Category: Chairman’s Desk

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

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on November 17, 2019.

On Wednesday, the first public hearings began in an impeachment process that seems to have been crafted for our era of reality television.

Watching the testimonies of Bill Taylor, George Kent and Marie Yovanovitch, I was struck by the soap-opera nature of the hearings.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have, it seems, learned important lessons from the Mueller hearing.

The criticisms of that process were many: it was too lengthy, too convoluted and, in the end, too boring to convince Americans of the president’s wrongdoing.

And so the war over optics has shifted.

First, the wise decision to act swiftly. Rather than a drawn-out, process-obsessed approach, the Intelligence Committee has moved, in a matter of weeks, to bring the matter onto television.

Second, Democrats have changed the cast of characters. The unfortunate reality of the Mueller hearings was that their main witness, the special counsel, was unconvincing, overly cautious and boring.

Over the coming weeks, Mueller will be replaced by diplomats, civil servants and security officials. Some more colourful than others. Some more persuasive. But there will be enough of them, with enough years of service and individual and collective credibility to dispense with the trope of a “deep state” determined to overthrow Trump.

Ambassador Yovanovitch spoke vividly of gunfire and attacks endured during placements in Mogadishu and Tashkent. Her words remind us that if soldiers are “diplomats in armour,” diplomats are often “soldiers in suits.”

The arrival of decorated military officials like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman will further complicate Republicans’ efforts. If Vindman arrives in uniform, Purple Heart medal and all, it will surely not be lost on the reality TV president.

And, third, there is another substantive shift, one designed to tightly control the narrative. Watch for the democrats to avoid secondary characters like Rudy Giuliani in order to focus on the star of the show, Donald Trump.

Finally, another clever tactic. No more Latin.

After months of “quid pro quo,” Democrats have swapped the phrase for “extortion” and “bribery.” Simple, clear and perhaps most importantly, eye-catching as a chyron on CNN or MSNBC.

Donald Trump has caught wise to the Democrats’ strategy and has, in turn, worked to emphasize that the hearings are simply too dull to deserve Americans’ attention, going so far as to say he has not watched one minute of the hearings.

Republicans, including the president’s son and leading members of Congress, have piled on and roundly described the first hearing as “boring,” uninteresting and a “#Snoozefest.”

Journalists and media networks have taken the bait, publishing headlines that focus on process rather than the substance of the testimony.

“Consequential, but dull: Trump impeachment hearings begin without a bang,” announced Reuters, while NBC News declared, “Plenty of substance but little drama on first day of impeachment hearings.”

True, most of the testimony had already been divulged in closed sessions. And, to be sure, there were fewer fireworks than we saw in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh or even the 40-day Benghazi hearings. But of all things to say about the opening sessions of only the fourth presidential impeachment proceedings in U.S. history, is “boring” really a newsworthy one?

To be sure, it’s important for the proceedings to draw Americans’ interest. Otherwise, what effect will they have outside the D.C. Beltway?

But it is not the job of Adam Schiff or anyone else in Congress for that matter, to entertain. Impeachment, as much as it may feel like one, is not a reality show. It is a crucial, albeit often tedious, process of gathering, evaluating and sharing evidence.

Of course 24-hour television and social media have brought greater spectacle to politics. Some commentators pilloried Reuters and NBC for their flippant headlines, arguing that “journalists wanting more entertainment in politics, is what gave us Donald Trump.”

But the fact remains that spectacle should be the by-product, not the purpose of this most solemn and consequential of political acts. Otherwise, our democracies face the same fate as the declining Roman republic, in which voters were placated not with serious governance, but panem et circenses — bread and circuses.

In the era of reality television, streamed to your mobile 24 hours a day, that is the most frightening reality of all.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on November 11, 2019.

Since the launch of the federal election, which feels like an eternity ago, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer has been dogged by variations on the same question:

Will you attend a Pride parade?

Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?

Why did you compare equal marriage to a dog’s tail?

Never mind, some would say, that the questions themselves can seem unfair. Until Global’s David Aiken pressed the other leaders this week with the same question, Justin Trudeau, who professes to be a Catholic, the same as Scheer, and Jagmeet Singh were not asked their views about what’s sinful; adjudicating sin not generally being within a prime minister’s job description.

Yet the questions could not have come to Scheer — or his advisers — as a surprise. Every conservative leader before Scheer has also faced this line of questioning, and every one has been able to rebut it more effectively.

That Scheer has been unable to muster a good enough answer has become a primary criticism from those who would rather see someone different lead the party into the next federal election.

I am personally sympathetic to Scheer. As a gay man of my generation, I have known many friends and colleagues, and especially many conservatives, whose own opinions have evolved and progressed over time.

For many, it has been a prolonged journey, which I have found personally painful to witness. But for most, the destination has been one that has come to transcend acceptance to become one of inclusion.

That’s why it is so difficult to understand how Scheer can profess respect for all Canadians but be unable to categorically state that homosexuality is not a sin.

All that said, it is not too late for him to have his own come-to-Judy moment.

Premier Doug Ford staged a quiet evolution of his own this past summer. After a lifetime spent skipping Pride parades in favour of the family cottage, the premier made a low-key appearance at the York Pride Parade. He was enthusiastically welcomed; marching in parades has come to be in the job description of every politician at every level.

Whether Ford’s decision represents a change of heart or a political calculation in a province where 1-in-15 residents participate in Toronto’s Pride Parade, the gesture meant the same thing: Ford is prepared to be the premier for all Ontarians, regardless of his views about their sexual orientation.

Conversely, that Scheer cannot bring himself to make the same token gesture sends a different message to not only each and every LGTBQ Canadian, but to their family and friends as well: his religious beliefs are so deeply held, they outweigh even his desire, as a career politician, to win the most important race of his life.

To many Canadians, this decision reads not as pious adherence to devout religious belief, but an irrational prejudice so overwhelming he puts it before good optics, good politics, even basic common sense.

Even if by now, Scheer’s pride about Pride prevents him from backing down from his position, there are concrete policies that would have assuaged these concerns. The Conservatives could have vowed to end the blood ban; they could have outflanked the Liberals on the matter of LGBTQ refugees — in 2009, then-immigration minister Jason Kenney introduced special measures to admit gay Iranians as refugees; the list goes on.

Adopting any one of these would have been smart politics. It would have allowed Scheer to say that while Trudeau is about shallow optics, he is about real action.

No doubt the party will continue to litigate the matter internally. If Scheer survives the April leadership review, he will need to find a way to answer those nagging questions.

In doing so, he may find it worthwhile to engage with Eric Duncan, the newly elected 31-year-old MP for Stormont — Dundas — South Glengarry. Duncan is openly gay and has never been to a Pride parade. But in a deeply rural riding, he won more votes than nearly any other Ontario Conservative, very nearly eclipsing veteran MP Peter Kent.

Duncan is living proof: There is a path to victory that runs through honesty, sincerity and genuine inclusion. What’s more, we have decided, as a country, that it is a Canadian path.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on November 3, 2019.

This week saw Toronto City Council endorse, by a wide margin, a new transit plan proposed by the Ford government. Federal support is expected soon to follow. This is good news for the residents of Toronto — but also for the Premier’s Office, a vindication of its newly adopted, collegial tone and a sterling example of the fruits that might be borne of it.

A recap for those who no longer follow the twists and turns of transit-building in Toronto: last spring, then-Transportation Minister Jeff Yurek proposed the Ontario Line, a 15-station stretch of subway that broadly followed the contours of the much-needed Downtown Relief Line, as well as two additional stops along the Scarborough subway.

Because the announcement came on the heels of a simultaneous plan to upload control of the subway from the TTC to the province, and because it proposed to use an unspecified, new technology that did not accord with the rest of the subway system, the Ontario Line was greeted with derision. It was a “finger painting,” drawn on the back of a napkin and most of city council was adamantly opposed to the proposed subway upload, even though they had no real say in the matter.

As it happens, all this derision toward the transit lines themselves was never justified. The Ontario Line plan was conceived by experts at Metrolinx, and the route is sensible, even preferable to the Downtown Relief Line, whose only advantage was that it was marginally more advanced in the early planning stages.

The Ontario Line makes more liberal use of above-ground tracks, a far cry from the underground-subways-only mantra from Ford of yore. By extending further north and further west, it will provide greater relief to the congestion epicentre that is Bloor-Yonge, funnelling riders from a wider area. As for Scarborough, a single-stop subway never made sense to begin with.

How, then, did this so-called finger painting go on to win an overwhelming majority of votes in city council?

The simplest explanation is to follow the money. Under the terms of the new agreement, Toronto won’t be on the hook for the Conservative government’s $28-billion transit plan. That means subways north to Richmond Hill and the Eglinton West LRT, at no cost to the city and political advantage to PC MPPs from those ridings. Relief-line diehards should have been pleased with reimbursement for sunk costs, though three such councillors still voted against the plan. The agreement also frees up substantial amounts of city cash to spend instead on more pressing matters, like repairs and upkeep of the existing subway system.

But money alone does not account for this victory. Historians of this government will recognize it emerged at the beginning of a new era — AD, or After Dean. The deal’s origins can be pinpointed approximately to the cabinet shuffle that saw Yurek moved to the Ministry of the Environment, with Caroline Mulroney inheriting the transit file.

Though some viewed it at the time as a demotion, Mulroney has evidently delivered within her first few months on the job. During that time, she has worked quietly and assiduously, negotiating in good faith with City of Toronto staff.

Whether the subway upload was proposed as a shrewd negotiating tactic, always intended to be disposed of at the right moment to seal the deal, or another ingenious way to stick it to Toronto City Council, by all accounts the turning point in negotiations came when the province agreed to drop the idea.

Compromise, conciliation — these are novel ideas to a government that has relied up to this point on aggressive negotiation. Mulroney herself deserves credit. She personifies the softer touch and collegial approach to governing that the Premier’s Office now hopes to adopt on all fronts.

In the meantime, the residents of Toronto should applaud the fact that provincial and municipal governments have learned to play nice. If all goes according to plan, the Ontario Line will be completed by 2027. That may be optimistic, but it was optimistic also to expect that these two levels of government would ever learn to get along in the name of progress. Yet here we are.