Healing a bruised nation

When Canada faced often self-inflicted crises in the past — both constitutional and financial — our highly respected and fiery free trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, was known to lament that, “This country takes a lot of bruising.” As our government is engulfed in multiple crises today, Reisman’s comment rings true. Bruises, of course, can be healed, but not without firm leadership. People crave direction, guidance and reassurances from government. How Canada responded to the financial debacle in 2008 is a case in point. Thanks to firm resolve, discipline and proportional stimulus from Ottawa, Canada weathered that storm better than any G7 country.

The COVID-19 virus is certainly not self-inflicted, but our efforts to manage the crisis are not helped by outlandish predictions that the disease could affect 35 to 70 per cent of the Canadian population — a range so wide that it strains credulity and stokes, rather than staunches, mindless panic. Experts everywhere are striving to learn more about this unprecedented disease.

While we do know that the virus can be fatal, we also know that most of the people infected ultimately fully recover. We could do with less hyperbole in the debate, especially from politicians with no medical expertise.

Unquestionably, this is a very serious health-care crisis, but we are a long way from knowing how serious it will be. If it does grow exponentially, there should be concern about the ability of our health-care system to handle a sudden surge. It already suffers from excessive demand and, in some ways, from the mediocrity of a government monopoly.

The most credible voice is that of Anthony Fauci, the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. He told Congress that the disease is likely to get worse before it gets better and that containment and mitigation measures aimed predominantly at the most vulnerable members of society, notably elderly people with underlying health problems, were the most effective actions. He stressed that the immediate objective is to blunt or flatten the curve of the disease so that fewer people become infected. Fauci emphasized comprehensive testing and specific restrictions on social mobility as parts of a practical and proportional response — one that a low-risk environment like Canada would be wise to emulate.

If the spread of the virus was not sufficiently challenging, Canada’s economy is still reeling from the lawless blockades that were setup along national transportation arteries. If the economic damage they caused were not bad enough, Teck Resources’s decision to abandon its $20-billion oilsands project and Warren Buffett’s decision to cancel his support for a $4-billion liquefied natural gas project undercut major opportunities for economic growth. Both blamed political instability and uncertainty as the reasons, consigning Canada to the ranks of banana republics.

As these crises continue to mount, the government continues to declare that climate change is its most important priority — as if that were top of mind for most Canadians today.

What is urgently needed is an action plan demonstrating vision and firm resolve, outlining common-sense commitments that will enhance national unity and the national interest. Having squandered much of its financial room to manoeuvre when times were better, the government now has less capacity for financial largesse and economic relief for those directly impacted. That is why the focus should be on practical policy decisions that bolster our economy without adding to the burgeoning deficit.

The government should show competence, not alarm, in responding to the virus. It should refrain from making predictions that have no evidentiary foundation. Assert that the risk is low in Canada and manageable. Let experts speak credibly and confidently to the issue. Introduce measures like testing and quarantines that will help contain and mitigate the threat to the most vulnerable segment of our society. Act proportionately and rationally to address actual incidents. Monitor what the U.S. is doing in regards to travel bans and other measures to contain the spread and match them, where appropriate, in order to safeguard our shared border. Defend Canada’s own borders coherently. That is the essence of sovereignty.

On climate change, the government needs to pull its head out of the sand. Canada represents 1.4 per cent of the global problem. What the government proposes to do will have little effect unless the major polluters — the U.S., China and India — deliver on tangible, not aspirational, commitments. We cannot continue to sandbag our energy sector in the vain hope that doing so will earn us global credit. Our priority must be what is good for Canada. Rather than inflict pain inequitably on all Canadians with carbon taxes — a tactic that mostly hurts those who use gasoline and diesel fuel to maintain their livelihoods and, in any event, will not significantly alter their behaviour — the government should use tax credits as incentives for business to move to a zero-carbon position by 2050, with fines for those that decline.

The Liberals also need to reaffirm their clear and unambiguous support for the Coastal GasLink project as one that serves not only Canada’s national interest, but also our global aspirations on climate change, as countries like China and India will use it as a substitute for coal, which is much more carbon intensive.

Finally, Ottawa should negotiate directly with Teck and Warren Buffett, to determine what is needed to relaunch their individual energy projects. If the government could nationalize the Trans Mountain expansion project in order to offset investor concerns, it should use every option to resuscitate these vital projects. The government needs to stop wavering on its support for key energy projects and clearly signal that it welcomes and supports such investments.

Above all, bold action on hard choices are needed to heal the bruises, rekindle the power of resilience and boost confidence in Canada’s capability to meet the challenges.

In late 2005, the Economist labelled then-prime minister Paul Martin as “Mr. Dithers.” That helped prompt an election in early 2006 that led to a change in government. As it contemplates how to respond to current crises, the Trudeau government should be mindful of that historical precedent.

WE COULD DO WITH LESS HYPERBOLE IN THE DEBATE.