Bill Morneau was never after Justin Trudeau’s job. From the beginning, Morneau seemed ill at ease with the thrust and parry of political life.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 24, 2020.

OTTAWA—Bill Morneau is a class act. In what must have been an excruciatingly painful press conference, he explained his departure without rancour or bitterness.

The lines may have sounded a little rehearsed, as they reinforced a notion that nobody really believed. But he came across as a person at peace with his decision and ready to move on to the next phase of his public life.

In the short term, the campaign to become secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development will be all-consuming. However, his chances of success are slim. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to campaign vigorously on Morneau’s behalf, but he will have his hands full managing the domestic agenda.

If prorogation results in a non-confidence motion defeat, the country will soon be plunged into a mid-pandemic election. Navigating the challenges of either an election or a continuing minority parliament will preclude the leader from international glad-handing. Given the experience of the Security Council defeat, it may not help.

International nominations are also guided by the mundane world of politics, factoring in regional representation and diversity. Canada has already held the OECD top job, during a ten-year stint by an affable ex-cabinet minister in the former Trudeau government, Donald Johnston. Since the creation of the organization in 1961, there have only been five secretaries-general. He was the fourth. Many other countries will be clamouring for their turn at the wheel, so the chance of second Canadian pick is slim.

Trudeau and Morneau must have known that when they tried to explain to the nation that international ambition was driving the departure of a finance minister in the midst of a worldwide pandemic. The OECD sideline was an elegant, though implausible, way of positioning Morneau’s departure. It gave the finance minister a reason to leave in haste with his head held high and it gave Trudeau a reason to say how much he supported his finance minister. Both knew neither to be true.

Pundits were comparing the Trudeau/Morneau split with the final years of acrimony between Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. But nothing could be further from the truth. CBC pundit David Herle, who is still carrying the torch for his former boss and mentor Martin, pronounced aggrievedly on television last week that his boss found out about his firing on the radio.

On the face of it, that sounds horribly unfair. But Herle neglected to mention the events leading to his boss’s radio shocker. Martin had been working for months to force Chretien’s hand and secure his retirement. He had a plan in place to announce his resignation from finance at a major International Monetary Fund conference meeting on Monday. The previous Friday he had publicly suggested that he was reviewing his options.

The intention was to throw the markets into turmoil and cause the dollar to plummet, leaving Chretien no choice but to step down. Shredders were already deployed at the finance department, with Martin staffers working overtime to destroy his personal papers. When Chretien found out, he called an emergency Sunday cabinet meeting, seeking support to pre-emptively remove Martin that evening, in favour of another financial stalwart, John Manley. The markets barely moved, and Martin’s Monday massacre was pre-emptively thwarted.

The difference between last week’s scenario and previous warring Liberal prime and finance ministers was that Morneau was never after Trudeau’s job. He had no interest in running for prime minister and was sincerely interested in politics to simply make a difference. Previous battles between Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, and their respective finance ministers, involved staring down adversaries who were trying to replace them. Morneau had no intention of running for prime minister.

As for public life, he certainly did not need the money, or the notoriety. Putting his business on hold meant financial sacrifice for the whole Morneau family. But from the beginning, Morneau seemed ill at ease with the thrust and parry of political life. His earnest attempt to tighten up tax loopholes backfired when he referred to certain tax incentives as “dead money.” That description would not have lifted an eyebrow on Bay Street, but it landed with a thud on Main Street.

At the end of the day, Morneau was a good man who had much to contribute to public life. His Bay Street background distanced him from the norms that govern the rest of us. That was ultimately his downfall.

As Morneau learned, Bay Street and Main Street are very different parts of town.

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

Canadians are miffed by the WE mess, but they are still willing to give the prime minister the benefit of the doubt. Their patience is wearing thin. The opposition parties will continue to push for Justin Trudeau’s head, and unless he does something soon, they may succeed.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 3, 2020.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to learn a valuable lesson from the last scandal that almost buried his government.

The agonizing internal bleed caused by the cabinet resignations of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott almost cost him the government.

Instead of earning a robust majority in the midst of a strong economy and great job numbers, Liberals limped back with a minority. The loss of seats was the result of integrity questions related to SNC Lavalin’s effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement.

The prime minister suffered a personal hit in his popularity when allegations from two ministers dragged on for months.

History seems to be repeating itself. The damage being done by the WE funding agreement is growing daily. It appears the government does not have a strategy to make it go away.

The only thing that will work is a high-profile firing or two. That will remind the public that someone has actually paid a price for this mess.

The deeper we plumb the international workings of the WE network of not-for-profit to business links, the more the government is being damaged.

Recent surveys show that most Canadians have lowered their opinion of the prime minister because of the WE problems.

They are still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but simply saying sorry is not enough.

At some point it was rumoured that Bardish Chagger would have been on the chopping block as she was the minister directly responsible for delivering the program.

Thankfully, that did not happen, as that would simply have reinforced the Raybould/Philpott narrative that Trudeau was not really supportive of women on his team.

Trudeau and chief of staff Katie Telford did a decent job of defending themselves in their testimony before a parliamentary committee.

But that will not turn the corner.

And in the dog days of summer, the opposition parties will continue to do their level best to keep the WE saga on the front pages of the newspaper.

That is their job, and they have been superb in keeping new information about WE to a public that is fatigued from hearing nothing but COVID news.

The internal machinations of WE have certainly provided fodder for critics.

Ousted WE Charity chair Michelle Douglas testified last week that she did not know the organization paid people as WE day speakers. That was a complete contradiction to statements issued by the organization when it was revealed that Trudeau family members had been paid for their appearances.

The fact is that the prime minister’s mother has built up a national following because of her personal experience with and advocacy for mental health issues.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Margaret Trudeau being paid for her work, but there is something wrong when one arm of the WE organization has no knowledge of the payouts by another arm of the organization.

Recent news concerning WE’s hiring of high-priced American lobby firms to support their initiatives in the United States is also prompting more opposition questions.

In reality, an international movement with the reach of WE needs to rely on paid help to get support and sponsorship.

And the Kielburger brothers made it very clear that if this line of inquiry continues, the very survival of the organization could be at stake.

Thousands of young people will be deprived of an opportunity to learn about community contributions because somebody jumped the gun on awarding a contract to WE.

The prime minister needs to staunch the bleeding by some bold internal moves.

One of them definitely includes moving the minister of finance out of his portfolio.

The second one must include a restructuring of the inner advisory circle of the prime minister, who apparently did not understand the basic concepts of parliamentary recusal.

Ultimately, the buck stops with the prime minister, but if his office did not provide him with proper advice, he needs to ensure that does not happen again.

The leader has done a fantastic job in carrying the country through the COVID crisis.

It is a shame that a not-for-profit sidebar could undo all the good that has been happening.

But unless the prime minister moves quickly with some dramatic internal departures, that is exactly what could happen.

Canadians are miffed by the WE mess, but they are still willing to give the prime minister the benefit of the doubt.

Their patience is wearing thin.

The opposition parties will continue to push for Trudeau’s head, and unless he does something soon, they may succeed.

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

What started out as a potential logistical glitch in the speedy rollout of government COVID-based aid is turning into a massive headache that could cause permanent damage to the government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 27, 2020.

OTTAWA—By the time this column is published, Finance Minister Bill Morneau could well be toast.

In the best-case scenario, he will have decided to step aside and take one for the team.

What started out as a potential logistical glitch in the speedy rollout of government COVID-based aid is turning into a massive headache that could cause permanent damage to the government.

In a minority situation, the Liberals are not in a position to tough it out, as they did during the Jody Wilson-Raybould debacle.

The opposition parties are hungry for a trophy, the resignation of a senior, high-profile minister.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the finance minister tried to contain the damage by apologizing for their clumsy refusal to recuse themselves from the cabinet vote on a sole-source management contract for the WE Charity, notwithstanding their families’ ties with the company.

The recusal question did not stir much public interest. Most Canadians do not understand the arcane rules of government operations and couldn’t care less about recusals.

But the same cannot be said for free trips.

The revelation late last week that Morneau and his family joined two WE-sponsored fact-finding trips as potential donors would have been fine in the private sector.

As a government minister, it is a no-no. Morneau must be very regretful of his decision to voyage with WE in 2017.

But he also knows that the rules that apply in the private sector do not pass the smell test in politics.

Take the issue of speakers’ fees. One of the most vociferous critics of the so-called WE scandal is journalist Andrew Coyne. He recently wrote a column calling the situation a “a rat’s nest of mutually beneficial relationships between the Liberals, the Trudeau family and WE.”

The only involvement of the Trudeau family was speech payments.

The $312,000 for Margaret Trudeau sounds staggering to the ordinary citizen.

But that was for 28 events.

According to Speakers’ Spotlight, they advertise speaker fees between $5,000 and $10,000.

But Margaret Trudeau was paid an average of $11,142 per appearance.

The payment is certainly in the ballpark of what constitutes standard rates for Canadian celebrity speakers.

The WE exposé started as a front-page news story on speakers’ fees, but that narrative did not appear to stir up public anger.

The fateful family trip on the WE dime served to elevate this saga from a summer blip to a full-blown crisis.

Morneau will shortly be facing a resolution which could confirm that he has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The Conservatives have made it very clear they want his head.

More information on the details of WE voyages and the confusion around who was paying for them will be continual, featured fodder for the opposition parties.

Even as Morneau claimed he paid for the trips but mislaid his receipts, WE officials were issuing a statement saying they regularly offered free trips to potential donors in the hopes of securing ongoing financial support.

The Morneau family followed up their experience with a donation of $50,000 to WE International work and a second $50,000 pandemic support cheque in June. The 2017 trips were obviously not an attempt to get something for nothing.

But it certainly throws doubt on the finance minister’s capacity to deal objectively with funding decisions that involve WE.

This is not the first time the minister has suffered a lapse in judgment concerning government reporting rules.

His failure to include a family home in France in his parliamentary declaration was another mistake for which he apologized and pleaded no malicious intent.

Morneau survived that mistake relatively unscathed, but the increasing number of complaints about his family relationships with WE are too numerous to ignore.

Trudeau and his team will have to move quickly to staunch the bloodletting on this issue. That leaves few options beyond convincing the finance minister to step aside.

Morneau would do everyone a favour if he decided to take one for the team.

It may not be fair, but in the world of politics, this growing problem will not go away until a senior member of the government pays a heavy price by resigning.

The firing of a finance minister would cause turmoil in markets during a time when Canada cannot avoid more financial hits.

But a personal decision to step aside would help the government and restore Morneau’s personal reputation.

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

The COVID-19 crisis has actually encouraged many cyberspace luddites to start using their computers instead of their cars to go shopping.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 13, 2020.

OTTAWA—The Paris runway just featured virtual models. The good news was that they looked a little heavier than usual because the camera has a tendency to add a few pounds. The bad news is that this may not be the only year for COVID haute couture.

With the unrelenting rise in Americans testing positive for the Coronavirus, we won’t be getting out of the COVID bubble any time soon. Masks have become a new fashion statement in Canada, while in the United States, they have taken the place of guns in the geopolitical divide marking that country.

The only difference between gun lovers and the growing number of anti-mask “freedom fighters” is that the latter cannot hide behind the constitution to defend their right to spread infection.

At the end of this COVID saga, Americans will have to look in the mirror and ask themselves why individual freedom is more important than collective safety in a pandemic.

One startling statistic should be all they need: as of last week, Americans suffered 24 per cent of global pandemic deaths with only four per cent of the world’s population. Why would a country as developed as the United States be unable to rally around a national pandemic strategy?

It may sound ridiculous, but President Donald Trump and his followers simply do not believe in collective responsibility. They are so enamoured of the notion that each American is responsible for his own Manifest Destiny, that they cannot fathom or support any measure that would restrict their individual choices. So, they ignore national health distancing guidelines, reopen economies too soon, and refuse to even don a simple mask as a gesture of concern and protection.

Someone should tell Trump that the mask is not for him. It is to ensure that he does not spread infected droplets to others. Why not use the mask as a tool in the fight to protect his citizens?

Instead, in our country, the wearing of masks has taken on a designer look. In his much-awaited fiscal update, finance minister Bill Morneau traded in the usual shoes for a wine-coloured COVID mask, complete with an understated Canadian maple leaf embroidered into the upper corner.

Many not-for profits are using masking as a fundraising opportunity. Canadian Geographic partnered with Roots to launch a reusable face mask last week. Within hours, it became the hottest selling item on their virtual store site.

As Canadians are becoming more comfortable with virtual journeys, their shopping habits are changing with them. Grocery chains have seen an unprecedented hike in online purchases. While retail giants are falling like dominoes across the economic landscape, Canadians are spending more online than ever before and there is no sign that trend will end in a post-COVID space. The savings attributed to virtual versus in-person shopping are enormous. It is no surprise that the list of the world’s billionaires is topped by people who got into the internet world early, like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jack Ma. The COVID crisis has actually encouraged many cyberspace luddites to start using their computers instead of their cars to go shopping. That change in consumer habits could have a long-term, positive impact on our environment, cutting down our transportation footprint, as people stop driving to do their shopping.

The same can be said for renewal of our neighbourhoods. With more Canadians COVID-ing outside, we are now using front porches in the way our grandparents intended, as a gathering place to enjoy the community.

Travel habits will also change. With the southern border still closed, and most air travel relatively limited, Canadians are being encouraged to take staycations by visiting sites within their own communities and provinces. That will not staunch the hemorrhaging of the airline industry, but it may help those tourism providers on the ground by encouraging the rental of motels and campsites.

It will also have the added benefit of encouraging Canadians to get to know their own country. You would be surprised how many of us have not been outside of our own province, preferring instead to vacation in warmer southern destinations or exotic European locations. I was at a cocktail party once with a well-travelled Montrealer, who knew every stop on the Paris subway line but had never taken his family to Toronto.

COVID-forced separation has also included a greater appreciation of the outdoors, because this is one place where we feel relatively safe. How ironic that a pandemic helps us rediscover Mother Nature!

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

Published on Monday, December 4, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The Conservative Party may have gone too far in fanning finance disclosure flames last week.

But the Tories certainly threw the government off-message on the messy issue of Morneau money.

By calling for the resignation of Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer was vaulted to the front of the news cycle during a time when the Liberals were hoping for potential positive coverage.

By suggesting that Morneau benefitted from insider knowledge when he sold family shares, finance critic Pierre Poilievre ventured dangerously close to libel territory.

He must have been betting that Morneau would be loathe to proceed with legal action when a suit would simply spawn more negative media.

Poilievre, an expert in precisely worded prevarication, was careful not to repeat his allegations outside the House. But he did manage to keep the questions coming about the personal financial situation of the minister.

These interventions achieved precisely what the Conservative Party was seeking, an opportunity to keep the Morneau money story from going away.

The New Democratic Party moved away from personal attacks on the minister’s family wealth, but it is still pursuing the potential for conflict in financial decision-making.

No one, not even the Conservatives, really believe that Morneau got into politics in order to fatten his own wallet.

If anything, the revelations of family wealth on both sides make it patently clear that the minister actually stands to lose significantly by choosing public service over private gain.

Morneau was informed by the conflict of interest commissioner of the actions to take to when he became a minister. He followed her advice, and when that changed, he followed it again. He donated $5-million of his own money to assuage any notion of benefit from family share increases during his time in office.

We cannot set the bar so high for public life that no one in their right mind would accept the challenge.

At the same time, Morneau knows that his agenda, and that of the government, has been thrown off course because of these distractions.

Just last week, a historic apology by the prime minster to all members of the LGBT community had to compete with finance questions still dogging the minister.

Justin Trudeau’s statement to a packed House, brought tears to many eyes, including his own, when he said sorry for the “state-sponsored systematic oppression and rejection.”

Across the country, the message resonated positively, not just with gay and lesbian voters, but with all those who believe that the country’s quest for true equality involves everyone.

However, the moment was overshadowed by more discussion surrounding the tax system.

Just as the Conservatives launched their salvo to muddy the message, news emerged about a new Canada postal code Ministry of Revenue purge.

Based on documents obtained from access the information, the CBC reported the CRA was targeting five rich neighbourhoods to find out whether people were living above their tax-reported means.

According to the CBC, 30 households in those neighbourhoods have already been called to discuss their visible wealth. It remains to be seen what those conversations will lead to.

By targeting tony neighbourhoods, CRA reinforces the notion of widespread cheating amongst rich people.

Unfortunately, that was the same message the finance department peddled when it was trying to change the laws on incorporation. Alienation simply grows when citizens believe that rich people cheat.

That may fit nicely into the middle class narrative that propelled the Liberals to victory two years ago. But fomenting class struggle is not a winning long-term strategy.

Changing the law to prevent offshore tax avoidance would be much more lucrative than sending tax police to root around in neighbourhoods looking for evidence of undeclared income.

The CRA is just doing its job, but the loophole on offshore accounts needs to be closed.

Until it is, notwithstanding the Paradise Papers rollout, any Canadian who is legally investing offshore is completely within their rights.

Meanwhile, having a blue-blood as minister of finance, is merely adding to the class struggle theme that seems to be consuming this Parliament.

As long as Morneau is holding the reins at finance, the questions about his personal wealth and (now divested) family earnings will keep coming. The minister is a moving target for the Conservatives and the NDP.

Diversionary discussions are a distraction the government cannot afford, if it intends to promote the message of middle-class fairness.

Politics is about staying on message. With a weekly finance sideshow, that is becoming increasingly difficult.

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 on Monday, November 13, 2017 in The HIll Times.

OTTAWA—The Paradise Papers may just mean Paradise Lost in Canada and around the world.

They are generating tax reverberations in capitals around the world about the extent to which the super-rich legally avoid taxes while we ordinary schmucks just can’t.

The names bedazzle, from queens, to prime ministers to rock stars to senior presidential advisers. The latest information shows how even tax officials assist in mapping out the complex rules that permit companies like Apple to park billions in profits by way of offshore tax-free accounts.

Most Canadians don’t follow the details of tax reform, and the complexity of financial peregrinations outlined in the Paradise document dump, would normally leave most of us with a mathematical hangover.

But the timing of the global investigative journalistic exposé, on the heels of Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s painful tax troubles and personal financial revelations, made a bad story worse.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has never claimed to be ordinary folk. But his political messaging has been sharply focussed on support for the middle class, and a commitment to improve their financial situation.

But the mid-term summer tax messaging, characterizing farmers and doctors as cheats parking dead money in fake corporations, cut deeply into the viability of that message.

When Morneau neglected to include a villa in France in required financial declarations, the opposition rightfully pounced. Was he advised not to declare the villa, as it was an offshore asset, or did he simply have so much money that he had forgotten about it?

Either way, Morneau tried his best to extricate himself from the whole mess by selling everything and promising to forego five million dollars in personal revenue from sale of all shares that post-dated his time in office. That generous gesture reinforced the almost universal view that Morneau is a decent, honest person who got into politics for the right reasons.

But is also focussed attention on the fact that he could give away five million dollars and probably not miss it. Hence, the middle-class narrative that Team Trudeau was trying to promote suffered a second hit. The image of two trust fund babies managing the public purse created a huge opening for new Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, and he pounced.

Within days, the Conservative Party was on television through paid advertising, reinforcing Scheer’s message that he is the only leader who truly represents the middle class. The ads contrasted him to a Liberal leadership that has no idea what is it like to struggle with making ends meet. Finance critic Pierre Poilievre piled in behind to reinforce the contrast between the aw-shucks Tories and the high-flying Grits.

Then came the Paradise Papers.

They widened the net by pointing an accusatory finger at the legal tax avoidance strategies used by the chief Liberal fundraiser. Stephen Bronfman became the media target because of a leaked data dump revealing a labyrinth of international accounts.

The CBC was extremely careful to say that no laws had been broken, but experts were trotted out who repeatedly implied anything but.

The story of the chief Liberal fundraiser and close Trudeau friend, dominated the airwaves, and ensnared Morneau as collateral damage.

Had the Liberals not fumbled the ball on tax reform, the Bronfman story would have been a one-week wonder. It comes as no surprise that most people with money hire other people with money to figure out how to keep their money out of government hands.

This whole mess is weighing heavily on the government. It becomes increasingly difficult to make the case that the Liberals are the party of the middle class when three key members of the team are clearly anything but.

Is this fair? No. But in politics, what matters is not fairness. What matters is public perception.

If Trudeau wants to dampen down this perception, he needs to move on the tax front.

An aggressive decision to plug all international loopholes available to billionaires would be a good place to start.

And, some Liberals are saying privately that a lateral move for the finance minister in a future cabinet shuffle would be an effective way to put the whole issue behind the government.

It is admirable to see the leader support friends and colleagues in their hour of need. He did a great job in his defence of both Morneau and Bronfman.

But at the end of the day, Trudeau needs to stop this Conservative storyline in its tracks.

And he may have to sacrifice a few friends along the way.

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 on Monday, October 2, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Canada’s culture wars will never end. Nor should they.

Heritage Minister Melanie Joly struck the right tone Thursday when she set out a plan to increase content on multiple platforms without imposing new taxes.

The last thing the Liberals need these days is to open another tax front while Finance Minister Bill Morneau is busy garnering front-page headlines on that file.

And Netflix has been embraced by Canadians as their go-to platform of choice when it comes to sassy, critically acclaimed cinema that crosses all genres. The newly announced deal will actually put more Canadian bums in virtual seats, which is ultimately the goal of any culture minister.

Critics argue that Canada should follow the French and British example by introducing on tax on the international streaming giant.

Some say $500-million over five years is peanuts when you look at the $6-billion annual world production budget of Netflix.

But Joly’s partnership will vault the company to a place of prominence in Canadian cultural investments. And the initial dollars could grow once Netflix establishes a beachhead in Canada.

Anytime a politician can increase cultural funding agreement by $100-million a year, it is a win-win for all concerned.

After all, the origins of the Canada Media Fund were voluntary. The original Canada Television Fund, was established by the government in concert with funding from cable and satellite providers. It replaced the cable fund, which voluntarily financed additional television content in return for a distribution monopoly.

Over time, demand for content creation grew and when the Liberal government created the CTF back in the nineties, it topped up growing private-sector funding with $100-million in public monies.

Meanwhile, new satellite entrants negotiated various “voluntary” contributions in return for licence approvals. The Bell Fund is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year and has contributed $200-million in financing for Canadian media productions.

Netflix was not the first content provider to decide to make voluntary contributions nor will it be the last. At the end of the day, the carrot is always better than the stick and government always has the option to tax,

The Netflix decision to set up a production facility in Canada will also mean more Canadians will find jobs on the creative side, which is certainly a plus for our economy.

The beauty of Canada’s voluntary contribution model, is that it enhances the opportunity for multiple project funding sources, with most of the money going to small and medium-sized producers focused on Canadian content in costly areas of television like drama, and documentaries.

Unlike the tax credit system, which is calculated by how many Canadians are actually employed in a production, the Media Fund focuses on supporting content creation for multiple platforms and targeted communities.

To date, the fund has financed 108 aboriginal productions, and also works to support regional and official language minority language filmmakers.

In its heyday, the previous fund was the single most successful job generator of any government program. For every dollar invested by the taxpayer, $7 of additional creative sector funding followed, and cultural jobs rapidly became the fastest growing job sector for young people.

Joly has widened her reach and the partnership with Netflix will certainly be used as an example to get other international media giants, including Google and Facebook to the Canadian cultural table.

The establishment of a new Creative Industries Council which Joly will co-chair with Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains, will focus more government attention on the value of creative investments.

Last week’s announcement may not be embraced by all, but it is a far cry from the days of the previous Conservative government when the dirty word of Canadian culture did not pass the budgetary lips of a single finance minister for years.

The minister’s promised retooling of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is also long overdue. During Tory times, at least one board member simply refused to even attend meetings and most were chosen to downsize the place.

In the world of international cultural content, it is about time the CBC broadened its mandate, and worked directly with Radio Canada International to establish a Canadian presence on the world stage.

The British Broadcasting Corporation has spread its wings worldwide. There is no reason the CBC cannot do the same.

And with the first stop on the minister’s cultural roadmap already logged, the timing could not be better.

CBC and Netflix could be a powerful Cancon combination. And creators will welcome an international Netflix platform.

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

At this point, there do not seem to be many voices siding with the Department of Finance. So Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s handling of the issue will be a make or break issue for the government.

During the GST fight, the finance minister’s viewpoint eventually carried the day. This time, Finance is strongly in favour of a position that has the potential to create an electoral problem for the government.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, September 11, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Summer caucuses are always hot. And when you combine heated politics with a sunny West Coast location, the temperature often rises.

After more than two months away from the Ottawa cocoon, Members of Parliament are eager to repeat the views they have heard in their ridings. Sad to say, most people don’t make appointments with Parliamentarians simply to tell them what a great job they are doing. On the contrary, riding office hours are usually a continuum of complaints about government policies, directions, and future plans.

The roughest critics tend to be party members. That may seem counterintuitive, as most political activists are usually committed to defending their party of choice. But inside the party, local supporters see themselves as a mirror of their community. They relish the role of the canary in the mine, warning their party if it appears to be taking a wrong turn that has raised the ire of the electorate.

No government can expect the support of all of the people all of the time. But a measure of success is achieved when there are complainants on both sides of any issue. Political equilibrium is in balance when no single issue takes precedence over all the others.

Both factors for a happy electorate were missing from the discussion of proposed tax changes that took centre stage at the recent Liberal caucus meeting in Kelowna.

The last time a tax measure was a key topic at a British Columbia Grit caucus meeting, was in the lead up to the 1993 election, when members revolted against a plan to keep the hated Tory goods and services tax.

At the time, it made tremendous political sense to fight the Progressive Conservatives unpopular tax. Brian Mulroney’s government had revoked an existing manufacturers sales tax, and replace it with a levy on all goods and services. But if Liberals formed government, some wanted to keep the revenue coming.

From an economic perspective that made sense, because it secured ever-increasing government revenues based on consumption, not production. Liberal supporters of the tax also argued that undoing the GST would be akin to unscrambling an egg. The Conservatives had already done all the heavy lifting, with the imposition of the despised measure. Why not simply shut up and reap the benefit?

That pre-election Vancouver caucus meeting proved to be the flashpoint for a heated debate. The majority of caucus members supported abolition of the GST. A smaller number, including the finance critic and supporters, urged the caucus to keep the tax. Liberal leader Jean Chrétien listened carefully to both sides.

At the end of the meeting, he told the media that the majority viewpoint to abolish the GST carried the day.

But he also expressed personal trepidation about whether the decision was the best long-term strategy for the financial health of the country.

Last week’s meeting in Kelowna highlighted eerily similar internal schisms. The broad-based coalition of small business and professional groups opposed to the incorporation tax changes, carried the day on the summer barbecue circuit.

A joint campaign by doctors and other small business owners appeared to have won the day in their public opinion battle. A delegation of women physicians even descended on Kelowna to make their case, claiming the income-sprinkling prohibition would force some female doctors to abandon their chosen profession.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau did his best to counter that, repeating his view that doctors should not get better tax breaks than nurses or police.

But nurses and police are not self-employed while doctors are.

Like other small business owners, they have no access to company pension plans, maternity benefits or sick leave. Many utilize tax avoidance to fill this financial gap.

The proposed changes would directly impact the small business sector in every community in the country.

The Finance Department can win any battle when there is a broad split in public opinion on a tax measure.

At this point, there do not seem to be many voices siding with the Department of Finance. So Morneau’s handling of the issue will be a make or break issue for the government.

During the GST fight, the finance minister’s viewpoint eventually carried the day.

This time, Finance is strongly in favour of a position that has the potential to create an electoral problem for the government.

The Kelowna message was clear. From a caucus perspective, constituents have spoken and they do not support the majority of the proposed changes.

It remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself.

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