Category: Chairman’s Desk

There are still two years to go until the next federal election, but last week media outlets and polling firms began releasing polls and prognosticating about who the next prime minister of Canada will be.

Horse race journalism is once again the order of the day, even though the horse race is meaningless this far out from an election.

Needless to say, a lot can and will change in two years — especially in politics. “Political pundit” might as well be a euphemism for fortune teller.

That said, it seems that while horse race journalism may sell, it also may play a negative role in our politics for a number of reasons.

First, coverage that focuses on polls and the race among party leaders starves voters of the coverage and information they need to reach independent opinions about both policies and candidates.

Second, the horse race lens portrays candidates as self-interested who focus only on winning and losing and not on what actually matters, something that has the effect of encouraging cynicism among voters.

And finally, as argued by Northeastern University Professor Matthew Nisbet, horse race journalism leads to coverage that seems to present a false equivalency in the treatment of meaningful issues and allows more readily for the emergence of so-called “fake news.”

This kind of journalism is often terribly uninformed and frequently misses the mark.

While developments over the past few months have been important, there is still a lot we don’t know, making predictions all but impossible.

For example, we do now know who will be leading the major federal parties against Justin Trudeau. We have seen a generational shift in our political leaders, and this will undoubtedly change the tenor and tone of election 2019. As well, for the first time in Canadian history, a major federal party will be led by a visible minority.

However, among the unknowns are what risks are ahead for those in politics. They face many — some they can control and some that they can’t.

Politicians can plan and predict how policy debates will roll out, they can strategize on how to best implement economic and environmental policy. But what they can’t isolate are international flare-ups, natural disasters and unforeseen domestic crises. Voters are often swayed by how politicians react to unanticipated and often game-changing events, not by the mundane and predictable policy debates.

Politicians all face a fundamental problem — how to govern and plan for the next election, but retain the flexibility to react to an unforeseen event.

Prime Minister Trudeau and his Liberal team are well aware of what is needed in the lead-up to the 2019 election. They know that the prime minister is well-liked by a solid percentage of Canadians. They are also acutely aware that about 30 per cent of Canadians — the Conservative base — would never in a million years consider voting for him.

They know that the prime minister now faces a young, hip, new progressive on the left — NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh. As a result, Trudeau will need to fight to retain a percentage of traditional NDP voters who sealed the deal on his majority mandate in 2015. To do this, Trudeau needs to pursue a firmly progressive agenda and make things right on Indigenous reconciliation and the environment. Easier said than done.

Many commentators have outlined this very game plan for the Liberals, especially since Singh and his Conservative counterpart Andrew Scheer’s secured their positions at the helm of their parties.

But it is naïve to believe that this is how 2019 will actually shake out.

Many things can and some will happen between now and then. The wild cards include:

• A volatile U.S. president who could, without notice, fundamentally alter Canada’s economic future, trading environment, military requirements, immigration policies and international standing.

• A North Korea, also with a volatile leader, that supposedly has the capability to strike Canada’s west coast.

• The potential threat of the kind of domestic terrorism that has affected the domestic politics of other countries.

• A complete collapse of the residential housing market.

And then there are the potential threats that are not even on the radar. All of this uncertainty makes trying to predict an election still two years away impossible.

So, next time you read a report or watch a panel speculating on who will win the 2019, consider the validity of what is presented and the possible negative impact such speculation may have on our politics.

And if you don’t agree, just ask Secretary Clinton.

As the seasons have changed, so too has the Canadian political landscape.

The October 2015 election of a Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau began a major shift from dominance by Baby Boomers to a younger generation. Voters chose Trudeau’s youth and optimism over the experience of the other party leaders.

Just two years later, Trudeau is now the oldest of the three main federal party leaders. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and newly crowned NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh are both 38, Trudeau is 45.

Scheer and Singh were chosen by their parties, at least in part, as a response to the youthfulness Trudeau brings to his leadership. The three are the youngest group of federal leaders in Canadian history.

It’s a remarkable shift, especially when contrasted with many Western democracies, whose increasingly older populations embrace greyer, more experienced leaders. (France, of course, is a notable exception.)

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Theresa May, 61, faces off in Parliament against Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, 68.

In the United States, President Donald Trump, 71, still rails on about 69-year-old Hillary Clinton. Among Trump’s potential rivals in the next U.S. presidential election are California Governor Jerry Brown, 79, Senator Elizabeth Warren, 68, and Senator Bernie Sanders, 76.

But in Canada we are witnessing more than just a generational change.

Singh’s decisive victory last weekend raised the curtain on a new Canadian political pageant — one that is beginning to more accurately reflect the growing diversity of this country.

Growing up in Windsor in the 1980s, Singh saw a Canadian political establishment that consisted largely of white, older, straight men. It was an establishment that did not reflect him, his family or his friends.

In fact, throughout his leadership campaign, pundits and other commentators spoke or wrote in code about whether Singh’s Sikh identity could prove a challenge in a general election.

Just as Barack Obama’s victory was eight years ago, Singh’s convincing win was, at least in part, a rebuke of those whispers — whispers that likely will mean nothing to most Canadians when they cast their ballots in 2019.

Another shift came the day after Singh’s win when Julie Payette, 53, was sworn in as Governor General.

She, too, represents generational change, but she also represents more.

The institution of the vice-regal office is, of course, traditional by its very nature, and despite the dedicated efforts of predecessor David Johnston and his wife Sharon to humanize the post, and their success at genuinely connecting with Canadians all over the country, many see Rideau Hall as far removed from everyday life.

But Payette’s warm and enthusiastic demeanour is as inspiring as it is engaging. Her down-to-earth approach allows her to come across as accessible and approachable. Her ability to speak passionately and eloquently for nearly 20 minutes about our country and its future, without notes, makes her not only genuine and authentic but allows her to connect with her fellow citizens.

A former astronaut who has twice been to space and who speaks six languages, our new Governor General is an impressive person, with a long record of accomplishments. She has long been a role model.

And on Monday, in one poignant moment, Payette blazed a new trail, while at the same time reflecting the current reality of many Canadian families: she arrived at her installation ceremony as a single woman with her 14-year-old son by her side.

According to Statistics Canada, about 20 per cent of families in Canada are headed by a single parent. But until now, a single parent had never served as Governor General.

Payette also chose to affirm her loyalty, rather than swear an oath on the Bible. As religion’s role in the lives of Canadians is changing, here was another example that Canada’s leadership is more closely resembling the population.

There are other important role models whose lives and experiences mirror those of other Canadians. The premier of Ontario is a lesbian and the premier of Prince Edward Island is a gay man.

Canada is a diverse, inclusive and welcoming place. How lucky we are, and how lucky are our children, that our political leaders are beginning to look more like all of us.

A number of things happened last week that underscore the challenges ahead in Canada’s relationship with the United States.

Former U.S. president Barack Obama visited Toronto, just one day after failed candidate Hillary Clinton made an appearance here during her Canadian book tour.

It would be hard to blame Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for thinking wistfully about what might have been under President Hillary Clinton. Obama has long been an advocate of free trade; he moved to expand trading opportunities in the Pacific Rim. Similarly, Clinton has embraced free trade over the course of her career.

Even though she made half-hearted attempts to appeal to the protectionist constituency in American politics during her campaign, it is hard to imagine that, had Clinton won, a major Canadian company would be hit with a 219 per cent tariff and accused of cheating the system.

The announcement that the Bombardier C Series would be taxed at a level of 219 per cent landed like a bombshell, but we shouldn’t have been surprised — it has become a part of a broader pattern for the U.S.

A report produced by the Centre for Economic Policy Research’s Global Trade Alert found that U.S. policy had moved “sharply in favour of domestic firms,” with punitive tariffs up 26 per cent over the last year. Seen in this light, the Bombardier decision is not a mere one-off. It’s part of a broader attack on America’s trading commitments.

In fact, it appears with every passing day that U.S. President Donald Trump’s “America first” policy was more than just rhetoric, but a real threat to all of America’s trading partners.

It is even more difficult to imagine that Clinton as president would have threatened the fundamental trade deal that has underpinned the success of the North American economy for more than two decades.

But instead we have President Trump who has just overseen the third round of the renegotiation of NAFTA. By all indications, things are not going as swimmingly as hoped.

Talks officially kicked off on Aug. 16, and a, 2017 after much preparation on all three sides. As of last week, there has been agreement among the United States, Canada and Mexico on only one relatively innocuous chapter, in a document filled with policy both meaningful and symbolic.

When the Liberals won the 2015 election, no one could have predicted that these negotiations would even be happening. But prime ministers must play the hands they are dealt, and it is now Trudeau’s responsibility to preserve Canada’s economic interests and its access to the American markets as best he can.

That, of course, is easier said than done. October 2019 is closer than it appears, and the government has officially entered the latter half of its mandate — a time when the pressure to consider domestic politics and optics grows.

Trade negotiations are lengthy, complex and often turn on minute policy details. Moreover, in order to get a deal, governments often have to concede points they would rather not concede.

It is no secret that right now Canada and the U.S. are oceans apart on a variety of policy issues, including labour regulation, the environment and tariffs. These are more than mere disagreements; they are fundamental differences that underpin each government’s domestic position.

These differences have the potential to cause major political headaches for Trudeau on the home front. Should the prime minister be perceived as not pushing hard enough on progressive causes, the NDP would happily step up to fill that void. If he pushes for inclusion of progressive policies, he risks losing the deal that underpins the Canadian economy.

Perhaps most notably, Unifor has formally called on the Canadian government to demand that the United States present legislation to rescind the right of states to implement “right-to-work” legislation. Right-to-work laws, which stipulate that union dues cannot be mandatory, are in effect in 28 U.S. states. Unions say this “right-to-work” is just another name for union-busting, while advocates of the laws argue they create a pro-business environment.

The emergence of this issue shows just how fraught with political peril the NAFTA negotiations are for Trudeau. Other issues on the prime minister’s left flank include Indigenous rights, environmental regulations, wages and government subsidies.

Trudeau’s position is not enviable. However, the danger of not signing a deal is far greater than the danger of signing one that angers more progressive Liberal supporters. Should a deal not proceed, or should the intemperate Trump decide the United States should simply pull out of NAFTA, the economic havoc that would ensue would be just one of the prime minister’s problems.

The political consequences would be far greater. No doubt, the prime minister, and his very astute advisers, are more than well aware of that.