Category: Chairman’s Desk

To earn a second chance, to even try for it, you must be a fighter. You need to be able to pick yourself off the mat and say, “I still have something to give.”

From bitter defeat in 2014, to this moment, where — at the time of writing — Olivia Chow sure looks like she has this race all locked up.

For some, it will be sweet vengeance: a result that is long overdue in a city that has kept too many out for far too long.

For others, her life in public service has left trails that stoke fear and anxiety — to put it mildly.

No matter how you feel, you cannot argue with the fact that if Ms. Chow does indeed win, hers will be a political comeback of astonishing personal satisfaction.

But beyond personal victory, what do these stories, these second acts, represent about our political life? Are they a lazy thing, betraying an electoral lethargy — that we’ll tick a box for the name we know just because we know it? Or do they reveal some essential generosity — our understanding that people don’t always get things right the first time out and may have something new, different and enriched the second time around?

I vote for the latter. Here’s why.

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, “There are no second acts in American lives.” But it isn’t true. Nor is it true north of the border.

Let’s remember the man Chow is destined to replace. In 2003, John Tory lost a squeaker of a mayoral race to David Miller. He later lost a devastating election for premier in 2007 and then a byelection in 2009.

Pundits quickly dug his political grave. Yet, lo and behold, seven years later he was elected mayor of Canada’s largest city, defeating both Chow and Doug Ford in the process. The comeback kid went on to establish himself as one of the most electable politicians in the country, winning three decisive campaigns for mayor.

When we zoom out from the heated campaign battles and look at the context of much longer public service careers, we can appreciate just what an extraordinary achievement these comebacks are.

We all lose in different ways — large and small — every day. But few lose on so grand a stage as those in politics. To earn a second chance, to even try for it, you must be a fighter. You need to be able to pick yourself off the mat and say, “I still have something to give.”

And that is far from easy. But there’s something compelling about those who’ve been knocked down. A resilience. A wisdom. A tenacity.

If you win in politics, your opponents will always say (as will Chow’s) that it was just a matter of lucky timing. But that charge is severely diminished when you’ve risen from the depths of defeat to meet that moment. So the truth is that not only are few politicians granted such an opportunity by the electorate, fewer still have the stomach for it.

In this respect, Chow’s (likely successful) mayoral campaign has two vital take-aways. The first is along gendered lines. In her captivating book “No Second Chances,” Kate Graham explores how female politicians are often handed a poisoned chalice and are subjected to double standards, which result in infrequent re-elections.

Chow, unquestionably, fits the first half of this mould — Toronto is in chaos. Only time will tell what the 2026 election will bring. Sadly, in the meantime, one thing’s for certain: Chow will undoubtedly continue to face racism and misogyny as she goes about her work. Of these twin evils, we must be vigilantly opposed.

The second implication of her potential victory is what it says about the state of our democracy. Here, many are worried about our institutions. But I’m most concerned about what holds those institutions up — people.

Second acts, the acceptance that yes, good people can make mistakes, lose at the ballot box and yet can still contribute, make things rights and regain elected office, are signs of hope in an otherwise hopeless time. And they’re just the kind we need now more than ever. So I hope you can find a little inspiration in this, the power of second acts.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on June 25, 2023.

In my new book, and in this column, I revisit some of my opinions. In the case of governments picking winners, the price is proving to be too steep.

No matter what readers have to tell me, I always appreciate — and learn from — your feedback on this column. I get letters and emails and comments and tweets. Hell, if you know my number, I even get your calls.

Reactions vary. Some express love, others hate. I welcome both.

Why? Because that old saying is right: feedback is the breakfast of champions. And my readers have provided me with a steady diet that’s sometimes delicious, other times devastating. But it’s this experience, being held accountable for what I write, that gave me the inspiration for my first book, “What I Wish I Said.”

In it, I take 48 columns I’ve written in this space over the past six-plus years and write a rejoinder to each. In some cases, I claim I got it right. In others, I find I came close, but missed a crucial insight. But in many, I admit I got it wrong. Dead wrong.

It’s these reflections that I found most rewarding. For one thing, I got a second kick at the can. But, more importantly, I got a chance to closely examine not only what I got wrong by why and how. This kind of reflective exercise has made me a stronger writer, but it’s also made me more eager, more willing, to underline my misfires and to declare — with the benefit of hindsight — what I wish I’d said.

And wouldn’t you know it, this week provides just such an occasion.

In March, I wrote that the traditionally conservative wisdom that government should not pick winners no longer held up in our new, post-Inflation Reduction Act, reality. So, just as I do in the book, let me clear the air: I got it wrong. And here’s why.

Recent developments from Canada’s negotiation with Stellantis over the development of an electric vehicle (EV) battery plant in Windsor have revealed that there’s more to this wisdom than meets the eye. Unfortunately, I utterly failed to capture it.

As of now, the feds have made a new offer to Stellantis to keep that battery plant north of the border. That’s after Stellantis halted construction in May, threatening to move the plant to the U.S. unless we ponied up even more cash to match American subsidies.

It’s hardly an earth-shattering prediction to remark that if this deal comes through it will have more zeros than many Canadians are comfortable with.

That’s because when the numbers are crunched on the dollars-spent-per-jobs created, many will think the deal makes no sense. In fact, many would say: just cut these workers a cheque for their lifetime salary — it would be cheaper!

Now those who would support the transaction — after all Canada does have a strong opportunity in this emerging industry — still must deal with this reality: government forking over billions of dollars to private industry (and quite a small subset of it) is not an easy sell to average voters struggling to put food on the table.

And that’s precisely where this conservative insight that governments should refrain from picking winners comes back into play.

The uncomfortable reality for governments is that when they pick winners, those winners will use all the leverage they have to make even greater gains, to exploit their anointed status, not for the good of all Canadians, but the narrow interest of their stakeholders.

That might just be the price of doing business, but that price has a way of spiralling out of control when the government is negotiating with its cards face up. Make no mistake: Stellantis knows that neither the Trudeau nor Ford government is willing to lose precious seats in the Windsor region. They know they’ve made myriad promises to voters about Canada’s future economy they cannot afford to reverse.

The clearest market signal that Canada is emitting nowadays is not that we’re the new and natural hub for EV manufacturing and minerals mining, but rather that we’re willing to pay practically any price to be that hub.

One must wonder what the political consequences will be as that price is driven increasingly higher.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on June 12, 2023.

To defeat a majority government from its current third place will require Liberals to build and cultivate a groundswell, a movement, for change.

A resounding mandate in one of the nation’s largest municipalities — soon to obtain its long-sought and much-cherished independence.

An enviable electoral seat in Ottawa Centre. The possibility of a cabinet posting for an experienced hand.

A promising young career on the Hill. The chance to rise the ranks of the governing party.

All this. And more. Ready to be sacrificed for the chance to lead … what?

A powerhouse university? A cushy private sector gig?

No. Quite the opposite, actually.

All this could or will be forfeited for a shot to become the leader of the Ontario Liberal party. Third place. Eight seats (one now in jeopardy). Crushed. Not even recognized as a party in the Legislature.

Yes, that party.

Respectively, these are the bios of Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie, Ottawa Centre MP Yasir Naqvi and Beaches-East York MP Nate Erskine-Smith. But of course, there will be but more contenders. Heck, Mike Schreiner almost abandoned his own party for the opportunity.

So, what gives?

More than blind self-belief, something else motivates this interest — a grasp of history. The candidates lining up are experienced political actors capable of divining the political winds. And, they like what they see for the next provincial election in 2026.

Here’s one reason. It’s practically political law that Queen’s Park and Parliament Hill are never occupied by the same political family for very long. Myriad theories try to explain. I won’t. I’ll simply say that history shows Ontarians are uncomfortable with the same cast of characters in Ottawa and Toronto at the same time.

And so, the contenders for the Ontario Liberal leadership are sensing the winds of change, banking that if and when Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is elected PM, Ontarians will be eager to shake Queen’s Park up.

Of course, it would be foolish for the Liberals to place their hopes in vague historical trends. Rules, after all, are for breaking. And the task before them, defeating a majority government from their current third place, is as vast as it is difficult. No question, it will require Liberals to build and cultivate a groundswell, a movement, for change.

So can they do it? For my money, it will come down to three things.

First, they’ll need a convincing narrative that helps advance the idea that change is desperately needed. On the federal scene, Poilievre has been convincing voters that Canada is broken, in need of a repair only he can make. But here’s the problem: in dealing with the exact same economy and cost of living crisis, no provincial adversary of Premier Doug Ford has been able to effectively paint the same picture.

Clearly, to win in 2026, the Ontario Liberals will need to do just that. And I’m not sure that’s achievable, frankly.

Second, they’ll need to show their party represents that change. And that requires an energetic, contentious, leadership contest.

I wrote after Erin O’Toole’s defeat that the federal Conservative party was victim of its own relative success in avoiding electoral catastrophe, that narrow losses to Trudeau occasioned painkillers when a more complicated surgery was necessary.

The Ontario Liberals can have no such illusions. Yet again in third place, a full-scale treatment on the party’s identity is plainly necessary. With Mayor Crombie calling for a move to the centre-right, Nate Erskine-Smith responding with calls for more left-wing policies, and Yasir Naqvi denying the left/right debate altogether and instead calling for a back-to-basics approach, there are promising signs this race will be the required hotly contested battle of ideas.

Finally, they’ll — of course — require a candidate who captures the electorate’s imagination. That means someone more than just an opportunist who likes the way the winds are blowing, but a leader who sees the Liberal’s third-party status as a luxury and who is willing to put in the hard work necessary to rebuild and redefine it.

Anything less and the patient is destined for defeat.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on May 28, 2023.

If the June byelections are a precursor to the real showdown, the Conservative leader cannot afford to take this tune-up lightly.

Pierre Poilievre is about to face his greatest test. How he performs could determine not just his future but, just possibly, the country’s.

His first time up at the plate — in a Mississauga-Lakeshore byelection late last year—many concluded Poilievre struck out. That’s one way to see it. But I look at it differently: Poilievre refused to swing the bat—fully aware his efforts would be futile in a Liberal stronghold.

But for the upcoming by-elections in June, that approach just won’t cut it. Indeed, to show he’s not just a capable rhetorician, but an electoral strategist who can succeed where federal Conservatives have recently fallen short, Poilievre must swing for the fences. Question is: is the count in his favour?

Four by-elections, two in Manitoba, one in Ontario, and one in Quebec, all represent unique challenges. And just to set expectations straight, he doesn’t need to win them all just as he is unlikely to.

Rather, Poilievre has a critical opportunity to show he can channel the groundswell of support he achieved in his leadership campaign into a larger movement. Show that he stands for his own distinct vision of Canada, not just opposition to Trudeau and the Liberals.

Some say he needs to bring forward his industrial policy. Others his stand on climate. And, of course, still others want to hear how he plans to address the perennial problems in our health care system.

He has answers to all of these policy matters — and others. But here is where it gets tricky, very tricky, because this is where the communication priorities become difficult for him.

It is clear that Poilievre has found a way to connect with hundreds of thousands, likely now millions, of Canadians on the very issues that matter most to them — food inflation, gas prices, and the staggering cost of everyday life.

Pierre Poilievre is about to face his greatest test. How he performs could determine not just his future but, just possibly, the country’s.

His first time up at the plate — in a Mississauga-Lakeshore byelection late last year—many concluded Poilievre struck out. That’s one way to see it. But I look at it differently: Poilievre refused to swing the bat—fully aware his efforts would be futile in a Liberal stronghold.

But for the upcoming by-elections in June, that approach just won’t cut it. Indeed, to show he’s not just a capable rhetorician, but an electoral strategist who can succeed where federal Conservatives have recently fallen short, Poilievre must swing for the fences. Question is: is the count in his favour?

Four by-elections, two in Manitoba, one in Ontario, and one in Quebec, all represent unique challenges. And just to set expectations straight, he doesn’t need to win them all just as he is unlikely to.

Rather, Poilievre has a critical opportunity to show he can channel the groundswell of support he achieved in his leadership campaign into a larger movement. Show that he stands for his own distinct vision of Canada, not just opposition to Trudeau and the Liberals.

Some say he needs to bring forward his industrial policy. Others his stand on climate. And, of course, still others want to hear how he plans to address the perennial problems in our health care system.

He has answers to all of these policy matters — and others. But here is where it gets tricky, very tricky, because this is where the communication priorities become difficult for him.

It is clear that Poilievre has found a way to connect with hundreds of thousands, likely now millions, of Canadians on the very issues that matter most to them — food inflation, gas prices, and the staggering cost of everyday life.

And in doing so, I am not sure it matters if he connects with those people who are raising the issues they think a responsible politician should be responding to.

But he needs these by-elections because he needs to show he can win across the country. And so, in each, this time he will have to swing for the fences.

In Ontario, he confronts unexpected defiance. Conservative MP Dave MacKenzie, who is stepping down, publicly endorsed a candidate for the Liberal nomination. Although the seat is expected to be a safe hold, this is an unhelpful nuance.

In Quebec, pollsters give the Conservatives a shot at only a few seats. The outgoing Marc Garneau’s riding is not one of them. Although likely unattainable, it’s the effort, the approach, that matters. Gaining even an inch in Quebec always requires a tailored strategy — not merely speaking French.,

If not carefully devised, that strategy can also be a minefield that impedes success elsewhere, as illustrated by the ramping up of anti-immigration rhetoric in the province’s political discourse.

Manitoba bears its own peculiar challenges. Here, Poilievre faces a more extreme faction of firebrand politics with Maxime Bernier running for the PPC. Mercifully, without vaccine mandates to rally around, Bernier’s brand is inching closer to extinction. Forget evolution.

Poilievre should be able to face Bernier down with relative ease. His challenge will be balancing his hardline support in Winnipeg South Centre with the more moderate stance that riding expects.

All things considered, so far Poilievre’s 2023 has been a good one.

A lead in the national polls? Check. Even better, in many, he’s opened up more than a five-point lead.

A healthy and growing war chest? You bet. This year, his Conservatives have raised $8.3 million.

But tangible electoral results? That’s … pending.

So while favourable predictions are nice, and money’s even better, in politics, performance on election day is all that matters.

If these byelections actually are a precursor to the real showdown, Poilievre simply cannot afford to take this tune-up lightly. A lot of things need to go right to hit a home run. But, as Pierre well knows, it starts by swinging hard.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on May 22, 2023.

Move over affordable housing, public safety, and the absolute disaster that is Toronto’s finances. Make space—a lot—for two issues that will define this upcoming Mayoral race: traffic congestion and public transportation.

Sadly, on this score, candidates have spent a great deal of time acting like Captain Obvious. We already know that congestion in this city is nothing short of nightmarish, that Toronto traffic is — in fact — some of the worst in the entire world. That it is horrific for our economy, dreadful for the environment, a disaster for families and a danger to every soul brave enough to venture, well, anywhere in this city.

While they profess platitudes, purporting to share our frustration, they are woefully thin on (forgive the expression) concrete solutions.

So, what’s needed?

For my tax dollar, the answer lies in turning our minds, painful as it is, to the failures of two of the largest and most controversial public transportation projects of late: the plagued, mislaid (literally) Eglinton crosstown LRT and the long-delayed Union Station redevelopment.

Back in 2010, the city cancelled David Miller’s Transit City. Why? Rob Ford made good on his campaign pledge to scrap the project and redirect funds for a Scarborough subway.

Despite their personal animosity, then Premier Dalton McGuinty and Mayor Rob Ford, out of political necessity, temporarily laid down their swords and agreed to a new funding plan. Ontario would pick up 100 per cent of the cost of the new Eglinton Crosstown line, conveniently serving a swath of ridings held by the provincial Liberals. In return, Toronto would pick up 100 per cent of the tab to rejuvenate and expand the most critical transit hub in the country, Union Station.

As everyone who lives, works and commiserates knows, both projects were eye-wateringly over budget and hopelessly over time. Though Union Station is now finally transformed, the new 17 km Eglinton Crosstown line is full of recriminations and threatened suits and countersuits — full of everything but transit riders.

We don’t need to get any further into the history of these sagas, as most Ontarians are already maddeningly familiar, to understand that political imperatives have delayed our vital infrastructure.

Today, due to short-term, narrowly partisan decision-making, our city finds itself in a perilous situation and yet the solution is crystal clear: we simply must remove politics from the equation. And the best way to do that is to appoint a traffic and critical transportation infrastructure czar.

If this proposal sounds familiar, it’s because we already have a lightweight version of this in the City’s Transit Expansion office led by Derrick Toigo. Never heard of him? That’s no surprise. Although his mandate is to accelerate transit projects, minimizing overall disruption is not. In other words, the role is full of talk about ‘working across’ levels of government and ‘breaking down’ silos but has achieved minimal results — as the city’s insane congestion plainly testifies.

So what’s needed is something far stronger, an office with unique powers to develop a long-term transportation strategy focused not only on getting projects built, but keeping the city moving amidst the necessary disruption that accompanies their construction. And its North Star should be reducing gridlock, not winning votes.

To work, this position must be a long-term appointment, and the appointee should also be blessed by all three levels of government who provide the necessary funding.

The bottom line is that Toronto’s traffic and transit problems will not be solved without pain in the short-term. Torontonians get that. But what we cannot and should not abide is pain that is all for naught, pain created by political opportunism.

So, when asked by mayoral candidates for my two cents, here’s my answer: we need a dedicated traffic/transportation czar who can cut through the politics, keep their eye on the big picture and keep our city moving.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on May 15, 2023.