If the Liberal leader keeps his cool and avoids attack mode, he can reinforce the impression that he is calm, thoughtful, and fully prepared to deal with future White House bullies. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 21, 2025.

OTTAWA—Only in Canada would a hockey game trump a federal election debate.

The Montreal Canadiens had one last chance to make the playoffs last week, and their game was in conflict with the national leaders’ debate in French.

The simple solution was to move the debate forward to an earlier time. The move probably helped the front-runner more than anyone else.

Liberal Leader Mark Carney struggles more in French than the rest, but the move may have meant fewer Quebecers watched the debate in person. Some were likely still en route from work, and others were preparing dinner for their families. Six o’clock is probably the worst time for a political debate.

But there’s also a school of thought to say that debates really don’t change much.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had better hope that they are wrong because he needs a major boost to have any chance of beating the Liberals on April 28.

In reality, there are very few occasions when a knockout punch decides an election.

Most people remember Brian Mulroney’s response when then-prime minister John Turner was asked to defend a series of appointments forced upon him by predecessor Pierre Trudeau.

Turner’s response, “I had no option,” caused Progressive Conservative leader Mulroney to jab him with a pointed finger. “You, sir, had an option.” That knockout punch led the PCs to a historic victory of 211 seats in the September 1984 election.

Many have compared that debate scenario to this year’s campaign. Both campaigns saw unpopular Trudeaus leaving their positions as prime minister.

Both saw a new leader take over who had been outside the previous prime minister’s direct orbit. In Turner’s case, he left government after a disagreement with the prime minister, and returned when the leadership position opened up anew.

In Carney’s case, he is brand new to politics. But his previous work as an adviser to Justin Trudeau meant that he was not completely separated from the previous regime.

He, too, has experienced a post-leadership bump. That would likely have slumped in the rollout of a regular election campaign.

But United States President Donald Trump made sure that this was not an ordinary Canadian election.

He caused a pan-Canadian call to arms with his constant musings about annexing our country, and referring to our prime minister as “governor.”

Carney came out as the leader most likely to defend this country’s interests against American protectionism and against a president who seems to enjoy belittling allies and supporting former enemies.

It has been lost on no-one that the president exempted Russia and North Korea in the global tariff attacks that saw him turn his back on Europe, Canada, and other former allies recently.

The debates in French and English last week permitted Poilievre to exercise his acrid humour in a frontal attack on Carney. But he had to use caution because if he were to be seen as too nasty, that would simply reinforce the animus that Canadian women voters have already identified in him.

There is a reason that he is running 20 points behind when it comes to support from women. His nasty, three-word slogans get the anti-vaxxers motivated, but have the opposite effect on women who are concerned with issues like language and behaviour. They want to provide good examples to their children, and when it gets too nasty, politicians simply lose their support.

I was on the debate preparation team for Trudeau in his first election, and the whole group was encouraging him to hit hard. He refused to do so, saying he wanted to show that politics didn’t have to be dirty.

He was right. Running in third place, Trudeau took a nasty hit from then-NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, and in a calm voice, he reminded Mulcair that debate day was the anniversary of his father’s death. Mulcair melted and Trudeau vaulted to first place in an election victory that no one had seen coming.

All that to say that debates do count. But for the current Liberal momentum to be blunted, it would mean a direct hit from the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats. They are all fighting for their lives, so any onlooker can expect a full-frontal attack on the prime minister.

If he keeps his cool and doesn’t fall into attack mode, Carney can reinforce the impression that he is calm, thoughtful, and fully prepared to deal with future White House bullies.

That perception will be important since, if Carney is successful at the end of the month, his anti-bullying days may just be starting.

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 Friday, December 18, 2015.

OTTAWA—What a difference a year makes. At the beginning of 2015, who would have predicted that the also-ran third party in Parliament would form a solid majority government with a leader who is making international waves?

Even the most diehard Liberals were entertaining a two-stage victory process. The first move was to return to official opposition status before winning government.

Common parlance said that prime minister Stephen Harper’s grip on power was so tight, that his organizational skills and communications discipline could secure his re-election.

That race was supposed to be against Thomas Mulcair, the New Democratic Party leader who had ably mastered the art of Question Period. His questions were so good; it was assumed that his answers would be better.

And then there was Justin. Indeed, friends and foes alike branded him on a first-name basis.

Savvy political advisers called him thus to differentiate him from his father. Justin Trudeau was friendly, approachable and a very different leader from his Cartesian parent.

His foes branded him the same way to promote the notion that this kid just wasn’t ready. His age, his hair, his unconventional career path (as a teacher, not a lawyer) managed to sow the seeds of doubt about his capabilities. That, and a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign designed to reinforce all perceived weaknesses, did the trick. When the never-ending campaign actually started, voters at the doorstep repeated verbatim the exact lines crafted for the Tory ad campaign, without even realizing it.

Voters were questioning his age, and even asking whether he had the intelligence to be prime minister.

Through it all, Trudeau continued to surprise. First it was a knockout punch in the boxing ring. That was a risky move for any politician because if he had lost, his Rocky story could have ended there.

There is nothing the public likes better than to watch a politician flub a sporting challenge, and it can have devastating electoral consequences. Robert Stanfield never did learn how to play football.

But Trudeau did his homework. He trained quietly and effectively, and when the moment came, his opponent didn’t even see it coming.

To his credit, Stephen Harper actually saw  Trudeau coming. Throughout the long months when the polls were tracking the ascendance of Thomas Mulcair, he was virtually ignored in the Conservative air wars.

Even though all indications pointed to a battle between the Conservatives and the New Democrats, Harper focused single-mindedly on the Liberal leader. Mulcair was barely mentioned, either in advertising or in parliamentary jibes. It was all about discrediting the real threat to the throne.

Harper understood, as few others did, that the very characteristics highlighted to define Trudeau so negatively could also prove to be his greatest strength.

His youthful looks and his new approach meant he could legitimately signal a generational change. Harper’s stolid image was no match for a guy who could box, canoe and tweet all in the same day.

Conversely, Mulcair and Harper physically appeared to be two peas in a pod. They could both pass the test of membership in the Old Boys’ Club. That would have been great if people were looking to elect old boys.

But this was an election about change. Poll after poll consistently predicted that the vast majority of Canadians were seeking it.

Physically, Trudeau was the candidate that best personified change. But what about cerebrally? Being good looking with a well-honed physique certainly does not hurt.

But people want to know what is behind the hair before they will give you the keys to the kingdom.

Harper’s organizational and fundraising skills were the reason he launched one of the longest campaigns in modern history. But that one decision ultimately determined his demise.

Time gave Trudeau a chance to get out across the country unfiltered by the lens of a television ad, and they obviously liked what they saw.

His mastery of subject matter and delivery, in all the debates, ran counter to the negative campaign that had so effectively defined him.

Thanks to the Conservatives, Trudeau actually started the election with such low expectations that he had nowhere to go but up.

So 2015 turned out to be the year that changed Canada.

But the same uncertainty that muddied the political landscape this year could easily reemerge.

Success for the new Liberal government lies in taking a lesson from their unexpected trajectory.  

In politics, what happened last year seldom matters.  You are only as good as your next year.

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