Karina Gould is a force to be reckoned with. If Liberal voters actually want a future that will reflect the best elements of the Trudeau era, they should vote Gould, writes Sheila Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 3, 2025.

OTTAWA—Karina Gould, who I endorse for leader, blew everyone out of the water in the English Liberal leadership debate last week.

In her own words, repeatedly, she is not Conservative light.

Why is that important? Because contrary to the media crowning of Mark Carney, this is actually a race for the hearts and minds of Liberals.

Many Liberals are extremely happy with the legacy left by the team of outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The list of accomplishments is long. Trudeau will be viewed as the most progressive prime minister in my lifetime.

Universal childcare, school food programs, dental care, reconciliation, educational parity for Indigenous children, real action on climate change, hiking seniors’ benefits, managing a pandemic with amongst the lowest death rates in the G7, heavy investments in mass transit as part of the fight against global warming, taking the lead in housing for the first time in 30 years, signing a health agreement that will force provinces finally to share critical data, the first ever gender-equal cabinet—I could go on, but you get my point.

For Liberals who believe that public life is a chance to do something for the betterment of all, Trudeau’s record has proven it in spades.

Of course, he was unpopular in the end, and his decision to leave was the right one. Anyone who has studied politics knows that three terms is the maximum in the modern age as politics is the only profession where the more experience you get the more people want to get rid of you. The only governments that extend beyond that are dictatorships where public money is spent to massage the image of the leader, and opponents are either jailed or murdered.

In that context, don’t be surprised to see a move to end the two-term limit imposed on American presidents. At the latest meeting of Conservative zealots in the United States, President Donald Trump’s pardoned friend Steve Bannon gave a speech promoting presidency for life status for Trump which ended in a Nazi salute.

Given the U.S. vote at the United Nations, refusing to condemn Russia for the illegal invasion of Ukraine, anything can happen.

Much of the two Liberal debates in French and English focussed on how to fight Trump, and the stormy seas ahead under his watch.

Chrystia Freeland positioned herself as the Trump-beater, and given that the American president has personally singled her out when attacking Canada, she has the credibility to back up that claim.

But this election is not just about Trump.

Carney has made it clear that he wants to move the party to the right, and he took some swings at the current government for too much spending.

That approach will definitely appeal to Conservatives who can’t support Pierre Poilievre’s “broken” vision of Canada.

But for Liberals to win the next election, they will need to draw the majority of their support from liberally minded New Democrats.

Recent polls focusing on the post-Trudeau Liberal surge have confirmed that the majority of the shift is coming from left-wing voters who are returning to the Liberals.

If they think the party has a Conservative-light leader, the door will open for Jagmeet Singh to reassert himself in the same way that Jack Layton did during the Orange Crush that almost brought the New Democrats to government.

So the election of a Liberal leader who is focused on moving to the right may not be the best bet for the party.

By all accounts, Gould was the clear debate winner in English, and had the greatest of ease in French.

It was obvious to all that Carney needs work in that department, and Freeland is also not as convincing in French.

By articulating a clear difference with Carney, Gould has managed to vault herself into a fray which previously included only the two so-called front-runners.

Gould is a force to be reckoned with. If Liberal voters actually want a future that will reflect the best elements of the Trudeau era, they should vote Gould.

That includes support for the carbon rebate, which was destroyed by Poilievre’s sloganeering.

Trudeau refused to spend any government money explaining what the program involved because early in his first term, he opted out of advertising. That was a dumb mistake which cost the Liberals dearly.

But the program itself is sound, and the fact that Gould defended it as vociferously as she did—while all others were running away—is another point in her favour.

She is a truly liberal Liberal.

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

Karina Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Mark Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 15, 2025.

OTTAWA–Why Karina Gould? That’s the question friends posed when I gave a couple of television interviews promoting her as the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

At press time, Gould had not yet announced, but her team was putting together a campaign to create a fighting chance in this shortened race to name the next prime minister of Canada. Gould has already recruited more than a dozen caucus members.

Not overwhelming, but considering her campaign only started a week ago, it is a good start.

Mark Carney has been running for the job for years. Press reports say he has about 30 MPs on his team. That number should be twice as large if Carney’s support is as wide and deep as the media keep claiming.

On just about every network, including his American pre-campaign interview on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, Carney is constantly presented as the almost certain winner of the upcoming race.

Resisting that pull may be difficult, but many Liberals would like to support a leader who’s in it for the long haul.

Does anyone really think that Carney—who declined offers of more than one nomination in the last election—will stick around if the party ends up in third-party status? The answer is no.  

Liberals need a leader who will appeal to young people. Gould is the most appealing to that cohort because she reflects their values and energy. Gould has managed multiple cabinet portfolios with energy and savvy.  

A superb communicator in multiple languages, Gould negotiated Canada’s national childcare via multiple provincial agreements. While child care is seen as crucial for Canadians, Gould is being critiqued internally by those who say motherhood is a reason not to vote for her.

Before we dismiss misogyny’s role in leadership, we cannot forget what happened to the Kamala Harris vote in the United States. She lost the presidency because American men voted against her. Had the election been determined only by women, Harris would have won. 

No one asked Justin Trudeau if he could manage both politics and a young family when he ran for office at age 36 back in 2008. Instead, his youth and a campaign that included cannabis legalization managed to ignite the attention of a new generation.

Gould has been generating much interest with young people. She also has support from senior Liberals who have supported the party for decades.

Unlike some colleagues, Gould reaches out regularly to party elders, seeking their advice and wisdom while other leadership candidates have either ignored them or publicly denigrated them. 

Party faithful remember the very off-putting negative response of Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland when former prime minister Jean Chrétien offered to go to China to negotiate a solution to the extradition of Meng Wanzhou to the United States.  

Freeland scorned his offer, and ended up with a protracted fight with China that cost our country economically and politically. But Freeland’s high profile during the Trudeau years have set her up as an obvious runner-up to Carney’s stardom.

Neither Carney nor Freeland have Gould’s likability factor. Parties make decisions based on whom they think can win. Canadians make decisions on the emotional feel they get from a politician. Is that person someone you would like to have a beer with? Kim Campbell was elected Progressive Conservative leader and prime minister because she was seen to be the best choice to rebuild her party in the post-Brian Mulroney era.  

It turned out to be a terrible decision that left the Tories reduced to two seats in a Liberal majority government in 1993. Today, Liberals have little time to judge the emotional IQ of each of the candidates.  

But when it comes to support from young people, reaching out to party faithful, and a commitment to the long-term rebuilding process, Gould is our best bet. 

The first question at any leadership debate should be, “If the Liberals lose the next election, are you willing to remain as leader?” The second question should be, “How can we recapture the dynamic wave of support by young people that carried Trudeau to power in 2015?”

The answer to both questions is Gould studied Latin American and Caribbean studies at McGill and philosophy at Oxford and who worked for the Organization of American States on migration.

She learned Spanish while volunteering at a Latin American orphanage. Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

Correction: This column originally incorrectly reported that Karina Gould is a lawyer. She is not, and the column was updated at 8:09 a.m. on Jan. 16.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 23, 2024.

OTTAWA—Politics 101: Do not fire your most senior minister by Zoom.

And if a firing is in the works, be prepared for all eventualities, including a resignation.

At the Liberal Christmas gathering last week, senior ministers and MPs were privately shaking their heads at the incompetent way the deputy prime minister and finance minister was terminated.

They also wondered exactly what the prime minister’s office was doing on the weekend to prevent expected fallout from the Chrystia Freeland departure.

Chief of Staff Katie Telford was busy posting on social media, but not about politics. “We got away and spent a holiday season weekend in New York City! It was the best. We saw the lights, some stars (on stage!) and did a lot of walking and talking. Thanks to those who tried to minimize the phone calls….”

Lovely for her family. Not so lovely for the country.

The chief of staff should have realized that after her boss fired Chrystia Freeland, there would be pushback from the minister. Freeland is not the first finance minister to be fired, nor will she be the last.

With zero prime ministerial strategy, Freeland was able to pen her version of the exit, seizing the narrative, and dealing a deadly blow to Trudeau’s future. The Prime Minister’s Office is solely responsible for the crisis.

When then-prime minister Jean Chrétien fired Paul Martin from the finance portfolio, the move actually averted a major financial crisis.

At the time, Martin and his caucus supporters were working internally to force Chrétien’s resignation.

The two had run against each other for the top job, and Martin kept his leadership ambition active by taking over the party apparatus, including the installation of a party president who spent most of his time attacking the leader.

But Chrétien was not about to be moved, and to be fair, his personal popularity and polling numbers were robust enough that most of the caucus did not join in moves to destabilize his leadership.

Martin was getting impatient, and so his team hatched a plan to announce his resignation as finance minister at a Montreal meeting of the International Monetary Conference, including senior global banking officials and finance ministers in June 2002.

His intention was to drop the financial bomb on the world, and cause a run on the Canadian dollar to force the prime minister out.

Chretien got wind of the plot on a Saturday when a truck was seen at the department of finance exporting shredded documents from the minister’s office.

Chretien’s riposte was to get ahead of the Martin narrative, and to fire him.

Martin was informed that Sunday that he was fired, and he expressed absolute surprise at the decision.

But, in the end, the Monday meeting was chaired by newly-minted finance minister John Manley, whose fiscal rectitude and legal tax experience calmed international waters.

Martin’s attempted coup was foiled by the Prime Minister’s Office. As soon as they got wind of the shredders at Finance, instead of waiting, they elevated it to a firing offence.

Chinese military general Sun Tzu is said to be the originator of the proverb “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

It is the job of the prime minister’s inner circle to keep enemies close. In the case of Freeland, she had been one of Trudeau’s most loyal defenders, so her visceral and very public reaction to the firing could have been predicted.

Caucus members know that Freeland was previously viewed by the PMO as a potential future replacement for Trudeau.

Other ministers are now wondering if the prime minister could treat the most senior minister this way, what could happen to them?

As soon as the proposed cabinet shuffle occurs, there will be more public declarations from those who have been passed up for the top jobs.

What should have been a year-end celebration of some big wins on the social policy and housing fronts is instead a crisis of unprecedented proportions inflicted by the incompetency of the prime minister’s inner circle.

At one time, several caucus members called for the firing of the chief of staff. That call went unheeded.

It took more than two years for caucus to convince the PMO that the government needed to support its climate change strategy with paid advertising.

PMO’s refusal to brief caucus or seek ministerial advice before promoting issues like the ill-conceived GST holiday created this crisis.

Trudeau will pay the price for an inner circle that has lost its way.

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

The boost in polling that Democrats have enjoyed since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the race would not be shared by the Liberals if Justin Trudeau were to do the same.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2024.

OTTAWA–The post-Biden bump for the Democrats in the United States has not passed unnoticed in Canada.

One of the first questions asked of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the summer cabinet meeting in Halifax last week was just that: Could the Liberals get a similar bump if the prime minister were to step down, and the voters were presented with a different face at the head of the party?

Trudeau sidestepped the question, and continued to insist that his job was to “be there to invest in Canadians.” But his close friend and cabinet colleague Marc Miller did say that robust conversations were taking place within the confines of the caucus, without public disclosure.

Other ministers, including potential leadership candidates Mélanie Joly and Chrystia Freeland, were quick to support the prime minister’s leadership. But the party is roiling, as ministers and Members of Parliament seek their own Canadian bump.

It has been a year since the Conservative lead entered into double-digit territory, and nothing the government does seems to narrow that gap. But the notion of a parallel result if Trudeau were to resign is misdirected.

First of all, the hike for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has resulted in an increase of three to four per cent for her party.

Three to four per cent in Canada would not be enough to return to government, as the current polling differential between the Liberals and the Conservatives is much higher.

The United States is essentially a two-party system, so a small shift can make or break a victory. Even an independent with the name recognition of Robert Kennedy Jr. managed only six per cent support at the apex of his campaign. It is doubtful that six per cent would even follow him into an election. Now that he has thrown his support behind Republican candidate Donald Trump, his supporters will probably split between the two main parties.

Also, a two-party system lends itself to a smooth transition. In the U.S. case, the Democrats were able to replace U.S. President Joe Biden with Harris without a full leadership convention because opponents were edged out by the current vice-president.

The fact that she would have replaced Biden in the event of a presidential illness or incapacity made it simpler to rally around her at a national convention less than three months from the election.

In Trudeau’s case, his succession would trigger a full leadership process. Contrary to some media reports, Mark Carney is not a putative leader in waiting. There are several current cabinet ministers who have been quietly setting the stage for their own leadership ambitions.

Pundits would suggest that it is better to have someone from outside the current crop of politicians, and Carney certainly has a polished Canadian and international pedigree. But the Liberal Party’s previous experience with global pedigree has not been positive.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant scholar with a renowned global reputation who was supposed to be the party’s saviour. Instead, he was quickly rejected as someone who came back to Canada only to run for office. Carney has declined multiple offers to run for office, and that doesn’t sit well with those working in the trenches.

While the public may be tired of Trudeau, the party’s volunteer base is actively working to explain why his leadership and the current government are worth supporting.

The checklist is long for Liberals. National childcare, dental care, pharmacare and school lunch programs send a message that the party is working for all the people.

But the government has been telling that story for several months, and so far, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Party members are ready for a leadership change, but also realize that the decision is in the hands of the prime minister.

Meanwhile, from François-Philippe Champagne to Dominic LeBlanc, many are weighing their future chances. Former parliamentarian Frank Baylis, who sold his heart-device business for $1.75-billion in 2021, is also actively assessing a potential campaign for the top job.

Baylis, son of a Barbadian immigrant, served in Trudeau’s government for one term, from 2015 to 2019, as the member of parliament for multicultural Pierrefonds-Dollard in Montreal, Que. If successful, he would be the party’s first non-white leader.

All of the foregoing means Liberals will not follow the American example and force out their leader. Multiple candidates are already planning their own robust campaigns, so there would be no shoo-in for Carney.

No huge bump, and multiple candidates rule out a smooth post-Trudeau transition in Canada.

Vive le Canada.

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

Justin Trudeau has to do something dramatic to let Canadians know that he really is listening and the capital gains reversal could be it. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 1, 2024.

OTTAWA—Justin Trudeau should pull a Doug Ford.

Apologize and say his government got it wrong when it announced a hike in the capital gains inclusion rate from 50 per cent to 66.7 per cent for annual gains over $250,000.

Premier Ford reversed his controversial position on selling off greenbelt land by simply apologizing and changing his mind. The political fallout from that reversal was nil.

A flip on the capital gains hike could signal that Trudeau is willing to admit when he is wrong.

The budget announcement was one reason Liberals lost a key byelection in Toronto-St. Paul’s last week. According to a demographic analysis of the riding by Environics, the average household income there is $190,945.30.

That is more than double the average before taxes income of $92,764 for the rest of the country.

An apology would reinforce comments made by the prime minister the day after the shocking loss of a riding that had been held by the Liberals for three decades.

Commenting on the outcome, the prime minister said “I hear people’s concerns. And frustrations.”

Simply repeating that he is working to ameliorate the situation will not be enough.

Inside the caucus, members are quietly grumbling about their leader’s unpopularity, predicting a general election could be disastrous if the party’s numbers are not shored up.

Trudeau has to do something dramatic to let Canadians know that he really is listening and the capital gains reversal could be it.

The issue would not matter in most ridings as ordinary Canadians cannot hope to have an annual capital gain in excess of $250,000.

But for those who do, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back in last week’s vote.

That, and the prime minister’s personal unpopularity, were certainly factors in the surprising defeat. They both coupled with the government’s position on the Israel-Hamas war to create a perfect storm.

The war in the Middle East even had the mayor of a Montreal suburb calling on Toronto voters to repudiate Trudeau. Mayor Jeremy Levi of Hampstead used X (Twitter) to literally “implore” voters in Toronto to vote for Don Stewart and Pierre Poilievre.

The mayor accused Trudeau of lying to all Jewish Canadians about his promise to do something to combat antisemitism. “This is no longer about Jews, but a leader who consistently failed.”

Deputy Conservative leader Melissa Lantsman penned a similar message to constituents in the riding, asking them to send Trudeau “a message about his betrayal of our Jewish community” because of his silence on rise of “Jew hatred” since the beginning of the war.

According to the most recent census, approximately 15 per cent of the riding population is Jewish, but Lantsman refused to say whether the letter was sent selectively to Jewish households.

Couple that with the reality that the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church, well-known in political circles as chief of staff to Chrystia Freeland, was largely unknown in the constituency.

According to some Liberal sources, there were other, popular local candidates who were willing to step up when Carolyn Bennett vacated the seat, she had held for a quarter century.

But they were bypassed for Church, largely at the insistence of deputy prime minister Freeland.

Freeland holds an adjacent riding to that of Toronto-St. Paul’s. In University-Rosedale, the demographics are very similar, and with the shocking loss last week, Freeland must also be wondering about the vulnerability of her own seat.

She campaigned hard for Church, suggesting at a press conference on the day of the vote that the election was about “two visions of Canada, two sets of values.” Freeland said the alternative vision to the Liberal one was “cold, cruel and small” that would lead to cuts.

Freeland’s pitch did not appear to resonate with the local voters.

After the polls closed, Conservative organizer Jenni Byrne made an unusual appearance on CBC to say her candidate had lost the election, when a few hours later it turned out the opposite was true.

At 4:30 a.m., the final ballot put Conservative candidate Don Stewart ahead by almost 600 votes. Church had led the polls through most of the evening, but the numbers in the advance voting prompted the flip.

Liberal insiders knew it would be a tough fight, but they thought the tide was turning in their favour in the last few days.

Caucus successors to Trudeau are already quietly organizing, although most pledge public support for the beleaguered leader.

Something dramatic needs to happen to turn this ship around.

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

Liberals would be better off to focus on the good parts of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand and even fewer will be paying.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 24, 2024.

OTTAWA—The Liberals want to pick a fight on capital gains. And Pierre Poilievre is poised for battle.

He has characterized the tax changes announced in the budget as “economic vandalism,” and has taken the unusual step of appearing on mainstream media television to fight the changes.

For her part, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has been leading the charge for the Liberals.

The deputy prime minister repeated her message that richer Canadians would not want to see “the public sphere so degraded,” and that the “wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns hot.”

Not sure about the reference to compatriots? If Liberals want to occupy the political centre, they need to use ordinary language.

Freeland, and compatriot Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez have characterized the capital gains hike as tax fairness.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also publicly defended the changes are a matter of fairness.

He says it is simply not fair that a teacher pays tax on 100 per cent of their income, while a business owner pays taxes only 50 per cent of “passive’ income capital gains hikes.

The last budget proposed a hike to two-thirds of capital gains. In the 1990s, the capital gains tax—pegged at 75 per cent—was even higher.

If Poilievre wants to hike the temperature on taxes, he thinks there are some political points to be scored.

His party was the only one to vote against the proposed capital gains changes, but he has already promised to do a complete revision of the tax system without any specific details.

Depending on where you sit on the political spectrum, the question of fairness is a moving target.

The Fraser Institute—a bastion of conservatism—claimed in a 2023 report that the top 20 per cent of income-earning families in the country pay more than 60 per cent of the taxes.

On the other hand, the Broadbent Institute says those figures are skewed because top earners also account for two-thirds of the nation’s total net wealth, while the bottom 40 per cent of net earners comprise just three per cent.

So just where do Canadians land on what constitutes tax fairness?

This is where the question of who will win the tax fairness fight turns.

Most Canadians who don’t expect a personal tax bite on capital gains have already moved on to other issues in their lives.

Those who do expect to pay a capital gain are hopping mad, and they don’t plan to forget it any time soon.

The Canadian Medical Association says the tax changes will negatively impact on family doctor availability, already at a crisis level in many parts of the country.

They are lobbying, along with their provincial organizations, for an exemption for medical corporations or—at the very least—measures to allow individuals in the corporation to share the exemption threshold in an indexed tax amendment.

According to an Abacus survey commissioned by the CMA, 76 per cent of Canadians with an opinion on the issue felt changes should be reversed for doctors.

The CMA’s president has said that a special exemption should apply to doctors because “We are unique. …We need to be treated that way.”

But if doctors are exempted, then what about farmers, and small business operators in other sectors?

They, too, would like an exemption or a change in the proposed law. And that’s what Poilievre is banking on.

Most Canadians are fully in favour of taxing the rich, as long as it doesn’t include them.

But they have already forgotten about capital gains, and are moving on to other issues.

Affordability, inflation, food prices, and housing are high on their agenda. And they really don’t care about a capital gains change.

So Poilievre is planning to roll up a rather confusing tax change into his attack on the tax-and-spend Liberals.

In the end, the only people currently following the issue closely are those in the top bracket who could be affected by the changes.

As far as they are concerned, it is not fair for them to pay more taxes, and they are not going to be moved by concerns of their compatriots.

Liberals would be much better off to focus on the positive elements of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand, and even fewer will be paying.

The message on dental care, pharmacare, and daycare is positive news for millions of Canadians.

That’s the battle that Liberals should be fighting.

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

The Public Order Emergency Commission may have been the biggest political yawn in commission history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 28, 2022.

OTTAWA—The Public Order Emergency Commission has come to a close. 

It may have been the biggest political yawn in commission history.

Most inquiries dig into the background of political decisions that reveal much to the ordinary public.

From the Krever Inquiry to the Gomery Commission, these proceedings usually provide riveting coverage and fodder for political opponents.

In the case of the Krever Inquiry, formally known as the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, the government was dealing with the thousands of victims of tainted blood from AIDS to hepatitis victims.

Justice John Gomery, through the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, gave us a look into the inner workings of the Liberal Party, and the public was shocked by the exposure of malfeasance.

Then-prime minister Paul Martin, who launched the commission, eventually lost his own job because of the negative fallout.

In the current context, the government will emerge from this inquiry unscathed. If anything, the testimony simply reinforced the need for the federal government to take drastic action to end the illegal blockade.

From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to the testimony of multiple federal ministers, the message was simple: the federal government needed to act because the blockade would have continued if Canada was depending on provincial police forces to remove the occupying truckers.

From testimony evidence, provincial police in Ontario were reluctant to utilize all the tools at their disposal, as their political masters—including Premier Doug Ford—viewed this as an “Ottawa” problem, which would be resolved by the federal government.

On an economic level, the shutdown of the auto industry actually cost the economy and grabbed the attention of the Americans, who were also losing jobs because of the Freed Convoy’s supply chain disruption.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland testified that questions remained long after the blockade ended about how the risk to Canada’s supply chain could inflict serious economic damage in multiple sectors, including the auto and mining sectors.

The testimony gave the public a deep dive into the operations of the federal government, including the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, and the interchange amongst responsible ministers included public safety, transport, security and the economy.

Insofar as the political blowback, certain provincial premiers appeared far more negative in their private communications with federal ministers.

Former premier Jason Kenney was acid in his repartees with some federal ministers. It was obviously clear that political gamesmanship was the key factor in Kenney’s refusal to use provincial powers to end the blockade in Coutts, Alta.

The mayor of Coutts made it clear that he informed the premier’s office early on in the blockade, and said some would characterize the Coutts trucker blockaders as “domestic terrorists.”

He said he personally would not say that because he was actually afraid for his personal safety and that of his family.

Clearly, a small-town mayor in southern Alberta could see the convoy for what it was: a threat to communities that some of his constituents believe warranted the label of terrorist.

He also said that 70 per cent of the citizens in Coutts were supportive of the blockade. However, that support waned after the discovery of a cache of illegal weapons. The arrest of four men charged with conspiracy to commit murder ruined the original non-violent flavour of the protest.

At the end of the commission’s work, the decision that the federal government made will likely be justified.

Canadians have a deeper understanding of the limitations facing the federal government when it comes to jurisdictional conflicts vis-a-vis the authority of local and provincial police.

The fact that no federal opposition parties have taken up the convoy’s cause, including that of convoy supporter Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, is proof positive that the commission’s findings have largely reinforced the government’s decision to implement the Emergency Measures Act.

The commission also made clear how the local Ottawa police leadership failed to recognize the seriousness of the occupation at the beginning of the process.

Former police chief Peter Sloly, who resigned amidst the occupation, appeared unable to manage even his own team. It was clear the municipal government would not be in a position to end the blockade.

However, Ford did express more interest in getting involved when the auto industry was shut down because of the Ambassador Bridge blockade.

In the end, most reasonable Canadians have already concluded that the actions to end the blockade were in keeping with the gravity of the situation.

Now, the Freedom Convoy is calling for a reunion next February.

No bouncy castles this time.

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

One thing they should not forget. A government that has been in power for three terms, even one that has done a terrific job on many files, is starting to look a little frayed around the edges.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 12, 2022.

OTTAWA—The end of summer brings winds of political change.

The Conservative Party of Canada has a new leader. There is no doubt the new leader will have some healing to do. Pierre Poilievre’s main rival, former Quebec premier Jean Charest, made it clear during the race that there was no place for extremism in his vision of the party.

Poilievre played to the extremes, and it worked very well for him.

Party habits may not accurately reflect the public’s perspective. According to a poll published on the eve of his victory, the vast majority of Canadians would not think well of a leader who aligned himself with the Ottawa trucker occupation.

But that hasn’t stopped Poilievre from running on the “freedom” ticket, the same clarion call that came from the “Freedom Convoy” organizers.

In the short term, that will not bode well for Poilievre. But that doesn’t really matter because the Conservatives will likely have more than a year to reposition themselves closer to the political centre.

The Liberals have lived up to their commitment to the New Democrats on the issue of dental care, promising a package that will go out to low-income families in the near term.

While that may not be ambitious enough for Jagmeet Singh, chances are it will be sufficient to ensure the Liberal-NDP agreement will live to see another year.

The Tories will want that time to pivot. And no one should underestimate Poilievre’s power to pivot.

Over the course of his career, he has shown astute political acumen and his communication skills are powerful.

Some may make fun of his recent sortie on plain language government, as it certainly does not seem to be the top-of-mind issue for the political class in Ottawa.

But for most Canadians, who do not follow the machinations of government, the notion that Ottawa would become less complicated is powerful.

That is especially true when it comes to the tax system.

Most people do not want to be bothered with the details of governance, but they like the idea that it is becoming simpler and more plainspoken. It won’t necessarily get Poilievre any votes, but it works to position him as a guy who understands the concerns of ordinary Canadians and is prepared to listen to them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also told cabinet last week that he intends to seek another term.

Party insiders think the election of Poilievre will assist the Liberals in achieving an almost unheard of fourth term in government.

Trudeau’s announcement is not necessarily etched in stone. In fact, it would be unlikely for him to signal anything else this early in his minority mandate.

A departing prime minister is weakened the moment they announce they have no intention of staying on. Most caucus members look to shift their alliance to the new leader as soon as the outgoing one signals their intention.

But cabinet members must be fairly certain he is staying because as soon as that admission was made, rumours were circulating that deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland is looking to leave government to take up a potential position heading up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Freeland is a quick learner. She has only been in politics for seven years, but already she is feeling the itch to move on. If so, she must be convinced that Trudeau is there to stay because otherwise, she was well-positioned to move in and replace him.

The reports that she is looking to jump ship may not be accurate, but once that message gets out, her political capital is spent.

A departing minister doesn’t have too many friends around the table. That leaves an open door for the positioning of other Liberals for the leadership.

One thing they should not forget. A government that has been in power for three terms, even one that has done a terrific job on many files, is starting to look a little frayed around the edges.

Trudeau has carved out a tremendous personal legacy in the areas of Indigenous reconciliation and the battle to lift kids out of poverty.

The dental program will be another step in that direction, along with the childcare agreements being negotiated by Karina Gould with every province.

Unfortunately, people don’t vote for what happened yesterday. They vote on what will happen tomorrow.

So don’t count out Poilievre.

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

There has to be a reasonable way for elected representatives to receive police protection when necessary.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 5, 2022.

OTTAWA—Former energy minister Marc Lalonde used to be accompanied by armed guards when he visited Alberta back in 1980.

As the minister responsible for the introduction of the National Energy Program, he and then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau were hated by many Albertans.

“Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark” was a popular Alberta bumper sticker in the seventies.

Stephen Harper, in his pre-prime ministerial days, advocated for a firewall around Alberta, including a withdrawal from Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan, and replacement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by a provincial force.

Today, a major candidate for the United Conservative Party leadership is calling for Alberta sovereignty.

All this animus is not the result of social media or a twisted citizen. It is a political strategy practiced by some politicians to gain favour with constituents.

Hate sells. Just ask Donald Trump. Divisive campaign slogans drive votes. And if you can convince citizens that a politician from another party is an interloper, that is a guaranteed vote in your corner.

It may be a little rich for politicians who specialize in division to disavow the traitorous and misogynistic claims of an Albertan couple attacking Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Dog whistle politics sends a message out to ordinary citizens. The message is simple: it is okay to attack a politician from another province or party because they are not one of us. They are enemies out to plunder our fields and steal our oil.

Ironically, Freeland was born in Alberta.

As for the misogynistic slur directed at the minister, that should come as no surprise.

The good news about social media is that people can now be filmed saying horrible things, and risk being exposed for the miscreants that they are.

But the content is nothing new.

I was called a slut in the House of Commons. And that didn’t come from a random passerby, the insult was from the mouth of another Member of Parliament in the middle of a heated debate.

I was stalked by a constituent who had already been arrested for attacking a journalist. He entered Hamilton City Hall with a magazine bearing the image of a soldier carrying an Uzi, and slammed it on my mother’s desk. She was an alderman at the time, and he swore at her, and said that was the gun he was going to use to kill me.

I called the RCMP, which was responsible for ministerial protective details. Its local detachment was closed for the weekend, so early the next week, an officer got in touch to discourage me from pressing charges, claiming this action was clearly only the work of one crazy person.

I insisted, and when charges were laid, it was discovered that the individual had already stabbed a journalist.

Regular death threats, and a brick through my office window were common. My provincial counterpart, New Democrat Bob Mackenzie, suffered the firebombing of his office. The perpetrator, an angry constituent, was never arrested.

Those incidents occurred in one riding in one city in Canada.

Threats to politicians are nothing new. It will only be a matter of time before someone’s verbal attacks go deadly.

The government has ordered a review of Freeland’s security. But it should actually undertake a review of security measures for all Members of Parliament, especially when they are outside of Ottawa. Round-the-clock security may not be the answer, but there has to be a reasonable way for elected representatives to receive police protection when necessary.

An angry constituent can quickly turn into a dangerous constituent.

And the level of respect that used to be afforded politicians of all political stripes has gone by the wayside.

People think nothing of parading a Fuck Trudeau poster in their truck window or on their property. That is not against the law, but violent language can lead to violence.

The number of Canadians embracing the rhetoric of the Ottawa anti-vaxx occupiers is truly disturbing. Those politicians who align themselves with anti-democracy movements are also contributing to the problem.

Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre characterized the Freeland attack as “unacceptable” and said he has hired a private security firm to protect his wife from social media attacks.

But Poilievre’s whole campaign has been based on the same dynamic of people versus elites.

With the advent of social media, everyone is a critic. Civil discourse is past history.

But politicians who use venom as their tool of choice must bear some of the responsibility.

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

When Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh announced their confidence and supply agreement, they were replicating a similar Liberal-New Democratic minority government move a half century ago.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 28, 2022.

OTTAWA—There is a reason we say history repeats itself.

Because it does. We only have to watch the unfolding despotic massacre in the Ukraine to see a repetition of the slow-moving Second World War commitment by the Allies.

Just last week, politicians finally acknowledged what the world has witnessed. Vladimir Putin is a war criminal. He is breaking all the rules by bombing innocent civilians in his attempt to carry out a human annihilation that breaks all the rules of international armed combat.

Even close Russian allies are starting to have doubts, with two senior advisers resigning and fleeing the country in the past few days.

At home, we see another example of history repeating itself. When Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh announced their confidence and supply agreement, they were replicating a similar Liberal-New Democratic minority government move a half century ago.

The 1972 election yielded a Liberal minority with Pierre Trudeau as prime minister and David Lewis as leader of the NDP. By working together, the pair introduced new initiatives such as the creation of Petrocan, a national Crown corporation designed to manage Canadian oil and gas supplies.

Their agreement was not a formalized one, as Lewis was worried that too much co-operation might assist the Liberals more, so his party withdrew its support after two years, prompting the 1974 election.

Lewis was right. The Liberals were rewarded for this cooperative period with a majority while the New Democrats were reduced to a rump with Lewis losing his own seat.

The same thing happened to Liberals in Ontario when leader David Paterson negotiated an agreement with then NDP leader Bob Rae to take over after the minority election of 1985.

Rae also initiated discussions with Progressive Conservative leader Frank Miller, whose party had four more seats than the Grits.

But in the end, the program negotiated with Peterson won the day and the formalized agreement resulted in a Liberal-NDP accord, in which the New Democrats agreed to support the Liberals for two years.

Once the two-year agreement lapsed, the Liberals called an election and ended up winning the second largest majority in the history of Ontario politics.

But Rae’s reduced party hung in there, and when Peterson called a premature election in 1990, to everyone’s surprise, the New Democrats formed a strong majority government.

The current federal Liberal-NDP agreement gives the government double the amount of breathing room that existed in the Peterson-Rae accord.

By introducing certainty, the Trudeau-Singh agreement takes the drama out of federal politics until 2025. That may be a good thing for them. But it certainly takes the guesswork out of politics.

And observers like guesswork.

In a minority, there is always an open question about when the government might fall, but this has been replaced by a road map of aggressive social programs that will dominate public discourse.

National pharmacare and dental care have been firmly vaulted to the front of the government’s agenda in Ottawa.

As Jagmeet Singh said last week, he didn’t know whether it would help his party win, but the programs would certainly help people.

All in all, there is a significant public appetite for parties wanting to work together.

And the vitriolic response to the agreement from the Conservatives may actually have been overstated.

Ordinary Canadians like it when political parties manage to co-operate instead of fight. It runs counter to the general view that politicians spend all their time bickering.

Pharmacare and dental care may end up being much more costly than has been predicted. And that could certainly give some credence to the Conservative cry that the Liberal government is running a reckless deficit.

Depending on what happens with inflation and the ballooning deficit, the agreement may also put some pressure on Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s ambitions. If she is going for the brass ring, she has to be able to keep the country’s finances in check as a first step to the prime minister’s chair.

The agreement also runs counter to the separatists’ view that Quebec should have ownership over all decisions in health care. That could open the door to a resurgence of the Bloc.

But on the principle of dental and drug coverage, most Quebecers probably don’t care who delivers but would simply embrace the new benefits.

In the end, Singh may become the father of dental care, following in the footsteps of another NDP leader, Saskatchewan’s Tommy Douglas.

If history repeats itself, the party rewarded for this agreement in the next election will be the Liberals.

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