Category: Chairman’s Desk

Trump will undoubtedly see Trudeau’s commitment to increase defence spending as an opening gambit in not only the upcoming NAFTA negotiations, but in future dealings with the American government.

Last week, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced the Liberal government’s commitment to increase defence spending by more than 70 per cent over the next 10 years, boosting annual spending from $18.9 to $37.2 billion.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has positioned the increase as Canada stepping up to play a leadership role on the world stage — just as the United States turns inward.

As the U.S. rapidly transitions away from its commitments as a global leader, Freeland argues that Canada must step up, do its part, and chart its own course.

Increasingly, it appears the U.S. has become an international laggard lining up on the wrong side of history.

The world’s largest economy is threatening to leave the World Trade Organization. The U.S. president refuses to formally commit to respecting NATO’s foundational principal. The country has formally withdrawn from both the Paris Climate Change Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership. And Donald Trump’s bromance with the globe’s autocrats is increasingly pushing the United States to the sidelines of international multilateral organizations.

Freeland foreshadowed the increase in defence spending in her remarks in the House of Commons on Tuesday when she said that, “to rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state,” and that “such a dependence would not be in Canada’s interest.”

Freeland’s speech and Sajjan’s announcement are acknowledgments that the U.S. is no longer a predictable and dependable ally, that it is heading in a fundamentally different direction than both Canada and the rest of the developed world, and that it is time for Canada stand up for what it believes in.

Freeland’s point is clear: it’s time for Canada to lead.

In short, that is the narrative the government wants Canadians to latch on to. And, to the government’s credit, that message is beginning to work.

But maybe something else is at play.

Since the presidential campaign, Trump has aggressively challenged NATO’s Article 5. He has called NATO obsolete, has argued that 23 of the 28 member nations are not paying what they should toward defence, and has suggested that even if these countries began paying their pledged two per cent of GDP, this wouldn’t be enough.

Last year, Canada’s contribution reached 1.19 per cent of GDP. Last week’s announcement will boost Canada’s defence spending to 1.4 per cent — a significant increase.

In response, senior White House officials quickly welcomed Canada’s announcement. U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said he was “heartened by today’s release of Canada’s defence policy,” and a White House spokesperson tweeted that Canada’s increase in defence spending indicated that Trump was “getting results.”

Trump, who never tires of reminding us that he is a master negotiator, will undoubtedly see Trudeau’s commitment to increase defence spending as an opening gambit in not only the upcoming NAFTA negotiations, but in future dealings with the American government.

In a stroke of strategic brilliance, Trudeau and his ministers were able to successfully develop a narrative about Canadian independence and multilateralism — the “Canadian Way” — while appeasing Trump with a commitment that is central to his administration.

Political operators know domestic politics trumps foreign policy.

And domestically, Trudeau would like nothing better than to be seen as the anti-Trump.

However, Trudeau doesn’t have the same luxury as his counterparts in France and Germany, who have been publicly critical of the president. There is simply too much at stake for Canada — on issues such as trade, continental security, and the economy.

When it comes to U.S.-Canada relations, it is now harder than ever for the prime minister and his government to keep their domestic audience on board without being entirely offside toward our southern neighbours.

What we saw last week was a prime example of that challenge. Looking ahead, it’s clear Trudeau’s balancing act isn’t going to get any easier.

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

Today, the Conservative Party is led by a young leader who is working with a number of promising young MPs and a nearly absurd stockpile of cash.

The Conservative leadership election has come to a close, but it has opened a new chapter for a party that needed renewal.

Any party that has served in government faces challenges following an election defeat. Its brand has been buffeted by years of criticism from the opposition parties and from the media. Its players are tired and the recriminations come quickly.

Renewal can be a long and challenging process that takes several election cycles. The situations faced by the federal Liberal party in 2006 and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives in 2003 show how what seems like a temporary exile can turn into a long stay in the wilderness.

The Conservative Party of Canada has much to celebrate after last weekend.

Through the long leadership campaign, it seemed the party wouldn’t have much to rejoice about at the end of it. Media commentators and pundits panned the field of contenders as has-beens or never-weres, and dwelled on the fact that major players had opted out of running for the leadership. They panned the policy proposals as uninteresting.

But, today, the Conservative Party finds itself well-positioned.

Its already prodigious fundraising has been increasing, even in the midst of a leadership campaign populated by 14 candidates raising money from the same pool of donors.

Those major players the media called out for staying out of the race have merely gone on to other things. Jason Kenney has moved to Alberta and united the conservative movement there, creating an immediate opportunity for the province to return to the conservative fold in the next election.

John Baird and Peter MacKay have returned to the working world, but have signalled their intention to strongly support the party moving forward.

And, more importantly, the candidates that were dismissed as the second tier have demonstrated that they are capable of carrying the mantle forward.

The conservative movement in Canada has a tendency to break at the seams from time to time. The split between the Progressive Conservatives and Reform Party in 1993, and the split in the parties on the right in Alberta are the most recent examples of the fragility of the movement.

Once, a result as close as 50.5 per cent to 49.5 per cent in a leadership contest would herald, at the very least, increased tensions and frustrations in the party. But party leaders and activists seem to understand the fundamental importance of maintaining a united and strong party to challenge the Liberals if they are to be successful.

The leadership contest brought to the fore fresh faces. A number of MPs who were less than prominent during the Harper era have emerged as important players.

Erin O’Toole, Maxime Bernier, Michael Chong and a host of other contenders may have lost the leadership election, but they have certainly boosted their profiles. Each can boast that they have shared their perspectives with party members, gained followers and boosted their media profile. They struggled to emerge from the shadows of the bigger Conservative players in Stephen Harper’s government, but they have demonstrated that they are ready and able to help steer the party.

Importantly, Andrew Scheer’s election as leader heralds the end of a sometimes cold Conservative Party. Scheer seems intent on reframing his party as one that is positively focused on growth for Canadians. Party members will welcome this tone.

Leadership contests often leave bruised egos and open wounds in their wakes. The aftermath produces periods of introspection and frustration.

None of that has been evident this week.

To the contrary, the new cadre of Conservative frontbenchers seems content with the results and pleased with the direction of the party. There has been none of the usual discontent and grumbling.

Many of the Conservative MPs are newly elected, since generational renewal was a goal of the Harper political machine as it approached the 2015 campaign.

That path was chosen with foresight. Today, the Conservative Party is led by a young leader who is working with a number of promising young MPs and a nearly absurd stockpile of cash.

Sunny ways, indeed!

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

As was the case with AIDS, many people believe fentanyl will never be an issue for them personally. But it’s becoming clear fentanyl is an issue that will affect all Canadians.

Abuse of fentanyl, the highly addictive opioid pain medication, is taking a menacing toll across Canada.

Opioid-related overdoses killed 1,400 Canadians last year. To label the situation a coast-to-coast crisis is a massive understatement.

Fentanyl can be found in knock-off prescription painkillers, in party drugs and even in cocaine.

The fact that other drugs are being laced with fentanyl means that drug users often haven’t actively sought out the “thrill” of fentanyl and don’t even realize what they’ve done until it’s too late.

My firm, Navigator, has recently conducted a nationwide survey on public opinion relating to the fentanyl crisis in Canada.

Today, only half of Canadians say they are familiar with fentanyl-related issues. What’s more troubling is that those most vulnerable, those aged 16 to 17, are least familiar. Only 4 in 10 teens are aware of the crisis.

The impact has, to date, been uneven across our country and so, therefore, has awareness. For example, 70 per cent of British Columbians express awareness compared to only 49 per cent of Torontonians.

The fentanyl crisis has spread so quickly, the public hardly noticed it was happening. Government officials didn’t notice it either. As a result, it went largely unaddressed. And as so often happens, issues affecting the poorest or most vulnerable among us are the last to be noticed. It has only been as the crisis has transcended class lines and begun affecting suburban teenagers that the outcry has begun.

The U.S. president’s firing of FBI director Comey was unconscionable and indefensible, but too many voters are tired of the melodrama and constant outcries against every action Trump has taken.

This time, it’s different.

I have argued in the past that many of U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions have not been as harmful or dramatic as some have made them out to be.

Many Americans and media pundits overreacted to the election Trump, a man who, while considered offensive, ignorant and inflammatory by many, to a demographic of under-represented Americans who have for too long felt silenced has been a hero.

I have not agreed with most of his policy proposals or his actions, but it must be acknowledged that Trump was elected with a mandate that he has relentlessly, and often ruthlessly, carried out.

Many otherwise reasonable people have drawn unreasonable conclusions about many of Trump’s actions. Even innocuous and routine acts have been overblown by overwrought critics, who say he is an authoritarian ruler.

Critics decried the recall of politically appointed ambassadors. They howled when district attorneys across the country were dismissed, to be replaced by new ones named by Trump. When Trump shamed big corporations for cutting jobs, he was assailed for interfering in the market and overstepping the appropriate bounds of the presidency.

Critics said these things proved Trump was unfit for office and that the president was unworthy of governing the country.

But many of these things routinely occurred under former presidents of both parties. Voters become used to the whiplash: Trump does something that is decried as vastly inappropriate in the media, and then the action is revealed to be perfectly reasonable.

It’s a cycle that has lent itself to a voter fatigue with the anti-Trump forces, as I wrote two weeks ago. But perhaps more importantly, it recalls the fable of the boy who cried wolf. The near-constant outcry over Trump’s actions has served to make the public deaf to actual infractions.

This feeds into Trump’s bids to defend the indefensible.

But the firing of FBI Director James Comey is different. It is not business as usual in Washington, coming as it did amid the agency’s investigation of Russian intervention in the presidential election.

It is unconscionable for a president to remove the person responsible for investigating him. The removal of Comey is a wilful subjugation of the rules and processes that a democratic nation must support.

The 2016 election was a deeply flawed election in many ways. However, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons — not only, or even mostly, due to Russian intervention. As much as it pains CNN, he defeated her fair and square.

But any sensible observer would say that concern about Russia’s possible interference has risen to a point where it needs to be independently investigated and addressed.

That investigation has, from an optical point of view at the very least, been both damaged and compromised by Trump’s actions last week.

The administration’s justifications for Comey’s firing don’t even begin to make sense: they range from blaming others who report to Trump, to pretending this is what Democrats wanted all along. What’s more, those justifications change literally hour by hour depending on who is put up as a talking head on TV or who is lurking behind the White House bushes.

It is clear that the firing was personally motivated, and aimed at undermining the FBI investigation. It is equally clear the administration did not have a plan, or any semblance of a strategy, in firing Comey.

As many have commented, the situation is startlingly similar to Richard Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, where the soon-to-be-disgraced president oversaw the firing of a special prosecutor responsible for investigating his overstepping. Both the attorney general and deputy attorney general at the time resigned in protest of the move.

Nine months later, Nixon resigned in disgrace.

We likely should not expect the same to happen today.

The little boy who cried wolf is back. The constant outcries against every action Trump has taken are coming back to haunt those who are desperate to protect America’s democratic institutions. Simply put, many voters are tired of the critics’ accusations, exaggerations, and the melodrama that comes along with all of the sky is falling talk.

This latest development is indeed a clear-cut case of unacceptable, inappropriate presidential wrongdoing.

And yet, there is so little public trust in traditional institutions and those that lead them that voters have simply tuned their messages out. Polls agree.

A week that before James Comey was fired, just 31 per cent of Republicans believed he should lose his job. Last week, despite the virtual unanimous criticism of Trump’s action, that number was up to 62 per cent.

It is hard not to feel pessimistic about the future of the democratic institutions of the United States — and even harder to decide where to lay the blame.

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

A political landscape that is in permanent election mode is almost comically ill-suited for thoughtful policy implementation. As a result, large, difficult, and challenging projects fall by the wayside.

If you were flipping through the pages of your newspaper or the channels of your television last week and didn’t know any better, it might well have felt like the 2016 U.S. election was still underway, as the bickering between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continued unabated.

Last Tuesday, a full eight months after Donald Trump’s historic presidential victory, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that if it were not for WikiLeaks and the FBI, she would have been the 45th president of the United States.

While she did take responsibility for her loss, she proceeded to furnish comprehensive scapegoats that supposedly caused the loss, citing misogyny, Russian interference and questionable decisions by the FBI. The intent was obvious, and not particularly flattering on Clinton: to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s victory.

And, of course, unable to help himself, now-President Trump responded with a series of late-night tweets. At 10:51 p.m. he offered that FBI director James Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton, and that the Russia story was just an excuse the Democrats were using to account for their election loss.

As Yogi Berra famously said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

But as embarrassing as the Clinton and Trump media battle continues to be, it is merely the first round of Election 2020.

Just this week, former vice-president Joe Biden visited New Hampshire, a crucial battleground state in presidential elections.

Cue thousands of speculative articles and electronic media reports prognosticating on the 2020 Democratic contenders and on Trump’s electoral chances, with commentary bereft of any meaningful or substantive discussion even as the 45th president continues to hammer home new policies that have enormous affect for all Americans.

This should not come as a surprise. It has been observed for quite some time that we are living in an age of the perpetual election campaign.

But that doesn’t make it any less of a distressing situation. A situation that only encourages our politicians to play to the theatre of public life rather than to the difficult and challenging work of implementing thoughtful and meaningful policy. If governing politicians are in constant campaign mode, how will they possibly find the time to govern?

An analogy with the corporate world illustrates this point.

In business, nothing fuels more drama than the reporting of quarterly results. Executives who are lauded for their genius strategic approach one quarter, are panned three months later when a downturn or setback strikes.

The intense short-term scrutiny leads to short-term moves, activist shareholder foolishness, and other shortcuts aimed at bumping up the price of a stock. This ever-increasing pressure distracts leaders from a company’s long-term health.

Political parties and their leaders face the same stresses as corporations. But instead of quarterly results, the goals are poll numbers and fundraising dollars. Replace short-term business moves with short-term policy decisions, activist shareholders with angry and dissatisfied citizens, and other shortcuts with corruption and mismanagement.

But importantly, instead of a company’s long-term health being at stake, it is the well-being of an entire country.

Difficult problems require comprehensive and complex solutions. A political landscape that is in permanent election mode is almost comically ill-suited for thoughtful policy implementation. As a result, large, difficult, and challenging projects fall by the wayside.

The beneficiaries of permanent election mode are political parties, their candidates and the media. Parties receive increased funding and resources, aspiring candidates receive disproportional recognition, and struggling media companies that thrive on horse-race journalism have ready-made content.

The permanent campaign has arrived in Canadian politics, too. The government and opposition parties are now always preparing for an election. Increased political advertising between election campaigns, fuelled by the constant fundraising machine, is just one proof point.

The effect: ideology has been left to die. Rather than maintaining traditional party stances and long-term beliefs, parties and candidates quickly flip-flop, with a constant eye on public opinion polling.

As well, policy debates are muted. Political columnist Susan Delacourt has observed eloquently in this newspaper that the goals of campaigns are less about persuasion than about mobilization of the support and funds the parties have collected between elections.

These days, it has become commonplace for another election campaign to begin as soon as one ends. What’s unusual at the moment is the feeling that the last one hasn’t ended yet.

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