Eric Lombardi, Hub contributor, Liberal, and president of More Neighbours Toronto, joins managing editor Harrison Lowman to discuss how the Liberal Party of Canada strayed from the path of liberalism, and how they can embrace it once again.
You can read Eric’s full analysis here.
The following is an automated transcript. If you are quoting from or referencing this episode, please refer to the audio to verify.
HARRISON LOWMAN: Eric, welcome to up to speed The Hub’s new YouTube series featuring interviews with hub contributors on their articles touching on the big issues that Canada is facing these days. I’m pleased very pleased to welcome today. Hub writer, Eric Lombardi, he is a self described fair weather liberal and the president of more neighbors Toronto. How’s it going? Eric, nice to see you.
ERIC LOMBARDI: Hey, doing well and happy Friday.
HARRISON LOWMAN: Okay, so I called you a fair weather liberal. How do you describe yourself? Large liberal, small liberal. What kind of l am I looking at across this table?
ERIC LOMBARDI: I’d say fundamentally, you’re looking at a small l liberal. You know, what drives me in my thinking is around principles of liberty, freedom and respect for the fact that people are individuals, and we should emphasize focus on that in public policy, rather than group ideologies, identities, etc. And so I would say the fair rather liberal part is, you know, I have had some history working with the federal Liberal Party, and I am advising provincial leader Bonnie Crombie on her housing platform.
HARRISON LOWMAN: Okay, so you wrote an article for us this week called, it’s time to make the Liberal Party liberal again, and we were playful with this article you and I, because we kind of did it as if you were writing a speech you wished Mr. Carney or Ms. Freeland had given this week being the deadline to throw your hat in the race for becoming federal Liberal leader, to replace Justin Trudeau and literally just become the next prime minister of Canada and be the Liberal leader in the next federal election. When was the last time the party was liberal? To you small l liberal?
ERIC LOMBARDI: I mean, I would say, you know, historically, I’d say, you know, a John Chretien or Paul Martin style liberal was kind of closer to where I see myself on the political spectrum, you know, I’d say there’d be a lot of criticism of the fact that during the 1990s they did have to cut budget significantly, download things to provinces, but they had a very keen eye to the fiscal realities of running a country, and in many ways, had were kind of forced by circumstances to be a bit more thoughtful about where governments participate versus not, and so I’d say, you know, that was an era that was probably closer to it. On the economic side, I will say that the modern liberal party is certainly more open and freedom oriented on social issues than basically any iteration of pass Liberal Party. And I think that’s really just a consequence of progress. You know, I’m, you know, a member of the LGBT community. I’m a gay man, and I do recognize that, you know, people like me have never had the same degree of social freedom as what we do right now.
And so where I think the federal party has really lost its way is on some of the fundamental economic principles of small l liberalism that I think are important. So focused a lot on the social issues, but you say in your article, they have greatly contributed to what you call a faltering social contract. What does that mean? Yeah. So if you look at the last 10 years in Canada, there have been some substantial changes, particularly when it comes to generational outcomes. And so, you know, both you and I are young people. I’m Thank you. You know, I, I am I’m lucky enough to have, you know, a good career and come from a supportive family. But if you look at, for example, housing in Canada, and it’s not really just the GTA in Toronto and Vancouver anymore, it’s really been an exported problem. We’ve seen dramatic increases in the cost of living and not dramatic increases in wages. So if you look at Toronto, for instance, in year 2000 inflation adjusted, the average home value was about 450,000 today it’s about 1.2 to 1.3 million. At the same time, the median income for full time worker age 25 to 34 in year 2000 adjusted for inflation, was 47,000, today it is, or as of 2022 which is when I have the latest statistics, it’s 46,500 so it’s actually declined in real terms. And this has had a lot of consequences. You know, if you also look at education, right, people do need to spend more time in school working on credentials, they end up going to more debt, and entry level salaries have not increased. And so this has culminated in what I consider to be like a milestone recession, because you’ve you’ve put confident financial footing for young people much further into the future. And so you’re even seeing. Things like declines in marriage, declines in fertility, and a lot of young people, I think, carry a lot of anxiety just because of how hard it is to start getting ahead. And that’s been a fundamental failure of this country to deliver what I think was a part of a social contract for a very long time. And, you know, liberals like to talk about the ways that they spend money. You know, they spend $80 billion on on housing investing.
HARRISON LOWMAN: They invest, they’re investing in the future.
ERIC LOMBARDI: but, but the fundamentals aren’t necessarily working out. And you know, there’s been some major mistakes when it comes to areas like immigration, which have also made the housing crisis work? You know, I believe immigration is a core component of the Canadian identity. But for 40, 50, years, we basically had a very consistent immigration system that led in about 1% of the population. There are clear rules, criteria, and the economic and cultural value people could bring to the country was paramount. And then we saw, all of a sudden, saw this switch with the federal Liberals, where they really went to index on temporary immigration, low wage employers who are lobbying, and in many ways, the economic outcomes of that were to undercut entry level labor and low income labor, because you’ve increased the competition for those jobs, and that means employers didn’t necessarily need to make investments in productivity or or wages. And so you’ve had, you know, all this good talk about these things. But then there’s been these fundamental policy failures that have made life, I think, worse, in particular for young people, and then the cultural ramifications of a loss of hope for a generation that drives a lot of culture.
HARRISON LOWMAN: Well, this is, this is the thing I want to get at. How much can we lay this at the feet of the Liberal Party versus and you mentioned, it inherited troubles, be they, you know, the sluggish productivity, housing costs, ballooning debt. How much can we actually attach to the this party?
ERIC LOMBARDI: I don’t think you can attach everything. But, you know, for example, on housing, you know, I am not Doug Ford’s biggest fan. I think there’s a ton the province has let fail there. But what’s unique about the federal government is that they command the attention of the entire country. And I think there’s been an arch to politics where Leadership isn’t just what policy levers can you pull, but how do you actually help inform people about what the problems are, to get the consensus for change. And I think we focused a lot on the language and not the getting it done, part, symbolism, substance, right? And so, you know, you can even look at, you know, interprovincial trade barriers, which you knowis frankly, a scourge on the country like I actually think that it should bring people in provincial governments deep shame that they keep a system in which we cannot free trade, Lee with free trade, freely with each other, because we’re protecting, You know, local benefactors or fear of change, etc, and to me, that’s something that requires substantial federal leadership. And because it’s hard, we don’t really see that. And in a lot of the areas where, you know, it’s hard, we didn’t see much action. And governing can’t always be about, you know, kissing babies. And, you know, you know, the fun stuff, and, and I think that’s where the Liberals have failed.
HARRISON LOWMAN: I like this. This quote from your piece, abandon identity politics, tear down redundant regulations, eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, bring back the investment we’ve driven away. If a US provoked recession looms, our priority is to lower costs so key sectors can return to nation building. So how do we return to nation building?
ERIC LOMBARDI: Yeah, so one of the fundamental challenges in Canada, and I’d actually say that this is, you know, I call it Anglo disease, because this is actually happening in the UK, in Australia, New Zealand in particular, at a similar time in many American cities as well. You know, I think regulations, when we go through the policy process, you know, every single one individually, you can discuss some merits, and some of them are justified, and some of them are not, but they’re adding up to a system that is so complex that many become unenforceable. People don’t actually know what their rights are and their obligations are, and there’s tons of fracturing between different jurisdictions and then squabbling about, actually, how to fix that at better scale. You know, housing is a perfect example where, you know, we see this plethora of municipal red tape and lost productivity, because all this is done at such a bespoke local level, right? But it also applies to the country. And so you know what people I think, don’t appreciate enough is that regulations aren’t like a hug. They’re not inherently good or inherently bad that they’re trying to solve for a purpose. And I think what liberals have failed to recognize is that if the outcomes being driven by regulation aren’t beneficial for the country, like, for example, staining growth an ability to get larger projects completed, raising costs, not on the physical and construction side, but on the soft costs, processing, lawyers, consultants, you’re actually not delivering long term outcomes for the amount of value that you need to actually take from people and out of their lives and their spending that you could and there’s a moral obligation to be able to ensure that we can build the nice things that ensure that we live in a developed country, and one of my big, big fears, or the issues that are important to me, is if we can’t get better, for example, at allowing more projects to go forward, or building high quality infrastructure because it costs twice as much, or five times as much, As another jurisdiction, the accumulation of all that lost potential will have substantially negative impacts to our quality of life in 15 to 20 years. And so if you look at this 10 year record of this liberal government, the things that we’re talking about now, had they been focused on 10 years ago would be probably talking about a different story for our economy. And you know, my my advice, I guess, to this administration that’s outgoing, and more, in particular, to the pier, probably have one that’s likely in coming, is use the political capital you have early on, because results take time to materialize. And as you’ve seen kind of with Doug Ford in Ontario, around housing like you run out of time to do hard things. And in the time that this government had to spend its political capital on those hard things, they didn’t do it. And that’s also been a fundamental failure.
HARRISON LOWMAN: So you’ve criticized the Liberals for, you know, lost economic potential, for the symbolism that comes with, you know, them practicing identity politics. Any feedback from liberals, large l liberals, or the party itself? On this piece?
ERIC LOMBARDI: I’ve gotten feedback from some large liberals saying, you know, this is really the direction that we need to be talking about from an economic perspective. I do think, you know, some would say that, like, I’m not giving them enough credit for how COVID was managed. I think some would say, you know, focus a lot on the economy side, and not like the our social values, or even things like climate change. And you know, my response to that was, I managed to write an entire article about contemporary politics, and I didn’t want to mention the carbon tax. And you know, the reason for that is because I’m not actually against it. I am a small l liberal. I believe in low friction, market based mechanisms to achieve the outcomes that you want. Now, do I recognize that carbon taxes are probably a dead in the water policy, of course, but now what my frustration is is, well, what is there going to be to replace it? I can write an entire other article on that. But you know, if we’re not going to have carbon taxes, which raises the input costs of emitting products, then what you need to do is reduce the cost of non emitting inputs, which is electricity. And so Canada even lacks, like, a cohesive electricity strategy, even though it’s probably our number one current advantage geopolitically for the next 20 years, like our electricity system is nearly clean, so we should really be doubling down on that and signaling to the world we’re going to have the cleanest, cheapest electricity. And that’s sort of like an anti carbon tax that achieves the same thing. And so I don’t know where I’m going with this, other than to say liberals have lost the ability to just talk honestly, both about culture and make some salient cultural observations, and also just explain, in layman’s terms, why they believe in certain things.
And I think that convincingly, yeah, you know, I was watching the Pierre poilievre, Jordan Peterson interview, and, you know, one of the things that stood out to me was a section when Pierre poilievre was like, Like, you know, I was visiting, you know, a university campus and talking to these university students. And he was like, You know what, I felt they’re just tired, like they’ve got bags under their eyes. They’re working, like, a 30 hour a week job and doing full time school because they need to cover the cost of living. And he was like, it actually wasn’t that hard for my for me and my friends in that era in Canada, because things were affordable back then. And it doesn’t belie any policy, but it demonstrates far more understanding of people’s circumstances than anything I’ve seen expressed by any liberals. And so you know, when it comes to being down to earth, or like, being salient, with the knowledge about the people, you need to actually talk about things and experiences that demonstrate that you get it. And I think even when it comes to some of these economic things, people work in industries, they see barriers, like regulation is everywhere. So being able to talk about like we need to protect ourselves, but like this needs to work. It shouldn’t be a left right issue. And I think liberals have failed just make the cultural case for doing things differently as well, and it’s just been lazy.
HARRISON LOWMAN: Well, let’s see if they follow your guidance, and if this, you know, shakes them out of the laziness that you just described, that is Eric Lombardi, Hub contributor.
