Category: Chairman’s Desk

There are a couple of things Trudeau needs to do to chart a path forward with Trump. He needs to reassure the Americans that we have their back on security.
He also must demonstrate that the economies of both Canada and the U.S. have been served well by constant, constructive engagement. He must demonstrate that the relationship is not a zero-sum game, that what is good for Canada in the bilateral relationship is also good for the U.S., and vice versa.

TORONTO—Donald Trump’s successful campaign for the presidency of the United States didn’t so much rewrite the rulebook as burn it altogether. It remains to be seen how conventional and therefore predictable his presidency will be. The early signs indicate that Canada’s stewardship of the bilateral relationship will be tested as it hasn’t been since the last Trudeau was in office.

The sky hasn’t fallen.

In the weeks following the U.S. presidential election, the stock market was on fire, the nuclear arsenal had yet to be launched, more goods continued to cross the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor than any other international border crossing in the world and Americans are still going to work and to school every day.

However, change is coming; change that affects Canada. And how Canada chooses to respond to the change will play a big role in the impact it has on our country.

This change will manifest itself in two ways. First, political campaigners will have to rewrite the rule book. Second, in terms of policy, Donald Trump will present several challenges to the Trudeau government because each has very different goals, including on current challenges such as the environment and refugees.

The unorthodoxy of the Trump campaign was astonishingly successful laying waste to the idea that cookie-cutter political campaigns are winning campaigns.

Trump threw out the campaign rule book because he had never read the rule book. In doing so, he created at least three new rules for elections to come.

First, the candidate with the best ground game no longer necessarily wins. Second, television advertising is not the key to success it once was. Third, authenticity no longer matters.

Throughout the campaign, Trump insisted he did not need to rely on traditional campaign tactics to win. Hillary Clinton used the data-driven, on-the-ground machine that propelled President Barack Obama to two straight electoral victories. Trump, meanwhile, pointed to the overwhelming nomination victory he achieved with a relatively small team on a tight budget, and he stuck to that strategy for the election campaign.

Then, Trump campaigned in a different way. Instead of spending millions of dollars on television advertising, he focused on old-school rallies, his message seeping through the free media coverage and his often ridiculous Twitter posts.

Finally, rather than strive for authenticity, he played a consistent role, just as he had done on his reality TV shows, The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice.

Campaign professionals strive to create an authentic candidate to whom people can relate—one with a backstory that captures the essence of voters’ aspirations.

This was never going to happen with Trump, an unusually privileged son of a businessman, a billionaire who hasn’t paid federal taxes in years.

But what Trump lacked in authenticity, he made up for with consistency. His contrivance was perfectly constant, across all media, whether it was a major network interview, a stadium appearance in front of 10,000 adoring fans or a late-night Tweet.

The new campaign rule book fundamentally alters the political landscape. No longer should we equate electoral success with those with the deepest pockets, oldest party roots, the most endorsements or a perfect Norman Rockwell resume.

Looking ahead, and with regard to policy and the future of the U.S.-Canada relationship, many have argued that Trudeau’s mandate and many of his policy objectives are less likely to succeed with a Republican in the White House.

There is, however, another way to look at this—the Trump presidency might, just might, afford Canada economic good fortune.

In fact, it is not Trudeau’s legacy and progress that’s on the line.

Instead, more than a few policy tenets close to the hearts of past Conservative governments are the ones at stake. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), American rapprochement with Cuba, the Syrian civil war, engagement with Russia, unconditional support for Israel—the list goes on.

Trump’s presidency poses a greater threat to former prime minister Stephen Harper’s trade and foreign policy legacy than Trudeau ever did.

Given this new world we find ourselves in, it’s important that Trudeau respond only to concrete policy proposals that Trump puts forward, and not to his abstract Twitter proclamations.

For the most part, Canadian governments have maintained a businesslike approach toward the United States, and such an approach will continue to serve Canada well with Trump in the White House.

There are a couple of things Trudeau needs to do to chart a path forward with Trump. He needs to reassure the Americans that we have their back on security.
He also must demonstrate that the economies of both Canada and the U.S. have been served well by constant, constructive engagement. He must demonstrate that the relationship is not a zero-sum game, that what is good for Canada in the bilateral relationship is also good for the U.S., and vice versa.

The new U.S. president and Canada’s prime minister have very different policy goals. However, whether they like it or not, they will be forced to work together on certain key bilateral issues.

Trump’s foreign policy acknowledges the fatigue that Americans feel about foreign military interventions. This sets the stage for the country to take a pass on multilateral conflicts.

Trump has already mused about scaling back American treaty obligations in Asia and with NATO, an alliance that he has attacked as ‘obsolete.’ Meanwhile, he has exchanged kind words with Russia, NATO’s old nemesis.

On a more concerning note, Trump has threatened to ignore any invoking of Article 5—the principle of collective defence—by NATO allies who do not meet the minimum spending on defence. Canada spends less than half of the minimum.

On trade, Trump has expressed a desire to renegotiate NAFTA. If Canada or Mexico object, he could withdraw from the deal entirely—closing off the lucrative American market. That means that Brian Mulroney’s 1987 free trade agreement with the United States goes back into effect, but Trump may want to renegotiate that, too.

The dealmaker-in-chief will not be content to let the status quo in trade continue, and he won’t stop at NAFTA. Leaked transition documents show that he’s taking aim at Canada’s softwood lumber and beef industries, through country-of-origin labelling.

On taxes, Trump touts an aggressive plan to attract investment that could put Canadian business in peril. His tax plan features tax cuts across the board, with the hope that individuals and businesses will have more money to invest. Personal taxes would be simplified to three brackets, while corporate taxes would be reduced to 15 per cent from 35 per cent.

RBC Capital Markets reports that the move will boost the American economy, which would be positive for Canada. However, those moves would make Canada’s Harper-level corporate taxes less competitive and make a southward brain-drain more likely.

And finally, Trump would put global climate agreements in jeopardy. He has declared that he doesn’t believe in the science of climate change. He has said he intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, end carbon emission limits on American power plants, and deregulate coal, natural gas and offshore oil drilling. Trudeau was an enthusiastic signatory of the Paris agreement, and if Trump follows through, the prime minister will face a choice between keeping his word or making adjustments to guarantee Canadian competitiveness.

American energy independence is a core tenet of Trump’s philosophy, and he will try to reduce reliance on oil from countries he views as antithetical to the American experience. On the bright side for Canada, he has voiced support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Earlier this year, The Economist listed the possible election of Donald Trump as one of the top 10 risks facing the world. He was rated as posing a greater risk than Britain leaving the European Union, or an armed clash in the South China Sea.

Trump’s election to the Oval Office is a sign that choppy waters are straight ahead. Canada, like the rest of the world, has no choice but to sail right through.

John F. Kennedy, commenting on the relationship between the U.S. and Canada in his address to Parliament in 1961, famously said: ‘Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners and necessity has made us allies.’ Words now graven in stone in the lobby of the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa.

Less than a decade after JFK uttered those words, prime minister Pierre Trudeau had to deal with an American president who was overtly hostile to the Canadian government.

In the peculiar way history repeats itself, Pierre’s son will soon have to deal with a potentially hostile White House.

Conservative strategist Jaime Watt is a member of CBC’s popular Insiders panel on The National, and executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. jwatt@navltd.com

This piece was first published in the January/February issue of Policy Magazine, edited by L. Ian MacDonald.

The coming year will prove a challenge for the prime minister as he faces tough issues and must please increasingly upset provinces.

It has been, to use a shopworn clich’, beginning of a winter of discontent for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government.

As temperatures began to sink in late November, the Prime Minister’s polling numbers — previously untouchable — also dipped. It seemed that the government was hit by news story after news story that threatened to damage the upbeat year that had been 2016.

Let’s not make any mistake: the Liberals’ numbers have only moved from sky high to high. But the barrage of negative stories, coming as they did together, cannot have been good for Liberal morale.

A stop-and-start bid to reform our electoral system that had no plan and no message. A heartfelt eulogy for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro that went viral and was mocked on Twitter. The decision to approve two pipelines that earned the government the ire of environmentalists. A holiday visit to a private island that ended with calls for an investigation by the ethics commissioner.

It would have been a frustrating several months for any government, but was no doubt even more so for a government that had received little public pushback since its stunning election victory.

Looking to turn the page, the prime minister has shuffled his cabinet and is off on a listening tour, aimed at reaching Canadians who may have become disenchanted by the negative media attention. Make no mistake, the Liberals are determined to reset things for 2017.

It is certainly a serendipitous year for the government to regain a positive foothold: as Canada celebrates its 150th birthday, there will be no shortage of funding and photo opportunities.

The government also has policies in store that will continue its efforts to break from the Harper government years. Legislation legalizing marijuana, renewed health agreements with the provinces, and shovels in the ground on numerous infrastructure commitments, all promise to show the government is working hard on behalf of middle-class Canadians.

However, challenges await. We know of those posed by the change of administration in the United States, but there are a number on the domestic front, as well.

Trudeau’s first year in government was defined by the remarkable compliance of provincial governments. The premiers, often happy to go to war with the federal government, were quite conciliatory toward the prime minister’s activist government. On issues from environment to pensions to infrastructure, there was a harmony that has rarely been reached in the federal-provincial relationship.

This harmony, which previously had been punctured only by the occasional objections of Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, promises to be disrupted in the next year.

Wall, who early in the Trudeau government’s mandate was the only conservative premier left standing, has been joined by Manitoba Progressive Conservative Premier Brian Pallister, a former member of the Harper government. Pallister has joined Wall in criticizing the federal government’s carbon pricing plan and has sharply criticized the government’s approach on health funding.

The two premiers recently won mandates, and are all-but-guaranteed to stick around for the rest of the Liberals’ mandate.

A quick survey of upcoming provincial elections is not particularly promising for the federal government, either. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark, a hesitant ally of the federal government, currently trails the B.C. New Democrats, who have staked out ground as sharp critics of the federal government’s position on pipelines and are advocates of increased federal health transfers.

The Liberal governments of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick have been steadfast allies of the Trudeau government. But the implementation of carbon pricing has affected that support in provinces where energy costs are already among the highest in the country. The three governments, while relatively stable, have less reason today to be as sympathetic as they have been.

The premiers of Canada’s two largest provinces find themselves under fire in the latter half of their mandates. Premier Kathleen Wynne of Ontario and Premier Phillippe Couillard of Quebec are polling either behind or tied with opposition parties as they try to extend the mandates of governments that have been in power for years.

Wynne and Couillard, once partners and allies of Trudeau, have little room to manoeuvre. On issues such as health-care transfers, they have little option but to push the government, lest they provide fodder to their opposition at home.

With 2017 comes opportunity for the federal Liberals to turn the page on the last few months. However, the road ahead is significantly rockier than it was when they were elected in October 2015, and the pastures along the way don’t look to be getting any greener.

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

It’s back – the annual At Issue vs. The Insiders quiz. Tune in to see Jaime and his team challenge their competitors. Who will win this year?

Aired on CBC’s The National in December 2016

‘Justin Trudeau will find that to win the next election his government will have to pick a lane and stay in it, rather than driving down the middle of the road.’

It’s a sad fact that ‘compromise’ can be a dirty word in politics.

In our party system, there is always some measure of compromise. No one ever gets all they want.

Governments come to understand that with every decision they make, at least one section of Canadians will be unhappy.

The Liberal election manifesto was designed, and stunningly so, to build the widest tent imaginable under the party’s bright red banner. As Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau successfully engaged lawyers on Bay Street and suburban soccer parents. He brought urbane West Coast hipsters together with fishers from St. John’s.

Now, more than a year later, the reality of governing will test the durability of this winning coalition.

To win again in 2019, Trudeau must hold that broad array of voters together, a task that may be easier said than done if the past few weeks are any indication.

Trudeau has been trying to find middle ground, but in politics the reaction to issues tends to be focused on the ends of the opinion spectrum, on the black and white and not the grey. When trying to play the middle, a politician runs the risk of upsetting everyone and pleasing no one.

In 2015, the Liberal coalition was made up of a robust cadre of moderate Conservatives, staunch Liberals and soft New Democrats. In recent weeks, it would appear that the Liberals’ big red tent isn’t as friendly a place as it used to be. With each policy decision, Trudeau runs the risk of driving some who took shelter in that tent back to their former homes.

For example, Trudeau’s approach to marijuana and his recent decision on pipelines have upset people on the left and right of the prototypical Liberal voter.

On marijuana, Trudeau is firmly in the legalization camp and Liberal MP Bill Blair, Toronto’s former police chief, is working on new legislation. However, Trudeau says that, in the meantime, the government is not in the business of pleasing recreational marijuana users and police should ‘enforce the law,’ including using criminal charges and raiding illegal marijuana dispensaries.

On this policy, some people want him to drop the legalization promise. Others just want the government to leave recreational users alone and take quicker steps toward legalization. Trudeau’s pronouncements left both groups unsatisfied.

Last week, the government approved two major pipeline expansions while shelving the Northern Gateway project. In the House of Commons, Trudeau claimed the middle ground.

‘One side of this House wants us to approve everything and ignore indigenous communities and environmental responsibilities,’ he said. ‘The other side ﾅ doesn’t care about the jobs or the economic growth that comes with getting our resources to market.’

Nevertheless, Trudeau’s pipeline decision jeopardizes his once-rosy relationship with his left-leaning supporters while not buying him any points with those on the right.

Conservative voters see the government scuttling an independently approved pipeline for no good reason, while those focused on the environment are unhappy the government is allowing the other two projects to go ahead.

By trying to find middle ground, Trudeau has ended up frustrating people on both sides.

When it comes to the decisions that lie ahead, Trudeau must decide whether he will appeal to the soft New Democrats or the moderate Conservatives who make up his coalition.

Trudeau will find that to have a chance to win the next election, his government will have to pick a lane and stay in it, rather than driving down the middle of the road.

If the prime minister had approved all three pipelines, would Conservatives have had the grounds to criticize him? Harper was unable to break ground on a single pipeline which brought oil to a new market in his nearly 10-year reign. By approving all three, the Liberal base would have stayed loyal and his political capital with soft conservatives would have increased. Approval of two pipelines was already going to alienate New Democrats who had voted Liberal in the last election. How much more alienated would they have been if all three pipelines had been approved?

Instead, the government’s decision exposed vulnerabilities on both sides. The prime minister has not consolidated his gains from the Tories, nor succeeded in saving his Vancouver-area MPs from anti-pipeline voters.

In politics, it’s just not feasible to make all voters happy all the time. A government simply can’t be all things to all people.

Bismarck’s words, first uttered in 1867, that ‘politics is the art of the possible’ are surely on our prime minister’s mind 150 years later.

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

It should be troubling to every journalist that so many people do not view the issues and information the media provide them as relevant, believable or representing their interests

Kellie Leitch, the upstart candidate who now appears to be the front-runner for the Conservative leadership, released an email blast on Wednesday morning provocatively titled ‘Revenge of the Comments Section.’ The piece, which railed against the ‘condescending, elitist sarcasm that we get from the media,’ implored supporters to donate in order to send a clear message to ‘the elite of this country that there is a silent majority in Canada who will not be disrespected and who will fight back!’

The email is a microcosm of the Leitch campaign — a campaign that explicitly agitates against the wisdom of Canada’s establishment and revels in being cast as outside the mainstream.

Minutes after the email went out, the eye-rolling began. Pundits pointed out that Leitch’s campaign was a transparent ploy against them, light on policy and heavy on rhetoric. Criticism of her divisive rhetoric soon followed.

We’ve seen this movie before.

Rob Ford. Brexit. Donald Trump.

These movements all had many things in common. They were driven by disaffected voters who felt frustrated with a status quo that wasn’t working for them anymore. They were frustrated and angry and demanded change and they were determined to upset the applecart. They refused to heed the warnings of politicians, economists and professors.

Thousands of speeches were delivered, furious newspaper columns were written, hours of coverage filled the airways. It was unanimous: these movements were wrong, immoral and unacceptable. Dangerous, even.

The result: 383,000 votes for Ford; 17,410,742 votes for Brexit; more than 62,500,000 votes for Trump.

All three campaigns delivered a complete repudiation of the conventional views long held in boardrooms, official halls of power, towers of academia and by media.

How is it possible that in democratic nations, where the press is free and any citizens can share their viewpoint, the mainstream media and establishment forces were in near-unanimous lockstep in favour of campaigns that were defeated at the polls?

Perhaps it is time for a reckoning.

Entire cohorts of people now closely follow news sources that present diametrically opposing views to those of the mainstream media; media institutions that for as long as we can remember have represented the viewpoint of most citizens. Rarely, any more, do these two segments of the population cross paths. Instead, people in each group talk only among themselves, conversing only with others who agree with them.

It should be troubling to every journalist that so many people do not view the issues and information the media provide them as relevant, believable or representing their interests. It is problematic that one of the most foundational components of our democracy, with its ability to challenge governments and inform voters, is now summarily dismissed as opposed to the viewpoints of a large segment of the population.

It is depressing to realize that so many people feel so disenfranchised and frustrated by the uniformity of the viewpoints found in the media that entire political campaigns can be run successfully against those views, almost alone.

Traditional media outlets hold that some candidates are so dangerous and their views are so reprehensible and problematic that they have a duty to cover them as critically as possible.

What is troubling about that perspective is it makes the media an active player in the game, rather than an objective observer. Policy proposals become tribal, supporters become targets, and the divides between political camps widen.

Instead of dispassionately observing and criticizing ideas, mainstream media has allowed itself to fall into the pit of active engagement against certain candidates.

Of course, the media’s role is not the only issue. Society has grown increasingly fragmented between those who are urban, educated and wealthy, and those who live in rural areas and struggle to keep afloat in a rapidly changing economy that is leaving many behind.

The first step toward closing that divide, one that continues to grow, is to take a moment to understand policy proposals and campaign pledges through the eyes of those who support them; to take a serious, in-depth look at the underlying tensions of Canada as a nation and dispassionately unpack what they mean for our country.

Doing so, whatever the result, would provide a real service to our country and to the many of our fellow citizens who feel they are no longer a welcome part of the dialogue.

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