The centre is where the majority of Canadians would like to be. But there’s a big question as to whether Dominic Cardy’s party can become more than just a one-man show.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 19, 2024.

OTTAWA—Dominic Cardy registered a new party with Elections Canada this month, planning to field candidates in all upcoming federal byelections.

In an interview with The Toronto Star, the interim leader of the Canadian Future Party says he considers the current federal Conservative leader “terrifying.”

He says he plans to offer a centrist option to voters tired of electoral polarization, telling The Star: “Our tag line is saying we’re not left, not right, (we’re) going forward.”

Ironically, that was the same tag line that led the Liberals to form a minority government in 2021, with their slogan being, “Forward, for everyone.”

The former minister in the New Brunswick’s Progressive Conservative government is no stranger to new parties.

He served as the leader of that province’s New Democratic Party from 2011 until 2017.

He ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the legislature as a New Democrat, but won the same seat as a Progressive Conservative in 2018.

He endorsed Maxime Bernier for the federal Conservative leadership, so if Cardy needs advice on how to make a new party work, he can always reach out to Mad Max.

Both men must realize that in the current political system, building and sustaining a new party is almost impossible.

Just ask the Green Party that has been in existence since 1983.

In the 2004 election, the Green Party, under the leadership of Jim Harris, secured candidates in all ridings and received 4.3 per cent of the popular vote.

When Elizabeth May took the helm in 2006, she again moved the dial for the Greens, taking them to 6.8 per cent of the national popular vote in the 2008 election.

That was the party’s apex, followed by multiple elections which eventually saw the election of three Members of Parliament. May has held her seat in Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C., since 2011, and is the longest serving woman leader of a political party in Canadian history.

But despite a national showing in multiple elections, the Green Party has never been able to make a real breakthrough.

So how does the Canadian Future Party think it can do things differently?

It is targeting the centre, and claims a membership of former Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats, although Cardy has been coy on who those supporters are.

The party hopes to appeal to former Tories who are not happy with the shift to the right that has happened since the party dropped its progressive wing in order to merge with the former Reform Party.

Canadian Future also hope to attract Liberals who think their party has moved too far to the left in its alliance with the New Democratic Party.

The centre is certainly where the majority of Canadians would like to be. But there is a big question as to whether the Cardy party can become more than simply a one-man show.

The party’s standing in the upcoming byelections in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, Que., and Winnipeg-Transcona, Man., will be a bellwether of its possibilities.

The party has not managed to secure well-known candidates in either riding, which may be some indication of how uphill the climb will be.

The Liberals are unlikely to give up the coveted centre as it has spelled success for them in the majority of elections since the beginning of Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has moved the party to the left with programs like pharma care, childcare, and dental care. During the pandemic, that move has worked well for Canadians, especially those who were thrown out of work through no fault of their own.

But the chance of another party making any headway when the Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats are fighting for votes is unlikely.

The bigger question is: if they get any traction, from whom will the Canadian Future Party skim votes?

Most progressives have already left the Conservative Party, and Poilievre appears to be shaping his campaign far from the centre.

His promise to shut down the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is sure to scare off centrists, especially those in Atlantic Canada who depend on the public broadcaster for their only local coverage.

Poilievre’s new campaign attacking NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is also not attracting the centre. Instead, he is going hard after the left in order to encourage NDP voters to vault over the Liberals and join the Conservatives.

It is ironic but true that some blue-collar voters are more likely to switch from NDP to Conservative than to ever vote Liberal.

But the centre is still where political victory lies.

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

The fallout from the parliamentary foreign activity report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2024.

OTTAWA–The cloud of suspicion hanging over Members of Parliament was partly lifted by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week.

May spoke out at a lengthy press conference on June 11 after having read the classified document on parliamentary foreign activity produced by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP).

May said she was “relieved” to read that, in her opinion, none of the “few” Members of Parliament mentioned in the document are being disloyal to Canada.

There was one former MP who knowingly colluded with a foreign government, but their identity was not revealed. May stated that her reading of the report concluded that no current MPs were involved in any malfeasance.

May asked, “are there currently MPs sitting with us in the Chamber who would set out knowingly to sell Canada out for personal benefit? If there are, there’s no evidence of that in the full report.”

She urged other party leaders to read the report, and to draw their own conclusions.

Reports of the document state that “the committee has also seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.”

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh, who also read the report, said he was even more concerned after reading it, and urged Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to do the same. The current leader of the opposition refuses to seek the security clearance required to read the document.

Singh also questioned whether Poilievre was refusing to read the document because it included references to potential foreign influence in the Conservative leader’s own party leadership bid. The NSICOP report references interference by Indian and Chinese governments in the Conservative leadership race.

Singh said: “In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.” CBC News later reported that Singh’s office would not confirm if he was referring to current sitting MPs.

Meanwhile, with no specifics on which Members of Parliament have been named, the House of Commons agreed on June 11 to a Bloc Québécois motion to refer the parliamentary report to the public inquiry into foreign interference.

That inquiry, led by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, is already reviewing the issues surrounding foreign election-meddling allegations.

Hogue produced her interim report last month, which said there is evidence of foreign interference, but the integrity of Canada’s electoral system remains intact.

The commissioner also concluded that “vigorous measures” must be taken to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system after unveiling evidence that foreign governments did interfere in the elections of 2019 and 2021, leaving “a stain on our electoral process.”

The fallout from the NSICOP report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system. Instead, the report left the impression that there were multiple Members of Parliament knowingly sharing confidential information with foreign influencers.

Poilievre and his Alberta-based attack dog Michael Cooper both called on the prime minister to immediately release the names of all members cited in the document.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a parliamentary committee that it would be illegal to release names. “I am not going to violate the Security of Information Act, and risk prosecution for a political stunt,” he said.

He, too, encouraged Poilievre to get full security clearance so the Conservative leader could read the report, and decide for himself what level of foreign influence has affected our democracy and electoral process.

Poilievre refuses to read the report himself, claiming that to do so would prevent him from asking pertinent questions. The Conservative leader says clearance would limit his capacity to comment on issues, since top-secret material is usually only for the eyes of the security-cleared reader.

But his refusal to gather all the data begs the question: if Poilievre were to win the election, would he be able to become prime minister without a full security clearance? And if so, why would he want to make decisions without being in possession of all the facts?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for a leader to gather as much background as possible before deciding on what direction s/he would be taking on the foreign interference question?

Poilievre is simply demanding that the prime minister name names. He cares not for illegality, or due process.

His insouciance really makes you wonder what kind of prime minister he would be.

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

It would be a huge mistake to think that a right-wing Conservative is unelectable in Canada. In politics, anything is possible.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 8, 2022.

OTTAWA—Jean Charest was at his most eloquent during the recent Conservative debate last week.

The only problem, the lights were on, but there was no Tory home.

The debate did not attract major television attention and was held at 6 p.m. Eastern Time, pretty much the worst possible slot for widespread coverage.

But the whole purpose of the event was to avoid national attention.

After all, what political party has a debate where the front-runner refuses to attend and simply pays a $50,000 fine to absent himself from the proceedings?

Pierre Poilievre and Leslyn Lewis both coughed up the $50,000 so the party actually made money by allowing two candidates to duck out of a leadership debate.

That will probably not be the end of the story.

Elections Canada, which has some oversight of party nomination processes, will probably be asked to take a look at the payments, as the Tories might have benefited from a tax credit courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.

But the sad thing about the non-debate is that nobody beyond those actually voting in the leadership even care about this egregious abuse of process.

Too bad for the Conservatives. Had they actually watched Charest in action, they might have come to the conclusion that the rest of the country has already arrived at: Charest stands the best chance of all Tory candidates of defeating the current government.

He is seen as capable, moderate, and appeals to those in the centre who have kept the Tories out of power for years.

The debate was a bit of a moot point. According to official Conservative records, in excess of 100,000 ballots have already been mailed into headquarters, more than a month before the winner’s announcement on Sept. 10.

If the twitterverse is any indication, dozens of voters claimed that Charest’s performance could not change their minds, as they had already voted for Poilievre.

The eligible voters’ list is more than 600,000, but there is a chance many of them may not vote.

The decision of the party to turf candidate Patrick Brown because of alleged irregularities will undoubtedly cause some of his supporters to boycott the race.

Others will likely throw their support behind Charest, who is the most closely linked to Brown in political ideology.

But if history is any indication, the party will be hard-pressed to get a 50 per cent voter turnout in the dog days of summer.

The whole intent of the campaign was to keep it as low-key as possible, which plays in the favour of front-runner Poilievre.

The race is certainly as close to a coronation that any party could carry out. Sometimes, a healthy and robust leadership race can be good for the process.

Liberals had their experience with a coronation and it did not end well. When the party believed that finance minister Paul Martin was the obvious choice, the race became a coronation.

At the final Toronto celebration, in a standing-room-only Air Canada Centre event, even international celebrities like Bono attended to congratulate the future prime minister.

The biggest question facing Martin’s leadership at that moment was how many years he would stay. In the end, the coronation fractured the party.

In the current Conservative leadership, a similar front-runner phenomenon is unfolding.

Unlike Martin, who was already extremely popular with the public at large when he was chosen, Poilievre mainly appeals to the right-wing of his own party.

He will have a hard time convincing the moderate middle to support him.

That is what all other parties, especially Liberals, are counting on.

If Charest were to be successful in September, Liberals on the Hill would sit up and take notice.

They know he has the capacity to turn things around in Quebec, and whither Quebec goes, so goes the country.

Charest would also bring progressive Conservatives back into the fold. These are the Red Tories who the party must attract to win elections.

If Poilievre succeeds, as is most likely, Liberals will be counting on him to stay in the opposition benches.

However, there is a truism in politics.

When it comes to elections, opposition parties don’t win, governments lose.

When voters decide they have had enough, they will move to throw the government out. In most cases, they are prepared to give the opposition leader the benefit of the doubt.

A Poilievre win could be very feasible.

It would be a huge mistake to think that a right-wing Conservative is unelectable in Canada.

In politics, anything is possible.

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.