected 74 million and killed 32 million people.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic is one that I remember well. It decimated my community; robbed an entire generation of unrealized promise, sowed terror among us, changed how we lived and how we were intimate with each other.

Like COVID-19, it began in a seemingly far away place. A mysterious illness that started manifesting itself in otherwise healthy young men.

I remember reading about it for the first time in “The Body Politic,” sitting on the steps of the Second Cup at Church and Wellesley. I also remember paying it no mind. Those were glorious, carefree days. Days filled with the certainty of invincibility that is only the promise of the young.

And then, my friends began to get sick. More and more and more of my friends got sicker and sicker and sicker. And then, they started to die. So many that I stopped counting after I had gone to 50 funerals. I had yet to have my 30th birthday.

Not only did they die, they died with the cruel burden of stigma. AIDS phobia was rampant. It showed its ugly face in many ways. People were disowned by their families. Jobs and homes were lost. Medical care was hard to come by. Partners were not allowed to be together in the last hours of life. Funeral homes refused to collect bodies. Politicians turned a blind eye.

It was then we learned that we would have to look after ourselves. And look after ourselves we did. Some took to the streets in protest. Others committed acts of civil disobedience. Still more cared, cooked and cleaned for our sick when no one else would. And comforted them when they would otherwise have been abandoned.

As a community, we challenged the rules. We demanded to be heard. We changed the way drugs were brought to market. We built our own health care and support organizations. We insisted that people who were HIV+ were not HIV/AIDS victims but rather were people who were living, yes living, with HIV/AIDS. We changed the way we had sex.

And, in doing so, we brought about a revolution, the embers of which still burn today. After all these years, we continue to be a community more self-reliant, more resilient, more skeptical of authority and more caring than we ever were before.

We no longer take every day for granted, no longer believe that anything will last forever.

And while those lessons stayed with us, only years later did we understand just what those lessons meant. What all that pain taught us.

As I have been remembering that time, recalling those friends and partners I still miss today, wondering how on earth I cheated the disease, I’ve been thinking about what lessons we will take from this pandemic when the television lights turn off and the headlines recede.

Will we learn the importance of being more resilient? Of being better able to take care of ourselves as a country and as a people?

Will we understand people have been impacted by this pandemic in brutally unequal ways and that we, as a society, all pay a price for that? Will we be willing to rethink what fairness means?

Will we understand that we truly are in this together? That we really are each other?

In the worst days of the AIDS crisis, no one could imagine that they would one day marry their partner and society would celebrate it; that my now partner would be the proud grandfather of three.

Our challenge today is hard and may grow harder still, but I am optimistic because I know Canadians are already coming together, strengthening our communities and mending the divisions revealed in this pandemic.

Crises reveal our character — how good we are, how kind we are. And if you know where to look for it, that character and that kindness is where you will find our strength.

This article was originally published in the Toronto Star on April 26, 2020.

Though it was justifiably overshadowed by last weekend’s tragedy in Nova Scotia and the ongoing pandemic itself, parliamentarians this week resolved an important debate over when and how the House of Commons and its committees will convene during this state of emergency.

This debate seemed like a distraction or even a nuisance to most. After all, the pressing concerns of the nation are immediate: getting payments to those in need, producing ventilators, sourcing raw materials for testing. But far from being an academic concern, the smooth and proper functioning of Parliament is actually now more critical than ever.

The compromise motion approved this week suspends regular sittings of all 338 MPs until May 25. Instead, it strikes a new COVID-19 committee whose members will meet on the floor once weekly, and virtually twice weekly. While the plan had the support of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc, the Conservatives objected to this proposal, arguing that the prime minister has effectively replaced Parliament with daily press conferences; pointing out that even as MPs refuse to meet, construction workers continue to work daily renovating Centre Block.

The Opposition had a point: there is no reason that if other essential businesses have found a way to carry on by respecting social distancing and implementing necessary health and safety measures, the most essential business of all — government — cannot, or will not, bring itself to do the same.

But with this motion’s passage, an institution, much of whose strength flows from its aversion to change, has now itself changed. But it has hardly, as the expression goes, changed on a dime.

Real challenges remain for the speaker and his staff. There are MPs who represent rural ridings where broadband connectivity is spotty at best. The most popular teleconferencing software is insufficiently secure. Many MPs struggle with the technology. There is, surprisingly, no easy way to arrange for simultaneous translation. It is not clear if the laws of parliamentary privilege that protect members from defamation and libel lawsuits apply in the virtual realm. And, of course, other quaint, many would say anachronistic, customs, such as the tradition of directing remarks to the speaker instead of a specific member, may also need to be revisited. As you can see, the list goes on and on.

But beyond those challenges, Andrew Scheer and his party face a more substantial one: how to hold the government to account in the face of this new reality. Fortunately, he has some promising international examples to look to.

Westminster, the mother Parliament in the U.K., has adopted a similar “hybrid” approach to its sittings, in which a proportional fraction of members remains physically present while up to 120 participate virtually; either group may put questions to ministers.

And while it is not the same, they are making it work. It was, for example, hardly the end of the world last week when Sir Keir Starmer had to make his House of Commons debut as Britain’s opposition leader during prime minister’s questions without the customary cheering and hissing that mark such occasions.

All opposition parties struggle to find their voice in times of crisis. In Canada, it doesn’t help that not only is our opposition leader someone who has quit his job, the race to replace him has been suspended.

Yet the pressing need for checks and balances remains. As I wrote in this space two weeks ago, democracy is never as precarious as during a pandemic. The government has already shown itself unafraid of anti-democratic overreach. Its attempt to invest the minister of finance with sweeping emergency powers that would last 18 months being exhibit A. Only in the face of fierce public criticism, led by the opposition, did the government back down.

Make no mistake about it: there are legitimate questions to ask. And forget questions about what the government has done. That’s water under the bridge. No, questions need to be asked about this government’s plan for when and how it plans to reopen the economy and about when and how it plans to rebuild Canada.

And those questions need to be both asked, and answered, in our house, the House of Commons.