Brian Mulroney was a people person. Even when his party had plummeted in popularity, he was able to keep the caucus united thanks to his awesome interpersonal skills. Though we were political adversaries, we remained friends long after he left politics.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 7, 2024.

OTTAWA—This year is the 40th anniversary of the election of Brian Mulroney.

The right honourable prime minister would have loved to celebrate the largest victory in Canadian history, but time robbed him of that opportunity.

Instead, a state funeral will be held to honour his life, and Canadians will revisit the accomplishments of a remarkable leader.

The prime minister and I were elected on the same day: Sept. 4, 1984.

But we sat on opposite sides of the House. Mulroney was leading 211 Conservatives, most of whom were elected in that sweep, while I was one of only 10 new Liberals.

Our party had been decimated, and political pundits were predicting the Liberals would disappear to be replaced by the New Democrats. It was widely predicted that Canada would follow an international trend of the political right and left in constant battle with nobody in the centre.

Mulroney was the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. He was a centrist prime minister who believed in the power of government for positive change.

Current Conservatives say it is the job of government to get out of the way, and let people run their affairs with no collective responsibility.

But Mulroney understood that government could be an instrument of positive change. He was born in Baie Comeau, a small mining town in northern Quebec, and he understood the need for government.

He was also the first Conservative leader to really understand Quebec, and its need for distinctiveness.

It was that understanding that paved the way for a massive Progressive Conservative majority back in 1984.

But it was also his wish to get Quebec’s signature on the Canadian constitution that eventually fractured the party in favour of a western-based equivalent of the Bloc Québécois.

In 1987, the Reform Party was formed under the leadership of Preston Manning. Fatigued by the Meech Lake debate, Reformers believed Progressive Conservatives were too focused on the East, especially Quebec.

Their platform called for a Triple-E Senate: equal, elected and effective. An elected Senate was supposed to counterbalance the influence of the House of Commons, dominated by Members of Parliament from Eastern Canada.

Some Reformers also held negative views towards women, minorities, and homosexuals. Built on a strong Christian base, the party blurred the separation between church and state that had been the foundation of Canadian politics.

But in the 1988 election, Reformers only managed to garner two per cent of the vote while the Progressive Conservatives sustained a second majority with their promise of a free trade agreement.

Mulroney believed in an activist government. He negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement in the face of considerable opposition from the manufacturing heartland of Ontario.

He also introduced the goods and services tax, another initiative that opposition Liberals opposed.

That tax replaced a 13.5 per cent manufacturers’ sales tax, but—unlike the former—it was not embedded in the price of goods, but was added at the cash register.

While it was wildly unpopular, the tax set the stage for fiscal stability as it has generated billions of dollars annually for federal coffers. Last year, it produced more than $16-billion in revenue and, in 2022, government collected $21.5-billion in GST.

Mulroney also loomed large on the international scene, setting the stage for an end to apartheid in South Africa by working within the Commonwealth to impose sanctions.

Mulroney had to fight Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and American president Ronald Reagan on that move, as both opposed the sanctions that ultimately broke the back of the South African government.

Above all, Mulroney was a people person. Even when his party had plummeted in popularity, he was able to keep the caucus united and motivated, largely because of his awesome interpersonal skills.

Even though we were political adversaries, we remained friends long after Mulroney left politics.

Whenever I would call him, his first question would be about my family.

Mulroney had every reason to despise a former Liberal rat-packer, but he never made politics personal. He understood we all had a job to do. While we were adversaries, we were never enemies.

The centrist party Mulroney led no longer exists.

Instead, anti-government former Reformers have taken centre stage in the Conservative movement.

Perhaps it is a reflection of the direction of the country. The notion of collective responsibility has largely been replaced by rabid individualism with an emphasis on the word “rabid.”

Mulroney understood that there was no place in politics for hate.

His prime ministerial legacy changed Canada. May he rest in peace.

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

If the Conservatives would ever like to see another PM among their ranks, they need to understand the road to victory involves reaching out to 37 million people, not 73 caucus members.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 7, 2022.

OTTAWA—Seventy-three people were able to vote out a leader who was chosen by 100,000 Conservatives. This is democracy?

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole’s departure was as hasty as it was dramatic. And in a touch of irony, the author of the private member’s bill that prompted O’Toole’s demise was one of the few people fighting for the leader to stay.

Michael Chong introduced his private member’s bill, designed to give more power to individual parliamentarians, in 2013. Everyone lined up in favour of the legislation in the belief that empowering members would lead to better leadership.

But in a bizarre twist for this strange law, each party is allowed to opt in to the system, or not, at the beginning of each Parliament.

Not surprisingly, the Conservative party was the only one dumb enough to sign on to a piece of legislation which is guaranteed to create chaos for any opposition leader.

The Conservatives have cycled through six leaders in six years, and O’Toole took them closest to power. His popular vote victory didn’t help much because so much of the weight in numbers came from provinces that could never yield a majority.

And O’Toole failed to make a breakthrough in two key provinces that are crucial for election victory, Ontario and Quebec.

O’Toole, an Ontario member, understood that the failure to make sufficient gains in that province was based on the extreme viewpoints taken by many of his team on social issues like abortion.

After the election, he moved quickly to reposition the party by supporting legislation banning gender therapy conversion in the first session of Parliament.

As for the Quebec vote, his Conservative caucus in that province was verbally supporting the legislation on Broadcasting Act amendments at the same time that Tory fundraisers were out trashing the legislation to buck up their coffers.

The bifurcation in the party was not caused by O’Toole. It was prompted by a party schism that has only been exacerbated because of his departure.

Deputy leader Candice Bergen, who enjoyed coffee with the truckers while the occupation of Ottawa’s downtown core was underway, is a well-known opponent of a woman’s right to control her own body.

It was no accident that she was the only leader to neglect to thank O’Toole in the House of Commons for his work as a four-term parliamentarian, until reminded by the prime minister.

Bergen is part of the right wing of O’Toole’s party who will guarantee that they lose the next election because of their refusal to embrace political moderation.

In the hours following O’Toole’s departure, most blame was aimed at the leader’s inability to manage the caucus and to keep people happy.

Negative comparisons were made with previous leaders like prime minister Brian Mulroney who managed to keep his troops onside even when his own popularity numbers were dipping into the teens.

But that comparison is not a valid one. Mulroney was operating from the prime minister’s chair, first among equals. And with that job comes many opportunities to reward and punish internally.

Mulroney also did not face the crazy Chong legislation that could hit any leader on a bad day. The ousters were working for weeks to collect the requisite number of 35 signatures to trigger a caucus vote.

One of them, Pierre Poilievre, is already being touted as a front-runner to replace O’Toole. He is squarely in the camp of the “stinking albatrosses” that former leadership candidate Peter MacKay characterized as the reason for the party’s failure to launch.

Unlike O’Toole, who embraced diversity in supporting the LGBTQ community, Poilievre actually once introduced a private member’s bill to ban health-care funding for transgender individuals, even though the issue is not federal jurisdiction. Other putative candidates include another social conservative, Leslyn Lewis.

But both of them will push the party further to the right.

Those 73 members who booted O’Toole out may not like his message. But upon his departure, he gave a speech which was a potential road map to victory.

The party could win by embracing diversity. The secret of success for leaders like Brian Mulroney was to embrace the Progressives in his party as well as the Conservatives.

As long as there is no place for progressive politics within the party, the Conservatives have zero chance of forming the government.

Instead of dumping O’Toole, the caucus should have heeded his message. Because the road to victory involves reaching out to 37 million people, not 73 caucus members.

Conservatives who are not progressive just won’t cut it.

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

Without Alfonso Gagliano in Quebec and Ron Irwin in Ontario, Jean Chrétien’s almost unprecedented majority three-peat would never have happened.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 21, 2020.

Two Liberal warhorses passed away within days of each other recently.

Both served as ministers in the government of Jean Chrétien and were best known for their love of the political side of politics.

Ron Irwin had politics in his blood. He loved the Liberal Party almost as much as his beloved hometown of Sault Ste. Marie, where he served as mayor and minister.

Alfonso Gagliano was more of a backroom operator, working as Quebec lieutenant to ensure the inner workings of the Liberal Party political apparatus were not sclerotic.

Many politicians have little understanding of or involvement in the critical role played by the party in an election.

But in every cabinet, there are political ministers whose job it is to build a robust party organization which can make or break an election.

In 1988, the government of Brian Mulroney won a majority because 20 winning Tory seats, primarily in the Toronto area, were decided in their favour by margins of less than 1.000 votes.

In this scenario, the party workers, not policies, can claim credit for victory. That means having boots on the ground and money in the coffers.

Irwin and Gagliano were responsible for many of those mechanics even while they served as ministers in the government, Gagliano working in Quebec and Ron mostly in Ontario.

Irwin was appointed by Chrétien to make sure that after every election, (three majority wins), the next party convention would give the boss a resounding vote of support. In the Liberal Party, the constitution called for a post-election leadership review vote, even when the party won a majority in the previous election.

As Quebec lieutenant, Gagliano was responsible for making sure that party operations were well-oiled and well-funded. That meant heading up the tough job of political fundraising.

Both were politicians who loved the people, and the party side of politics. To campaign with Gagliano in Saint Leonard, Que., or Irwin in the “Soo” was to witness political people beloved by their constituents.

Without either of them, Jean Chrétien’s almost unprecedented majority three-peat would never have happened.

Supporters of Paul Martin were waiting in the wings during three successive elections, readying for a takeover.

To guarantee that outcome, they sought to control party machinations.

That is the back story to the findings of the Gomery Commission. Commission conclusions were subsequently discredited by a federal court judge in 2008 and that decision was upheld on appeal. The judge said neither Jean Chrétien nor Jean Pelletier was to blame for the mismanagement of the program designed to heighten federal presence in Quebec.

When Gagliano passed away last week, most of the headlines were devoted to his alleged role in the scandal that ultimately cost Paul Martin the government.

Liberal Party coffers in Quebec dried up because of the bitter internal war between Martin and Chrétien and it was Gagliano’s unlucky responsibility to head up fundraising.

Martin’s people, strategically placed in important positions across the country, put the word out that no supporter should be contributing a penny to the party until he took it over.

After Chrétien beat Martin in the leadership race of 1990, Martin retained a group of key political organizers, whose job it was to secure control of the party in every province.

Each organizer had a budget to entertain prospects and keep a close watch on federal and provincial party activities, making sure they elected “friendlies” in all available positions.

Their message was simple: to be friends of the next prime minister, do not support or donate to this one.

“Friendlies” were working to secure a change of leadership so Martin might finally achieve his goal of becoming prime minister.

In some provinces, ministers who were working for Martin insisted that government appointments should never go to Chrétien supporters.

As Chrétien’s political life was coming to an end, even former supporters were trying to make common cause with Martin to position themselves in a future government. That is the way of politics.

But neither Gagliano nor Irwin would join in that game. They were loyal to their leader and worked their hearts out in a climate where the biggest political challenge was the civil war roiling in the party.

Irwin managed to avoid fallout from that war but Gagliano was not so lucky.

Thankfully, in post-political life, this Italian immigrant found the peace that eluded him and became a prized vintner of wine that bears his name.

May two loyal warriors rest in peace.

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

Our failing grade on international aid and peacekeeping were part of the reason that Canada did not succeed. The other part had to do with strategy.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 22, 2020.

OTTAWA—The bad news is that Canada lost its second bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

The good news is that most Canadians don’t really care.

In autopsying the defeat, a journalist said that had the seat been secured, the discussion would have been around the irrelevance of the win.

Ordinary Canadians do not lose any sleep worrying about Canada’s world status. We have a mildly misplaced belief in Canada’s role in peacekeeping and international aid.

But last week’s defeat should force us to take another look at how Canada has slipped so badly on the world stage.

It is not enough to tell the world that Canada matters. Canadian politicians need to convince Canadians that the world matters.

Our failing grade on international aid and peacekeeping were part of the reason that Canada did not succeed.

The other part had to do with strategy.

The key negotiator for Canada was named to the United Nations at the very moment that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signalled his intention to pull out all the stops in his campaign for a temporary seat.

United Nations Permanent Representative Marc-Andre Blanchard has impeccable Canadian credentials. As chair and CEO of McCarthy Tetrault, he has been named among the 25 most influential lawyers in Canada. He also served as a former president of the Quebec Liberal Party.

He knew the province intimately, but his international bona fides were less evident. So, he needed the help of heavy hitters.

According to press reports, Blanchard recruited two retired politicians for the campaign.

Former Quebec premier Jean Charest and former prime minister Joe Clark both travelled the world in support of Canada’s bid last year.

These political figures are well-known in Canada but their influence on the international scene is less apparent. Charest is also a partner in Blanchard’s former law firm.

Noticeably absent from the list of eminence grise political elders were names like Jean Chrétien, Brian Mulroney, and Lloyd Axworthy.

During his three majority governments, prime minister Chrétien established deep and strong relationships with a number of countries, including China. After he left politics, Chrétien also chaired the InterAction Council, a group comprised of former world leaders who advise the United Nations on issues like climate change.

As for former prime minister Mulroney, his relationships with political leaders in the United States and La Francophonie would have been very helpful. As Barrick International Advisory Board chair, his influence in Africa and Oceania is clear.

On the Security Council seat, China’s robust international aid program was reported to influence up to 50 votes. Canada was not the beneficiary of that influence. Nor were we in good standing with our American neighbours.

As for Axworthy, he served as president of the United Nations Security Council back in 1999-2000. He was also nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for his work in banning land mines.

The trio share robust international relationships across five continents which could have made a difference in the outcome.

Attracting five votes away from either Norway or Ireland would have forced the process into a second ballot, which could have yielded a different result.

It is certainly possible that there was an attempt to enlist the trio. If they turned down the invitation, that also speaks volumes.

Successful politicians usually try to avoid being at the head of losing campaigns. Both Ireland and Norway had entered the race years before Canada.

And Canada has also had almost double the prior Security Council participation rate of either competitor.

Trudeau was obviously very invested in the campaign, but being so personally committed also comes with its own risks.

Having made more than 50 calls to other world leaders, he obviously believed the seat was worth the effort.

The bruising his reputation will take is likely only an international blemish, not a domestic disaster.

But on the home front, the government really needs to undertake a major review of our foreign policy.

Questions around military deployment for peacekeeping need to be answered. So does the time frame for Canada’s commitment to increasing our international aid envelope.

The growing influence of China in the world, and Canada’s Huawei conundrum are also major reasons for the Security Council loss.

Chrétien offered his help on that file at the very beginning of the Canada-China downward spiral.

His offer was spurned, by way of an aggressive public rebuttal by then Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Maybe all-hands-on deck should be the new watchword for Canada’s foreign policy.

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

Decisions by Jean Charest and Rona Ambrose to stay out of the Conservative leadership race were met with huge sighs of relief on more than one front.

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

OTTAWA—The Liberal government of Justin Trudeau dodged a couple of political bullets last week.

Decisions by Jean Charest and Rona Ambrose to stay out of the Conservative leadership race were met with huge sighs of relief on more than one front.

The immediate beneficiary of the sorties was Peter MacKay, who now leaps to the position of frontrunner amongst progressives in the party.

He was closely followed by Pierre Poilievre who was working hard to solidify his support amongst the more right-wing members of the party until he dropped out of the race last week.

MacKay must be verily relieved that neither Charest nor Ambrose will be in the race.

Most of the media attention had been focused on Ambrose’s star status, but Charest would have been a tougher adversary.

Ambrose did a terrific job as interim Tory leader. But her ministerial record was anything but stellar.

Charest, on the other hand, introduced progressive environmental legislation and, under the leadership of prime minister Brian Mulroney, his government was the first to focus on going green.

Ambrose was the minister responsible for the controversial decision to for defund pro-choice women’s organizations. Post politics, she has been very active in promoting her private member’s bill to incorporate gender sensitivity training into the judiciary. But when she had the levers of power to accomplish that as a minister, she did not.

To be fair, both were dealing with constraints imposed by their leaders.

Mulroney wanted to capitalize on the world environmental reckoning which began at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. The meeting was spawned by a report entitled “Our Common Future” authored by Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1987. Rio marked the beginning of a world consensus that we must “Think globally and act locally” to stem environmental degradation. Mulroney mirrored that message back to Canada, launching a $3-billion Green Plan in the leadup to the summit.

Mulroney supported the global consensus that we needed to start treating the planet differently.

Then-prime minister Stephen Harper went the other way. Like Donald Trump, he ignored the world climate change consensus, and spent most of his political capital on a rearguard action to blame the environmentalists. He also forced all ministers to delete gender analysis from their cabinet analysis and was probably the key driver in cutting women’s funding across the country.

The other element that would have put Charest squarely in the leader’s seat, should he have decided to run, was his ease of communication in both official languages.

A weak command of one of Canada’s official languages may not be the deciding factor in an in-house Conservative leadership campaign. But it certainly makes a difference when someone is wooing one-quarter of the Canadian population in an election campaign.

In Quebec, New Brunswick, northern Ontario and the southern shore of Nova Scotia, one cannot expect to get any support if she or he cannot speak to voters in their mother tongue.

But speaking both languages is not enough. The leader must also reflect the values of the country.

And that is where the current leadership race gets tricky. The entrance of Quebecer and social conservative Richard Décarie has provided the perfect foil for other would-be candidates to show their progressive side. Harper’s former deputy chief of staff is the self-described leader of the so-cons in the party. He claims to be the only voice representing the values that true social conservatives hold dear, including sanctity of heterosexual marriage and a ban on abortions.

Décarie told CTV news that being gay is a choice, providing an opportunity for other putative candidates to contradict him.

By the end of the week, the campaigns of Erin O’Toole and MacKay began to narrow the focus of delegate support.

Most are moving away from the social conservative constructs that proved fatal in the last election.

MacKay hails from the former Progressive Conservative party so he won’t fall into the trap of boycotting gay pride parades. Some are calling for an eastern-based choice for leader, so the party can finally make the breakthrough it needs in Ontario and Quebec.

In five short months, we will have the answers to all these questions. The result could well turn Canadian politics on its head.

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

The party that Peter MacKay built is not the party that will be voting on the leadership review next spring. Some left politics altogether (including MacKay), and some switched parties, like Scott Brison, André Bachand, and Bill Casey.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 4, 2019.

OTTAWA—Andrew Scheer has time on his side. Short time that is.

The Conservative Party is scheduled to review his leadership in less than six months.

When Joe Clark was under attack for his leadership, he personally set the bar very high. The youngest prime minister ever elected promised to step down if at least two-thirds of the Progressive Conservative Party membership did not support him.

He got the support of 66.9 per cent, missing his goal by less than 1 per cent. Clark stepped aside anyway and reoffered his leadership in a campaign which saw Brian Mulroney beat him.

Many are drawing comparisons to that race, with Peter MacKay as the foil for Scheer that Mulroney played with Clark.

But that was then, and this is now. Progressives have largely fled the party and MacKay is stuck with trying to convince current Conservatives that the party needs to veer to the left.

If the public had a vote, that shift would be a no-brainer, but this is a ballot within a political party, which is quite a different beast.

The decade-long leadership of Stephen Harper, followed by social conservative Andrew Scheer, have solidified the party’s role as guardian of the right. Scheer’s refusal to support gay rights, by marching in a parade, is not just a personal religious choice. It is a reflection of the political direction that won him the party leadership and will secure his position in the review.

The Progressive Conservative party that Peter MacKay merged with Harper’s Canadian Alliance back in 2003 does not exist anymore.

Except for a few pockets in Eastern Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, many current Tories likely support Scheer’s view that homosexuality and abortion should not be legitimized in equality legislation.

Throughout the campaign, Liberals were bombarded by media criticism for tying Scheer to the anti-abortion movement in past word and deed.

Scheer beat Maxime Bernier in a cliff-hanger leadership race on the 13th ballot by promising anti-abortionists that their private members’ bills could be introduced under his watch. During the leadership, he was captured on video telling the RightNow anti-abortion organization that he would not prevent private members from introducing anti-abortion bills and revealing that he has always opposed abortion in any House of Commons vote.

After the election, RightNow co-founder Alissa Golob said in a media interview that the total number of pro-lifers in the House of Commons has increased from 53 to at least 68 seats. RightNow plans to stay in politics for the long game, with the aim of taking over Canada’s mainstream Conservative movement by stacking nomination meetings and presumably leadership review votes.

The current Conservative mechanism for leadership review favours takeovers because the decision on who gets to vote for or against the leader falls to a delegated convention. That means each riding elects up to 10 representatives to attend the Toronto meeting and cast their leadership review ballots.

With anti-Scheer forces led by Peter MacKay, there will be a party showdown between former progressives and current Conservatives. Last week, MacKay was back-pedalling on his criticism of Scheer’s campaign strategy. After saying that gay and abortion rights issues “hung around Andrew Scheer’s neck like a stinking albatross,” MacKay declared his support for the leader less than 24 hours later.

However, behind the scenes progressives like MacKay will be trying to convince delegates that the party needs to move away from right-wing social ideology if it has any hope of forming the next government. But he may be facing a wall of social ideologues who were not a factor when MacKay and Harper convinced their supporters to merge two parties into one Conservative Party 16 years ago.

The party that MacKay built is not the party that will be voting on the leadership review next spring. Some left politics altogether (including MacKay), and some switched parties, like Scott Brison, André Bachand, and Bill Casey.

There is another operative truism in politics. The longer you have been around a party, the less work you do.

The up-and-comers in Parliament owe their victories to Scheer and will work hard to support the leader.

Losers will be busy trying to reinvent themselves, and may not have the energy or the appetite to mount strong local battles to unseat Scheer. In the end, the short time-frame, minority challenges and delegated convention all point to a Scheer victory next April.

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

Back in ’80s, we didn’t hate each other in the House. But the civility marking those years is gone today.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 9, 2019.

OTTAWA—Last week, former prime minister Brian Mulroney celebrated the 35th anniversary of his momentous 1984 victory against the governing Liberals.

With the election of 211 Progressive Conservative members to the 33rd Parliament, it resulted in the biggest majority government in the history of Canada.

His daughter, Caroline Mulroney, now a provincial cabinet minister in Ontario, sent out a touching tweet, reminding the rest of us about this milestone.

‘Today marks the 35th anniversary of my father’s electoral win, which would see him become the 18th prime minister of Canada. Thank you Mom and Dad for your tremendous support and service to our country.”

Mulroney’s tweet reminded me that the day was also a celebration of my first election to Parliament, as a 31-year-old Liberal survivor in a sea of Tories.

Seasoned veteran Herb Gray and I were the only Grits elected in a swathe of millions of voters between Toronto and Windsor.

It was a scary time for the official opposition. Most commentators were predicting our demise. The majority of the caucus had been bludgeoned into silence by the magnitude of the defeat.

Ten newbies had a different idea. But the reality of Parliament was daunting. We had 40 members to cover 26 parliamentary committees.

The Tories were dominant and revelling in their solid victory. At the first children’s Christmas Party post-writ, Santa wore a blue suit. But the unfamiliar colour caused some confused kids to start crying. That was the first and last colour change.

Caroline Mulroney was 10 at the time.

Over the years, we would often see the Mulroney family at many parliamentary functions. Their youngest son, Nicolas, was born on the first anniversary of the Tory win in 1985 and my daughter came along two years later.

After the thrust and parry of Parliament, we would join to celebrate Halloween and Christmas at parliamentary events.

We didn’t hate each other.

The civility marking those years is gone.

People in different parties mistrust each other viscerally. There is little chance that friendships will cross party lines.

Just look at the donnybrook that broke out last week between the New Democrats and the Green Party. The NDP is in trouble and there is no love lost with the Greens, who are fishing in the same pond.

Some is undoubtedly political competition. The New Democrats and the Greens are trying to attract the same voter base. The loss of one is a gain to the other.

But that is not the only change in Parliament in the past 35 years.

When, as new Liberal opposition members, a few of us formed the Rat Pack to organize our attacks on the government, some senior members of our own caucus were aghast.

They believed honourable colleagues should be nice to each other and that Question Period should be non-confrontational. They disapproved of our organized, systematic attack on cabinet ministers, knocking off five in one year.

At the end of the day, colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons were actually friends.

As a new member, I really didn’t understand their perspective. I was concerned with keeping the Liberals from being pulverized by the New Democrats, who had much more experience in opposition.

One attack on then-fisheries minister John Fraser for the so-called Tunagate scandal, illustrated the point. He was such a nice person that no one wanted to see him in political trouble. But the issue was too big to ignore, after the minister overruled inspectors, and approved the sale of StarKist tuna that had been deemed “unfit for human consumption.”

The scandal forced Fraser’s resignation but he eventually returned to prominence as House Speaker.

In that capacity, Fraser welcomed my infant daughter Danelle into the backrooms of Parliament by holding her in his arms while she barfed on his ceremonial garb about two minutes before he was to enter the Chamber.

Even though we clashed in the House, we were still friends.

Similarly, then foreign minister Barbara McDougall commandeered her driver, and towels and fresh water, when my pre-schooler accidentally threw up in the revolving door leading from Centre Block.

Former Reform Party interim leader Deborah Grey used to send me cards on my birthday, and former Reform and Alliance critic Jim Abbott worked successfully to convince colleagues that Parks Canada’s development freeze was good public policy.

Then-Bloc Québécois MP Suzanne Tremblay was so supportive of our House Heritage Committee initiatives that eventually her leader forced her to switch to a less collegial critic’s post.

Those cross-party friendships of the last century appear to be non-existent today.

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

But by refusing to put a price on his plan, and by assuming that technology alone will bridge the carbon gap, Andrew Scheer’s plan runs counter to advice from environmentalists and economists.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 24, 2019.

OTTAWA—Global warming followers may be flummoxed by the differences in party positions on climate change action plans.

Andrew Scheer’s announcement last week was long on photos and short on specifics.

He characterized his plan as the most anticipated policy announcement of an opposition leader in the history of the country.

Scheer framed his work in the context of Conservative prime ministers who came before him, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Brian Mulroney.

Our first prime minister established Canada’s first national park back in 1885. Brian Mulroney was recognized as Canada’s greenest prime minister, launching the $3-billion Green Plan in 1990 in the lead-up to the Rio Earth Summit. This was the first-ever gathering of world leaders on environmental issues.

Since the 1992 United Nations summit, multiple international meetings have tackled climate questions.

Then environment minister Angela Merkel chaired the first United Nations Climate Conference in 1995. Berlin set the stage for the Kyoto Accord, which paved the way for the Paris targets.

Canadians can be forgiven for being confused. After almost 30 years, our carbon footprint is still growing.

Scheer says his plan will change that. He cited multiple Progressive Conservative leaders to buttress his claim that environmental protection was a core Conservative principle.

But one prime minister’s name was glaringly absent from the list, that of Stephen Harper.

Progressive Tory predecessors believed that governments could lead in climate solutions. But when Andrew Scheer and his boss split from progressives to create the Reform Party, environmental interests were also dismissed.

In his time Mulroney signed the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement with his American counterpart, George W. Bush.

That treaty committed both governments to legislating solutions for the reduction of acid rain. The agreement also annexed a chapter on ozone depletion, pricing ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons that were used as cheap coolants for refrigeration.

Both governments committed to costing pollution, because that is the best way to get companies and citizens to tackle the current climate crisis.

Scheer’s predecessor was not mentioned because in the legacy of green Conservative prime ministers, he is not one of them.

One of Harper’s moves was to eliminate many environmental initiatives, including government funding for homeowners and businesses to retrofit for energy efficiencies.

The cancelled retrofit program was recycled last week in Scheer’s announcement.

Scheer also promised to regulate heavy industrial polluters, forcing them to reinvest in environmental solutions when emissions exceed 40 kilotonnes per year, a threshold 10 kilotonnes lower than the Liberal plan.

But Scheer does not explain how his government would oversee reported company investments. What would stop a company from simply passing off normal capital acquisitions as new technology investments?

By refusing to price pollution, the Tory plan also ignores the origin of one-quarter of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation accounts for one-quarter of our country’s total emissions.

But the Scheer plan does not include any strategy directed to reducing carbon use in planes, trains and automobiles.

Instead, the leader of the opposition plans to follow in the footsteps of his cousin at Queen’s Park. Doug Ford’s first act was to cancel the pricing framework put in place by the previous Liberal provincial government. He also cancelled the planting of one million trees, designed to absorb carbon emissions.

Scheer says his solution will be based on technology, not taxes.

But economists agree that the single most effective way to change consumer behaviour is to properly include the price of pollution in any consumer purchasing decision.

From gasoline to automobile trends to housing footprints, people generally use price as a major factor in their spending decisions.

By putting a price on pollution, the Liberal plan would drive innovation and also encourage Canadians to change their habits.

At the end of the day, Canadians and companies will be moved by the key argument of their wallets.

If it costs them more to pollute, they will find ways to cut down on pollution. That means buying an electric vehicle, or using alternative methods of transportation like bus, rail and bicycle and ride sharing.

LED lighting pays for itself in reduced hydro bills and reduces carbon footprint.

By refusing to put a price on his plan, and by assuming that technology alone will bridge the carbon gap, Scheer’s plan runs counter to advice from environmentalists and economists.

The Liberal plan, while not perfect, will reduce our collective carbon footprint faster and more effectively.

The electoral choice is clear. Those Canadians who consider climate change the key campaign issue cannot vote Conservative.

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

The best outcome would be to resolve the case, with Meng’s return to China before the summer. This would free Liberals to focus on electoral issues, not international irritants. If it takes a former prime minister to get us there, so be it.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2019.

OTTAWA—Only in Canada is it considered a weakness to recruit a former prime minister to help solve the Huawei problem.

Reaction to the news that Jean Chrétien was willing to act as an envoy to meet with the Chinese leadership in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case was muted.

The offer was floated privately months ago. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Chrétien several weeks ago to discuss the Chinese deep freeze that has settled on Canada.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney first publicly broached the idea of Chrétien’s involvement last week.

Both former leaders are getting feedback from the business community that this problem needs fixing.

Chrétien and Mulroney are unlikely allies. They spent a lifetime fighting each other in politics. But both have deep roots in Canadian business, which is anxiously searching for a way to heal this deepening Canada/China rift.

Some Liberal insiders are reticent to recruit a former prime minister, because they fear the optics of Chrétien coming in to fix a Trudeau problem.

These views were reflected in a Globe and Mail quote last week when former Canadian ambassador to China, Guy Saint-Jacques, said it would be a mistake if Chrétien “goes there and gets all the glory and Ms. Meng is free, well, it would give the impression that the prime minister is inexperienced and a neophyte and good old Mr. Chrétien is a reliable fixer.”

Saint-Jacques also said the opposition would pillory the government because the foreign minister and prime minister have repeatedly stated the courts should solve the issue.

The opposition will pillory the government, whatever the course of action.

But Conservatives did not mind when Trudeau recruited their former leader Rona Ambrose to work on free trade talks.

Nor did they complain when James Moore joined top New Democratic Party adviser Brian Topp on the same international trade advisory panel.

The last thing the Liberals need going into the election is to have Meng’s extradition overshadowing a positive economic story.

The Chinese have already taken aim at Canadian pork and canola production. Across the board, Canada-China business deals are being frozen out because of the extradition issue.

Saint-Jacques said the prime minister would risk the wrath of the Americans if the justice minister moved to end the extradition on condition the Huawei chief financial officer return to China.

But Americans have not been doing us any favours lately, and the president himself has publicly speculated that the Meng mess could be used as a bargaining chip in his free trade negotiations with China.

The bottom line is that Chrétien has deep and broad political and business ties with China. He is well-positioned to help extricate the Government of Canada from a mess that has not been of its own making.

Former Canadian ambassador to China John McCallum said early on that there were valid questions to be asked about the reasons behind the American request for extradition.

In McCallum’s words, Meng could make a very good court case against the extradition.

“One, political involvement by comments from Donald Trump in her case. Two, there’s an extraterritorial aspect to her case. And three, there’s the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada does not sign on to these Iran sanctions.”

“So I think she has some strong arguments that she can make before a judge.”

McCallum subsequently walked back his comments, saying he regretted saying what he did. But the next day he lost his job after telling a Vancouver reporter it would be “great for Canada” if the United States dropped their extradition request, repeating that any deal must include release of detained Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

Since McCallum’s firing, Trudeau has left the ambassadorial post vacant. The solution is a political, not a diplomatic one.

So it makes perfect sense to enlist a former prime minister to broker a much-needed truce.

There is risk for Trudeau in aborting the extradition process. But the risk of doing nothing is even greater.

With the Chinese refusing to take meetings, the dossier is currently a lose-lose situation for Trudeau and Freeland.

The best outcome would be to resolve the case, with Meng’s return to China before the summer. This would free Liberals to focus on electoral issues, not international irritants.

If it takes a former prime minister to get us there, so be it.

Chinese respect for elders is something Canada could learn from.

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

Sunny days are here again. But they are not going to last long if Justin Trudeau doesn’t get some experienced advice on political damage control.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 11, 2019.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally came out of the bushes to respond to a month-long barrage of accusations, communication and misunderstanding were at the root of the prime minister’s messaging. It was the repeat of the kid-gloves treatment he used when dealing with the initial resignations of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.

They are both still sitting in the Liberal caucus. The public line is that this misunderstanding has been papered over and they will all work together as Liberals.

Sunny days are here again. But they are not going to last long if Trudeau doesn’t get some experienced advice on political damage control.

The month-long train wreck facing the government was entirely of its own making. The leak to The Globe and Mail did not come from the opposition. It came from within the cabinet.

Just when we thought that those fires were dying out, Philpott fanned the flames by quitting cabinet to join her colleague and friend in the caucus backbenches.

Wilson-Raybould continues to insist that she is under some sort of gag order, which prevents her from speaking. Nonsense. As Member of Parliament, she has 24-hour access to the press gallery, so all she has to do is call a press conference, and speak her truth. Any conversations she had outside the cabinet meetings themselves are not covered by privilege, and that includes personal discussions with the prime minister or cabinet colleagues.

We also learned last week of the former minister’s surprising refusal to take over important work in the ministry of Indigenous Services.

Some media observers claimed that asking her to take that position was akin to asking Nelson Mandela to work on apartheid.

Mandela did exactly that. He took over a country with the specific mandate to dismantle apartheid and he went so far as to invite his own jailer to his nomination.

Mandela moved quickly on reconciliation, understanding that his people would only succeed if all parties were healed.

As Indigenous Services minister, Wilson-Raybould would have been perfectly positioned to help dismantle the system against which she has fought her whole life. She would have been empowered to change the lives of all Indigenous citizens. That refusal was inconsistent with her commitment to change Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.

Accepting that portfolio would have been a challenge, because the route to reconciliation is a long one and unlikely to be completed in advance of the next election. But she could have had a hand in getting rid of the department. She would have had a mandate from the prime minister to work with the Crown-Indigenous relations minister on self-government agreements and divestiture.

Having refused, she was offered and accepted a position as minister of veterans affairs.

After she quit, Wilson-Raybould spent three weeks controlling the agenda, assisted by leaks from inside the cabinet. When her story started losing lustre, friend and former minister Philpott quit.

Philpott penned an elegant public elegy that she had lost confidence in government, without even waiting to hear the other side of the story, as Gerald Butts had not yet appeared before the Justice Committee.

A political newbie, she had a stellar lifetime of public service but little experience in the reality of political backrooms. That may be why she seems to see nothing inconsistent in losing confidence in the government and staying in the government caucus.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney said last week that they would not be sitting in his caucus. I agree.

Unlike the party, where they would be welcomed to work for a leadership review to get rid of the prime minister, the caucus is actually part of the government.

Like cabinet, caucus is intended to be a confidential place where people can speak truth to power unfettered by any limitations. I have sat in caucus where members accused a prime minister of being worse than Hitler. No punches are pulled.

But the presence of these two former ministers is poisonous, as it prevents free caucus dialogue. Other caucus members may well ask the pair to leave, as the caucus has now lost confidence in them.

As leader, Trudeau has to make tough decisions that can do temporary damage.

A boil must be lanced to heal.