Parliament’s hyper-partisan climate has made the Speaker’s job doubly difficult, but Greg Fergus can defuse crisis situations with his moderate demeanour. But the Conservatives feel that any venal sin is reason for his dismissal.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 27, 2024.

OTTAWA—Three strikes and you’re out.

House Speaker Greg Fergus is currently on strike two.

According to the New Democrats, this strike was really the fault of the Liberal Party organization, and should not be blamed on the Speaker.

In the end, it was much ado about nothing. The Conservatives are all about focusing on anything negative, especially if it involves members associated with the governing Liberals.

Conservatives would not want the public to focus on the good numbers that have dominated the news recently.

A drop in inflation and a reinforcement of Canada’s AAA credit rating may make the governing Liberals smile.

But they don’t make the news with the same ferocity as a generic press release from Fergus’ local riding association which had not-so-nice things to say about Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

Fergus’ first strike occurred early in his tenure when he made the mistake of appearing in a partisan tribute video wearing his speaker’s robes.

He apologized for the mistake, and dodged the firing bullet with all parties eventually accepting his apology.

That was before Fergus threw Poilievre out of the House of Commons for refusing to apologize for the use of unparliamentary language against the prime minister.

In that exchange, both Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traded insults. The difference was that Trudeau quickly withdrew his statement while Poilievre would not.

The hyper-partisan climate in Parliament has made the Speaker’s job doubly difficult, but Fergus has a moderate demeanour, and is usually ready with a smile to defuse crisis situations.

The latest mess was not of his own making. The party posted generic information about the local riding association’s spring gathering, and included some negative comments about the leader of the opposition.

In normal circumstances, this would probably go unnoticed, but the Conservatives have obviously decided that any venial sin is reason for Fergus’ dismissal.

What must be particularly difficult for Fergus is that, although he is bound to impartiality in the management of House debate, he needs to get re-elected as a Liberal.

The Speaker is chosen from amongst Members of Parliament, most of whom are attached to a political party.

Never in Canadian history has a non-aligned member served as House Speaker.

So Fergus has to tread a very fine line between impartiality in the House, and partisan politics in the local community.

He also happens to represent a riding within a stone’s throw of Parliament, which makes it much easier for Hill staffers and political followers to keep an eye on all material that emanates from his local association.

Long-serving House Speaker Peter Milliken served a decade as Speaker, and also had the distinction of being the only one to preside over four Parliaments.

He was succeeded by Andrew Scheer, who used his private time in the Speaker’s chair to reach out to caucus members in a bid to become his party’s leader.

Having spent most of his parliamentary career in neutral positions, as deputy Speaker and then Speaker, Scheer managed to secure huge caucus support when he ran for the Conservative Party leadership.

One of the perks of being the Speaker is that you can organize parliamentary dinners on a regular basis, and invite small numbers of members to join you in Speaker’s chambers.

As Speakers don’t attend caucus meetings or parliamentary committees, most of their energy can be devoted to building relationships behind the scenes.

Those relationships are often partisan, as private dinners can include only members of your own party, but no one in the public has access to the list.

So it is easy to be quietly partisan but—heaven forbid—you have an event in your own riding for local activists.

Even though Speakers are expected to prepare for re-election, their hands are ultimately tied when it comes to riding-organized events.

Fergus cannot be blamed for this cock-up, but when you are the Speaker, the last thing you want to be making is the news.

The summer break is looming. That is good news as it will give all parliamentarians a chance to cool off in their ridings, and lower the political temperature.

That may not make the official opposition very happy. Their strong lead in recent polls reinforces the wish to have an election as soon as possible.

Chaos in the Commons plays into that scenario because an unruly Parliament is usually a precursor to an election.

Instead, Speaker Fergus can use the summer period to nurture government and opposition relationships.

He will need them to hang on to his job.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

After the 30-hour vote marathon by the Conservatives, the temperature in Parliament continued to rise. Public opinion polls showed that most observers were not impressed with the parliamentary chaos.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 18, 2023.

OTTAWA—Andrew Scheer is looking a little more ruddy than usual. And it isn’t because of a cheeky response to Christmas cheer.

Instead, the former Speaker is ruby red because he got caught doing exactly what he was excoriating House Speaker Greg Fergus for. He used his parliamentary office for a partisan video, and was quietly fined $500 earlier this year because of the infraction.

Speaker Fergus will face a similar fine, following a report from the Procedure and House Affairs Committee on his ill-advised decision to film a retirement video for a former Liberal colleague in his speaker’s robes. PROC members voted to fine Fergus and seek a second apology, but they stopped short of making his transgression a sackable offence.

That decision was opposed by the minority Conservative and Bloc Québécois committee members, but the main opponent of the ill-fated Speaker’s video was forced into silence himself when it was revealed that Scheer had made a similar mistake earlier this year.

The former Speaker and erstwhile Conservative leader has been vociferous in his calls for Fergus’ head, but he was muted on Dec. 14 when it was revealed that he paid a fine earlier this year for an eerily similar breach.

Scheer wrongfully filmed a political video in his office. Unlike Fergus’ retirement message, Scheer shot a campaign pitch in support of a parachute candidate in a southwestern Ontario byelection last June.

The fine was levied quietly, as are all decisions from the Commons Board of Internal Economy, but was leaked to the media last week when Fergus received the PROC decision. Tories and the Bloc continued to call for Fergus’ resignation, but the majority of parliamentarians felt he had committed a non-fireable error.

Fergus definitely dodged a bullet, but so did Parliament. The idea of dumping a new Speaker just months after the resignation of his predecessor in the face global scorn would have fomented the already precarious climate in Canada’s House of Commons.

After the 30-hour vote marathon by the Conservatives, the temperature in Parliament continued to rise. Public opinion polls showed that most observers were not impressed with the parliamentary chaos.

The Conservatives, still well ahead in the polls, suffered a precipitous five-point drop in the days following the filibuster. The drop may take a little wind out of their sails. A huge lead tends to fuel arrogance in any political party, while a tight race forces parties to behave in a manner that the public would expect.

Scheer claimed his attacks were largely based on his experience and knowledge of rules, stemming from the time he served as Speaker. But now that everyone knows he has broken the same rules that he claims to know so well, he won’t be as sanctimonious in his assessment of Fergus’ mistake.

No doubt, Fergus will have to work hard to rebuild the confidence that he lost because of his lapse of judgement. But turning the Speaker’s office into a revolving door would have done nothing to restore the confidence of Members of Parliament.

As his survival is dependent on support from Liberals and New Democrats, Fergus will be closely watched for bias in favour of those two parties. Liberals have privately expressed that they are worried he will be overly tough on them in an effort to prove his impartiality.

All in all, the parties will be walking on political eggshells in the new year.

Time with loved ones over Christmas will give all members a chance to enjoy some well-needed rest and family time. That should mean a happier perspective when they return to work in January.

But next year everyone will be moving into pre-election mode, which could stoke the negative vibes that were experienced before the Christmas break.

The Tories obviously want an election as soon as possible, so any way that they can provoke a crisis plays into their disruptor agenda. The Bloc is moving up in the polls, so the survival of Parliament depends more on the viewpoint of the New Democratic Party.

They continue to check off their list of accomplishments in working with the Liberals. Last week’s dental care announcement was another example of how the partnership has been helpful for Canadians. Whether the New Democrats translate that work into future seats remains to be seen. But they have certainly held up their end of parliamentary work.

The Liberals are going to work hard to keep Parliament happy, because they need time and space to rebuild their popularity.

Meanwhile, to all Parliamentarians and Canadians: HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 23, 2023.

OTTAWA—I was wrong.

In a previous column, I predicted civility in the House of Commons would last two weeks.

That prediction was predicated on a break week in the parliamentary calendar.

I figured the Members of Parliament could last at least five sitting days without allowing the place to run amok.

Instead, newly-minted speaker Greg Fergus spent two days in a civil chair.

On the third, the place erupted.

It all started out rather calmly. On Oct .18, Fergus was rising from his place to announce a new series of “reflective guidelines” that he would be using in his attempt to replace chaos with order.

He chose to introduce the guidelines just before the most-watched Question Period of the week.

On Wednesdays, all questions are devoted to the prime minister, which makes him a prime target on multiple issues and pretty much guarantees that the opposition will succeed in getting their messages on the news.

Normally, the House Speaker delivers orders, decisions, reflections, introductions, and announcements in the moments following Question Period.

This time, Fergus decided to break with convention, and deliver a lengthy reflection on protocol before questions began. He was obviously trying to make the point that everyone needs to know there is a new level of decorum that has arrived with the election of a new Speaker.

That desire ran smack into the wishes of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to lead off with his own questions.

When Poilievre refused to cede his spot to the Speaker, all hell broke loose.

Poilievre claimed, “The Speaker has a plethora of occasions to stand on his feet and make any point he wants or any declaration he likes. He does not need to do it in the middle of the sacred period during which we hold the government to account.” Poilievre went on to accuse Fergus of breaking the rules, and then former House Speaker Andrew Scheer backed up his leader’s right to proceed immediately with questions.

Fergus continued with his message about excessive heckling, which fell on deaf ears as Conservative MPs continued to interrupt with heckling.

While Fergus pleaded that “excessive, disruptive and loud heckling must be toned down,” his message simply engendered more disruption in the Chamber.

In the end, Poilievre got to deliver his question after a 20-minute speech from the House Speaker.

People quickly forgot the contents of the question. What came out of Wednesday’s Question Period is that, again, the call for parliamentary civility has simply fallen on deaf ears.

That may surprise the general public, as there was much focus on a kinder, gentler place when Government House Leader Karina Gould took over at the helm back in September.

But it was no surprise to those of us who have been involved in parliamentary matters for decades.

After all, the instrument that gives voice to Parliament is a mace. Ceremonial, of course, it was initially designed to kill people by clubbing them to death. When armour was introduced, it became less useful as a military weapon, but continued in ceremonial form.

Canada’s current mace was fashioned in after the original one was destroyed in the 1916 parliamentary fire that killed seven people.

Its design includes the Arms of Canada, the rose of England, the harp of Ireland and the thistle of Scotland. The staff incorporates the rose, shamrock, thistle, and the fleur-de-lys.

No words can be spoken without the presence of the mace, reminding us that Parliament is a verbal battlefield, and it isn’t always pretty.

The temperature tends to go up toward the end of a Parliament, particularly when there is election fever in the air.

With the Conservatives running so high in the polls, they have the wind in their sails, and it shows in their Question Period vigour.

Vigour includes testosterone, and the closer political parties get to voting day, the more emotions can run wild.

In a minority Parliament, the tension can be even more evident as at any moment the place could be shut down.

The New Democrats are facing some internal pressure from their supply-and-confidence agreement with the Liberals.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh felt the sting of that pressure in a reduced confidence motion at the party’s national convention in Hamilton last weekend.

However, he has his heart set on completing pharmacare, part of the triad of the supply agreement policy initiatives along with childcare and dental care. Without that, he won’t pull the plug.

If last Wednesday’s Question Period is any indication, Conservatives are raring to go.

From where they sit, an election couldn’t happen soon enough.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

And it appears as though Erin O’Toole is about to make the same mistake as his predecessor, Andrew Scheer.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 22, 2021.

Leslyn Lewis is no Peter MacKay.

And the fact that MacKay was missing in action while Lewis was co-chair of the virtual national Conservative convention spells trouble.

It basically means that Erin O’Toole is making his bed with the social conservatives who have cost Tories a couple of elections.

MacKay characterized the social conservative views of his party as a “stinking albatross.” That statement probably cost him the leadership, but its truthfulness was borne out by the election results.

And it appears as though O’Toole is about to make the same mistake as his predecessor, Andrew Scheer.

By giving the convention spotlight to Lewis, the leader plans to line up behind a wing in his party that is anti-choice, anti-gay, and supportive of conversion therapy.

Her “surprising” sweep of Saskatchewan during the leadership against O’Toole was not surprising at all. The Saskatchewan wing of the party is dominated by social conservatism.

O’Toole has also made the mistake of letting MacKay know that his presence is not wanted in the next election.

That, in and of itself, is a gift to the Liberals.

MacKay and his father, Elmer, have deep Atlantic roots that started with the Progressive Conservatives.

MacKay distinguished himself as a fiscal conservative and social liberal, following the road map set out by successful past leaders including two-time Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney.

MacKay could have done some serious damage to Liberal hegemony in Atlantic Canada. He would also have been able to enlist support from long-time Mulroney supporters who are somewhat reluctant to jump in bed with the albatrosses that O’Toole is favouring.

Lewis, the first woman of colour to run for the federal party’s leadership, is bright and well-educated but has very little political experience.

She has been acclaimed to run in the Haldimand-Norfolk, Ont., riding that is being vacated by long-time Conservative heavyweight Diane Finley.

The riding has been characterized in the media as a Conservative stronghold, but history does not actually back up that claim.

Former Liberal MP Bob Speller actually held the riding from 1988 to 2004 and he had huge margins over his Progressive Conservative opponents until the arrival of Finley.

Lewis is being introduced into the riding by Finley but coming as a parachute from Toronto will not make things easy for her.

Her coattails are largely held by the group that the Conservatives want to distance themselves from.

But MacKay actually has coattails that can bring the progressive and regionally diverse regions back into the fold.

For the Conservatives to form government, they must make a breakthrough in Atlantic Canada, and the presence of MacKay supporters would have assisted in that regard.

The convention has made a point of kicking Derek Sloan off the team, ostensibly because of his poisonous comments on multiple issues.

But then they go and elevate his counterpart, Lewis, who has shared the similar viewpoint about social issues that he espouses.

Here’s how she explained her opposition to a ban on conversion therapy, citing the concern of parents and pastors “that their parental autonomy is being limited because the government is basically somewhat stepped in as a surrogate to tell them what they can and cannot do.”

In her platform for leadership, Lewis promised to “end abortion funding overseas … criminalize coerced abortions.”

During the leadership, she was lauded by Christianity Today as “the only one [candidate] speaking about her faith.”

So, O’Toole definitely did not need to kick out two social conservatives from the party, especially since their supporters actually delivered him the leadership.

But he certainly should not have elevated a social conservative to star status if he actually wants to win the next election.

Most Canadians believe firmly in the separation of church and state, and the vast majority do not believe that parents or pastors can convince young people to change their sexual orientation.

O’Toole’s first words after the leadership convention involved assuring Canadians that he would be marching in Gay Pride parades, unlike his predecessor. That was an important step in moving the party back to the moderate middle.

That is where they need to be if they intend to convince voters that they can be trusted not to tamper with basic reproductive rights and sexual orientation laws.

But all the work was thrown away on the weekend, as it became increasingly clear that the social conservatives are in charge of the federal Conservative team.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

But the full return of Parliament will also focus more attention on Liberal mistakes, as the opposition parties will do their best to change the channel away from COVID solidarity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 6, 2020.

OTTAWA—The COVID-19 political bump has bounced the Liberals back into majority government territory.

That is quite a comeback from a time when the party literally limped into power following a gaffe-filled election campaign last fall.

The prime minister and all provincial premiers appear to be benefiting from a rise in public support attributed to their handling of the pandemic.

Daily communications have softened and strengthened images of each leader. That may seem like an anachronism, but most Canadians expect their leaders to be strong and approachable.

Leaders have also benefited from the absence of pandemic critics.

In a world outbreak, people expect political parties to work together, so it is very difficult to attack the life-saving measures being taken across the board.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, who was out early and often in heated attacks at the beginning of the lockdown, suffered criticism from within his own party for missing the mark.

The country expects leaders to work together in time of crisis, and they have been doing so.

For a brief period, even Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has set aside his Ottawa-bashing in an attempt to find common ground.

But the danger of this bump is that it is directly linked to a sense of danger.

If Canadians believe the third phase of COVID containment is going well, they will focus on issues other than the country’s stand in the fight against the coronavirus.

News reports say there are several vaccines which will be undergoing massive human test trials starting at the end of this month.

If any are successful, the path to a vaccination may be marked by months, not years.

The Canadian government has already stockpiled enough syringes to vaccinate the whole population. That could mean an end to the social distancing and bubble-making that have become a way of life for all of us.

Canada Day in the nation’s capital was a shadow of its usual self.

Virtual fireworks and concerts just don’t cut it.

So, a vaccine would liberate us from the spell that the lockdown has cast over the whole country.

But that also brings its own political risks.

With no national danger in sight, political leaders in regions across the country will fall into their old habits of blaming other provinces or the federal government for their challenges.

Kenney dropped the corporate tax rate last week because he said he wanted to make Alberta stand out as a magnet for business.

The financial markets responded to the stimulus plan, which included $10-billion in infrastructure spending this fiscal year, by cutting the province’s credit rating.

American-based Fitch announced a downgrade from Double A to Double A minus, citing the province’s heavy borrowing to fight the economic crisis.

Alberta is also facing the ongoing, worldwide crash in oil prices, which has been exacerbated by the COVID economic slowdown.

An international move away from fossil fuels is not likely to change anytime soon so Alberta will be facing continuing jobs pressure.

And with the safety of a vaccine, the spectre of COVID prompting interprovincial cooperation will dissipate quickly.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also faces the challenge of election timing.

The current numbers point to an early vote, but if the government moves too quickly, it will likely be accused of opportunism, sacrificing any residual goodwill from the crisis.

The full return of Parliament will also focus more attention on Liberal mistakes, as the opposition parties will do their best to change the channel away from COVID solidarity.

Racial and Indigenous inequities, post-COVID changes to the health-care system, and economic recovery will dominate the parliamentary agenda.

There will be criticism of government deficits, given the unprecedented payouts to millions of Canadians who were affected financially by the pandemic.

Canadians will also expect government action on migrant workers’ abhorrent conditions, and the patchwork of regulations governing long-term care facilities across the country.

There is plenty of fodder for parliamentary debate that will quickly overshadow the question of pandemic management.

If the economy rebounds well, the government will be rewarded in the next election.

Canada has been relatively successful in navigating the crisis, largely because governments spoke with a single voice, and citizens were vigilant in following instruction on lockdowns, distancing, masking and bubbles.

Canadians have not been subject to the same mess of mixed messaging and anti-mask libertarianism that has afflicted the United States.

And our return to normalcy will be more secure because of our sacrifices.

Thankfully the worst Canada Day in history is behind us.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Modern technology makes campaigns easier to organize but also easier to infiltrate.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 29, 2020.

OTTAWA—The internal warfare in the Conservative leadership is heating up.

Accusations of espionage surfaced last week when an unnamed student employee of Erin O’Toole was fired for allegedly leaking information to the Peter MacKay camp.

Modern technology makes campaigns easier to organize but also easier to infiltrate.

The alleged offence involved a claim that MacKay’s team secured videotapes of high-level Zoom meetings held by the O’Toole team across the country.

Neither side should be that surprised about a dirty tricks campaign.

Internal party nominations are always rife with malfeasance because the level of outside oversight is non-existent.

Only the party can investigate wrongdoing, and any party is hesitant to bring disrepute unto itself.

So political parties go to great lengths to deny or obscure internal shenanigans.

In the olden days, the strategy was to try and disrupt delegate selection meetings in each riding.

That involved doing your level best to encourage supporters to get to the meetings and doing everything possible to discourage other teams’ supporters from doing the same.

People would use every form of dirty tricks.

Some that have happened in the Liberal Party include disabling old-style telephone booths by plugging gum into the phone, supergluing the door locks of opponents’ offices on the day of the vote, and even bugging an opponent’s office to secure valuable confidential information. Hacking or even theft of computers has also been used to secure clandestine details about the opponent’s campaign strategy.

The new Zoom world makes it possible, even ridiculously easy, to garner information right down to the tiniest organizational detail by simply getting a full video of every meeting.

That security gap is one reason that many companies choose not to avail themselves of the Zoom platform but instead use encrypted offerings to manage the increasing number of post-COVID virtual meeting operations.

But political campaigns do not have the same financial leverage as large corporations. The Zoom platform is virtually free if the meetings end in less than 40 minutes, so they provide an ideal platform for cross country communications.

In the olden days, the biggest part of a campaign expense would-be long-distance phone charges. Now in the world of voice over internet protocol, it is virtually free to connect with all parts of the country.

But that also opens the door to more intraparty espionage.

And as the Conservative leadership vote is going to happen by mail, the opportunity to contact every voter early can be a huge advantage.

The deadline for the postal ballot is Aug. 21 and the opportunity to purchase a membership ended May 15.

From mid-May until voting day, all candidates will be trying to encourage switchers to come onboard.

So, access to information is obviously important in building targeted campaign messaging.

But an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is probably not the sort of campaign messaging that the MacKay team was hoping for.

MacKay’s people insisted the violations were the work of a single individual, and not part of a larger strategy.

But O’Toole’s team countered with a question as to why two internet providers in Calgary and Toronto were involved in hacking and recording more than 140 separate Zoom videos.

The police will get to the bottom of the story. Whatever the outcome, there will be some damage done to the MacKay campaign.

Many party members are ideologues, who believe in the power of Conservative values, but vehemently oppose illegal activity.

Some of them will no doubt be raising eyebrows over the allegations.

MacKay supporters may simply discount the claim as sour grapes from a losing candidate. That is no doubt how the MacKay team will be trying to explain the issue internally.

But the ferocity of the dust-up also shows that Conservatives believe the winner could actually form a government.

The stakes are high, so both sides are baring their knuckles.

Not long ago, it appeared that the Tories were doomed to spend a decade in opposition. With Andrew Scheer at the helm, it was simple for the Liberals and New Democrats to tag Tories as anti-women and anti-gay.

The picture is much different with this leadership race. O’Toole made it very clear during the leader’s debate that he favoured a women’s right to choose and supported the rights of gays and lesbians.

MacKay unsuccessfully tried to cast himself as the only social liberal in the race.

Both are positioning themselves to move to the centre at the end of the Tory convention.

And that could spell trouble for Liberals.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Andrew Scheer is leaving, so he won’t have to answer in the next election to the claim that he considers Canadian workers lazy.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 11, 2020.

OTTAWA—Andrew Scheer is sounding more and more like Stephen Harper.

Who could forget former prime minister Harper’s claim that Atlantic Canadians were suffering from “a culture of defeat”?

Harper claimed his comments were misrepresented and what he was trying to say was that Atlantic Canadians were subject to Ottawa’s culture of defeat, “I’ve never ever suggested that the people of this region are responsible for the region’s have-not status.

“There is a policy culture of defeat at the federal level and that’s what we want to change,” he told a business group during a pre-election tour.

But Atlantic Canadians did not forget those comments, and for the last few elections, the party has been struggling to overcome that backlash.

During the Justin Trudeau sweep of 2015, Liberals managed to pick up all the seats in Atlantic Canada, including some that had never voted Liberal in the history of the country.

If the Conservatives have any hope of forming government, they need to attract voters in the region.

They also need to reach out to ordinary people. Andrew Scheer’s comment last week that the federal government’s programs were derailing provincial efforts to get people back to work will not help.

For most Canadians, federal benefits have been a lifeline in a worldwide crisis that has no precedent.

It is not as if Canadians quit their jobs of their own accord, and there certainly is no new job waiting for them to fill.

In most instances, when there is a reluctance to return to work, it is based on unsafe working conditions.

Canadian farmers have petitioned the government to approve temporary worker applications because the back-breaking work involved in planting and harvesting is not compensated commensurate to the workload.

A minimum wage farming job is attractive to a Mexican migrant who makes one-tenth of that in his home country. It is not attractive to a Canadian who can usually work at a much less physically demanding job for more money.

The same holds true for workers in meat factories. The person who died at the Cargill plant near High River, Alta., was a 67-year-old Vietnamese boat person. Her family came to Canada as refugees, and with little English, her work options were limited.

According to her husband, she enjoyed the work at Cargill, where she and more than 900 other employees contracted the COVID virus while on the assembly line.

More than half the plant employees were infected, forcing a plant closure which is choking off the country’s beef supply. That single factory is responsible for 40 per cent of Western Canada’s beef production.

Governments moved in quickly to investigate and secure the food supply, as even the Golden Arches were claiming they had to source their 100 per cent Canadian beef elsewhere.

Given the precarious situation of the Alberta economy, it is obvious that an indefinite shuttering would not work.

However, how would most Canadians react if they were asked to return to work within two weeks to a factory that had seen 949 employees infected with the COVID virus?

As a workplace, Cargill is a magnet for immigrant, unskilled labourers who don’t need to speak English or French to work on an assembly line.

It is also a place where union/management disputes and difficult working conditions make it a less than attractive proposition for many Canadian workers.

So, when Scheer says Canadians don’t want to go back to work because they are receiving federal government benefits that are too generous, he is simply feeding a stereotype that has no basis in fact and is politically untenable.

Scheer is leaving, so he won’t have to answer in the next election to the claim that he considers Canadian workers lazy.

That explanation will be left to his successor, whomever that might be. But the anti-worker stigma that he and his predecessor have inflicted on the party the party will be very hard to shake.

And when it comes to election time, workers make up a very important part of the population.

The so-called 905-belt soccer moms whose votes can swing an election are often working at low-paying jobs in the transportation industry, at the Toronto International Airport and in other low-paid hotel employment where fluency and literacy in English is not required.

They are also the ones who are employed as personal service workers, in the jobs that we all now recognize as life-saving and life-threatening.

These are the people who really need to work. And right now, they need help, not insults.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Lame duck leader Andrew Scheer continues to shoot from the lip in his criticisms of everything the government is doing to minimize impacts of the COVID-19 world pandemic.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 4, 2020.

OTTAWA—The biggest political victim of COVID has been the national Conservative Party.

Lame duck leader Andrew Scheer continues to shoot from the lip in his criticisms of everything the government is doing to minimize impacts of the COVID 19 world pandemic.

In the face of the pandemic, we have the unusual picture of provincial premiers and the prime minister working together on a daily basis to manage the health crisis and plan for a staged reopening of the economy.

Thus far, even Ontario premier Doug Ford is regularly praising the prime minister and all the premiers of other provinces across the country.

That air of camaraderie may be blown out of the water as Quebec moves to reopen its economy while the province still has the highest rate of infection and death in the country.

As Quebec Premier François Legault promises to free up roads leading into his province, Ford may be forced to close Ontario’s doors. On April 30, his province reported the largest number of COVID-19 deaths since the outbreak of the pandemic.

Given the curve has not fully flattened, the last thing the country needs is the spread of infection through unnecessary travel.

The decision to open child-care centres and elementary schools, but keep secondary schools closed does not seem to be based on the best science. If I were a Quebec parent, I am not sure I would want my children at school while the virus is still killing people in large numbers.

Quebec’s decision may cause a rebound of coronavirus cases, making the situation even worse for a province that has already suffered more than 26,500 COVID cases and almost 1,800 deaths. Their mortality rate is currently larger than the combined death rate for the rest of the country.

It is understandable that Quebec teachers, and workers have serious questions about the government’s move to be the first out of the gate when it comes to social reintegration.

Quebec is banking on herd immunity, with the belief that the large number of COVID carriers may provide a reduction in the spread of the disease.

But that is a huge gamble, because if it fails, the Quebec economy will sputter while the deaths will continue to rise.

But all provinces and the federal government have been careful in refusing to comment on the Quebec decision, not wanting to be drawn into an interprovincial fight at a moment when Canadians expect all provinces to be working together.

The only one who has not gotten that message is the outgoing leader of the Conservative Party.

Andrew Scheer’s ad hominem attacks on everything that has been done by the federal government ring very hollow to the population at large.

It may be playing well to his base, but it is certainly not helping his party position itself for an election that might come sooner rather than later.

The racist attack by leadership candidate Derek Sloan on Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam fuels the impression that the Conservative Party has lost its way.

While the Conservative’s own caucus in Ontario is trying to get Sloan to apologize or be turfed from caucus, not a single opponent in the leadership race stepped in to attack his claim that Tam is a pawn of the Chinese government.

Peter MacKay, the onetime frontrunner in the leadership race postponed because of COVID, missed an opportunity to cut ties with Sloan by a public disavowal of his claims.

Instead, MacKay and all other leadership candidates refrain from criticism in an effort to build bridges with Sloan, whose previous public outbursts include the claim that being gay is a choice.

Sadly, Sloan’s viewpoints appear to be fairly popular with the rank and file of the party, which is why other leadership candidates do not want to attack him.

They need the support of his followers.

And Scheer’s public attacks on the government’s COVID-fighting plans is equally out of step with the rest of the country.

It would be so much easier for the next Conservative leader to fight the Liberals on the economic front in the aftermath of the financial cost of COVID.

The Parliamentary Budget Office says the government could face an economic contraction of 12 per cent this year, which would result in a potential $252-billion deficit.

With those numbers, all the opposition leader has to do is wait for a recession to do the government in.

Instead, extreme Conservative views are serving to strengthen the government’s potential pre-election hand.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

But it is not good news for the minority Liberal government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 16, 2019.

OTTAWA—Even in resignation, Andrew Scheer was unable to muster kind words for any party other than that of the Conservatives.

His smile masked a bitterness that seemed to permeate his final goodbye to Parliament as leader.

He had fine prose for the people in his own party, and much support for the sacrifices made by his family. But he couldn’t even find one good thing to say about any other leader or party, except to put the prime minister on notice about how the Conservatives will keep holding the government to account.

Usually when people say their goodbyes to political leadership, they try to find something nice to say about everyone, even their sworn parliamentary enemies. But Scheer’s refusal to do so was equally as stubborn as his post-election fatal promise that he would never march in a Pride parade.

Scheer’s departure is good news for his party. It is not good news for the minority Liberal government.

Scheer’s brand was irreparably damaged by his own intransigent social conservatism.

By refusing to embrace a woman’s right to control her own body and by shunning Pride parades in celebration of gay equality, Scheer was a 19th century leader in a 21st century Parliament.

His grinning, father knows best, persona did not resonate with Canadian voters, and there was little chance he would be able to turn that around without a personality transplant.

Scheer’s muddled position on social issues and his weak campaign performance were a gift that kept on giving for the Liberals.

During the election, Scheer could not move the dial on the two-thirds of Canadians who simply could not vote for his socially conservative perspective.

From a refusal to move forward on climate change to the negative tone of his attacks on the prime minister, Scheer simply succeeded in pushing people away.

Even after the election, his embittered tone did not appeal to voters outside his party core.

At the end of the day, his departure opens the door to a clean sweep in the Conservatives, with a number of potential candidates for the leadership.

From Peter MacKay to Jason Kenney, and including Erin O’Toole and Rona Ambrose, there are a number of high-profile Conservatives who could replace Scheer.

And, although leadership campaigns can become internally divisive, the minority Parliament situation will temper the tone on the Tory campaign trail.

The Conservative Party wants to win the next election, so it will try to minimize any cleavages that might split the party apart.

The social conservatives who initially brought Scheer to power will also be out in full force, not wanting to lose ground to party members who are social liberals and fiscal conservatives.

The last race attracted 17 candidates, although four dropped out before the end. This time, the party will likely discourage such a broad range of participation.

The race will likely attract three or four high profile candidates, and their debates will focus on attacking the Liberals instead of each other. They understand that, during a minority situation, the best chance they have of winning the next election is to remain united. Candidates must differentiate themselves, one from another, but the tone of the campaign must remain positive and not divisive.

Given minority government, a leadership campaign needs to be relatively short in nature. There is a chance that an election could come at any time, and a leaderless party is not in a good starting position.

The party will probably move to replace Scheer before next fall. Meanwhile, the status of Scheer as a lame duck leader will help the Liberal minority manage its’ parliamentary agenda.

The Conservatives cannot go into an election without a leader, so it will be unlikely to defeat the government on any issue in the near term.

In the long term, the Tories will have a new leader and newness in politics is a huge asset. It happens to be the only profession where the more experience you get, the more people want to get rid of you.

Justin Trudeau will be facing his third election. His own personal brand carried the party in 2015 but by 2019, it was the Liberal Party that carried Trudeau to victory. Trudeau’s wounds from the SNC-Lavalin affair were deep, but even with the blackface revelations, Scheer could not get traction.

The new Tory leader won’t have that problem. She or he will be facing a two-term Liberal government.

Scheer’s symbolic walk in the snow last week has definitively reshaped Canada’s political landscape.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 2, 2019.

OTTAWA—There was a rumour flying around last week that former prime minister Jean Chrétien would be meeting with the new Liberal cabinet.

It turned out, like many rumours, to be a half truth. In fact, as reported in The Hill Times, the current prime minister would be sitting down with his predecessor to seek advice on how to navigate a minority Parliament.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau obviously got the message that was delivered in the minority victory. He needs to reach out to Team Liberal, instead of simply selling the country on Team Trudeau.

The Trudeau pedigree is obviously loved by many Canadians, particularly older voters who remember the groundbreaking vision of the current prime minister’s father. But there are many Canadians who dislike both Trudeaus. And other Canadians feel that the younger Trudeau does not carry the same political heft as his father.

During the last election, Trudeau secured a healthy minority, but he was also facing a Conservative dead man walking in the person of Andrew Scheer. Scheer continues to self-destruct, making moves that almost seem designed to inflame his core constituency.

The decision to name Leona Alleslev as his deputy leader will only bring grief to Scheer and drive more opponents into the Conservative review camp. There is a bond of loyalty in politics that sometimes supersedes political logic. People support a leader who has been in the trenches with them, even when they realize that doing so could compromise their capacity to win the next election.

Scheer has some of those supporters on his side, but the naming of a Liberal-turned Tory to the key position of deputy leader will do nothing to solidify those longstanding relationships. One can only wonder what Michelle Rempel Garner or Diane Finley think about being politically leapfrogged by someone who has been in the party for a single year.

The other thing that Scheer must consider is that if Alleslev bolted from one party, there is a chance she could do it again.

Scheer has sacrificed some internal political support, choosing to elevate Alleslev as a symbol of how he has the power to attract former Liberals from Ontario to his team. This appointment is unlikely to blunt the chorus of voices saying Scheer just can’t win. Scheer is on shaky ground with respect to his own political survival.

That is precisely why Trudeau needs to rework his electoral message, ensuring the Liberal team is featured instead of the Trudeau brand that dominated the last election.

In the lead-up to the October vote, several longtime Liberals confided that they were wavering on support for the party, specifically because they had misgivings about the leader.

Many long-serving Grit volunteers complained privately that membership in the party is seen as a negative by the leader’s team.

Many party old-timers quietly opposed Trudeau’s decision to cut ties with Liberals in the Senate. Because Trudeau promised to do things differently, he also focused on naming Conservatives and New Democrats to key positions while ignoring Liberals.

Among the most prominent appointees were former Tory interim leader Rona Ambrose and former minister James Moore. Moore was a vocal critic of the Liberals during the last election, and Ambrose is one name being bandied about as a replacement for replace Scheer as Tory leader. So much for doing politics differently.

When it comes to judicial appointments, prominent Liberal lawyers say their party alignment is viewed as a scarlet letter.

Former prime minister Chrétien privately offered his services to help heal the rift between Canada and China, prompted by the decision to execute an extradition order on Meng Wanzhou. His services were declined, even though no one would be better positioned to end the rift than Chretien.

These are internal party challenges but with an election looming in the next couple of years, Trudeau needs everyone on board. The possibility of facing a stronger Conservative leader is not lost on those planning for the next election.

Scheer was an easy foil with his rigid social views and refusal to recognize growing concern over environmental issues. Come April, Trudeau may be confronted by a new face, unburdened by so many stinking albatrosses.

Trudeau’s new emphasis on the Liberal team will help, and the decision to put other strong Liberals in the window will be welcomed by many. From Chrystia Freeland to Jim Carr, from Catherine McKenna to Jonathan Wilkinson, to Pablo Rodriguez, Team Liberal is regionally strong and diverse.

Liberals can manage this minority. But sunny ways must end.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.