Navigator logo

Category: Chairman’s Desk

Canada needs to become a world leader in the AI economy but first we need to build public support

Posted on by

It’s a politico’s axiom that perception is reality.

Call it a rudimentary observation in a “post-truth world,” but if it weren’t so, we would be living in a very different world with very different headlines. Joe Biden would be in for a slam-dunk re-election victory based on what the hard economic data says is a booming U.S. economy.

Instead, Americans perceive their economy as a house of cards, and Biden’s corresponding polling numbers are worse than ever.

Point is: perception matters. It can swing elections, shape policy, steer national priorities and futures. And in my view, there is no greater question of perception when it comes to our national future than how Canadians perceive AI.

Any prognosticator, economist, hell even your local barista, can tell you it’s the future of our economy and that massive structural investments will be required in that future. Yet, for as much as that might seem as obvious as the summer following the spring, the perception of many Canadians around AI are fundamentally misaligned with the urgent need to go “all in” — to spend big and spend now.

In fact, our views on AI are shifting as the technology expands. According to a recent TECHNATION survey, a whopping 87 per cent of those polled expressed concern over AI stealing their job.

Let’s be clear: it’s fair Canadians are worried. As with all disruptive revolutions, the AI revolution will generate both winners and losers. And while that corresponding upheaval will complicate life, it doesn’t cancel what lies in front of us. In fact, it leaves us with a choice.

We can choose to pick grass and meditate on the cruelty of life. Or, we can choose to refuse to be left in the dust by our international competitors and seize the opportunity to make a strategic, generational investment in this technology, investment that depends on two major steps.

Step one: establish a super Ministry of AI to shape an aggressive investment strategy to ensure we pull ahead. While this idea is not new — several of our competitor nations have already brought this idea to life — neither is it too late.

The mandate of this new ministry would be both crystal clear and precise: ensure Canada has all the necessary ingredients — chips, energy and talent — to be a global leader in AI.

Step two: we need to invest, as a foundational step, in public support for the endeavour overall. Why? Because the only way a “Manhattan” or “Apollo” AI mission will work is with the support of Canadians.

The level of cash necessary to build out our AI economy — to fund the data centres, refine the rare earths, and generate the power — cannot be met by the private sector alone. Governments must become partners, which means government must make monumental, unprecedented outlays. Outlays which will require them to say no to important immediate priorities and yes to strategic investments that will pay dividends well outside electoral cycles. Decisions that will require the expenditure of political capital.

And that’s why we need to change how Canadians perceive the absolutely necessary advantages of AI.

That effort will have nothing to do with lecturing Canadians on the intricacies of machine learning and everything to do with showing how AI can allow Canadians to take better care of their aging parents, curb the amount of time they spend in traffic, and reduce wait times in the ER.

Simply put, you can’t ask Canadians to believe in and invest in the long-term without bringing them along with you. So as much as we invest in chips, energy and talent, we need to invest in building genuine and durable public support for the long and challenging mission ahead.

It is only with and through that support that we stand any chance to catch up, become competitive and win this race.

Democrats are running out of time as Donald Trump’s troubles are only making him stronger

Posted on by

If there has even been such a thing as the world’s greatest circus, this is surely it: the trial of Donald J. Trump.

And just when you thought it could not get any more pathetic, lurid, absurd, crazier or demeaning (have your pick), this week a new clown car rolled on in: crammed with Trump’s cronies, allies and most significantly, potential running mates for the 2024 general election.

It appears Trump is determined to make his VP selection resemble the latest season of “The Apprentice.” This week’s tasks included assailing the judge’s daughter and attacking witnesses. A ceremonial ring kissing doesn’t capture it. When you consider Trump was content to feed Mike Pence, his last VP, to the wolves on Jan. 6, it’s more accurately described as auditioning for the role of sacrificial lamb in the school play. Let’s pray the curtain never opens.

Now, I usually share the view of most pundits that VP selection rodeos are nothing more than a sideshow to the main act. In most cases, fair enough.

In this case, not even close.

If Trump is elected, he will be a lame-duck president — unable to run again — and whoever he chooses as his VP will have an inside track to becoming the next president. Meaning: the stakes could not be higher.

What’s more, if Biden (a former VP himself) wins he won’t be permitted to seek another term either. Combined with the increasing likelihood that he won’t be able to last a full second term, that puts a renewed spotlight on Kamala Harris.

The 2024 presidential race will primarily come down to six battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — all of which Biden won in 2020. While he need not win all six again, his path to victory is severely obstructed if he cannot hold on to most. Yet, this past Monday, a New York Times/Siena College poll found that Trump was ahead in five of those six states.

What does this mean for the VP X-factor? Everything.

If Trump selects a VP from one of these key states, that will go a long way toward locking it up. Moreover, a wise, more centrist choice might give Trump the bump he needs in these states — most of which only narrowly went blue last time. Overall, so long as Trump does not choose a noted dog-killer (seriously) his selection will likely be a major asset to his campaign.

What does this mean for Democrats? It’s time to wake the hell up.

The fact is, a trial about Trump’s alleged hush money payments to a porn star has not damaged his standing in the polls one iota.

Rather, he is pulling ahead.

The morality play is a bona fide crowd pleaser and its production is not damaging but empowering its protagonist.

And that means Democrats simply cannot continue to cross their fingers and hope the justice system takes care of their problem for them. The irony here is palpable. Were the conspiracy Trump is peddling true — that this entire trial is a political witch hunt concocted by a Machiavellian Biden in a DNC backroom — it would be achieving the exact opposite of its intention. Tantamount to fighting fire with gasoline.

And yet, instead of providing the Democratic ticket with a much needed shot in the arm, the current VP instead offers a unique disadvantage — with analysis by FiveThirtyEight pegging her approval rating at a historically abysmal 38.2 per cent. In other words: she’s a liability, not an asset.

But that is far from the Democrats’ biggest worry. In a week meant to spotlight the moral deficiencies of the Republican candidate, the Democrats’ electoral vulnerabilities were underlined with crystal clarity.

If there was any doubt left, this trial definitively proves the Trumpian media circus is alive, well and works only to his benefit.

This means one thing and one thing alone for the Biden/Harris ticket: desperate times call for desperate measures. They need to break out that war chest and start fighting like their backs are against the wall.

Because that’s where they are.

With six months to go, time is running out before the circus is the only show in town.

We are not having enough babies and that’s a problem for all us

Posted on by

It’s not rocket science.

Ensure families have access to affordable, high-quality child care and guess what? You get drastically better outcomes. Not just for kids, who get a fair start in life, but also for parents, who can return to the workforce far earlier and with greater confidence.

For those, like myself, who advocated for the national $10-a-day child care strategy for years, achieving these results was never driven by short-term political calculus. We understood that the true impact of this policy would unfold over decades, not just in months or years; that politics, at its best, is one generation making and keeping a promise to the next.

Alarmingly, of late, that promise has shattered.

Since the Government of Canada and all 10 provinces signed agreements to reach $10-a-day child care, demand has surged — far outpacing the creation of new spaces for it. In many regions, new families are now faced with mounting wait-lists of Kafkaesque absurdity. Your child graduated middle school? Terrific! A space at the local daycare just opened up.

What makes this failure even more concerning is that it does not exist in isolation. It’s part of a far wider trend of economic pressures facing young families. And that pressure has contributed to a plummeting national fertility rate, now at an all-time low of 1.33 children per woman.

The first step toward addressing this problem is acknowledging its gravity. Demographic math says that to replenish our population, the fertility rate must rise to 2.1 children per woman. Working toward that rate helps avoid the dreaded inverted population pyramid.

In other words, a structural imbalance that invariably leads to collapse, where we have too many retired seniors and not enough working age Canadians to fuel our economy. Japan is the textbook example, where experts predict economic doom due to a chronically low fertility rate and a ballooning elderly population.

But let’s be clear. Realistically, Canada’s fertility rate alone won’t be raised high enough to get the number of people we need — immigration will always be part of the conversation.

However, in light of the current immigration challenges facing our country, believing that we can rely solely on mass immigration to replace our population and ignoring our fertility rate is utterly nonsensical. It’s like trying to fill a bucket with a large hole in the bottom — no matter how much water we pour in, we’ll never achieve a sustainable level if we don’t first address the factors behind the leak.

The second step is framing this issue correctly. Although it cannot and should not be divorced from it, fertility is not solely a women’s health issue. Nor should our policy to address it be seen exclusively through this lens.

To acquire the correct framing, we simply need to listen — because young couples who want kids are telling us exactly why they’re not: they can’t afford it. The bottom line is that Canadians will either have no children, or less of them, if they cannot afford a home, let alone diapers.

Therefore, the third step must be to enhance incentives and support for fertility health care. Polls show a majority of Canadians support more incentives, such as tax credits, to encourage childbirth. However, these measures won’t count if couples can’t conceive.

On this front, we need stronger funding for IVF, which many Canadians rely on despite its high costs, particularly those in the LGBTQ+ community. While seven provinces, including Ontario, offer some fertility funding, substantial increases are crucial to boost our fertility rate.

We also cannot forget that male infertility rates have rapidly risen. And this lack of knowledge often results in the burden of male fertility unfairly falling on women.

The decision to have children or not is deeply personal and varies by circumstance, but Canadians who want children have been crystal clear: they need greater support. And in a year where the conversation has largely been about a broken immigration system, we have overlooked this crucial piece in our national demographic planning.

Addressing this oversight and bolstering support for young families are imperative to ensure the well-being of not only this generation but all those to come.

Low polls give Justin Trudeau’s Liberals the freedom to make gutsy moves that will help the country

Posted on by

Spring has sprung and with it the Liberal government is clearly waking up from a long period of hibernation.

The string of spending announcements leading up to Budget 2024 amounted to the most energetic activity we’ve seen in some time.

And guess what?

It’s still not working. Not even close.

A $2.4 billion investment in the AI sector? Too little. A new multibillion-dollar plan to finally “solve” Canada’s housing crisis? Too late. The overall budget? Gives new meaning to the phrase “a dollar short and a day late.”

And while the Liberals may be waking up from a long winter’s nap, the polls never took a break — the latest reveal the Conservatives are now leading by 20 points, their largest lead yet.

Faced with this kind of political dynamic, governments typically adopt two positions, both of which are entirely unhelpful to their legacy, never mind their short-term re-election prospects.

The first is optimism, a sentiment that breeds a narrow mentality that refuses to engage with the possibility your opponents will assume power and has your government whistling past the graveyard, always believing you will be back to finish your work.

The second is one of pessimism and paralysis. One that believes the clock has run out. One that sees the office water cooler conversations reduced to a “Why bother? The new guys will just undo everything we do.”

The truth is both positions miss the point. As the saying goes, the pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. This approach, of neither misguided optimism nor idle defeatism, but of pragmatic determination is the one Justin Trudeau must adopt in the lead up to the 2025 election; because it is this approach that history proves is the most effective way for the Liberals to make their remaining time count most.

Time and again, newly minted governments trade on the energy and momentum that carries them into office. Immediately, they set about reversing course on the major priorities of the previous government. They make a triumphant show of “turning the ship around.” But here’s the challenge: once the electoral fog clears and that new government is confronted with the serious work of actually governing, it inevitably runs up against the vicissitudes and fundamental difficulties of changing some of these very politicized initiatives around.

Prime examples are, of course, free trade and the GST. For years, Brian Mulroney’s opponents confidently declared they would tear up both once they assumed the mantle of power, yet never did.

The brute reality is, of course, that the Conservatives will undoubtedly uproot many of the Liberal’s major policies. The Tories’ pledge to “Axe the Tax” is no mere idle threat. And it’s equally true that, if they are successful, a Pierre Poilievre government will arrive with many more commitments to which they are equally committed.

While I fully expect that a new Conservative government will implement far more of their promises than has been seen since then-premier Mike Harris took office in 1995, they simply won’t be able to do them all. And here is where the opportunity for the departing Liberal’s comes in.

The Liberals should seize upon those issues that have long plagued us but the solutions for which have not been possible until a government is unpopular and in its dying days.

Those that have required the heavy lifting that no previous government has had the guts to resolve: opening up our economy to greater international competition (particularly those areas where we pay more for services than other countries), eliminating agricultural supply management, ridding us of interprovincial trade barriers, finding new ways to bring our natural resources to market.

Far from being constrained, the reality is the Liberals are actually in a unique position to take far more aggressive swings to solve these problems; problems that aren’t simply solved by spending money we don’t have, but through ingenuity and genuine political courage.

Every once in a while, you can actually rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic with some effect.

Government bans on social media will only make them more desirable

Posted on by

Will Rogers has an old joke about Prohibition: “Why don’t they pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as good as Prohibition did, in five years we will have the smartest people on earth.”

This joke is still funny — more than 90 years later — because it hits at what is essentially a universal truth: people do what authority forbids. And they do it, in many cases, precisely because it is forbidden.

Treatise on human nature aside, the bottom line is that not only has prohibition always been a fool’s errand, it always will be. Scripture underlines it — see the original sinners sporting nothing but fig leaves. History proves it — see the utter failure that was the Eighteenth Amendment.

And yet, calls for precisely this are forcefully growing on a new front: social media.

Last month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis banned under-14s from these platforms, while the U.K. has targeted cellphones in classrooms. Closer to home, alongside the ever-raging debate about the Online Harms Act, a TikTok ban seems likelier after the U.S.‘s proposed ban.

This is no casual or ill-intentioned crusade. The motives behind these efforts are clear. And while there are disagreements on the margins, experts uniformly agree that social media is contributing to a mental crisis amongst our youth.

Now, Canadian parents hardly need studies or surveys to evidence the dangers of social media. We can see the facts up close. Everyday. Both in our homes and in our schools. Teenagers captured by exploitative algorithms designed to distract.

Young girls, in particular, are struggling with increased rates of depression and anxiety. And the starkest reality of all: the increased rate of suicide among youth, a grim testament to the despair fostered by social media’s relentless demands and the impossible standards it perpetuates.

Unfortunately, the greater the stakes, the greater the prospect for nonsense. And the highest form, in this case, is the pipe dream that we can simply put the genie back in the bottle and successfully ban social media outright.

While the reasons we can’t are the same that have always applied historically, in this individual case, we must confront pressing new realities. Foremost, is admitting technology will always advance faster than the capacity of legislators in two fundamental respects.

First, their ability to understand it. Just watch the desperate attempts of U.S. senators to grapple with new technologies in recent congressional hearings. If you don’t laugh, you’ll cry.

Second, in their ability to craft legislation that can effectively police it. As multiple failed bills, both here and in the U.S., testify.

But we don’t need anything more than plain common sense to tell us that a blanket ban on social media for children is bound to fail. Any parent will confirm: this new generation is uniquely technically literate and will surely effortlessly outmanoeuvre the most well-intentioned but toothless government restrictions with a few clicks.