Fasten your seatbelts. Canada is in for a long election run.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 22, 2024.

OTTAWA—A small line item in last week’s budget could be the line in the sand for the next election.

The government announced an increase of $42-million for news and entertainment programming at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

CBC president Catherine Tait hailed the hike as “welcome news.” For CBC watchers, it was a respite from the cuts and job losses that have plagued the Crown corporation in the past year as viewing habits change.

The question now begs: How many CBC supporters are there, and do they care enough to make it an election issue?

The government certainly hopes so. It is hard to see how a CBC on the verge of extinction would cover an election campaign without bias.

It is unlikely that journalists will exercise neutrality in news coverage when the outcome of the next election could leave them jobless.

Unlike Conservative predecessors, who grumbled about the CBC, but did not go further, Poilievre uses his hate-on for the broadcaster to fuel the base. At any rally, a call to defund the CBC is met with a rousing cheer.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to oppose the budget. And he has made his disdain for media, in general—and the CBC, in particular—widely known.

Poilievre is vowing to defund the CBC. His position on Radio-Canada is less clear as he has intimated that the French-language public service could be kept while the English branch could be abolished.

That move is currently illegal, so a plan to defund in one language only would require a legislative change that might not pass muster.

It would also provide time for CBC’s supporters to mobilize, and for the public to weigh in on whether the Mother Corp—as it is euphemistically known—is worth keeping.

So the budget line item sends a quiet message that, as far as the Liberals are concerned, the CBC is worth saving.

There may be many other items in the budget that could have an influence on the next election, but much depends on what cuts will be included in the Poilievre promise to vote down the document.

He characterized the spending as akin to a ‘pyromaniac spraying gas on the inflationary fire he has lit.”

Poilievre claimed the budget caused $2,400 of new inflation, but he has not actually said which programs he would axe. He is calling for a “carbon tax election.”

But that “carbon tax” theme could be an intergenerational mistake. Young people are far more committed to sustainable development than their boomer elders.

The vote could pit the new generation against middle-aged Canadians, but it could also incite grandmothers to vote with their grandkids in an effort to save the planet.

After all, it is one thing to “axe the tax.” What will be offered up in its place to actually tackle the climate change crisis that we are witnessing on a daily basis?

Poilievre may be called out on whether he is planning to trash any or all of the national child benefit, dentalcare, pharmacare, or daycare programs that Liberals have introduced.

If they are already too deeply embedded, and he decides not to cut those programs, just where will Poilievre get the $40-billion in savings to make up for the spending he opposes?

Defunding the CBC is just one small element of a debate that will unfold in the leadup to next year’s election.

There are millions of English-speaking Canadians in all parts of the country who support the public broadcaster, and would not like to see it abolished.

The English television audience is not as robust as the French version, which can regularly attract the majority of Quebecers to a year-old special revue. But radio listeners are devoted and influential. Sunday’s “Cross Country Checkup” can regularly poll listeners and motivate them to action on any political issue of the day.

Governments normally defeat themselves. But with the long rollout of Poilievre’s “axe” campaign, questions are starting to dog him.

Last week’s budget marked the start of the election campaign. CBC funding sent a clear signal that the government is not going down without a fight.

Any policy that drives a wedge between the parties is fair game in an election leadup.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland used her budget speech to underscore availability of free birth control, tying it directly to women’s reproductive rights. That alone will touch a nerve with the Conservatives.

Fasten your seatbelts. Canada is in for a long election run.

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 November 6, 2023.

OTTAWA—The takedown of Buffy Sainte-Marie is painful to witness. The CBC claims its evidence is airtight, but there appears to be a number of holes in the exposé about Sainte-Marie not being Indigenous.

According to the CBC, the singer-songwriter’s claim to Indigenous roots has been contradicted by her birth certificate and even some members of her own family.

The birth certificate upon which the CBC based its story says that Sainte-Marie was born to parents Albert and Winifred Santamaria. Sainte-Marie says that she was adopted by Albert and Winifred, who changed their names to Sainte-Marie after the war because of racism against Italians.

The CBC story claimed “many instances over the years of contradictory statements from the singer regarding that personal history.”

The story recounted how many awards and recognitions that had come to Sainte-Marie in part because of her unique status as an Indigenous artist in a white world.

Sainte-Marie was named Billboard’s Music Award for Top Artist in 1964 just after she was described by The New York Times as “one of the most promising new talents on the folk scene today.”

But it also laid out the multiple times that Saint-Marie had self-ascribed different Indigenous origins, claiming that she has been Algonquin, Mi’kmaq, and Cree at different times to different news outlets.

Former Globe and Mail reporter Jan Wong had this to say on X about the claim that Sainte-Marie was not adopted because of her birth certificate. “Hey @CBCNews your Buffy Pretendian story rings false. I did quick search of adoptee births in Mass: ‘An amended birth certificate, created after an adoption is finished, lists the name of the adoptive parents just as if the child had been born to them originally.’ ”

There were certainly a number of inconsistencies in the way that Sainte-Marie recounted her life story at various moments in her career.

But it is undeniable that she fought for Indigenous rights at a time when no one was really listening very hard.

Some have claimed she appropriated this identity to further her career.

But given that she burst onto the folk scene in the 1960s, it is pretty hard to see how her Indigenous heritage claim would have been developed simply to support her rise in the music world.

In the 1960s, being Indigenous was no ticket to success. Instead, negative stereotypes prompted many Indigenous Peoples to hide their identity.

Sainte-Marie was consistent in her fight for Indigenous Peoples, and her claim to attachment to her people.

She wasn’t the first to be accused of Indigenous appropriation, and she won’t be the last.

Last week, Newfoundland Premier Andrew Furey visited Labrador to deliver a series of apologies to residential school survivors. Over a few days, the premier visited five Inuit communities to deliver solemn apologies.

That visit happened a month after Furey made a similar apology to the NunatuKavut Community Council.

The premier’s first apology was attacked by members of the Innu nation and the government of Nunatsiavut, claiming the NunatuKavut community has no legitimate Inuit identity.

That difference of opinion was virally reflected in the House of Commons two years ago when the Inuit Member of Parliament attacked her colleague in Labrador for falsely claiming her Inuit heritage.

Then-NDP MP Mumilaaq Qaqqaq was forced to apologize for a Twitter post in which she demanded that Liberal MP Yvonne Jones “validate her Inuk-ness.”

Jones characterized the attack as “lateral racism,” and told the media that “I don’t think I have to prove my identity … I know who I am. I know who my grandmother and my great-grandmother was … I can trace my Inuit history in Labrador back to the early 1800’s.”

But the very public fight was a reflection of the challenges that come with clarifying Indigenous lineage.

The CBC obviously thought it was doing a deep dive into the real story behind Buffy Sainte-Marie.

But the backlash caused by the story, and the questions around adoption practices more than 80 years ago have not been fully answered.

It is a disservice to Sainte-Marie’s lifelong Indigenous commitment to believe that a colonial birth certificate holds all the answers to her birth history.

The story was explosive. But with too many holes in the content, it should have been left untold.

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 7, 2023.

OTTAWA—Party conventions are truly places to party. As a political party is a gathering of like-minded individuals, in a sense, it takes on the ethos of a large family.

In every family, there are those who don’t always agree. And sometimes high-octane gatherings like weddings, funerals and conventions can literally blow up.

Organizers for the Conservative convention in Québec City are hoping for what all political operatives seek: internal party peace.

During most of the year, the fighting spirit of a political activist is focused on the opposition. Their policies, their leadership, their direction are all fair game in the political battle for the hearts and minds of voters.

Conventions are the only place where the cannons are turned inward.

Party policy wonks fight for their favoured positions while volunteers try to support the issues that they think are important.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been trying to keep the temperature down at the convention, with good reason.

This is the first gathering of his clan in five years. And it is likely to be their last national confab before a federal election where they are obviously hoping their guy will win.

As happens in every political party, the pragmatists will battle purists on the convention floor.

Some purists will have been pushing the party to adopt a stronger stance on the so-called “woke” agenda.

Three provincial premiers have already adopted some limitations on the use of pronouns in schools by students without parental permission.

Thus far, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has refused to go down that road, but she is under substantial pressure from her own base to do so.

And that base will be very active at the convention.

Journalists have pointed out that there are no abortion resolutions under discussion.

And some observers wisely explain that away as “The smell of power.”

In a pre-convention interview, Dmitri Soudas, the former communications director for then-prime minister Stephen Harper, put it perfectly: “When the polls are good, Members (of Parliament) have nothing but good things to say.”

Those who work for the current leader are hoping for the same serenity.

But the convention wild card is the volunteer base. Many who are not job-dependent on Conservative success at the polls are motivated by religious beliefs that transcend politics.

Some may do their darndest to get touchy issues like abortion and gender reassignment back on the agenda.

The one elephant in the room that convention-goers have not been able to avoid is a convention resolution on defunding the public broadcaster in French and English.

The current resolution calls for an end to funding the CBC and Radio-Canada. That caught the attention of journalists in the heartland of Quebec as Radio-Canada is seen as the lifeblood of Quebec culture and history.

Any party proposing to shut the place down would do so at their peril.

And the second element to the story is the Conservatives need to gain seats in Quebec to have any chance of forming the government.

A promise to abolish Radio-Canada would make Pierre-Karl Péladeau happy, but would not curry much favour with anyone else.

The billionaire owner of Vidéotron has been campaigning for years to abolish federal funding for the public news channel that rivals his own, but no one has yet been convinced.

Politically speaking, it is hard to get positive media from a news outlet that you are planning to put out of business.

One possibility could be a convention resolution to defund the English—but not the French—CBC.

But that would likely face significant backlash as well as a charter challenge.

Poilievre may believe he has managed to build his popularity through social media, and does not really need to care about conventional news services.

But his constant attacks on multiple news platforms, including The Canadian Press, make him vulnerable to a journalistic backlash.

Before elections, the mainstream messaging is most important on Parliament Hill.

But once the writ drops, the focus of the so-called “legacy media” will make or break the outcome.

A happy weekend in Québec City could set the stage for a march toward a Conservative government.

But if that march trashes the voices of journalists at organizations like Radio-Canada and The Canadian Press, Poilievre’s efforts could be stymied.

When then-Progressive Conservative leader Kim Campbell called the election back in 1993, she was sailing to a clear majority.

A few ill-chosen words turned victory into defeat.

Poilievre needs to take a history lesson before he declares victory.

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

In reaching out to Elon Musk, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre left the impression he’s trashing Canadian broadcasters while aligning himself with a billionaire who has turned the social media world upside down.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 24, 2023.

OTTAWA–BuzzFeed News is shutting down and Twitter users are fleeing the platform in droves. Fox News has been hit with a $787.5-million lawsuit for publishing false information about Dominion Voting Systems presidential election count in 2020. The media world—social and otherwise—is roiling.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre reached out to Elon Musk, the current owner of Twitter, to ensure the company identifies the CBC as a government-funded media outlet. Political parties are lining up on one side or the other of the media divide.

To fight back, CBC has joined the “Global Task Force for Public Media,” whose aim is to underscore the fact that editorial independence is protected by law. No government has any influence on what to cover. The task force is accusing Twitter of misrepresenting their editorial independence.

While the Fox saga was unfolding in the United States, it involved Dominion, a Canadian-founded company.

In Canada, last week’s media attention was largely focused on the Twitter fight between Poilievre and the CBC.

Poilievre went hard after the CBC in English, but was strangely silent in French. He has pledged to fully defund the CBC, but at the same time, he says the Radio-Canada arm of the organization should remain.

His call to defund the CBC cites the total annual $1.24-billion federal government subsidy. That promise has created a tidal wave of opposition in Quebec.

The Twitter attack succeeded in drawing attention to the Conservatives’ plan to cancel funding for the CBC, which may not have been in the party’s game plan.

Defunding the CBC is obviously very popular with Poilievre’s base. But the same cannot be said for the rest of the country.

In Quebec, Radio-Canada is untouchable, and Poilievre’s Twitter attack woke the province up to his plan, but not in a good way.

Both the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois attacked Poilievre. His decision to make a “government-funded” tagline plea to an American billionaire raised the ire of just about everyone.

That outreach also hurt him in the rest of the country, even with those who are not the strongest supporters of the CBC.

It left the impression that Poilievre was trashing his own country’s broadcasters while aligning himself with Musk, who has turned the social media world upside down with his Twitter changes.

While Poilievre’s popularity numbers remain competitive, he cannot win the election with a wipeout in Quebec.

And a campaign promise to cancel funding for Radio-Canada will certainly gain him no friends in La belle province.

In response to the “government-funded” tagline, the CBC announced it would no longer be using Twitter to cross-pollinate radio and television stories.

Other users have also been dropping off en masse, but it is unclear at this point which alternate social media site will fill in the gap left by the Twitter exodus.

South of the border, what could be the world’s largest defamation decision made waves in media outlets everywhere, except on the Fox News Channel.

The culpable channel only broadcast the Dominion payout three times, with a total of about six minutes of coverage.

While the financial outcome of the case was stunning, the agreement did not force Fox media personalities to apologize or acknowledge the lies. Instead, a statement issued by the corporation was the only recognition that multiple lies were repeated on the network in an effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from Donald Trump.

A Fox statement acknowledged “the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.”

Legal trouble in pursuit of the truth does not end there. Dominion is also following up on defamation cases against other news outlets and Trump lawyers and supporters, including Rudy Giuliani.

Meanwhile, Fox’s Tucker Carlson has just produced a documentary suggesting the United States should move in to take over Canada and liberate it from Justin Trudeau’s communist tyranny.

Carlson may not realize it, but Poilievre should know that a Fox attack on the Liberal leader will actually push more people into Trudeau’s corner.

By allying himself with Musk, the Tory leader runs the risk of alienating Canadians.

The media landscape is changing rapidly, in Canada and globally. The Dominion defamation suit reaffirms that the truth matters when it comes to broadcasting, but Twitter can hang a false handle on the CBC with impunity.

Musk’s rocket blew up last week. So may Twitter.

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

Poilievre can bash Tait and gain support for his cause. But he would be hard-pressed to attack Rick Mercer or Catherine O’Hara. The other card the CBC has not played is what would Canada’s bilingual landscape would look like without Radio-Canada. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 13, 2023.

OTTAWA—”Defund the CBC” has been the Conservatives’ clarion call for decades.

Just about every leadership candidate promises to cut the public broadcaster’s funding, but as soon as they are elected, their tune quickly changes.

Pierre Poilievre is the exception to that rule. If anything, his anti-CBC rhetoric is getting more virulent.

So much so that the president of the CBC has actually launched her own attack on the Conservative leader.

Earlier this month, Catherine Tait stoked the fires for Tory fundraising by attacking Poilievre’s call to defund the CBC.

Tait told The Globe and Mail there is “a lot of CBC-bashing going on—somewhat stoked by the leader of the opposition.”

That was just the trap the official opposition leader was hoping she would fall into.

Poilievre makes his mark by picking fights. And his followers fund those fights.

So as soon as Tait made her comments, Conservative columnists like Lorrie Goldstein accused Tait of shooting an own goal.

The attack was followed by a fundraising email from Poilievre accusing Tait of being “the president and CEO of Trudeau’s $1.2-billion propaganda arm.”

He said it confirmed that “the CBC is now openly attacking me. They’re not even pretending to be unbiased.”

Tait has not expressed any regret for her comments, saying it is her job to communicate to Canadians –including politicians– the value of the public broadcaster, no matter whether they are Conservative, Liberal, or New Democrats.

However, as president of the public broadcaster, she should be smart enough to stay out of politics.

When Canadians understand the value of the public broadcaster, they reject politicians who muse about defunding the organization.

But Tait’s comments have managed to give life to what was only shadow-boxing until last week.

Her ill-advised comments were part of a wide-ranging interview designed to explain why the CBC was planning to move away from over-the-air television broadcasting in favour of digitalizing all content.

One wonders who is giving Tait communications advice when she thinks the end of over-the-air television is a good piece of news for her to be deliver to a major national newspaper?

If the public broadcaster cannot deliver the signal to all parts of the country, who will?

Tait did not walk back her Poilievre comments, but her announcement on the digital trajectory of the CBC has been clarified.

It won’t happen for a long time.

But the mere mention of ending over-the-air broadcasting has sent the group formerly known as Friends of the CBC into a political frenzy.

Friends used to be known as ‘Friends of the CBC’, but changed their name to simply Friends, and say their mandate is to build a robust Canadian broadcast system.

The notion that rural Canadians or those who still depend on antenna delivery would lose their service does not sit well with public broadcasting supporters.

In an interview, the CBC president has managed to provide oxygen to the Conservative defund initiative and annoy supporters.

Tait defended her anti-Poilievre comments by saying she was not a journalist.

There she is correct. It is her job to defend and promote the values of public broadcasting, but she should be astute enough to avoid opening the door to a political fight with an avowed enemy of the CBC.

Tait needs to promote a positive campaign on why the public broadcaster is worth funding.

She and the CBC board should be engaged in a proactive counterattack, underscoring why government investment has enhanced Canadians’ capacity to know and understand their own stories.

From Schitt’s Creek to Kim’s Convenience, from Rick Mercer to Catherine O’Hara, there are Canadian actors, comedians and storytellers who have garnered an international reputation.

They should be the spokespeople for advocating positively for continued investment in public broadcasting.

Poilievre can bash Tait, and actually gain support for his cause.

He would be hard-pressed to attack Mercer or O’Hara.

The other card that the CBC has not yet played is what would Canada’s bilingual landscape would look like without Radio-Canada.

When Poilievre sends out his fundraising missives, they are targeted to an English-speaking audience. The notion of trashing Radio-Canada would kill his chances of ever forming the government.

Millions of Canadians believe in the importance and power of public broadcasting.

They should be the target of a proactive communication initiative, including the minister of Canadian Heritage and parliamentarians who believe in public broadcasting.

The “Defund the CBC” salvo needs a rebuttal.

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

According to TVO’s host of ‘The Agenda’ Steve Paikin, Doug Ford won’t agree to a one-on-one with him. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre riles his base bashing the CBC.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 16, 2022.

At the Tory leadership debate in Edmonton last Wednesday, the mere mention of the word CBC elicited boos.

Loud shouts and hisses were quickly muffled by the microphones as the format for the event prohibited anyone from clapping, cheering, or booing.

The format also prevented anyone from mentioning another politician’s name. When that happened, the speaker was cut off and their comments were replaced by a bizarre trombone interlude designed to keep the debate civil.

Civil it was. Certainly more civil than the previous, unofficial debate, where there was so much shouting that the general consensus—even in Conservative circles—was that the event was an embarrassment.

Last week was not embarrassing. But it is a little bizarre for a party that is running its main campaign on a freedom theme to censor every aspect of a debate of ideas among future potential leaders.

A bigger boo might have been revelatory to the rest of us, as one of the promises of the frontrunner, Pierre Poilievre, is to defund the CBC.

Apparently, the hate for public broadcasters is not limited to the federal government.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is in the middle of a provincial campaign, popping up everywhere on private radio and television networks.

But for some strange reason, he refuses to sit down for an interview with the only television network that is funded by his government.

Every previous premier who governed Ontario in the past 50 years has been interviewed by TVO hosts.

But for some inexplicable reason, Ford refuses to do so.

TVO host of The Agenda, Steve Paikin, went so far as to pen a column on the subject last week. Paikin ventured the opinion that he might be accused of sour grapes for complaining about Ford’s refusal to sit down with him for a one-on-one interview.

It certainly is not a fear of one-on-one interviews that kept Ford away.

According to TVO research, the premier has submitted to a minimum of 16 one-on-one interviews with private radio and television broadcasters since taking office.

He was even interviewed by Paikin when the former city councillor was running for Toronto mayor to replace his cancer-stricken brother.

According to Paikin, the two share a cordial relationship, with the premier even bellowing out a hello from the distance when their paths crossed at a Remembrance Day event at Queen’s Park.

It doesn’t appear that personal animus is motivating the premier, Paikin notes.

But, at least the premier has not moved to abolish TVO.

Back in 2019, the public broadcaster’s budget was cut by 4.5 per cent, just shy of $2-million dollars.

The arrival of COVID, and the increased dependence on online learning has underscored the importance of the educational role of TVO and its francophone sister station, TFO.

On the federal side, frontrunner Pierre Poilievre is distinguishing himself as the only one of the main candidates promising to defund the CBC.

Even his allies in the right-wing media are saying that may not happen. Postmedia columnists Lorne Gunter and Lorrie Goldstein went on their own channel last week, doubting that Poilievre would fulfil his promise.

Goldstein specifically referenced Poilievre’s positive comments about some elements of the public broadcaster when he was touring Quebec.

Poilievre is an astute politician and he knows full well that Radio Canada is close to the heart for most Quebecers.

It is one thing to muse about cuts for the English network. That message certainly does not resonate well in French.

Poilievre’s plan to gut the CBC will definitely be popular with the Conservative voters he is currently wooing.

But at the end of the day, he has to reach out to a larger constituency: the people of Canada.

In many parts of the country, the CBC still resonates.

The public broadcaster was the first to move aggressively into the digital field. Its news coverage in that area is superb.

It has also modernized its radio vibe, specifically targeting minorities and young people with diverse programming.

Don’t forget seniors. Many of them have been weaned on the public broadcaster and would definitely not want to see it gutted by any party.

Ford’s refusal to appear on TVO mirrors Poilievre’s disdain for the CBC. Maybe both of them know something that the rest of us have missed. It is more likely that they are simply playing to their base.

During a race, public broadcast bashing motivates the right wing, but it may prove costly in the future.

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

In the old days, the House Speaker would host a Christmas party for all MPs, with plenty of carols sung to ring in the holiday season, and MPs really were friends, even those on opposite sides of the House. We all knew we had a job to do involving politics, but after hours, a lot of us socialized together. The result was a more humanized working environment.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Tiimes on December 23, 2021.

OTTAWA—Christmas used to be a time when parliamentarians on all sides of the House would get together in the holiday spirit.

Sometimes, the spirit had a twist. One Christmas, during a Progressive Conservatives majority, Santa Claus joined the children’s Christmas party dressed in blue from head to toe. Unfortunately, the colour change startled some kids and they ran out of the place crying. The next year, he returned in his regular red suit.

The other thing that political parties would do at Christmas is get together for a sing-along. After the swords were put down during the parliamentary debate in the Commons, the House Speaker would host a party for all, with plenty of carols sung to ring in the holiday season.

Even the public broadcaster joined in, with the CBC usually running a radio show featuring Members of Parliament from all sides of the house with a new take on an old Christmas carol. In those days, parliamentarians really were friends, even those on opposite sides of the House.

We all knew we had a job to do involving politics, but after hours, many would all adjourn to the National Press Club across the street from the Hill to join in holiday chatter and drinks, invited by members of the media to raise a glass together.

The result was a more humanized working environment. Most members of the press gallery knew politicians as human beings, and in some cases, friends. That didn’t mean they backed away from a story. But it did mean that they approached their work with the notion that the subject of their interview was a person with family, friends, and a likability quotient. It meant that all stories were viewed through a human lens.

Nowadays, there is no time to humanize the Hill. Reporters have little time to pursue more than the basics of their stories.

And politicians certainly don’t have the opportunity to sit around a piano and share a holiday song.

In the interest of past history, I reworked an old classic with a political twist.

“On the first day of Christmas elections sent to me, a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the second day of Christmas elections sent to me, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in Parliament—yippee.

“On the third day of Christmas elections sent to me, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the fourth day of Christmas elections sent to me, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the fifth day of Christmas elections sent to me, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the sixth day of Christmas, elections sent to me, six members braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the seventh day of Christmas elections sent to me, seven scribes a scribbling, six members braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the eighth day of Christmas elections sent to me, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the ninth day of Christmas, elections sent to me, nine members mumbling, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the tenth day of Christmas elections sent to me, ten judges judging, nine members mumbling, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the eleventh day of Christmas, elections sent to me, eleven gripers griping, ten judges judging, nine members mumbling, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the twelfth day of Christmas, elections sent to me, twelve maces marching, eleven gripers griping, ten judges judging, nine members mumbling, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.”

Happy Holidays to all and hopefully the new year will bring peace and joy to Parliament!

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

Tory growth appears to be slowing. Canadians are asking about Andrew Scheer’s right-wing alliance with Doug Ford and Jason Kenney. That leaves an opening for the Liberals.

By Sheila Copps
Published first in The Hill Times on May 20, 2019.

OTTAWA—What is up with the CBC?

I woke up to a shocking CBC headline last week. It was an analysis of recent provincial election defeats stating, “Not since the Great Depression have more governments been defeated on one PM’s watch.”

The hyperbolic headline went on to state that if the Liberals lost the Thursday Newfoundland election, “that would make Trudeau’s term in office the bloodiest for an incumbent government in Canadian history.”

The analysis, by the CBC’s Éric Grenier, purported to be an opinion piece on the popularity swings of the current federal government.

It rehashed how many provincial governments had fallen during the past four years.

According to Grenier, Trudeau is to be tagged for the defeat of New Democratic premiers in Alberta and Manitoba, both of whom lost to the Tories.

Grenier fingers the prime minister for Liberal losses in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.

The same morning the CBC “election feed” did not stop there. A second Grenier story claimed recent Green breakthroughs could redraw the electoral map.

That conclusion came from another analysis piece claiming the Greens could be heading for the mainland after storming Vancouver Island in the Nanaimo-Ladysmith Green byelection win.

The media spent weeks predicting Greens were poised to form government in Prince Edward Island, vaulting that story to worldwide attention. In the end, the Green Party formed official opposition, polling one point ahead of the Liberals in the popular vote.

Greens garnered 30.6 per cent of the vote compared to 36.5 for the Tories and 29.5 per cent for the Grits. It is pretty hard to explain a six-point vote gap on the same day multiple pollsters predicted a Green government.

When that did not materialize, the incorrect prediction was merely attributed to small samplings in pre-election surveys by local polling firms.

Grenier’s piece on Trudeau failed to mention a factor that loomed large in British Columbia, P.E.I., Ontario and Quebec Liberal takedowns. All four involved voters suffering one-party, multi-election fatigue.

In British Columbia’s case, the Liberals even won the popular vote. That was quite a shock, considering Grits had been in power in that province for 16 years. But the Greens made common cause with the New Democrats to replace the Liberals in a coalition arrangement.

In Ontario’s case, the Liberals had also been in power for 16 straight years. Premier Kathleen Wynne pulled off a surprise victory in the previous election but her personal unpopularity matched that of her predecessor when Doug Ford’s Conservatives toppled her government.

The same phenomenon was repeated in Quebec. With the exception of an 18-month interregnum period for the Parti Québécois, the Liberals had been in power in Quebec for 16 years.

And as for P.E.I., Liberals had dominated the province since premier Rob Ghiz was first elected in 2007. So 12 years of uninterrupted Liberal island rule ended with an unexpected Tory victory.

What is perhaps more surprising, is that after more than a decade in office, the Liberals were only one point behind “government-in-waiting” Greens.

So four provincial governments that had been in power for an average of 15 years were defeated in a “change” vote.

It is hardly a reason to claim Trudeau has authored a provincial “bloodbath.”

Reporting on polls is one thing.

But the growing propensity of pollsters to try and shape the narrative should be disturbing for every political watcher.

There is no doubt; a surge in Green support affects other parties. But one party at greater risk is the NDP.

In the last P.E.I. election, the NDP leader came fourth in his own riding and the party garnered only three per cent of the vote, a 70 per cent drop since 2015, when the combined Green-NDP vote was almost 22 per cent.

Considering the Liberal vote dropped 25 per cent, it is a pretty sure bet that the balance of the winning Green surge came from the Grits.

Even in victory, Prince Edward Island Conservatives lost one per cent in popular vote from 2015.

Disgruntled Liberals are not switching to the Tories.

Instead, they are choosing parties that offer a counterbalance to the backward Conservative agenda on issues like climate change, immigration and women’s reproductive choice.

Tory growth appears to be slowing. Canadians are asking about Andrew Scheer’s right-wing alliance with Doug Ford and Jason Kenney. That leaves an opening for the Liberals.

Trudeau needs to convince progressive voters that Liberals are the only antidote to a Scheer shift.

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, July 10, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Thank goodness the sesquicentennial only happens every 150 years.

Nobody can pronounce it anyway, and the birthday hangover still has Ottawa buzzing.

A half million people descended on the capital to join in the Canada Day party and it was a blast. Contrary to media reports about the downsized crowd, there were about 100,000 waiting in line at the two entrance points one had to pass to get on to Parliament Hill.

I know, because I was one of them.

Given my advanced age, (64), I briefly contemplated watching the noon-day celebration from the comfort of my own living room. But I could not resist the lure of the real thing.

During my eight years as Heritage minister, July 1 was a heavy workday. With speechmaking, artistic programming and multiple important visitors, the team was always on high alert to make sure nothing went wrong. Inevitably, something always did.

One year, we festooned the VIP seats with paper flags sponsored by a national organization representing Canadian chicken farmers. We did not realize that the ink of Canada’s ruby red flag stamped on cheap paper had not set. So when every diplomat rose sing O Canada, I watched in horror as a ragged red flag outline was permanently imprinted on all bespoke diplomatic garb.

One year, Queen Elizabeth looked curiously bemused as two well-hung male circus performers wrapped in nothing but swaddling cloth, performed gyro technics that required the head of one to perch comfortably on the butt of the other. On the same occasion, Her Majesty was introduced to Inuit throat singing, which requires two singers to literally pass the music from one throat to another, again requiring unusual human contact.

Most Canada Days pass without too many hitches, as did our 150th.

Of course, the naysayers could probably point out that when the prime minister did a shout out to all parts of the country, he forgot, of all places, Alberta.

It certainly was not Freudian, as Justin Trudeau has made a special effort during his time in office to reach out to a province that has not always been so friendly to the Liberals.

Luckily, the program was long enough that Trudeau was able to recant his error and proclaim his undying love for the forgotten province in time for the closing song.

There were a couple of other snafus. In one instance, the king of Canadian broadcasting got a more fulsome intro than the real future King, The Prince of Wales, ever the diplomat, took it in stride, delivering a beautifully bilingual speech which sought to underscore the wonderful benefits of being Canadian.

During his visit, the future King was elevated to the highest recognition that Canada could offer, Extraordinary Companion of the Order of Canada.

But that honour was awarded in a private ceremony, which did not run the risk of further bifurcating the Canadian identity.

Amongst republicans, and many elites, our relationship with the monarchy is tepid at best and frosty at worst. Many believe that when the current reigning monarch passes on, the institution should follow suit.

Because of the schizophrenic connection to the Royal Family, Canada Day organizers are always balancing the challenge of honouring any Royal attendees while not appearing to be too obsequious. A tall order at best.

The retirement of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation icon Peter Mansbridge, timed to coincide with his final day of coverage at the 150th birthday, was the perfect frame to segue into an introduction of the Prince of Wales. Mansbridge received high praise in the program and his spouse, Cynthia Dale, even got to sing O Canada on the air.

No such warm welcome was offered to visitors from the Royal Family, with barely a nod given to the Duchess of Cornwall, who has always been overshadowed in life by the memory of the deceased Lady Diana.

All in all, the celebration of 150 years of togetherness was truly Canadian.

The prime minister embraced aboriginal protesters and even managed to bring them onside, mentioning their grievances at multiple turns in the ceremony.

Even the appearance of Irish singer Bono caused the crowd to thrill with his message that we are a welcoming nation, unlike the bridge burners that seem to be taking over south of the border.

All in all, it was a great celebration. We reflected on successes and the many mistakes Canada made in the first 150 years.

Learning from both, we are all the better for it.

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 Monday, April 10, 2017.

OTTAWA—If one picture is worth a thousand words, a national portrait gallery trumps a television script any day.

As Canada moves through the celebration of our 150th birthday, the government is swamped with ideas for the celebration of our shared story.

History is seen through different eyes by different regions of the country. Throw in language polemics, and you have a potentially incendiary mix.

Such was the reaction to the first couple of episodes of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s television series entitled: The Story of Us.

The first episode provoked a quick response from Atlantic Canada, disputing the show’s claim that the first French settlement on the continent was in Quebec City in 1608.

The Acadians, who established a permanent presence at Port-Royal three years earlier, were particularly aggrieved, and Nova Scotia’s premier is demanding a rewrite of the miniseries.

In response to critics, CBC said that 75 historians were consulted on the project.

Producers also endured the challenge of trying to engage a modern audience, which necessitates some poetic licence.

The narrative of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was recounted by none other than world-famous extreme fighter Georges St-Pierre.

After all, history has to be interesting enough for the millennial viewer to watch.

That might mean some liberties are taken with literal interpretation of the facts surrounding the formation of Canada.

Which leads me to the question of pictures.
 
Another “Big Picture” proposal which has been under consideration for the 150th birthday party is the National Portrait Gallery.

Much work on the concept started two decades ago, when then Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein spearheaded a unique transformation for the soon-to-be-vacated American Embassy directly across from Parliament Hill.

U.S. president Bill Clinton opened the new American Embassy on Sussex Drive back in 1999. That relocation offered the possibility of a new vocation for the beautiful, Beaux-Arts edifice ideally located steps from the Parliamentary Precinct.

The portrait gallery project took the capital by storm and had unanimous support from all sides.

Capital construction began under Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government, which viewed the gallery as an opportunity to tell Canada’s story through pictures, drawing from the thousands of photographs and portraitures.

Thousands of portraits and pictures currently warehoused in Library and Archives Canada speak for themselves. They do not require modern interpretation by extreme fighters or anyone else. Curatorial work on exhibits have already been started, and the thousands of items hidden away could finally get their day in the sun.

More than 11 million dollars was spent, preparing for the gallery transformation when the government of prime minister Stephen Harper cancelled the project back in 2008. Many believed that the gallery would be resuscitated through the influence of senior cabinet minister and Ottawa heavyweight John Baird.

But that was not to be. For a decade, the Wellington Street site languished in obscurity, leaving visitors wondering what was happening with the forlorn frontage that appeared to be abandoned.

A portrait speaks volumes. How many millions of words have been written to explore the enigmatic story of Mona Lisa? And yet the simplest way of making up your own mind is by simply viewing the painting at the Louvre in Paris.

While the controversy surrounding modern interpretation of history through television series will, no doubt, continue, the opportunity is ripe to rejuvenate the gallery.

Grafstein has even passed the torch to Senator Serge Joyal, who is championing the initiative.

While other Senators are parsing grammar in an effort to derail the modernization of Canada’s national anthem, Joyal has been quietly working his extensive network in support of a relaunch for the National Portrait Gallery.

Somewhat of an amateur historian himself, Joyal began effectively lobbying the government some time ago, with the intention to celebrating the 150th through a permanent legacy showcasing the country’s stories.

The gallery project includes a significant online presence and a proposal for traveling exhibitions, which would mean that Canadians across the country could have a chance to view firsthand, the portraits of explorers like Samuel de Champlain and early First Nation leaders.

A television series, no matter how much it works to reflect reality, is a vehicle intended for entertainment. Liberties are taken with content, style and substance.

No such editorial licence is granted to pictures and portraits. They are what they are, and we each interpret them, based on our own vision of the country and the world.

A National Portrait Gallery would be a fitting, and less controversial way of telling The Story of Us.

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