Navigator logo

Category: Chairman’s Desk

Mayor Tory can drive real, long-lasting change to better Toronto

Posted on by

This past Monday, John Tory won big at the polls.

To say it was a resounding victory doesn’t do the mayor’s win justice. He crushed his opponents: he won every ward in the city, capturing a plurality in each and a majority in most. He earned 63.5 per cent of the vote, 301,446 votes more than his closest competitor.

He now holds the record as the politician more Canadians have cast a ballot for than any other.

Tory’s achievement would be remarkable anywhere but, given how diverse Toronto is, it stands out as a seminal political achievement.

And more than just win at the polls, he earned a massive amount of that most precious of all political resources: political capital.

Today, he has a city united behind him. He has a successful, managerial first term under his belt. He has, thanks to Premier Ford, a more streamlined and manageable city council with which to work. He has a commitment to retire in four years.

In short, he has a very real opportunity to be a truly transformative leader, a leader whose mayorship will shape the city for decades to come. He has an opportunity to tangibly show just why it is he has committed himself to both public service and public life.

More than coincidentally, Toronto finds itself in a moment that sorely requires just that kind of leadership.

While many scoff at the insecurities that cause us to chase the dream of being an actual “world-class city,” it’s obvious Toronto is in the middle of major change. We are a city on the move, with a swiftly developing tech sector and a booming population. But we also have the problems that come with change as well. Increasing congestion. Decreasing social cohesion. Growing unaffordability.

Awkward teenagers, if you will.

John Tory has the chance to lead the city as it grows out of its current gangly, uncomfortable phase into an adult.

There is no shortage of challenges that face our city. Our public transportation infrastructure pales when compared with cities of our size. We lack many of the cultural hubs that support the development of the technology sector and attract the young professionals who feed that industry. Nightlife regulations and building restrictions seem as if they stem from decades ago — and indeed, they do.

Our current situation is not one that calls for tinkering around the edges, like allowing drinking in parks during the summer or raccoon-resistant green bins.

Rather it calls for a mayor who will spend the political capital he has worked so hard to earn.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney often quoted James MacGregor Burns on the difference between “transactional” leaders and “transformative” ones. Burns wrote that transformative leaders “respond to fundamental hopes and expectations and may transcend and even seek to reconstruct the political system rather than operate within it.”

Mulroney would go on to say that transformative leaders spend the political capital they have earned in the great causes of their country.

And spend political capital Mulroney did. The Goods and Services Tax (now the HST), NAFTA, the Acid Rain Treaty with the United States and the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa.

Four big, bold ideas that were ahead of their time. Four ideas that were not at all popular when first introduced. But four ideas that changed both Canada and the world for the better.

Can we imagine what things would be like today if prime minister Mulroney worried more about short-term popularity than long-term achievement?

Today, many of those who were Mulroney’s fiercest critics at the time have come to see the wisdom of his vision and to admire the courage of his convictions.

Mayor Tory has a very special opportunity in front of him. He has earned the opportunity to become a truly transformational leader. He has earned the opportunity to discard the short-term vicissitudes of political calculation in favour of driving real and long-lasting change in a city that desperately needs strong leadership. Let’s all, as a city in all our diverse glory, unite behind him and help him do it.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist. He is a freelance contributor for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jaimewatt

Pot legalization a lesson in savvy political timing

Posted on by

In politics, there are two factors — over which you have no control — that determine your fate: timing and luck.

In running for office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to have taken his father’s advice that “the essential ingredient of politics is timing” to heart.

Promises, which were the foundation of his 2015 campaign, were each cleverly timed to catch the changing mood of Canadians.

A tax cut for the middle class and those aspiring to join it, deficit spending to fund renewal of our aging infrastructure, the welcoming of 25,000 Syrian refugees, and the legalization of marijuana.

All were easy to promise at a campaign stop. Each would have its difficulties and obstacles when it came to implementation.

In particular, the legalization of marijuana, an issue that at first blush seemed straightforward turned out to be, upon a deeper look, fraught with challenges.

But on the marijuana file, in spite of those challenges, the Liberals forecast exceptionally well.

Political capital is, after all, fleeting. The view of voters, at best, unstable. Those on top one day can find themselves at the bottom just a year later.

That’s why leaders try to use timing to beat the need for luck. That’s why prime ministers often try to accomplish their most challenging political objectives at the start of their mandates.

Trudeau’s Liberals knew they needed to have legalization sorted before 2019. They also knew they had a better chance to bring skittish Canadians along if they did so before the government got into the nitty-gritty business of cannabis.

By starting down this road early, the Liberals were able to establish a thoughtful process for legalization: they afforded significant time for consultation with business, third-party organizations and the provinces. The result was that they were able to accomplish their goal with a year to spare before the next election.

By Oct. 17, the day pot became legal, this endlessly talked about, “earth-shattering” moment in Canadian politics unfolded as just another dry day in the House of Commons. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer did not even mention legalization during question period that day.

The Liberals know, however, that a chunk of Canadians remain firmly against their policy initiative. To mitigate the electoral impact of this, the Liberals are counting on voters to have become distracted by other issues of a new day.

And what about the 30 per cent of Canadians who enjoy marijuana regularly? Here the Liberals hope they will be rewarded for legalizing cannabis when these voters get to the ballot box.

But timing isn’t the only thing. When asked what he feared the most, Harold Macmillan, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” And this is where luck comes into play. American football great Vince Lombardi once said, “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”

And the Liberals found themselves with no shortage of luck on this file.

At the time of his election in 2015, Trudeau faced a very different slate of premiers than he does today. Then, more than 80 per cent of Canadians lived in a province with a progressive-leaning premier who favoured legalization.

Since that time, the political climate in the provinces has changed dramatically and, if the pollsters are correct in Alberta, will continue to change.

The prime minister faced very little scrutiny from the provinces regarding marijuana when he launched his initiative. Manitoba was the only jurisdiction that attempted to derail the legalization process.

More recently, however, premiers who have grown united against Trudeau on several other policy files have begun to make noise about challenges to the rollout of marijuana legalization and the federal government’s supervision (or lack thereof) of the process.

Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford fired his first warning shot on Wednesday. Don’t expect it to be his last.

Imagine if Ford had been there since the beginning, rallying those Canadians who opposed the legalization — and pointing out the flaws in the Liberal plans.

Timing or luck? Why choose?

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist. He is a freelance contributor for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jaimewatt

It is time to polish our humanitarian brand in Canada

Posted on by

In an age of social media and intense global competition, “brand” has become more important than ever. While it was once the exclusive domain of consumer-focused companies, now individuals, organizations and nations alike have become acutely aware of the image they project and the benefits that come with successfully building brand equity.

Whatever you may be selling, branding is the alchemy that transforms a kernel of truth and a dash of exaggeration into gold.

Intellectually, we all understand that a certain toothpaste will not transform our social lives, but on a crowded shelf the brand that’s promoted will still be the one we reach for. The same phenomenon applies to countries. Branding has become an important way to promote that same shelf appeal, to attract foreign capital, top talent, jobs and corporate offices and tourists. If you happen to have a jaunty red maple leaf as a national logo, all the better.

The Trudeau Liberals have been, since their election, exceptionally savvy about national and international branding. They shrewdly played to the deep-rooted belief among Canadian voters that we are a kinder, gentler and more moral society than many others. They championed environmental standards, they spoke fervently about human rights, they pronounced on the imperative for gender equality.

Not only that, they generously gave other countries pointers on how to hold themselves to that Canadian standard of conduct.

One of the most obvious examples of that moral brand extension came in August when Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland used Twitter – in Arabic – to support Saudi activists at odds with the ruling monarchy. As tensions grew, the Canadian ambassador was withdrawn. Public demands by the Saudis for an apology were made and rejected. And the Liberals burnished Canada’s brand as a plucky and high-minded nation that punched above its weight.

All that has come to the fore again, as the mystery surrounding the disappearance of a Saudi journalist – and critic of the monarchy – has deepened. On Oct. 2, Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi embassy in Istanbul to complete some routine paperwork. He has not been seen since.

The international concern about his fate and the outrage at the likelihood that he is a victim of dire retribution, has certainly vindicated Canada’s early stand against an increasingly bold autocracy.

But here’s where the varnish starts to chip: The values that underpin our national brand are not consistent with finger-wagging diplomacy and impassioned rhetoric about the importance of human rights.

Indeed, our own sense of our brand is at odds with reality – and with the perceptions of others. When the Canadian government – first the Conservatives and then the Liberals – agreed to sell armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, they unequivocally forfeited the moral high ground. Sure, they were described first as “trucks” by former prime minister Stephen Harper and later as “jeeps” by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but that deliberate trivialization only makes it worse. The Saudis know that perfectly well and, frankly, so does everyone else.

This is not going to be a one-time news story. Rather it is going to be an issue as Canada’s campaign to join the 2021 UN Security Council ramps up. The effort is already underway, skilfully led by Canada’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Marc-André Blanchard. Given our sense of own brand, Canada should be a strong contender. But remember what happened last time we tried for this prize. Portugal left us in their dust.

And now, we’re competing for a coveted spot with Norway and Ireland, two smaller and quieter countries with less brand equity but perhaps more authentic clout. For all our posturing, the reality is that Norway is a far more generous foreign aid donor (spending one per cent of GDP compared with Canada’s 0.26 per cent) and Ireland has twice as many peacekeepers in the field as Canada.

Just another example of the complexities that middle powers face when trying to give life to their brand and their values in a big, old, complicated and cross pressured world.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Justin Trudeau’s fortunes have changed as provincial Liberal allies fall

Posted on by

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau looks at the political landscape across the country, he must be reminded of just how true is the political axiom that time is your enemy.

When he won a majority mandate just two years ago, the country was in the midst of what could best be described as a love affair with the Liberal Party. Governing in seven provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, the prime minister saw friendly, ideologically aligned colleagues virtually everywhere he looked.

What’s more, things were about to get better. Two more Progressive Conservative governments would soon fall in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador.

And even if some of those provincial governments had only loose ties to their federal cousins, shared voter bases provided more than enough incentive for everyone to play nicely in the sandbox.

It allowed the federal government to move quickly with minimal pushback on a variety of policy issues. Notably, the government’s commitment to carbon pricing received only a murmur of dissent from the provinces. Issues that have caused great acrimony with provinces in the past, such as health care transfers and immigration levels, caused little more than a peep.

No one, it seems, was going to say boo to this mouse.

For many conservatives, it represented a nadir for the movement in this country. After all, try as he might, Brad Wall, the only right-leaning premier left, could only do so much.

How times do change.

Quebec’s election on Monday evening of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) became just the most recent example of a remarkable shift in Canadian politics over the last two years.

CAQ is now the newest party to come to power eager to fight with the federal government. CAQ is particularly concerned about immigration levels and the federal government’s lack of control over our border, but Premier-elect François Legault is also gearing up for a fight with the federal government over the use of religious garb in official governmental positions.

Other fronts have opened, too. Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives have joined a lawsuit with Saskatchewan to fight the federal carbon tax plan, a fight that Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has promised to join.

Just last week, the Progressive Conservatives, led by businessman Blaine Higgs, bested rising-star Liberal Premier Brian Gallant and his government in New Brunswick. Higgs, too, has complained of the federal government’s overreach on multiple issues and has vowed to fight the carbon tax.

And there is more to come.

Alberta’s leader of the United Conservative Party, and a former Trudeau foe in Ottawa, Jason Kenney, looks set to join the insurrection when the province’s election is held this coming spring.

And trouble doesn’t just lurk on the right: British Columbia elected a New Democratic government last year that has fought with the federal government over the establishment of a pipeline in the province.

It is an ominous scene for a federal government that has prided itself on calming rocky provincial-federal relationships. For a government that has branded itself as a unifying one, it is a new world to have so many fronts open on so many key battlegrounds.

So far, the federal government has done little to tamp down the fight. Premier Ford, in particular, seems to enjoy fighting the federal government on any number of fronts: from the carbon tax to refugee politics to Toronto City Council, the premier seems happy to thumb his nose at a government he sees as deeply out-of-touch with Ontarians.

Ford will soon be joined by Kenney, who is a savvy political operator with a bone to pick with the prime minister. The two together will cause headaches for Trudeau in the run-up to his re-election campaign.

While the other premiers will perhaps not be so bold or so loud, they have indicated that they are far more willing than their recent predecessors to stand with the bucking provincial governments than with Ottawa.

Perhaps, in their own funny way, they are uniters after all.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Trudeau will benefit on NAFTA regardless of outcome

Posted on by

The more things change, the more they stay the same. In spite of the acute attention paid to the ongoing negotiations week after week, the NAFTA narrative remains fundamentally the same: meetings take place, another “all-nighter” makes headlines, and so-called deadlines evaporate into thin air.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s talking points haven’t changed much either. We possibly will make the end of week deadline. We are in intensive negotiations. We are not negotiating in public. No NAFTA deal is better than a bad NAFTA deal.

Everyone knows the issues on the table: concessions on dairy, cultural exemptions, softwood lumber and, most critically, the dispute resolution mechanism.

It’s not possible to overstate the importance of NAFTA to our country’s future economic prosperity. It’s a vital agreement that has fuelled growth, created jobs and generated opportunities that wouldn’t otherwise exist.

The American market being open to Canadian firms has benefited us to a degree that is hard to grasp — and for it to close would be deeply damaging. For all those reasons, the long-term political cost of failing to reach a deal would be devastating for any political party.

But with an election less than 400 days away, the short-term political landscape is quite another matter.

The Liberals stand in an envious position: no matter the result of the negotiations, they stand to benefit with voters.

If Canada signs a deal before the 2019 election, Trudeau will be able to campaign across the country celebrating the virtues of his agreement — secured economic prosperity through a wider selection of goods, increased trade, new jobs and the freer movement of professionals and investors across the border.

No matter what the specifics of a negotiated trade pact are, the prime minister can — and will — proudly boast about his accomplishment in successfully negotiating a “Canada-friendly” deal against the erratic, America-first, deal master himself. It will be a feather in his government’s cap — one that has few tangible results to point to three years into its term.

Without a deal, the narrative changes, but it can still easily be spun to the benefit of the Trudeau and the Liberal party.

A failure to get a NAFTA deal opens the door for a federal election fought on how to contend with the current American administration. President Donald Trump’s fans in Canada are few and far between. The president is widely disliked, and when the Liberals have been positioned as counter to the president, their poll numbers have increased.

Should there be no deal, suddenly, the next federal election will become a referendum on Trudeau’s handling of Trump, an issue that Trudeau can own. It will be challenging for Scheer and the Conservatives to campaign against the Liberals when they position themselves as standing up to a bully that many Canadians scorn.

It is important to recall that Trump is using the trade talks as an election tool, too.

An election campaign focused on NAFTA and the unpredictable U.S. president will shield Trudeau and his party from domestic questions that don’t have easy answers — from pipelines to Indigenous issues to spiralling deficits.

Practically, this means it is unlikely that Canada will get a bad deal on NAFTA.

There is little incentive for this government to sign a bad deal — one that simply exposes the government heading into the next election.

Why sign a deal that angers the dairy industry in Quebec? The Liberals know they are vulnerable to Andrew Scheer in rural Quebec.

Why sign a deal that dismantles the dispute mechanism that has benefited Canadian interest time after time?

Why sign a deal that weakens Canada’s cultural industries at a time when our culture is under threat?

The prime minister is in a politically enviable position — regardless of whether he gets a deal or not. Ironically, that means that he is better positioned in negotiations with the United States, too.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.