Category: Chairman’s Desk

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on January 12, 2019.

Over the past week, the world has watched, slack-jawed, as Western relations with Iran have slid precipitously from uneasy détente to open military engagement. Canadians, in particular, were stunned by the horrific deaths of our compatriots, shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile.

As the world now knows, on Jan. 3, a U.S. airstrike killed Qassem Soleimani, the country’s most important military leader and the puppet master of Iran’s network of military operations, terror and covert insurgency. Then Iranian forces retaliated with attacks on US Air Force bases in Iraq, seemingly targeted to ensure maximum show of force while avoiding American casualties.

In his response, President Trump signalled a de-escalation of tensions, announcing new sanctions rather than retaliation in kind. A collective sigh of relief was shared by many who feared more military conflict.

But in political terms, the past week has set the region back significantly, shattering the delicate progress which has been hard-won and fiercely guarded.

Last week, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel foreign troops from the country. While the vote was non-binding, it signalled a shift in attitude toward the international coalition which has, for over a decade, worked alongside the Iraqis.

Over the past year, the Iranian regime has faced significant challenges to its authority — from both external adversaries and internal dissidents. The reintroduction of American sanctions in 2018 increased economic pressure, threatening the stability of President Hassan Rouhani’s government. In November, thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest an increase in gas prices. Many observers spoke of an Arab Spring-like shift in political power. Each of these developments served as a small but significant victory for reformist parties and political moderates.

That all seemed to be under threat this week. Crowds came out in mass numbers to mourn Soleimani, signalling what seemed to be a resurgence in unity among Iranians. Then, just days later, scores of dissidents came out in even greater throngs to protest Rouhani’s government, in light of his admission that Iran had shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752.

So, the regime’s campaign to make a martyr of Soleimani has been undermined by its own mistakes.

On Feb. 21 — little over a month away — Iranians will vote in their parliamentary election. History tells us the election will be far from perfect, but just months ago, it was predicted that the outcome would be at least a symbolic step toward a more moderate Iran.

The killing of Soleimani could provide a symbol for the regime’s malcontent, to be sure. But moderates and reformers have a rallying point of their own in the senseless killing of 176 passengers by the Iranian military. What’s more, in its violent response to widespread protests this week, including reported use of live ammunition, the Rouhani regime has shown its true nature.

Over the coming days, in lieu of military engagement, the U.S. will unleash the full extent of economic and political pressure against Rouhani’s government. If Trump can successfully convince America’s allies to abandon the Iran nuclear agreement altogether, the return of sanctions will hit the country hard.

The question this time, however, is whether Rouhani will again be able to redirect criticism of his regime towards Western nations, instead. Given all that’s happened in the past week, it seems highly unlikely.

As the prime minister said on Thursday, Canadians have questions and they deserve answers, accountability and above all — justice.

Our armed forces — and those of our allies — now find themselves in a quagmire: attempting to safely extricate some troops from Iraq, without surrendering the ground — strategic, diplomatic and ideological — which has been gained thus far.

For now, all we can do is support our military and give them our undying gratitude.

They, more than anyone, realize the true cost of all that has transpired.

This article originally appeared in the Toronto Star on December 15, 2019.

Most underrated politician of 2019: Only one federal party leader managed to unambiguously improve their party’s lot in the last election: Yves-Francois Blanchet revived the Bloc Québécois with a sharply executed pivot from sovereignty to nationalism. The fifth Bloc leader since 2015, he turned in a tight, eloquent performance in the French-language debates, and then went on to pick up 22 seats.

Now, he intends to make the most of his opportunities in a minority parliament. Just in the last week, he signalled his intent to support the Throne Speech, helping the Liberals clear their first hurdle; and at the same time, threatened the signature achievement of their first term when he opposed the newly agreed-upon CUSMA agreement over a lack of protections for the largely Quebec-based aluminum industry.

Most overrated politician of 2019: The youngest president in French history won the first election he ever contested in 2017 with a party of his own making called En Marche! Lately, Emmanuel Macron has not been doing much moving. In the last year, France has been paralyzed by months of violent protests from the leaderless gilet jaunts, whose yellow vest-wearing participants seem to take issue with him personally. While Notre Dame burned, the protests dragged on, costing the French economy $6.5 billion and injuring hundreds. All the while, Macron has hemmed and hawed, falling back on his favourite phrase “en meme temps.”

As Angela Merkel approaches retirement, Macron has struggled to rise to the occasion as Europe’s champion with comments like the “brain-death of NATO.”

Breakout politician in 2020: If you live in Ontario and have turned on the television or tuned in to the radio any time since the beginning of summer, you’ve probably seen or heard Minister of Education Stephen Lecce. Since the cabinet shuffle in June, he has become the face of the provincial government. Lecce is a rookie MPP, and the youngest education minister in Ontario history, but he has already proven himself to be a capable and disciplined political operator, first as a communications staffer under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and then as an MPP and parliamentary assistant to Premier Doug Ford.

Now, having inherited one of the most expansive provincial portfolios, he is unafraid to stake out the government’s position in media interviews. And he is just getting started.

Worst political play in 2019: The Leaders’ Debates Commission was conceived with good intentions. Debates have long been a central part of Canadian election campaigns, and so the commission was charged with organizing two official debates. The key distinction was that they would no longer be organized by a media consortium.

In the end, the debates were ultimately produced by a different, bigger consortium. The final product featured too many moderators, too many interjections, and worst of all, too many participants. Only weeks before the broadcast, the commission made the inexplicable decision to allow Maxime Bernier to participate, admitting him based on polls that turned out to be wildly inaccurate. As a result, the only English-language debate offered to viewers was an interminable slog.

Best political play in 2019: You may not think of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as a political player. But the one-time richest man in the world has been forced into the fray, both by dint of his ownership of the Washington Post and by mounting calls for antitrust action against his company. 2019 revealed that the National Enquirer tabloid had, for some time, been functioning as a political tool for President Trump. And so, the best political play of the year pitted one against the other.

When the Enquirer exposed his extramarital affair, Bezos’ own internal investigation concluded the story had been politically motivated. Outraged, the publication threatened that if Bezos did not withdraw the accusation, they would publish his NSFW selfies. In a brilliant chess move, Bezos published the entire exchange online, along with an open-letter condemning the Enquirer’s “practice of blackmail, political favours, political attacks, and corruption,” and asked, “If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can?”

Now, we know the answer: six weeks after the altercation, the Enquirer was sold off for parts.

This article originally appeared in the Toronto Star on December 8, 2019.

On Wednesday, video emerged of Justin Trudeau, accompanied by a group of world leaders at a NATO summit in London, poking fun at President Donald Trump. In the video, the prime minister made a jibe about Trump’s penchant for impromptu press conferences and his staff’s apparent dismay at yet another off-the-cuff pronouncement.

Since then, there has been much carry on over Trudeau’s comments. Some are outraged, declaring that it’s foolish for the PM to be snickering behind the back of our largest trading partner. Others argue that the comments are merely the predictable outcome of Trump’s own bullying and standoffishness.

Canadians can debate whether it’s wise for their prime minister to be seen criticizing the president while, among many issues that face our two countries, NAFTA 2.0 has yet to pass through Congress.

The reality is that despite the irritant of impeachment and given the dearth of a strong Democratic challenger in the 2020 election, Donald Trump is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Even if Trump does leave office, Justin Trudeau and his successors will find themselves facing a Republican Party irrevocably shaped in his image.

That’s why many, especially those who have worked tirelessly to manage the bilateral relationship, found Trump’s retaliatory comments — in which he called Trudeau “two-faced,” unhelpful.

But despite the frenzied response to the hot mic moment, it’s unlikely that even one of the politicians caught in that moment will be personally set back by the video. Not Trudeau, whose constituents — even those outside his base — loathe Trump and all he represents. Not French President Emmanuel Macron, whose countrymen were no doubt incensed by Trump’s jab earlier in the day about “giving” ISIS fighters to France.

Most of all, the video will certainly not hurt Boris Johnson. The U.K. prime minister is contesting an election next week in a country where 64 per cent of Britons disapprove of Trump’s leadership. Over the past few weeks, Labour and Liberal Democrat opponents have tied Johnson to Trump, raising the spectre of a Johnson-Trump alliance that would sell off the National Health Service and veer the country to the hard-right.

So, to be seen poking fun at Trump in a collegial manner with his more liberal Canadian, Dutch and French counterparts, can only help Johnson’s prospects on Thursday.

As NATO leaders were meeting in Buckingham Palace, conflict persisted in eastern Ukraine and the country’s political establishment continued to reel from revelations that emerged from American impeachment proceedings.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on December 1, 2019.

Following months of political upheaval and uncertainty surrounding the future of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ten-year dominance of national politics, Israel is now careening towards its third election in a year.

After calling early elections in the spring, Netanyahu’s Likud Party was able to secure a very close victory in April. However, he was not able to gain enough support in the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, to form a governing coalition.

Last week, former army chief Benny Gantz conceded his failure, as well, to cobble together a governing coalition. In order to form a majority government, Israeli partisan coalitions must reach the threshold of 61 seats in the Knesset — Gantz’s bloc can claim only 44. Netanyahu’s coalition commands 55.

Complicating matters further are the legal challenges facing Netanyahu. On Nov. 21, the Prime Minister was indicted on charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust—becoming the first sitting Israeli premier to face criminal charges. Gantz has sworn that he will not support a government led by an indicted politician in the highest office.

So, for the first time in the nation’s history, the task falls to members of the Knesset, 60 of whom must throw their support behind a fellow member of Knesset to form government. If they are unable to do so by December 11, the country will be destined for its third election since April.

In a country as rife with divisions as Israel, their task seems Herculean. As former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once famously told President Nixon, “You are the president of 150 million Americans; I am the prime minister of six million prime ministers.” Her point: in Israel, political positions are stubborn and alliances between parties seem to shift like sand.

Part of the problem is that historically, the changing circumstances facing Israel have forced parties to fracture, dissolve and rebrand. Developments in the peacemaking process have split parties and divided political allies, while the diverse social, religious and ethnic demographics of Israel mean that political views remain fragmented.

That being said, the situation in Jerusalem today also points to a larger problem: the shortcomings of an electoral system based on proportional representation. From its founding, the state of Israel has practiced one of the purest forms of proportional representation of any modern democracy.

While some in Canada lament the fact that our first-past-the-post system disadvantages smaller parties, Israel is a case in how things can go wrong when those small parties have too much power.

Because the entire country is treated as a single electoral district and there is a very low threshold for representation, the balance of power is all too often held by fringe parties with hardened views — from both ends of the political spectrum.

While some argue that more power for smaller parties lends a greater voice to a wider portion of the electorate, in Israel, we’ve seen quite the opposite. Rather than the party which receives the most votes, it is often the coalition most willing to serve these special interests which is invited to form government. As a result, the balance of politics is heavily skewed towards these parties, despite the fact that most Israelis disagree with their views.

What’s more, the system fosters an unfortunate lack of accountability and transparency in government. Israelis elect a party, not a particular member of Knesset. And the reality of forming government through coalition agreements means that backroom dealings come to matter more than any platform pledges made to the electorate.

So, even though Canadians may feel our system privileges regional interests to a damaging extent, the alternative certainly has its flaws — not least of which is the constant pandering to smaller, extreme parties.

Israelis will likely have to patiently wait another week and a half to find out whether they’ll be subjected to yet another election campaign.

In the meantime, rising political tensions and worsening conflict in Gaza go unaddressed by government – a reminder of the shortcomings of the current system.

For the only democracy in a region ever-more-inclined toward political extremism, that is a very troubling state of affairs.

This article originally appeared in the Toronto Star on November 24, 2019.

Dear Ms Freeland,

When you were sworn in as minister of international trade in 2015, there was no way we could have known that Donald Trump would become president, nor the challenges he would bring to our bilateral relationship.

No one could have predicted that so much of our bandwidth would be consumed by the renegotiation of NAFTA. Yet, you more than rose to the challenge. You navigated these unforeseen challenges with great success. At the same time, you never lost track of the importance of advocating for Canadian values throughout the world.

Well, times have changed and today, I have a new, equally challenging and unpredictable mandate for you.

That is why, it is on behalf of all Canadians that I am so thankful that you have answered my call to put country ahead of self and agree to serve as minister of intergovernmental affairs.

Historically, it may not have been the most coveted of ministries. At first blush, it may not provide as influential a platform as Global Affairs, but the fate of our government — in fact, the fate of our country — may hinge on your success in this new mandate.

Others, of course, have served in similar roles. For example, Stéphane Dion was Jean Chretien’s intergovernmental affairs minister, tasked with mending fences in the aftermath of the referendum.

That you are an Albertan by birth will be a helpful starting point for you as you assume your new duties. But, as the voters have taught us, a token approach to regionalism will do nothing to bring them back onside.

What is needed is not a charm offensive, but a skilled diplomat and political strategist who can build a genuine, enduring and practical consensus. In short, someone who knows how to get difficult jobs done.

I encourage you to think of yourself as my minister of national unity. As with NAFTA, the task at hand will require all of your back-channelling finesse, your technical expertise and your delicate hand in dealing with numerous stakeholders. Your task will be to bring regional factions on board with our agenda, including climate change, pharmacare and economic growth.

Make no mistake, the anger is real. While some had suggested that the so-called Wexit movement would flame out in the weeks after the election, polling now suggests that as many as 30 per cent of Albertans support Western separatism, and three-quarters of the population is sympathetic to the cause. Even if secession is unlikely, a vocal minority may drive the province to take more extreme positions, including the erection of a so-called firewall.

As minister of intergovernmental affairs, it falls to you to manage a hostile provincial government now considering collecting their own taxes, ending the policing contract with the RCMP, withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan and holding a referendum on equalization payments.

Since the election, I myself have tried to extend a long overdue olive branch to Western Canadians.

Last week, I met with Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. I reiterated our commitment to finishing the Trans-Mountain Pipeline and invited him to propose changes to the equalization formula. That the premier left the meeting “disappointed” highlights just how much work you will have to do.

Governments such as Moe’s or Kenney’s, and indeed their electors, may be opposed to ours in political ideology, but as minister of intergovernmental affairs, you are charged with continuing to engage with them in good faith. I am counting on you to do what we were unable to do in our first mandate: keep them onside of our national project and prevent them from fanning the flames of separatism any further.

Every federal government has struggled to appease both East and West simultaneously.

With a resurgent Bloc in Quebec, where, strangely, support for Alberta separation runs even higher than in Alberta itself, and a government in Ontario resolutely determined to govern “for the people,” this will be more challenging than ever.

In recognition of this challenge and in recognition of your proven ability to be more than a spokesmodel and actually get the difficult things done, I have decided to appoint you as my first deputy prime minister.

Yours sincerely,

Justin Trudeau