By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 2, 2023.

OTTAWA—Aestas horribilis. Horrible summer.

That is all that can be said about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attempt to reboot the agenda with a cabinet shuffle, new faces and a fresh parliamentary look.

Last week’s disastrous revelation of a former Nazi soldier getting a standing ovation in the House of Commons was simply the final nail in the coffin of a bad political season for the Liberal leader.

It is true that the prime minister was not responsible for the invitation to a former member of the Ukrainian 1st Galician division, a unit of the Nazi war machine.

That decision was the sole responsibility of the former speaker Anthony Rota.

Rota received a request from his constituency to have the war veteran at the parliamentary event welcoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenksy on Sept. 22.

The visit was supposed to showcase support for the Ukrainian effort to defend itself against the illegal invasion by Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Instead, it has become a tool for Putin’s false claim that his attack was really a defence against the Nazification of neighbouring Ukraine.

All Canadians were shocked to learn of veteran Yaroslav Hunka’s military record. The only person more shocked than the prime minister was Speaker Anthony Rota, who was forced to resign as pressure mounted following the revelation of the veteran’s Nazi status.

On Sept. 25, the New Democratic Party was the first to call for the speaker’s resignation. They were joined later in the day by the Bloc Québécois, and followed the next morning by several Liberal cabinet ministers, and ultimately by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

Poilievre expressed his views on Rota’s status via X (formerly Twitter).

But he spent the whole of Question Period blaming the debacle on the prime minister. Even though Rota told the House that it was his decision and his alone to invite and recognize his constituent, Poilievre laid the whole mess at the prime minister’s feet.

Poilievre repeated his false claim that it was up to the prime minister’s security people to vet all visitors to the parliamentary gallery.

In reality, all Members of Parliament are entitled to issue invitations to their own personal guest list, and that list is not vetted by the government.

Trudeau argued during Question Period that to follow Poilievre’s logic, the government would have to sign off on all parliamentary visitors, which would be a breach of the separation that exists between government and Parliament.

But the opposition leader has made it his personal mission to make Trudeau wear the mess that Poilievre has characterized as “the worst diplomatic embarrassment” in Canadian history.

All other leaders appear to have accepted Trudeau’s explanation that, as leader of the government, he has no authority over the visitors invited to Parliament.

It remains to be seen how the public will view the personalized nature of the attacks by the leader of the opposition.

Most are probably as confused as Members of Parliament who had no idea they were offering multiple standing ovations to a veteran who fought against the Allies in the Second World War.

It seems complicated but is likely the egregious mistake of an overzealous constituency assistant who responded to a community request to attend the session.

As House speaker, Rota was not involved in any aspects of the Liberal government activity. But he also runs for re-election, and as such, his role as the speaker offers an opportunity to invite constituents to Ottawa for major parliamentary events like the opening of the House and international visits by dignitaries.

The role of the Speaker in the House of Commons is sacrosanct. They are the leader of the place, and no one, including the prime minister, has the power to edit their speeches or guest list.

Poilievre’s approach is to lay the blame squarely on the prime minister’s shoulders.

In a proposal to the House operations committee, a Conservative committee member suggested a list of invitees to a proposed review committee that, curiously, excluded the speaker.

That approach may not be parliamentary, but the Tory intention is to damage Trudeau and his government, and facts do not matter in this mission statement.

Poilievre’s aggression may cause some backlash from the public. In the meantime, it is Trudeau who is feeling the pain from the commencement to a fall session that is as acrimonious as Poilievre.

Following her new appointment this summer, Government House Leader Karina Gould vowed to lower the temperature during Question Period by restoring a sense of civility to the institution.

But the first parliamentary week continued to be an aestas horribilis.

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 September 18, 2023.

OTTAWA—It’s nervous Nellie time in the Liberal caucus.

As the Conservatives climbs in the polls, the Liberals’ angst increases exponentially.

If one were a fly on the wall at the recent Liberal caucus in London, Ont., they would have been privy to some serious rumblings of discontent.

For most of the caucus, it was the first meeting after the cabinet shuffle.

One of the by-products of a shuffle is internal dissent. Those who were not promoted likely believe this was their last chance to accede to cabinet.

So, the discipline of power that usually muffles those who wish to remain in the favour of the leadership is weaker than it was before the change.

In addition, the caucus is spooked by the continuing poll climb by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

His simple, negative messaging about the country is obviously hitting a raw nerve with many Canadians.

That messaging, especially on social media, has resulted in a slow, steady climb in popularity to the point where most polls have the Conservatives substantially ahead of the Liberals.

That also contributes to the nervousness. Many Liberal members have little or no experience with running behind in the polls.

Since 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his team have managed to lap the Conservatives in just about every part of the country except Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Now the numbers in Ontario, and even Quebec, are changing, which has people asking questions of the leadership.

Immigration Minister Marc Miller weighed in on the rising temperature, saying Liberals have not decided exactly how to counterattack Poilievre’s “garbage” attacks. He told the media that his colleagues did not want to bring themselves down to a level of politics that they have foresworn.

“There’s a tension as to how to engage … whether you fight fire with fire and bring yourself down … there is a struggle and attention generally as to how to deal with a person like that, that Canadian politics, in particular, hasn’t seen much of,” said Miller.

The minister is right that the negativity in Poilievre’s messaging is not politics as usual. Most official opposition leaders try to build their image as thoughtful prime ministers in waiting.

But messaging on social media has changed radically in the past decade.

The depth of anger is amplified by voices that feed on negative posts from like-minded political naysayers.

Back in the last century, those negative voices also existed. “Nattering nabobs of negativism,” was a term coined by American vice-president Spiro Agnew, when he was complaining about the media coverage of the Nixon administration.

He accused the media of forming their own 4-H club, a riff on rural youth organizations, made up of “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.”

The same and more could be said today, but the reach of social media is much broader now.

The fact that Poilievre’s numbers have increased most rapidly amongst young people reinforces the power of social messaging. They are the ones gathering most of their information from social media sources.

They are also least likely to vote, which makes the short-term focus on numbers a bit of a mug’s game.

Those numbers could change and change drastically. When former prime minister Kim Campbell called the 1993 election, her party was in majority government territory.

At the end of the campaign, the party ended up with two seats.

Nothing is written in stone.

But the prime minister and his team would be well-advised to heed the ‘nervous Nellies’ in the caucus.

Caucus members are like the canaries in the mine, giving the leader a hint of the toxic atmosphere that the party is facing in the body politic.

It may be nice to be nice. As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said back in 2015, sunny days were back again.

But when storm clouds are on the horizon, they cannot be ignored.

The leadership needs to start responding in kind to Poilievre’s negative attacks. Learn from nature. You need to fight fire with fire.

The government also needs to start telling Canadians how it plans to make life better.

It is not enough for politicians to make housing announcements. Announcements need to be followed up with focused media buys to let people know what major federal initiatives are under way.

A $4-billion housing accelerator program is worth talking about.

That means serious advertising dollars to accompany the work that is actually being done.

It is fine to be the nice guy in politics.

But, unfortunately, everyone knows what they say about nice guys. They finish last.

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 July 31, 2023.

OTTAWA—Justin Trudeau has rolled the dice.

Last week’s massive cabinet shuffle makes one thing certain: the prime minister plans to lead the Liberal Party into the next election.

The ballot question he is aiming for is the economy, and Trudeau is banking on enough political runway to convince Canadians that the best masters of the economy are already in the job.

The shuffle is a not-so-tacit admission that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is hitting the mark when he travels the country on his so-called “Axe the Tax” tour.

It matters little that the majority of Canadians are actually getting money back because of the way the carbon tax remittance has been structured. Canadians are reeling from rising prices and the hike in national interest rates. Global issues may be responsible for the cash crunch, as Trudeau mentioned during his press conference lauding the new cabinet team. But all politics is local.

Polls show that local politics right now is hitting the Liberals hard. On the same day as Trudeau announced the massive change in cabinet, Abacus Data released a poll showing the Conservatives were 10 points ahead of the Liberals. Pollara put out a poll earlier in the month claiming the Tories were 12 points ahead among Indigenous voters.

Trendlines are clear. Tories are climbing and the Liberals are lagging. The shuffle is supposed to staunch the political bloodletting.

Highlights included the appointment of Arif Virani, Canada’s first Muslim attorney general and Rechi Valdez the first Filipina woman in a Canadian cabinet. Original reports cited the appointment of a first Filipino, but that was amended, as the first Filipino member of cabinet was Rey Pagtakhan in the cabinet of Jean Chrétien.

The demographic changes to cabinet are pretty clear evidence that the shuffle is intended to launch an election team. As well as specific nominations in the Muslim and Filipino community, the prime minister also named a Tamil Canadian as minister responsible for Crown-Indigenous relations.

Gary Anandasangaree will have big shoes to fill because outgoing minister Marc Miller developed an excellent relationship with Indigenous communities, as both portfolios he has held in the past eight years involved work with those communities. Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu has regional experience with Indigenous peoples because of her home riding in Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.

Anandasangaree is a risky choice because his urban Scarborough background is not exactly a hotbed of Indigenous politics. However, he has a reputation as being accessible and active, and worked on an Indigenous consultation process for the Rouge National Urban Park.

He wouldn’t be the first minister to build a relationship with Indigenous peoples from scratch. But the popularity of Miller and Hajdu were undeniable, and, given the government’s commitment to reconciliation, the decision to make a change is potentially tricky.

The Trudeau inner circle of cabinet makers must be banking on the fact that these new appointments will buttress the party in areas of the country where they will be in pitched battles with the Conservatives. Suburban GTA ridings are always a dogfight, so the appointments of Anandasangaree and Valdez could have an impact on potentially tight races.

Trudeau is also trying to change the “change” message. With three terms under his belt, the prime minister is well known to the public and somewhat shopworn.

As my mother taught me, politics is the only job where the more experience you get, the more people want to get rid of you, and in three terms, you make enemies who want you out.

The change narrative is the movement when governments are voted out. It doesn’t matter what kind of a job they have done; their political time is up. In most instances, people vote governments out, they do not vote opposition parties in.

A new government is given the benefit of the doubt. The thinking is, with this sizeable change in positions, there is an element of newness surrounding the team. While that is true, there is no element of newness in the leader.

Trudeau is obviously banking on the fact the surly side of the Conservative leader will convince enough voters that Poilievre is not the right person to lead the country. While Trudeau may no longer be loved by all, his opponent has never been loved by many.

If the ballot question is the economy, the prime minister stands a fighting chance of re-election. If the question remains a need for change, his bold cabinet move won’t mean much at the ballot box.

This past week, the next election got started.

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

For the first time in the history of Canada, we have women in the majority of the top spots in government. From foreign affairs, to finance, from the deputy prime minister, to defence, the face of the government is decidedly feminist.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 15, 2021.

OTTAWA—If ever in doubt, Justin Trudeau proved his feminist credentials in the crafting of his new cabinet.

For the first time in the history of Canada, we have women in the majority of the top spots in government. From foreign affairs, to finance, from the deputy prime minister, to defence, the face of the government is decidedly feminist.

The minister of families, children, and social development has been assigned to pull off the biggest job of all—a national childcare system, is herself the first cabinet minister to have a child while in office.

In the back room, the prime minister’s chief of staff is a woman, perhaps one of the reasons for this phalanx of women in power, the likes of which this country has never witnessed before.

Not only do we have strong women.

They are also self-described feminists, who would not roll back the hard-fought gains that women have achieved in reproductive rights and gender equality.

The same cannot be said of the females at the forefront of the official opposition. The most prominent women in Erin O’Toole’s party right now are those who want to eliminate protection against the spread of the corona virus by refusing to make vaccinations mandatory.

Most post-cabinet commentary has been focused on Trudeau’s male picks, especially the oilpatch-driven campaign launched against Steven Guilbeault.

Guilbeault seems to be getting the same negative attention that was visited on another very successful environment minister, Catherine McKenna.

For some reason, vitriolic criticism of Guilbeault discounts the fact that the world is moving in a new direction and attacks targeting a single Canadian minister will not change that.

The outcome at Glasgow showed us that the world is moving away from fossil fuels and Canada cannot stand alone in ignoring the global challenges of climate change. That is one of Trudeau’s primary commitments, along with a national childcare plan.

Given that Trudeau is currently in his third term of government, he may decide to fulfill his promises and retire. That will put the Liberals into a leadership convention.

With so many qualified women in cabinet, Canada may finally elect a woman prime minister.

Obviously, the outcome of the next parliamentary session will be key in deciding which of the ministers will rise to the top.

At the moment, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is the definite front-runner. But by remaining in finance, she runs the risk of owning the bulk of criticism about the government’s COVID spending rollout.

And with critic Pierre Poilievre nipping at her heels, she has an effective, albeit annoying, opponent to underscore any tiny mistake.

Defence Minister Anita Anand must tackle the seemingly intractable challenge of sexism in the armed forces. If she proves capable of wrestling this problem to the ground, she too would be a potential candidate for leadership.

Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly is a telegenic communicator who could also prove just how much depth she has in her new post.

Karina Gould, tasked with the challenge of delivering the country’s national childcare plan, is also a potential future candidate.

With all of the foregoing, Trudeau deserves credit for the confidence he has placed in highly qualified women. Not only has he pledged and delivered on cabinet parity. He has made sure that women in cabinet are in highly visible and responsible positions, enhancing their status and underscoring their leadership capabilities.

In the end, the prime minister’s greatest legacy may actually be his commitment to pave the way for real equality in Canadian federal politics.

Right to the top.

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 July 23, 2018.

OTTAWA—Barack Obama is not the only one who says men are getting on his nerves.

Men in positions of power who don’t seem to understand when they have crossed the line are getting on my nerves.

Just last week, Pablo Rodriguez replaced Mélanie Joly as minister of Canadian Heritage. One man replaced one woman in a cabinet change. Joly did not lose her job, she was shuffled into a different portfolio.

In addition, five newbies were added to the roster, including two women and three men.

So why does a seasoned journalist write that a “parade of men” had been “called on to clean up the messes others could not.”

Others is code for women, as there are no transgendered members of the cabinet yet.

Why would The Globe and Mail carry a blazing headline that reads “Trudeau deviates from the diversity script.”

Talk about misleading sexist claptrap.

In a featured opinion piece garnering coveted top billing across from the daily editorial section, journalist Konrad Yakabuski called the decision to replace Joly by Pablo Rodriguez a blow to “the sisterhood.”

Does Yakabuski really think a parity cabinet with women in senior portfolios including foreign affairs, justice, environment, and health is a downgrade to women?

Or is he amongst those scribes still smarting over the quip that shut down journalistic criticism of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s original commitment to equality almost three years ago?

“Because it’s 2015” was an answer that silenced the initial vocal backlash to the prime minister’s gender equal cabinet.

The Yakabuski narrative, that men have been brought in to clean up women’s messes, featured by the Globe, promotes the notion that somehow the “weaker sex” is simply not up to the job.

But the facts do not bear out this opinion piece. In the last few months, much of Canada’s heavy lifting, on the trickiest economic file facing the government, has been done by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. She has had to navigate the murky waters of Washington, staring down a dictatorial wannabee and accomplishing it with a rapier tongue and the aplomb of a diplomat.

Likewise, the trickiest federal-provincial files, the move to legalize marijuana and fight climate change, have been stickhandled by two very capable ministers, in justice and environment, who also happen to be women.

Yakabuski claimed Trudeau “deviates from his own script, which we noted because he drew attention to diversity in his first cabinet.”

But then he offers absolutely not one shred of evidence to back up his claim. On the contrary, cabinet positions are still split equally among women and men, and the prime minister is continuing a trend which has changed the face of Canadian politics forever.

Any new prime minister who tries to ignore the established equity principle will do so at their peril.

The notion that somehow women need to be cleaned up after needs to be exposed for what it is, the ranting of an out-of-touch scribe who simply does not get it.

On the same editorial page where Yakabuski makes his claim, there are two other opinion pieces, one written by a man, the other by a woman.

On the opposite page, in letters to the editor, there are seven letters submitted by men and one submitted by a woman. Not surprisingly, the editorial page editor also happens to be a man. The first five names on the Globe masthead are all men, from the deputy editor to the executive editor to the managing editor.

On the front page that same day, every single political story from Ontario, Ottawa, and Washington was written by men; five of them and not a single contribution from a woman.

It is not surprising that a misleading narrative on diversity would pass muster with this male-dominated editorial team.

Parity may be good for politics, but it is not a media priority. Instead, journalists are still not-so-subtly promoting the notion that the men in cabinet are stepping in to save us from incompetence.

When Trudeau made world news by insisting on parity in his first round of cabinet choices, the biggest pushback actually came from the media.

The good news is that the majority of his ministerial choices have been sound. With a few exceptions, most ministers have been able to move forward on an activist government agenda. His female roster is strong, capable and in charge of their files.

If anything, the balance of cabinet excellence is tipped in favour of women. They are obviously getting on someone’s nerves.

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, January 16, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The new year cabinet changes in Canada and the United States are a keen study in just how different our two countries really are.

With the departure of Stéphane Dion and John McCallum, the face of the Liberal government is even younger and more diverse.

Dion and McCallum had decades of experience in government. Their departures deplete the experiential depth and breadth of the cabinet.

Most ministers don’t only manage their own departments and responsibilities. They may weigh in on major national issues, which impact on the government and the whole country.
 
Prime minister Jean Chrétien’s decision not to join the war on Iraq, was seen as seminal. Chrétien’s four decades in Parliament played a role in that decision, but he also consulted multiple cabinet members, especially those with lengthy political experience.

Youth has the benefit of energy and drive, but with age comes wisdom. History often repeats itself, which is why some wizened faces in cabinet are a good thing.

The deeper Trudeau goes into his mandate, the more he will need to count on colleagues with experience to weather difficult storms.

The youthfulness of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself has been key in attracting a whole new generation of engaged young people. His commitment on issues like marijuana managed to engage a new generation, one that previously had no interest in government.

That intergenerational change has served the Liberals well but it also has limitations.

Maryam Monsef came to cabinet with high expectations but had no political experience. She inherited a treacherous portfolio which could have used a veteran’s touch. Her successor is also a newbie. Karina Gould has impressive international organizational experience which could be a useful training ground for this tricky portfolio.

In his first wave of American appointments, the cabinet of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump is getting older and whiter.

Neither change should surprise us. Politicians promote those with whom they feel the closest connection.

Young leaders generally encourage younger faces, while older leaders can be more comfortable with those of their own age, gender, and race.

Women often support other women. Leaders hailing from minority communities work hard to recruit those from diverse cultures and races. U.S. President Barack Obama’s cabinet was a reflection of his own personal life experience.

Hillary Clinton surrounded herself with strong women and her team reflected a real gender change that, had she won, would have radically changed the face of the American administration.

Trump is a white, 70-year-old business man. It should surprise no one that most of those whom he has elevated to his cabinet are white businessmen.

For those Americans witnessing the changing face of Washington, it must be tough to see so few minority appointees at the table. It is as though the last 30 years of civil rights progress has been erased and Jim Crow is back to rule the roost.

The visible lack of diversity is one thing. Even more troubling is the fact that some cabinet viewpoints are a real throwback to America’s racist past.

Trump’s choice for attorney general is so polarizing that he is being publicly opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

Seventy-year-old Senator Jeff Sessions voted against hate crimes legislation, and publicly questioned whether women, gays, lesbians and transgendered even face discrimination.

Thirty years ago, an attempt by then president Ronald Reagan to make Sessions a district court judge was rejected by a Republican-dominated Senate committee.

Apparently, this brand of conservatism is more palatable today than it was in the eighties.

By most accounts, Senator Sessions has not changed.

But America has. The deep racial divide reinforced by this appointment is a glaring example of the growing differences between Canada and the United States.

It is easy to understand the frustration of civil rights activists and feminists confronted with a proposed cabinet appointment that is so controversial. How can the attorney general be trusted to promote human rights and protect the judicial gains for women and minorities if he does not believe in them himself?

New Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will, no doubt, make the case in Washington that Canada continues as the best friend and neighbour of the United States. She will be smart enough to avoid making a gratuitous enemy of President Trump.

Trudeau will make sure he is not caught in the crossfire in potential trade disputes.

Canadian jobs are too dependent on our interconnectedness. Trudeau has nothing to gain by accenting Yankee-Canuck differences.

But last week’s cabinet changes in both countries speak louder than words.

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