Justin Trudeau believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Pierre Poilievre, but Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited. The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 4, 2024.

OTTAWA—The winds of political change are blowing everywhere.

Instead of interpreting that as a renaissance of the right, we have to assume that voter fatigue in multiple countries is fuelling this desire for change.

In the case of the United Kingdom, that wind led to a majority Labour government win on July 4.

British Conservatives have been in power for 14 years.

But unlike Canadian Liberals, the British Tories have motored through five leaders during the same period.

The revolving door on British leadership is prompted by a rule similar to that of Canadian Conservatives. If the majority of caucus votes against the leader, they are dismissed from power.

In the British Parliament, the dumping of leaders by caucus springs from rules written into party constitutions.

In Canada, only the Conservatives can trigger a leadership review. That process stems from a private member’s bill adopted unanimously in the House of Commons on condition that implementation is up to each caucus to be voted on privately at the beginning of a new Parliament.

Because of this rule, even if Pierre Poilievre were to secure a majority government in the next election, if his popularity flagged, he could be quickly replaced.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the revolving door leads to internal party divisions that are hard to heal.

In the dying dies of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s campaign, former prime minister Boris Johnson was brought in to rally the troops. He rallied hard, but did little to support his leader.

Instead, he used his time on stage in London’s Chelsea neighbourhood to praise his own initiatives, and trash the left.

He simply ignored Sunak, who was part of the group that dumped him. With such Tory in-fighting, the Labour Party has doubled its lead heading into a vote predicted to be a washout for the governing party.

From France to Canada, from the United Kingdom to the United States, multiple western leaders are suffering from voter fatigue.

Some may also be suffering from personal fatigue.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s performance in the June 27 debate against Donald Trump was palpably painful to watch. He struggled to keep his train of thought, and spoke in a gravelly, weakened voice. There were moments when he appeared to be confused about what the issue was. His wife, Jill, went up to the podium at the end to usher Biden away, as one would do for an elderly relative with balance problems.

All in all, it reinforced the narrative that Biden should not be the Democratic Party’s choice in the next election if they intend to defeat Trump.

Americans are also suffering from price fatigue and inflation, but there does not seem to be the obvious stampede to the right that one witnessed in the first round of the French elections last week.

Instead, the American race is a sparring match between relatively equal political movements, with the two-party system almost split down the middle.

But with the mental and physical feebleness Biden displayed on debate night, his party will be ceding the election to the Trump Republicans unless he is encouraged to step aside.

In the French coalition system with multiple parties, the group led by President Emmanuel Macron is running a poor third in the vote he himself triggered early.

Like the U.K’s Sunak, Macron called a surprise election. Both seem to be facing imminent defeat because of their own bad judgement.

In Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s case, he is hoping that time will heal all wounds. But it may also be that time is running out because the governance agreement with Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats will expire early next year.

The shocking Liberal loss in Toronto-St. Paul’s, Ont., left the party with a sense of foreboding that will fester when they hear negative feedback on the summer barbecue circuit.

Unlike Sunak, Trudeau cannot simply be dumped by a vote of his caucus.

Like Biden, Trudeau must reflect on whether his presence in the next election will be a plus or a minus.

The prime minister believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Poilievre.

But the prime minister also needs boots on the ground, though with many Liberals both privately and publicly expressing their reservations, the volunteer base of the party will be shrinking.

Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited.

The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

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

The government would like nothing more than a channel-changer on foreign interference investigations. Even if the Liberals succeed, with the appointment of a special rapporteur and multiple committees, all eyes are still on government foibles. 

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

OTTAWA—In one month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will celebrate 10 years as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

That celebration will be fêted in early May at the party’s national convention in Ottawa.

There will be much to celebrate. Back in 2013, pundits were writing off the Trudeau leadership.

He was leading a third party that was supposed to be on the verge of extinction.

Then came the blockbuster campaign of 2015, in which he was able to ignite the youth vote and encourage many non-Liberals to swing over to support the prime minister’s vision, including the legalization of marijuana and a commitment to end the current first-past-the-post voting system.

Back in 2015, Liberals moved ahead with their promise to legalize marijuana, but shelved their promise to change the voting system.

One out of two ain’t bad.

But in the lead-up to a potential election later this year, a 50 per cent success rate won’t help the government attract more swing voters.

Some say the Liberals promised to bring in proportional voting. But that is not accurate. In the prime minister’s mind, he was looking at the possibility of a weighted vote, with Canadians choosing to rank their choices in every local election.

Whatever Trudeau’s vision, the change was not accomplished and that failure is one of the issues that will affect the next election.

The promise to change the voting system appealed to those in smaller parties, like the New Democrats and the Green Party, as neither realistically hoped to form government.

Instead, they would be satisfied to have direct influence in shaping government policy.

Minority government has given them that opportunity. The New Democrats have been key to the introduction of dental care and potential pharmacare.

But whether the third party will be rewarded by the electorate for promoting these initiatives remains to be seen.

New Democrat supporters who switched to the Liberals in 2015, left in 2019 and did not return in 2021.

Green Party voters may make a switch as their party’s internal challenges have definitely damaged their credibility.

Looking forward, voters can be expected to make decisions on what parties will do in the future, not what they promised in the past.

Liberals will be particularly challenged since, as government, the party has been in power for eight years, and politics is the only job where the more experience you have, the more voters want to dump you.

Trudeau hopes to make history as only the second prime minister in Canada to be elected four times in a row.

He would follow in Liberal Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s footsteps by pulling off a four-peat.

But it is a daunting task.

The government is working hard to put some successes in the window. The recent health-care agreement is a great win.

It will help assuage Canadians’ fears about access to health care: from primary providers through to mental health and continuing care.

The next election will not be fought on political successes.

Public attention is focused on allegations of foreign interference in elections, in particular from the Chinese government.

Most Canadians don’t follow the allegations closely. They will be aware that the heated political temperature in Ottawa is putting pressure on the current government.

Trudeau stepped up earlier last week with a series of measures to respond to the allegations, but whether that is enough to cool things down remains to be seen.

If not, the Liberals may be positioning to move to an election sooner rather than later.

The official opposition has been searingly critical in recent exchanges in the House of Commons. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been clear and concise in his attacks, and is obviously trying to keep the issue front and centre in the public mind.

The Liberal hope is to dampen down the heat and move the issue to the back burner.

Conservative MP Michael Cooper may have inadvertently helped the Liberals when he made a clearly sexist attack at Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly while she appeared before committee.

Even New Democrats demanded an apology.

The government would like nothing more than a channel-changer on foreign interference investigations.

Even if they succeed, with the appointment of a special rapporteur and multiple committees, all eyes are still on government foibles.

With that in mind, a successful Liberal convention in May and a summer spent travelling and rolling out budget announcements may mean we are heading for a fall election.

That could be the only way to douse the parliamentary fires.

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

The Liberal cabinet’s decision to meet in Hamilton is not about tourism. It is about politics. If the party is to retain its position in government, or secure a majority, it needs grow its base in areas like Hamilton and Windsor.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 23, 2023.

OTTAWA—Canada’s cabinet is meeting in Hamilton this week.

It is the first time 39 ministers have gathered in the city of waterfalls.

I say city of waterfalls because most references to Hamilton focus on its role as the major steel-producing community in Canada.

They don’t realize that Hamilton actually has more waterfalls within city limits than any other urban centre in in the world.

Surprised? Don’t be. There are 156 urban waterfalls due to the city’s location on the Niagara escarpment, according to Conde Nast travel magazine.
Most falls are situated on the Bruce Trail, a hiker’s dream destination starting in the Niagara River and ending in Tobermory.

Bruce Trail territory in the city forms part of a UNESCO world biosphere reserve.

The Bruce is another hiker’s dream, offering a main 890-kilometre trail and side trails covering another 400 kilometres.

Another surprise: the main city employer does not make steel. Instead, the world-renowned medical research juggernaut McMaster University is the region’s top job creator, offering first-class health care to the locals and medical research opportunities for researchers from around the world.

Hamilton also happens to be a political epicentre.

Former Ontario New Democratic Party leader Andrea Horwath is the city’s mayor and every party has a foot in the door when it comes to elected federal Members of Parliament.

Liberals hold three seats, with the team led by Filomena Tassi, minister responsible for the federal economic agency for southern Ontario.

The minister’s father was a steelworker and her mother was an active Liberal who worked for cabinet minister John Munro when Justin Trudeau’s father was prime minister.

The Liberal cabinet’s decision to meet in Hamilton is not about tourism. It is about politics.

If the party is to retain its position in government, or secure a majority, it needs grow its base in areas like Hamilton and Windsor.

In order to beat the Tories, the Liberals need to attract support from the left.

If the last provincial election in Ontario is any example, most unions are no longer wedded to the New Democratic Party.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford went out of his way to court the vote of those in the construction industry, promoting investment in roads and housing.

He got that support and pretty much wiped out the Ontario Liberals.

In order to beat the federal Conservatives, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his team need to sideline the New Democrats, and that means going into the heart of their support and working to move voters closer to the centre.

In the case of Hamilton, there is a New Democrat in the riding of Hamilton Centre. But the party lost the Hamilton Mountain seat to the Liberals in 2019. The Conservatives edged out Liberals by a small margin in another Hamilton seat, currently held by Conservative Dan Muys.

All parties see Hamilton as an important area for political growth.

If the NDP new year’s polling numbers hold at 20 per cent, there is a good chance Matthew Green’s Hamilton Centre seat will remain orange in the next election.

For all parties, 2023 is an electoral springboard. Any investment in time outside the nation’s capital must be focussed in areas where parties can compete for political switchers.

All roads are leading to a potential majority government. But for whom?

Liberals are banking on the fact that during the election, the New Democrats will face slippage because voters fear the consequences of a Conservative majority.

Meanwhile, we can expect that most political travel this year will be carried out with the election in view.

The New Democrats seem to be more and more uncomfortable with the supply-and-confidence agreement they signed with the Liberals.

An end to the agreement would not necessarily spell an automatic election. However, it would certainly put the minority government on the knife’s edge as an election would be triggered when all the opposition parties decide to oppose the government.

The Conservatives are front-runners in early 2023 polling, but their numbers are always skewed by an over-representation in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

This year will be the ideal time for all leaders and parties to spend additional time in their must-win electoral targets.

Cabinet will be tackling many issues this week. According to an interview in The Hamilton Spectator, Tassi said there would be a focus on inflation, poverty alleviation and housing.

The Liberals intend to underscore their work in reducing child-care costs, hiking the minimum wage and introducing national dental benefits.

It sounds like a campaign rollout.

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

The election will likely be decided on the strength of who can best manage the post-pandemic economic and social recovery.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 9, 2021.

OTTAWA—Happy people vote governments back in.

It is not surprising that at the close of the Olympics, the Canadian government will soon pull the plug on the current minority government.

Some ministerial employees were issued layoff notices last week, standard operating procedure for governments just before an election.

On the Olympic scene, Canadians keep piling up good news stories.

From Andre De Grasse to Damian Warner, from the swimming pool to the soccer pitch, Canada could do no wrong.

And Canadians back home, from family members to Olympiophiles, were riveted to the two-week Olympic run coverage.

Retiring cabinet minister Catherine McKenna, a competitive swimmer herself, sent out a tweet at the beginning of the Games telling her followers that her feed would be sport-dominated for the Olympic period.

She also had something very special to say about the magic of sport, attributing her success in life to the lessons she learned on the water.

On the opening day of the Games, McKenna had a message about the linkage between sport and politics. “I never dreamed of being a politician when I was a kid. I dreamed of being an Olympian. But even though I didn’t make it, all the training paid off for politics.”

McKenna went on to tweet: “I learned more lessons for politics from my time in competitive swimming than anywhere else. Have a clear goal & work hard every day to achieve it, ignore the noise, get back up when you fall, it’s all about the team. And have fun!”

As Canada comes to the close of one of its best Olympics ever, even those who don’t watch the Games are beaming with pride because of the athletes’ performances.

That puts everyone in a good mood. With the country looking at the back end of the pandemic, the Liberals could choose no better moment to call an election.

Even though there were some bumps on the road to recovery, Canada’s current world standing in pandemic management is extremely high.

On the vaccination track Canada is leading the globe, and thus far, has managed to mitigate the spread of variant viruses.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who received plenty of criticism for the slow rollout of the vaccine, will definitely benefit from the high percentage of vaccinated Canadians.

We compare particularly well with the United States. The anti-vaxxers there seem to line up by political party, with the majority of vaccine opponents in the Republican Party. In Canada, even the most die-hard Conservatives understand the value of stopping the spread of COVID via vaccinations.

With the virus under control, and the Olympics winding to a close, the time is ripe for Canadians to go the polls.

Of course, the opposition parties are going to decry the decision, but once the election is called, no one will pay much attention to the whys and the wherefores.

Instead, the election will likely be decided on the strength of who can best manage the post-pandemic economic and social recovery.

With children finally back in the classrooms and university students back on campus, the general mood this autumn will be positive.

An almost giddy euphoria has already set in as Canadians are finally able to enjoy most aspects of life without fear of viral death.

Politics may not be top of mind for most of us, but the writ period of 37 days will be short and sweet.

That doesn’t mean the election will be a slam dunk for the Liberals. If the last election is a guide, anything can happen.

Who knows whether there is another “blackface scandal” lurking in the prime minister’s closet?

But the pre-election summer tour did not go great for the Conservatives. Erin O’Toole seemed to spend more time courting Calgarians than worrying about his status in the eastern parts of the country.

If he is working on solidifying existing support, that does not bode well for O’Toole’s capacity to beat the government. An election win depends on making inroads in Ontario and Quebec, not piling up huge majorities in the only province where the Tories are guaranteed a majority.

As for the New Democrats, they may well benefit from the implosion of the Green Party and with a targeted vote, they could increase their representation in the House of Commons.

But even though their leader has attracted his own TikTok following, Jagmeet Singh will likely not have the same newcomer appeal that he enjoyed in the last election.

A solid campaign could deliver a Liberal majority.

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

Amid infighting and challenges to Annamie Paul’s leadership, Green MP Elizabeth May has been mostly silent. May’s return as leader would allow the party to limp through the next election with a known quantity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 19, 2021.

OTTAWA—In the Green Party mashup, the voice of reason that guided the party for years is steeped in silence.

This week the party executive will be seized with a non-confidence vote on leader Annamie Paul, which needs 75 per cent support to carry.

May’s partner John Kidder quietly resigned from the executive in June before the internal feuding broke into the open following the June 10 floor-crossing of Green MP Jenica Atwin to the Liberals.

Paul publicly defended May’s silence at a press conference last month, claiming family issues prevented the former leader from tweeting a statement of support.

The same code of silence appears to hold true for fellow British Columbian Green MP Paul Manly.

However, news reports also suggested that Paul threatened May to defend the leader publicly, or else there would be consequences.

The infighting has been described by some in the media as akin to the petty politics of a condo board or a book club.

One thing is certain. The damage being done to the Greens on the eve of a potential election is incalculable.

How can Paul run a campaign when her own executive has already made moves to limit party funding for the leader’s local riding race, in downtown Toronto?

Meanwhile, May herself has encouraged Paul to invite recalcitrant Atwin back into the fold and to make a public apology for a staffer’s attack on the New Brunswick MP.

No apology has been forthcoming, and the temperature rose again last week when the party executive began a move to strip the leader of her membership.

The proposed membership revocation only requires a simple majority vote of the executive committee, a much less onerous bar than the three-quarters vote required to oust a leader mid-stream.

The executive has also been reduced in the number because of departures, so it appears as though Paul’s status as leader will not be overturned.

So, the Green team has resorted to the extreme measure of actually kicking her out of the party.

In the midst of pre-election planning, the party could be leaderless and rudderless, leading to the question as to who might replace Paul in the short term.

May is the logical choice.

She spent years as the only recognizable face of the Green Party, in Parliament and across the country.

She has already participated in multiple campaigns, with decent showings at the leadership debates where she was allowed to join.

But the Green Party under Elizabeth May was a nascent party with hope and idealism. Many Canadians wished them well, sharing their passion for grappling with the global issue of climate change.

They would also consider supporting the party in the hopes that it might prod the established parties to move on climate change.

In the past few weeks, climate change has taken a back seat to the politics of Green power, in a way that is very reminiscent of traditional parties.

Back during her tenure, May once posited that her success was largely due to the fact that she was not a politician. Rather, she was a dedicated environmentalist who saw politics as a way of making the changes required to tackle issues.

Back in 1977, May was instrumental in getting Nova Scotia to ban aerial spraying for the spruce budworm.

And she has been working on environmental issues ever since.

But during her 13 years as leader of the Green Party, she was unable to add more than two other members to the House of Commons cohort.

And now one of them has joined the Liberals.

The promise of the Green movement has stalled.

Not only is the current leader facing party expulsion, but the environment has not even played a role in disagreements that, instead, revolve around party members’ contradictory positions on the Middle East.

The return of May would allow the party to limp through the next election with a known quantity.

But there is no way she will be able to convince Canadians that hers is the party to make real environmental change.

The implosion of the Greens has, instead, opened the door for other parties to woo environmental voters.

A May-led party will not prevent an exodus of support. The past two months have sealed the Greens’ fate, with or without a leader.

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

Annamie Paul could survive by recanting the threats tweeted by her former staffer. But it is hard to see how the internal strife is going to do anything but consign the Greens to the scrap heap of political history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 21, 2021.

Internal party battles are the ugliest part of politics. And when they spill out into the open, everyone gets hurt.

The current debacle in the Green Party may fatally damage the leadership of Annamie Paul.

She could survive by recanting the threats tweeted by her former staffer.

But it is hard to see how the internal strife is going to do anything but consign the Greens to the scrap heap of political history.

One of the most important jobs of a leader is to keep their caucus happy.

In Paul’s case, she only had three members to worry about and last week she lost one of them.

But instead of standing down and spending some time in personal reflection on what went wrong, she concocted a crazy theory that it was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the anti-feminist, who worked against her to convince Fredericton Green Party MP Jenica Atwin to cross the floor to the Liberals.

Meanwhile, the two remaining MPs did not back Paul when the fight went public, with former leader and Green dean Elizabeth May calling on Paul to apologize to the floor crosser.

After a fiery press conference in which Paul blamed the internal turmoil on racism and sexism within the Green Party national executive, not a single caucus member came to her defence.

According to Paul, it was a busy day.

But the party executive decided that Paul’s only path to survival is to organize a joint press conference with British Columbia Green MP Paul Manly, in which she repudiates attacks on caucus members by her former chief adviser Noah Zatzman.

Zatzman is seen to have played a crucial role in Atwin’s defection, having responded to her pro-Palestinian tweet with a Facebook accusation of anti-Semitism against unspecified Green MPs.

Zatzman vowed in a post on Facebook to defeat them and replace them with “progressive climate change champions who are antifa and pro-LGBT and pro-Indigenous sovereignty and Zionists.”

The substance of his tweet should have been raising eyebrows even before Atwin bolted the tiny caucus.

Most Canadians currently believe that a vote for the Greens is a way of putting climate change at the forefront of the political agenda.

But when it is mixed with antifa and Zionism, the message gets a lot more muddled. And those Canadians who might have cast their ballots in principle for the Greens will likely decide to park their votes elsewhere in the next election.

If Paul cannot even manage a caucus of three, how can she possibly expect to run the country?

Instead of following the advice of elder Green statesman May by trying to get Atwin back into the fold by apologizing, Paul simply dropped another verbal bomb, accusing members of her own national executive of racism and sexism.

Two Atlantic Green national council members resigned last week. In a written statement to The Globe and Mail, departing Nova Scotia representative Lia Renaud said the subject of the national council meeting was “Annamie Paul’s leadership approach and relationship building skills.”

Renaud called the claims of sexism and racism against council members as “just another example of the toxic relationship and work conditions.”

There is no doubt that as a black Jewish woman, Paul is facing the kind of scrutiny that would not have been levelled at a middle-aged white man.

In Paul’s own words, the Green party’s historic vote for her leadership was intended to change the current Canadian gender and race dynamic.

Even if Paul is successful in repairing the recent damage done to the party’s reputation, how will she respond to her own accusations of Green Party racism and sexism?

With an election expected within the next two months, this fight has done irreparable damage to Green chances across the country.

And environmental supporters who previously parked their votes with the Greens will definitely be looking elsewhere.

According to an Abacus poll published last week, the Green Party is sitting at six per cent. The front-running Liberals are at 34 per cent with the Conservatives closing in at 29 per cent.

The New Democratic Party, following a Prairie uptake, is sitting at 21 per cent.

The Conservatives are not likely to benefit from this Green implosion. A fragmented status quo on the left is their path to victory.

The majority of loose Green votes could deliver a majority government to the Liberals.

Atwin’s move could prove prescient.

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

If the prime minister’s team thought an early election could move the Liberals into majority territory, the uncertainty in Newfoundland may give them pause.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 8, 2021.

Three elections and three majority governments sent the message that a government managing COVID-19 is rewarded by the voters.

That was the general school of thought when Newfoundland and Labrador called its COVID election. But the arrival of the variant crisis has changed all that.

The Newfoundland and Labrador government was forced to call an election by August. Based on previous results in British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan, it appeared as though the electorate would put their trust in the party that was actually managing the pandemic. In all three of those previous elections, the governing party was returned with a comfortable majority.

So Liberal Leader Andrew Furey, a medical specialist, probably thought he was on solid ground when his government called the election in Newfoundland and Labrador. But in the middle of the vote, a virus variant crept into Newfoundland, taking a province that was almost COVID-free by storm, as Mount Pearl and parts of St. John’s were hit hard with the new virus.

All of a sudden, the province went from a place that had been a spectator in the coronavirus battle to a province that was facing a distressing multiplication of a frightening variant. Questions started coming: how can you have an election when people cannot get to the polls because they are forced into a quarantine to protect community transmission of these new variants?

So, health and election officials tried to sketch out a roadmap for a safe election. The government responded with more opportunities for mail-in ballots, but in order to achieve that goal, they needed to change the shape and date of the election.

In mid-February, the chief electoral officer of Newfoundland and Labrador postponed the voting date for almost half of the voting districts in Newfoundland. The delays occurring on the Avalon Peninsula represented most urban voters in the capital’s periphery.

The cancellations were spurred because frightened election workers resigned out of fear of interacting with the public on election day, according to chief electoral officer Bruce Chaulk. And voters were also frightened about what they might face in a lineup going into the voting booths.

Unlike most other provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador had been largely free of the virus, so citizens were extremely concerned that the variant had hit them hard.

The whole election process has been somewhat odd, with the premier participating in regular briefings with the chief medical officer of health, in the middle of an election.

Progressive Conservative Leader Ches Crosbie complained about the conflict of the premier’s appearance during an election, but that complaint was overridden by citizens’ desire for information.

Crosbie and Furey both carry an impressive political pedigree. Crosbie’s father was John Crosbie, the inimitable Newfoundland minister who served in the cabinet of prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Furey’s father is former backroom Liberal organizer and now Senator George Furey, who is the current Speaker in the Senate of Canada. His uncle is Chuck Furey, who served as a minister in the government of premier Brian Tobin.

Polls still predict victory for Furey, but the confusion around the COVID election has definitely eaten into his popularity.

Newfoundlanders are experiencing their first full lockdown. After three weeks, they are getting crusty. They understand it is for the collective good, but they also want to know why an election is happening in the middle of a medical crisis.

Taking a page from the Newfoundland book, a parliamentary committee in Ottawa passed a unanimous resolution last week demanding that no election be called during a pandemic. The Procedure and House Affairs Committee, not usually known for controversial recommendations, unanimously sought a commitment from the government that there would be no election, except in the case of a lost confidence vote. New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh endorsed the resolution, promising that his party would not trigger an election.

The Tories have not chimed in, although they claim the Liberals have been trying to trigger an election.

For their part, the governing grits claim they don’t want an election, but will not allow their legislative agenda to be blocked in by the Tories. The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of trying to block pandemic-related aid legislation designed to assist individuals and small businesses.

Now that Newfoundland’s election has been torpedoed by the pandemic, the prevailing wisdom that governments are rewarded during an election is definitely at risk.

If the prime minister’s team thought an early election could move the Liberals into majority territory, the uncertainty in Newfoundland may give them pause. Pandemic elections may not be so fruitful after all.

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

Two confidence votes, two near misses in two weeks prepares voters for the fact that an election will come sooner rather than later.

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

OTTAWA—The nail-biter vote in the House of Commons on Oct. 21 is a precursor of things to come.

Two confidence votes, two near misses in two weeks prepares voters for the fact that an election will come sooner rather than later.

A national campaign might be a nice break from the onslaught of bad news prompted by the coronavirus.

Held on the first anniversary of the minority Liberal government win, the vote came on the heels of another close call. In both instances, the New Democratic Party voted with the Liberals. But NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh was obviously frustrated about having to prop up the government. Singh risks alienating his base if he is too close to the government.

Confidence vote fatigue will soon set in. It won’t be too long before a House of Commons money bill is defeated, triggering the election that nobody allegedly wants.

The Liberals would be the most likely beneficiaries.

Just recently, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was re-elected with her party’s largest popular vote in the past half-century. Since the country adopted proportional voting, she was the first leader who managed to secure a majority government with 49 per cent of her fellow citizens supporting the Labour Party.

Just a few months earlier, Ardern was facing certain defeat. But her handling of the pandemic, quickly locking down borders and isolating the island, saw her popularity soar.

Three Canadian premiers have called an election during the pandemic, and it appears the trio will all be rewarded with majority governments.

Lockdown fatigue is also creeping into the equation. With the second wave rolling across Canada, citizens are starting to ask more questions.

In the beginning of the pandemic, it was comforting to see public health officials and politicians appearing together in a daily briefing to update a nation reeling from the worldwide viral transmission.

But now people don’t even bother to tune in. And the comfort that came from the solid science of public health officers is being replaced by ridicule.

Halloween is cancelled in one province but not in another.

Movie theatres are closed down in the hot zones, despite a lack of evidence that a single case of the virus has been transmitted in cinema.

The gradual erosion of confidence in the overall public handling of the crisis probably began when Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam veered into the world of sex advice.

On coupling, she suggested that if you don’t know your partner very well, you should wear a mask. Why not a paper bag?

The question of transmission is not the only thing on people’s minds when they hop into the sack together, especially if they are relatively new partners. Instead, it is all about getting as interconnected as possible, and that could be quite difficult if they are both wearing masks.

Then came the Thanksgiving advice, or lack thereof.

At first, Ontarians were informed that a dinner within your bubble with up to a maximum of 10 people was permitted. Then the advice was altered a few days before the blessed event, and we were told to dine only with those we live with.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford tried to explain the confusion by saying the 10-person rule was supposed to apply only to that number of people who lived in the same household. But in Canada, there are not too many 10-member families living under one roof.

The province recently shut down gyms and restaurants in the hot spots. The City of Ottawa issued a new ruling that outdoor tennis would only be allowed for singles players. All doubles matches were verboten.

That happened without a scintilla of evidence that a single tennis player had contracted the coronavirus while on the court.

As for gyms, there was a reported case of a super transmission at a spin class, where the owners claimed to be following the guidelines, but the bicycles were too close together. But why punish all clubs for the mistake of one. And how did dance studios secure an exemption?

Nobody expects science to have all the answers. But people do expect government lockdowns based on facts.

Instead, we are seeing different approaches across different provinces, and public support for pandemic efforts is eroding.

On balance, Canadians are happy to join queues and follow rules. We have willingly integrated hand-washing, masking, and social distancing into our daily routines. But the cancellation of Hallowe’en was the tipping point.

A snap election would actually be a welcome diversion.

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

The chief electoral officer of Canada is the same person who recently ruled that having an election on a religious holiday was kosher. Politicians of all stripes complained about religious insensitivity but the election date remained. Under a law passed 11 years ago, only the chief electoral officer can change the date. That law should be scrapped.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 5, 2019.

OTTAWA—The fixed election date does not work.

The decision by the chief electoral officer of Canada to go ahead with a date that conflicts with an orthodox Jewish holiday is bad.

Not only will it deny some people the right to vote on election day. Three of the four advance polls also deprive the same voters of the right to exercise their franchise as they, too, are slated for religious days.

Does anyone really believe a vote would be permitted on Christmas Day? Why, in a secular society, would we not offer the same respect to other religions?

The decision to move to a fixed election date and take the power of election dates out of the hands of politicians is just wrong.

Calling an election is a political decision. In a parliamentary democracy, we do not need to be guided by American-style multi-year campaigning.

The decision to move to fixed election dates has simply plunged us into perennial campaign mode.

Our American neighbours don’t get to the polls before November of 2020, but the past year has simply been non-stop Democratic campaign mode. With 25 candidates running in the primaries, the whole focus is driven by elections. It is no wonder there is so little attention paid to what is happening in Congress. The electoral cycle is destined to dominate the news when an election is fixed so far in advance.

Since the beginning of this year, every Canadian government decision has been seen through the prism of the October election. Even in a system where the date is not fixed, there would be references to an upcoming vote.

But under the previous parliamentary process, the party that formed government had up to five years to call an election.

That prevents the election countdown from starting at the end of the third year. Even the countdown clock, running on social media for three years, would not have been possible.

Just last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau travelled to Iqaluit to announce the establishment of another marine conservation area. The Liberals have promised to set aside 10 per cent of our marine areas by 2020 and the announcement takes them to within two per cent of their goal.

However, the news item about the story did not focus on marine protection but rather on the candidates in the upcoming vote.

By setting a legislated fixed date, the government has been facing down its own self-imposed election calendar.

The countdown to the election has chewed up most of the spring federal political agenda. At the time of this column, the “NO MORE JUSTIN TRUDEAU” clock was claiming 98 days, 23 hours, 52 minutes and 18 seconds ticking until the production of the prime minister’s walking papers.

The same countdown clock in the United States is 459 days, 16 hours, 25 minutes, and 28 seconds.

Do we really need to put up with a two-year political campaign in the name of democracy?

The costs attached to the never-ending American election cycles also affect the country’s capacity to govern. Because politicians have to raise so much money, to advertise for years leading up to the election, about one-third of their total work effort is focused on fundraising.

Two weeks ago, congressional district managers for Republican and Democratic politicians visited Ottawa to get a look at our system. One issue under discussion was the difference in the amount of time required for fundraising efforts. They were shocked at the legal limitations on election spending in local constituencies in Canada.

Canada’s spending limits have been compromised recently because of the emergence of so-called third party political registrations. Third parties are supposed to be independent of any specific political party but the line between them is quite often blurred.

Elections Canada came up with an updated handbook in June governing the interactions between third parties and regulated political entities. If you view the Twitter feed of Canada Proud, it appears to move in tandem with all the activities of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Elections Canada has received numerous complaints about this, but thus far, is simply referring complainants to the chief electoral officer of Canada even though they have the authority to actively refer complaints.

The chief electoral officer of Canada is the same person who recently ruled that having an election on a religious holiday was kosher.

Politicians of all stripes complained about religious insensitivity but the election date remained.

Under a law passed 11 years ago, only the chief electoral officer can change the date.

That law should be scrapped.

Editor’s note: This column originally reported that only the commissioner of Canada Elections can change the fixed election date, but it’s the chief electoral officer of Canada who can recommend to the governor in council a change of the election date should it interfere with a religious holiday or another election taking place in a different jurisdiction in Canada. As well, it is not a ruling.

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 12, 2018.

OTTAWA—Last week’s midterm elections reinforced the reality of the United States as a deeply divided nation.

The voting population appears to be split down the middle. Divisions are even more stark when it comes to race and the urban-rural divide.

With only two Senators elected per state, predominantly Republican rural areas become disproportionately important in that Chamber.

With the same number of Senators representing Rhode Island and California, it is much easier to get a majority of seats via a minority of voters.

And the unfettered spending in the American political system begs the question of what really constitutes a democracy.

But significant Democratic Congressional gains will definitively change the flavour of the second half of President Donald Trump’s first term in office.

The comfortable Democratic majority will position the president to blame his own failures on political gridlock, with enemies poised to poison his tenure.

If anyone thought midterm challenges would moderate the president’s vitriol, it took only a single day to abandon that notion.

With the sacking of attorney general Jeff Sessions, and the revocation of press credentials for CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta, the White House was quick to let the world know that it would be nasty business as usual.

And Trump has every reason to repeat his divisive tactics. Notwithstanding all the negativity of the past two years, he is still scoring big with his base and bringing other recalcitrant supporters on side.

One woman interviewed during a voting day exit poll specified that she was voting for the policies, not the person. Her belief was that the president’s character was irrelevant as long as he supported positions favourable to her views.

Others are simply happy with the economy and believe the president can take some credit for that.

A positive economic benchmark may not last forever, as all indicators are pointing to a slowdown amidst international uncertainty and some potential for inflation.

Trump’s bitter trade disputes with China, Canada, and even Europe, will also effect the stability of the international economy, which could spell trouble.

The post-election Sessions’ firing is probably the clearest sign that the Russian investigation carried out by Robert Mueller looms as the largest threat to Trump’s hope for reelection.

With the Democrats regaining control of the House of Representatives, they will have a number of opportunities to dig deeper into the financial labyrinth of the Trump family fortune and its potential relationship to foreign powers.

The Democrats have secured a comfortable majority in the House, with new, younger female and minority faces poised to lead the charge.

One of Trump’s most effective slogans has been “Clean the swamp.” Those three little words imply that getting the dirt out of Washington will be his first priority. Instead, it may be his dirt that is about to be excavated.

The noose is tightening around the president’s neck. That is the only explanation for the firing of his attorney general. His next move could be to work with an increased Republican Senate majority to put an end to the Mueller investigation.

But the Democrats have already laid down a marker. As soon as the Sessions axe was dropped, key Democrat leader Chuck Schumer warned that any move to derail Mueller would throw the country into a constitutional crisis that could result in Trump’s impeachment.

The majority control now enjoyed by the Democrats in Congress will give them all the tools they need to dig deeper. They have already asked for the production of all documents related to Sessions as they intend to investigate his firing.

Sessions’ former chief of staff has been named as his replacement. He is a bellicose anti-Mueller opponent, who has already been warned to recuse himself from interference in the Russian special investigation.

The defiant tone that Trump exhibited in the presidential press conference signals that his war with the media will not end any time soon.

The decision to revoke CNN credentials will also prompt a backlash from other media outlets. At the same press conference, Trump verbally dressed down two black female reporters, including a PBS journalist who has become one of his favourite targets.

Trump is also facing renewed calls to produce his tax returns. He now says they are too complicated and that people simply will not be able to understand them.

But the major Congressional shakeup last week guarantees that these issues will now take centre stage.

Washington’s mid-course correction will make politics uglier. It’s hard to believe it could get any worse.

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