Parliament’s hyper-partisan climate has made the Speaker’s job doubly difficult, but Greg Fergus can defuse crisis situations with his moderate demeanour. But the Conservatives feel that any venal sin is reason for his dismissal.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 27, 2024.

OTTAWA—Three strikes and you’re out.

House Speaker Greg Fergus is currently on strike two.

According to the New Democrats, this strike was really the fault of the Liberal Party organization, and should not be blamed on the Speaker.

In the end, it was much ado about nothing. The Conservatives are all about focusing on anything negative, especially if it involves members associated with the governing Liberals.

Conservatives would not want the public to focus on the good numbers that have dominated the news recently.

A drop in inflation and a reinforcement of Canada’s AAA credit rating may make the governing Liberals smile.

But they don’t make the news with the same ferocity as a generic press release from Fergus’ local riding association which had not-so-nice things to say about Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

Fergus’ first strike occurred early in his tenure when he made the mistake of appearing in a partisan tribute video wearing his speaker’s robes.

He apologized for the mistake, and dodged the firing bullet with all parties eventually accepting his apology.

That was before Fergus threw Poilievre out of the House of Commons for refusing to apologize for the use of unparliamentary language against the prime minister.

In that exchange, both Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traded insults. The difference was that Trudeau quickly withdrew his statement while Poilievre would not.

The hyper-partisan climate in Parliament has made the Speaker’s job doubly difficult, but Fergus has a moderate demeanour, and is usually ready with a smile to defuse crisis situations.

The latest mess was not of his own making. The party posted generic information about the local riding association’s spring gathering, and included some negative comments about the leader of the opposition.

In normal circumstances, this would probably go unnoticed, but the Conservatives have obviously decided that any venial sin is reason for Fergus’ dismissal.

What must be particularly difficult for Fergus is that, although he is bound to impartiality in the management of House debate, he needs to get re-elected as a Liberal.

The Speaker is chosen from amongst Members of Parliament, most of whom are attached to a political party.

Never in Canadian history has a non-aligned member served as House Speaker.

So Fergus has to tread a very fine line between impartiality in the House, and partisan politics in the local community.

He also happens to represent a riding within a stone’s throw of Parliament, which makes it much easier for Hill staffers and political followers to keep an eye on all material that emanates from his local association.

Long-serving House Speaker Peter Milliken served a decade as Speaker, and also had the distinction of being the only one to preside over four Parliaments.

He was succeeded by Andrew Scheer, who used his private time in the Speaker’s chair to reach out to caucus members in a bid to become his party’s leader.

Having spent most of his parliamentary career in neutral positions, as deputy Speaker and then Speaker, Scheer managed to secure huge caucus support when he ran for the Conservative Party leadership.

One of the perks of being the Speaker is that you can organize parliamentary dinners on a regular basis, and invite small numbers of members to join you in Speaker’s chambers.

As Speakers don’t attend caucus meetings or parliamentary committees, most of their energy can be devoted to building relationships behind the scenes.

Those relationships are often partisan, as private dinners can include only members of your own party, but no one in the public has access to the list.

So it is easy to be quietly partisan but—heaven forbid—you have an event in your own riding for local activists.

Even though Speakers are expected to prepare for re-election, their hands are ultimately tied when it comes to riding-organized events.

Fergus cannot be blamed for this cock-up, but when you are the Speaker, the last thing you want to be making is the news.

The summer break is looming. That is good news as it will give all parliamentarians a chance to cool off in their ridings, and lower the political temperature.

That may not make the official opposition very happy. Their strong lead in recent polls reinforces the wish to have an election as soon as possible.

Chaos in the Commons plays into that scenario because an unruly Parliament is usually a precursor to an election.

Instead, Speaker Fergus can use the summer period to nurture government and opposition relationships.

He will need them to hang on to his job.

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

Going after an unpopular prime minister will likely not cost Pierre Poilievre politically. But it does give Canadians a glimpse into what kind of leadership he would provide if he were elected prime minister. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 6, 2024.

OTTAWA—Disrespect for Parliament is the only way to explain Pierre Poilievre’s exit from House last week.

Perhaps he is spending so much time on the campaign trail that he thinks hateful language against his opponent will attract voters to his cause.

“Shameless, spineless” leadership and “wacko” were comments exchanged between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Poilievre on April 30.

But Trudeau withdrew his unparliamentary attacks while Poilievre refused to.

As a result, House Speaker Greg Fergus was forced to “name” Poilievre and eject him from the House.

Fergus offered several chances for Poilievre to withdraw his accusations, but the leader refused to do so and made a dramatic exit with his whole team in tow.

Under House rules, the leader of the opposition was allowed back the day after his ejection, and he did not have to apologize.

Going after an unpopular prime minister will likely not cost Poilievre politically. But it does give Canadians a glimpse into what kind of leadership he would provide if he were elected prime minister.

Most leaders start their term in office showing respect for their opponents and the workings of Parliament.

By the end of their time, personal hubris and frustration may overtake calm, but it usually doesn’t start out that way.

In Poilievre’s case, his parliamentary outbursts are reflective of his dripping hate for the prime minister.

In the session where Poilievre was asked to withdraw his accusation that Trudeau is “the guy who spent the first half of his adult life as a practising racist” the attacks of both leaders were caustic.

Trudeau, for his part, had to apologize for name-calling of the leader of the opposition. The prime minister accused Poilievre of courting white supremacists, as allegedly the previous week, a symbol of white supremacist group Diagalon was seen at a carbon-tax protest which Poilievre attended.

At the end of the week, few spectators outside the House will pay that much attention to what appears to be a schoolyard scrap in Parliament.

But Poilievre’s refusal to respect the ruling of the House Speaker will have repercussions.

Conservatives have all made it clear that they are after Fergus’ head, claiming he is too close to the Liberals.

For its part, the government lost no time in comparing Poilievre’s tactic to that of former U.S. president Donald Trump, who recently complained that he was being muzzled in a New York courtroom because he violated a gag order.

Tories were complaining they were muzzled by the Speaker, and it was clear that Poilievre wanted to be kicked out.

Normally, this level of heat in the House usually happens just before an election.

When tempers get high, it is very difficult to cool things down, and sometimes the only way to clean the place up is by going to the people in an election.

That could be the reason behind the drama. As Poilievre is riding high in the polls, the timing for an election could not be better for the Conservatives.

Most people won’t be paying that much attention to the parliamentary shenanigans as Canadians generally expect that level of behaviour from politicians at the best of times.

But for those who do, the decision by Poilievre to simply ignore the Speaker’s ruling and focus his attack on Fergus should be a harbinger of what to expect in a Poilievre government.

Government Whip Steven MacKinnon linked Poilievre directly to Trump, referring to the dark state influence on the politics of both leaders.

Poilievre has worked hard to try and separate his party’s right-wing perspective from that of the former American president.

But his actions in the House make the link for him.

The government has obviously decided to pivot from “happy days” and attack the nature of Poilievre’s political support.

A week earlier, Trudeau had accused Poilievre courting conspiracy theorists and extremists. He highlighted Poilievre’s refusal to denounce American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones who recently endorsed Poilievre for “saying the same things as me.”

Trudeau is banking on the fact that the majority of Canadian voters may not want to be associated with white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.

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

After the 30-hour vote marathon by the Conservatives, the temperature in Parliament continued to rise. Public opinion polls showed that most observers were not impressed with the parliamentary chaos.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 18, 2023.

OTTAWA—Andrew Scheer is looking a little more ruddy than usual. And it isn’t because of a cheeky response to Christmas cheer.

Instead, the former Speaker is ruby red because he got caught doing exactly what he was excoriating House Speaker Greg Fergus for. He used his parliamentary office for a partisan video, and was quietly fined $500 earlier this year because of the infraction.

Speaker Fergus will face a similar fine, following a report from the Procedure and House Affairs Committee on his ill-advised decision to film a retirement video for a former Liberal colleague in his speaker’s robes. PROC members voted to fine Fergus and seek a second apology, but they stopped short of making his transgression a sackable offence.

That decision was opposed by the minority Conservative and Bloc Québécois committee members, but the main opponent of the ill-fated Speaker’s video was forced into silence himself when it was revealed that Scheer had made a similar mistake earlier this year.

The former Speaker and erstwhile Conservative leader has been vociferous in his calls for Fergus’ head, but he was muted on Dec. 14 when it was revealed that he paid a fine earlier this year for an eerily similar breach.

Scheer wrongfully filmed a political video in his office. Unlike Fergus’ retirement message, Scheer shot a campaign pitch in support of a parachute candidate in a southwestern Ontario byelection last June.

The fine was levied quietly, as are all decisions from the Commons Board of Internal Economy, but was leaked to the media last week when Fergus received the PROC decision. Tories and the Bloc continued to call for Fergus’ resignation, but the majority of parliamentarians felt he had committed a non-fireable error.

Fergus definitely dodged a bullet, but so did Parliament. The idea of dumping a new Speaker just months after the resignation of his predecessor in the face global scorn would have fomented the already precarious climate in Canada’s House of Commons.

After the 30-hour vote marathon by the Conservatives, the temperature in Parliament continued to rise. Public opinion polls showed that most observers were not impressed with the parliamentary chaos.

The Conservatives, still well ahead in the polls, suffered a precipitous five-point drop in the days following the filibuster. The drop may take a little wind out of their sails. A huge lead tends to fuel arrogance in any political party, while a tight race forces parties to behave in a manner that the public would expect.

Scheer claimed his attacks were largely based on his experience and knowledge of rules, stemming from the time he served as Speaker. But now that everyone knows he has broken the same rules that he claims to know so well, he won’t be as sanctimonious in his assessment of Fergus’ mistake.

No doubt, Fergus will have to work hard to rebuild the confidence that he lost because of his lapse of judgement. But turning the Speaker’s office into a revolving door would have done nothing to restore the confidence of Members of Parliament.

As his survival is dependent on support from Liberals and New Democrats, Fergus will be closely watched for bias in favour of those two parties. Liberals have privately expressed that they are worried he will be overly tough on them in an effort to prove his impartiality.

All in all, the parties will be walking on political eggshells in the new year.

Time with loved ones over Christmas will give all members a chance to enjoy some well-needed rest and family time. That should mean a happier perspective when they return to work in January.

But next year everyone will be moving into pre-election mode, which could stoke the negative vibes that were experienced before the Christmas break.

The Tories obviously want an election as soon as possible, so any way that they can provoke a crisis plays into their disruptor agenda. The Bloc is moving up in the polls, so the survival of Parliament depends more on the viewpoint of the New Democratic Party.

They continue to check off their list of accomplishments in working with the Liberals. Last week’s dental care announcement was another example of how the partnership has been helpful for Canadians. Whether the New Democrats translate that work into future seats remains to be seen. But they have certainly held up their end of parliamentary work.

The Liberals are going to work hard to keep Parliament happy, because they need time and space to rebuild their popularity.

Meanwhile, to all Parliamentarians and Canadians: HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

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 October 23, 2023.

OTTAWA—I was wrong.

In a previous column, I predicted civility in the House of Commons would last two weeks.

That prediction was predicated on a break week in the parliamentary calendar.

I figured the Members of Parliament could last at least five sitting days without allowing the place to run amok.

Instead, newly-minted speaker Greg Fergus spent two days in a civil chair.

On the third, the place erupted.

It all started out rather calmly. On Oct .18, Fergus was rising from his place to announce a new series of “reflective guidelines” that he would be using in his attempt to replace chaos with order.

He chose to introduce the guidelines just before the most-watched Question Period of the week.

On Wednesdays, all questions are devoted to the prime minister, which makes him a prime target on multiple issues and pretty much guarantees that the opposition will succeed in getting their messages on the news.

Normally, the House Speaker delivers orders, decisions, reflections, introductions, and announcements in the moments following Question Period.

This time, Fergus decided to break with convention, and deliver a lengthy reflection on protocol before questions began. He was obviously trying to make the point that everyone needs to know there is a new level of decorum that has arrived with the election of a new Speaker.

That desire ran smack into the wishes of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to lead off with his own questions.

When Poilievre refused to cede his spot to the Speaker, all hell broke loose.

Poilievre claimed, “The Speaker has a plethora of occasions to stand on his feet and make any point he wants or any declaration he likes. He does not need to do it in the middle of the sacred period during which we hold the government to account.” Poilievre went on to accuse Fergus of breaking the rules, and then former House Speaker Andrew Scheer backed up his leader’s right to proceed immediately with questions.

Fergus continued with his message about excessive heckling, which fell on deaf ears as Conservative MPs continued to interrupt with heckling.

While Fergus pleaded that “excessive, disruptive and loud heckling must be toned down,” his message simply engendered more disruption in the Chamber.

In the end, Poilievre got to deliver his question after a 20-minute speech from the House Speaker.

People quickly forgot the contents of the question. What came out of Wednesday’s Question Period is that, again, the call for parliamentary civility has simply fallen on deaf ears.

That may surprise the general public, as there was much focus on a kinder, gentler place when Government House Leader Karina Gould took over at the helm back in September.

But it was no surprise to those of us who have been involved in parliamentary matters for decades.

After all, the instrument that gives voice to Parliament is a mace. Ceremonial, of course, it was initially designed to kill people by clubbing them to death. When armour was introduced, it became less useful as a military weapon, but continued in ceremonial form.

Canada’s current mace was fashioned in after the original one was destroyed in the 1916 parliamentary fire that killed seven people.

Its design includes the Arms of Canada, the rose of England, the harp of Ireland and the thistle of Scotland. The staff incorporates the rose, shamrock, thistle, and the fleur-de-lys.

No words can be spoken without the presence of the mace, reminding us that Parliament is a verbal battlefield, and it isn’t always pretty.

The temperature tends to go up toward the end of a Parliament, particularly when there is election fever in the air.

With the Conservatives running so high in the polls, they have the wind in their sails, and it shows in their Question Period vigour.

Vigour includes testosterone, and the closer political parties get to voting day, the more emotions can run wild.

In a minority Parliament, the tension can be even more evident as at any moment the place could be shut down.

The New Democrats are facing some internal pressure from their supply-and-confidence agreement with the Liberals.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh felt the sting of that pressure in a reduced confidence motion at the party’s national convention in Hamilton last weekend.

However, he has his heart set on completing pharmacare, part of the triad of the supply agreement policy initiatives along with childcare and dental care. Without that, he won’t pull the plug.

If last Wednesday’s Question Period is any indication, Conservatives are raring to go.

From where they sit, an election couldn’t happen soon enough.

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 October 9, 2023.

OTTAWA—There is a reason people love politics.

The adrenalin of the fight, the rollercoaster ups and downs make it a show worth watching.

The majority of Canadians don’t spend every waking moment focused on Question Period. They live their lives, struggle with family and financial issues, and focus on Ottawa when casting a ballot every four years or so.

For political junkies like me, we watch politics because we love the thrust and parry. Last week was a sight to behold.

The country went from the abyss to the mountaintop in a single vote. The House of Commons morphed from a forum that applauds war criminals to a place that elected the country’s first Black speaker.

Concurrently, Manitoba voted for massive change by choosing the first ever First Nations leader to head up its legislature.

The elections of Greg Fergus on the Hill and Wab Kinew in Winnipeg are reasons to celebrate this fragile construct called democracy.

Members of Parliament were shouting with joy on the choice of Fergus, and some wiped tears from their eyes on witnessing the election of the first Black Canadian House Speaker.

The same optimism met Kinew’s landslide victory, some likening it to the “orange crush” of 2011 which saw then-federal NDP leader Jack Layton come ever so close to forming government. The reaction of Indigenous leaders last week was compelling. This is what real reconciliation looks like.

Manitoba voters overwhelmingly rejected a government that sadly ran an election campaign ad on not exhuming the bodies of two murdered Indigenous women believed to be buried in a landfill.

Does anyone think that would have been a campaign poster if those women had been white? The outgoing government launched a blatant attempt at racial wedge-politics that failed miserably.

That is why elections matter and why—as Canadians—we can be proud of the choices made at the ballot box last week.

Of course, some pundits can even find a negative twist on those votes.

“Why not sooner?” said some, while others fear the Speaker’s election was just tokenism. Those were some of the brickbats sent his way within moments of Fergus being ceremoniously dragged into the job.

The Quebec MP quickly showed us why he is not a token choice.

With wit and depth, Fergus got to work, warning MPs to treat him like a new car and avoid denting him on the first day.

All and sundry rose to pledge fealty and gentleness, promising they would do their best to make the House of Commons a more civil place.

That might not last too long. I give it two weeks. And that because during one of those weeks the House will not be sitting.

The debates ahead will make the House of Commons a place worth watching, where speeches are measured by the depth of ideas, not the talons of tongues.

Fergus may follow the Peter Milliken school of speakership. Milliken, the longest serving speaker who was elected in successive Liberal and Conservative government terms, understood that some heckling can stand the House in good stead.

It is a bit like the valve on a pressure cooker. Letting out a little steam is the only way to avoid a major explosion.

Most importantly, Fergus needs to treat all Members of Parliament, and political parties, equally.

The last House Speaker not chosen by secret ballot was John Bosley, who served in the chair for the first two years of prime minister Brian Mulroney’s majority government.

The opposition felt Bosley’s rulings were too one-sided (present company included), and a raucous parliamentary period prompted changes to the standing orders—or House rules—which resulted in the election of speakers by secret ballot.

The first speaker so chosen was Progressive Conservative John Fraser. The British Columbian MP was so popular that he was re-elected and served almost eight years.

He combined a wry sense of humour with taut control over decorum in the House.

Fraser and Milliken garnered the respect of all members. That is the challenge facing Fergus.

A lifelong Liberal, who served as a political assistant and party organizer before being elected, he will have to leave his partisan hat at the door.

His sunny personality will be a help there as Fergus has a reputation across party lines for being a positive, friendly force.

That positivity must be tempered by a strong arm in the oversight of Question Period.

Fergus will need to be a gentle giant, but not too gentle.

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 October 2, 2023.

OTTAWA—Aestas horribilis. Horrible summer.

That is all that can be said about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attempt to reboot the agenda with a cabinet shuffle, new faces and a fresh parliamentary look.

Last week’s disastrous revelation of a former Nazi soldier getting a standing ovation in the House of Commons was simply the final nail in the coffin of a bad political season for the Liberal leader.

It is true that the prime minister was not responsible for the invitation to a former member of the Ukrainian 1st Galician division, a unit of the Nazi war machine.

That decision was the sole responsibility of the former speaker Anthony Rota.

Rota received a request from his constituency to have the war veteran at the parliamentary event welcoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenksy on Sept. 22.

The visit was supposed to showcase support for the Ukrainian effort to defend itself against the illegal invasion by Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Instead, it has become a tool for Putin’s false claim that his attack was really a defence against the Nazification of neighbouring Ukraine.

All Canadians were shocked to learn of veteran Yaroslav Hunka’s military record. The only person more shocked than the prime minister was Speaker Anthony Rota, who was forced to resign as pressure mounted following the revelation of the veteran’s Nazi status.

On Sept. 25, the New Democratic Party was the first to call for the speaker’s resignation. They were joined later in the day by the Bloc Québécois, and followed the next morning by several Liberal cabinet ministers, and ultimately by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

Poilievre expressed his views on Rota’s status via X (formerly Twitter).

But he spent the whole of Question Period blaming the debacle on the prime minister. Even though Rota told the House that it was his decision and his alone to invite and recognize his constituent, Poilievre laid the whole mess at the prime minister’s feet.

Poilievre repeated his false claim that it was up to the prime minister’s security people to vet all visitors to the parliamentary gallery.

In reality, all Members of Parliament are entitled to issue invitations to their own personal guest list, and that list is not vetted by the government.

Trudeau argued during Question Period that to follow Poilievre’s logic, the government would have to sign off on all parliamentary visitors, which would be a breach of the separation that exists between government and Parliament.

But the opposition leader has made it his personal mission to make Trudeau wear the mess that Poilievre has characterized as “the worst diplomatic embarrassment” in Canadian history.

All other leaders appear to have accepted Trudeau’s explanation that, as leader of the government, he has no authority over the visitors invited to Parliament.

It remains to be seen how the public will view the personalized nature of the attacks by the leader of the opposition.

Most are probably as confused as Members of Parliament who had no idea they were offering multiple standing ovations to a veteran who fought against the Allies in the Second World War.

It seems complicated but is likely the egregious mistake of an overzealous constituency assistant who responded to a community request to attend the session.

As House speaker, Rota was not involved in any aspects of the Liberal government activity. But he also runs for re-election, and as such, his role as the speaker offers an opportunity to invite constituents to Ottawa for major parliamentary events like the opening of the House and international visits by dignitaries.

The role of the Speaker in the House of Commons is sacrosanct. They are the leader of the place, and no one, including the prime minister, has the power to edit their speeches or guest list.

Poilievre’s approach is to lay the blame squarely on the prime minister’s shoulders.

In a proposal to the House operations committee, a Conservative committee member suggested a list of invitees to a proposed review committee that, curiously, excluded the speaker.

That approach may not be parliamentary, but the Tory intention is to damage Trudeau and his government, and facts do not matter in this mission statement.

Poilievre’s aggression may cause some backlash from the public. In the meantime, it is Trudeau who is feeling the pain from the commencement to a fall session that is as acrimonious as Poilievre.

Following her new appointment this summer, Government House Leader Karina Gould vowed to lower the temperature during Question Period by restoring a sense of civility to the institution.

But the first parliamentary week continued to be an aestas horribilis.

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

The only party that must navigate this issue with great difficulty is the Conservative Party.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 9, 2022.

OTTAWA—The f-bomb was allegedly dropped in the House of Commons on May 4 by a frustrated prime minister.

It was not picked up by any microphone and even though Conservatives vociferously demanded an apology, even they were at odds over what exactly was said.

Upon exiting the House, Justin Trudeau himself mimicked his own father’s explanation when Trudeau senior was accused of using the same language in 1971.

Members of the official opposition jumped on the transgression, but their voices were muted when a clip of leadership front-runner Pierre Poilievre emerged on social media, saying, “Fuck you guys” at a legislative committee.

An f-bomb may have been fatal a half-century ago, but today it barely makes a ripple in news coverage.

In the same way as language has been liberated, so too have social attitudes.

The notion that a non-binary leader could be the head of a Canadian political party was unheard of 50 years ago.

In fact, no one really even knew what non-binary meant.

Today, the interim leader of the Green Party is non-binary and it is common to state his/her/their declaratory gender preference.

Fifty years ago, the notion of legalizing abortion was hugely controversial. Even the most liberal of politicians had to tread carefully when the issue was up for debate.

Today, it is accepted that the majority of Canadians are in support of a woman’s right to choose.

Even in the Conservative leadership, only one candidate is openly promoting an end to abortion in Canada, even though two other candidates with similar views have been been kept off the leadership list.

The same cannot be said for Conservative party members, many of whom have public views opposing abortion and have promised to vote against the procedure in any private member’s bill brought forward in a parliamentary session.

In the last election, observers attacked the Liberals for raising the spectre of a renewed abortion debate based on the number of Tories who had promised to do so.

But now that the United States Supreme Court is preparing to rescind the law legalizing abortions in that country, the issue will move to the forefront in Canada too.

The only party that must navigate this issue with great difficulty is the Conservative Party.

The prime minister has already said that the government is looking at a regulatory amendment to the Canada Health Act to guarantee a woman’s universal right to reproductive choice. No time limit has been put on the move but one thing is certain.

The amendment will force the Conservative Party to take a solid position on the issue once and for all.

The longer it takes to bring in any changes, the better it is for the Liberals. The government would love nothing better than to have that wedge issue to present to Canadians in the next election.

Six months ago, the issue was not even on the general public agenda.

But with the bombshell leak on Roe v. Wade last week, there is no doubt that a woman’s right to choose will be an ongoing political issue south of the border. And what dominates in the United States will undoubtedly have a spillover effect in Canada.

According to the Pew Research Center in Washington, 59 per cent of Americans support abortion access. That number jumps to more than 70 per cent in Canada.

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, expected in June, would immediately impact access in all states across the country, including those that currently offer the right of abortion to all.

The result of a legal reversal to reproductive access by the United States will embolden the minority of Canadians who have been actively opposing abortions for years.

It will also mean that more money, and more volunteers will be crossing the border with the same fervour enjoyed by the cross-border movement of ‘freedom fighters’ who joined the Ottawa truckers’ occupation.

There is no law in Canada on the issue of reproductive choice, but there are standards of care that have been developed by the medical profession.

However, there is an uneven application of these standards, with some provinces offer little or no access while most other provinces make abortions readily available.

The Liberals promised in the last election to introduce regulations forcing less-compliant provinces to open up their abortion access requirements.

In 2020 and 2021, New Brunswick suffered federally-imposed financial penalties totalling almost $300,000 for refusing to offer access.

Expect last week’s abortion bombshell, not the f-one, to dominate the fall agenda.

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

Time to move on from COVID.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 24, 2022.

The return of Parliament should provide a much-anticipated channel-changer from the constant barrage of COVID news that still saturates the airwaves.

Most people I know have simply tuned out to the daily update of hospitalization and infection information from every part of the country.

They are also taking the medical advice with a grain of salt. Travel advisories emanating from Ottawa are being discounted even by federal government service providers. Last year, the majority of snowbirds heeded the government’s advice to stay home and refrained from travelling because of the danger of contracting COVID.

This year, those same people have decided to ignore the repeated warnings and are heading to warmer climes to avoid the bitterly cold Canadian winters.

Even the federal government pensioners’ payment website has a general proviso that the travel prohibitions emanating from Ottawa have no affect on their insurance policies or plans.

Likewise, the travel industry is starting to fight back publicly.

Last week, the major airlines and Canada’s largest airport joined to urge the government to end the redundant random PCR testing that faces some travellers upon their return to Canada. They pointed out that the infection rate on planes hovers around two per cent and every single passenger has already undergone a PCR test to get on a plane so it makes no sense to undergo a second test on landing when tests are so scarce and the local infection rate stands at 20 per cent.

Infected residents cannot access tests because of a shortage while travellers are double-tested in an effort to discourage their movement.

The opening of the House of Commons will focus public attention on issues other than the pandemic, with inflation rearing its ugly head just in time for the return.

Statistics Canada inflation numbers published last week painted a grim picture with calculations showing the highest levels of inflation in three decades.

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole immediately tweeted out the negative results, claiming the Liberals are showing zero leadership on tackling the cost-of-living crisis.

O’Toole did not provide any specific suggestions himself, nor did he walk back his finance critic’s claim three days earlier that the cost-of-living figures were “vastly underestimated” in the methodology applied by Statistics Canada to the role played by inflation in the Consumer Price Index data.

Poilievre is great on grabbing the headlines, but the claim that Statistics Canada is cooking the books does not resonate well when his leader is about to launch a national campaign based on the very numbers the critic is questioning.

The chance for the Conservatives to make their mark on the inflation issue should not be muddied because their critic questions the veracity of Statistics Canada.

That kind of dog-whistle politics may serve Tories well in their fundraising endeavours, but it does little to prove to Canadians that they are really ready to govern the country.

To be that government-in-waiting they need to consider the big picture. Just like inflation could be a looming issue in this parliament, the Tories will want to make an example out of cultural policy when the government reintroduces legislation to amend the Broadcasting Act.

But by taking a hard line against new rules that put streaming services like Netflix on a more level playing field with traditional broadcasters, the Conservatives risk being viewed as a marginalized fringe party.

The Liberal legislation that passed a previous House of Commons vote was supported by the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois so the Tories’ support is not required for passage.

The new minister of Canadian Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez, has also been in the portfolio before and has the kind of political savvy that will make him a real champion for the legislation.

He will not get sucked down the rabbit hole of responding to social media influencers who think their blogs are the equivalent of major streaming services.

If the Tories have any hope of forming the government, they have to be able to broaden their reach in Quebec. And by fighting against C-10, they simply manage to reinforce their image as a right-wing, anti-culture party that really does not care about Canadian content, on traditional media or via the internet.

They have a small rump of ten members of parliament in Quebec. Perhaps those members will be able to convince their colleagues that a more moderated approach to broadcasting amendments will serve their long-term political agenda.

The return of the House will be a welcome channel changer. Time to move on from COVID.

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

In Canada’s case, the unanimous view of Parliament sends a message to the world that trying to educate someone into a change in their sexual preference just does not work.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 6, 2021.

Canada’s conversion therapy ban was a stellar political moment for Parliament.

As members from all sides of the House of Commons came together with hugs and handshakes, it showed how politics can actually provoke real change.

The unanimous consent made the decision even sweeter. It also sends an important message to the world that Canada will not brook homophobia or gay bashing.

In the same week, the Court of Appeal in Botswana, in a unanimous decision, outlawed the criminalization of consensual same-sex activities.

In a stern rebuke to political leaders who still want to criminalize gay sex, the court of appeal judge president said, “Those (criminal code) sections have outlived their usefulness and serve only to incentivize law enforcement agents to become keyhole peepers and intruders into the private space of citizens.”

Prior to the Court of Appeal ruling, same-sex intercourse could result in a seven-year prison term in Botswana.

Government officials have not yet decided on appeal but in its presentation to court, the state claimed that the penal code outlawing gay sex was still the prevailing choice in Botswana.

In Canada’s case, the unanimous view of Parliament sends a message to the world that trying to educate someone into a change in their sexual preference just does not work.

The unanimity of the vote was great news for Conservative leader Erin O’Toole who saw his recent electoral hopes dashed when his party was deemed too right wing to govern.

Unanimity took most observers by surprise since, in the last Parliament, 62 Conservatives had voted against a similar ban, claiming the language was too vague.

This time, Justice Minister David Lametti said he clarified the language, and the motion for unanimous consent was introduced by Conservative Rob Moore.

The Conservative leader’s spokesperson backed the support by saying O’Toole “has long been an ally to the LGBTQ community and will continue to support efforts to ban conversion therapy.”

Unanimous voting from the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois was expected but no one thought the Conservatives would band together en masse in favour of the legislation.

Because of unanimity, individual votes were not required. That may prove problematic for the Tories.

Leadership candidate Lesyln Lewis came third in the leadership that chose O’Toole. She ran in support of conversion therapy.

As a new Member of Parliament, Lewis was shunned by O’Toole in shadow cabinet because of her anti-vaccine views.

The leader must believe he can withstand internal forces against conversion therapy.

The vote marginalized social conservatives in the caucus, as O’Toole stood down any internal opposition.

And that puts pressure right back on the Liberal government of prime minister Justin Trudeau.

The Liberals have been very successful in differentiating themselves from the Conservatives in the last several elections.

The Tory leadership went to O’Toole largely on the strength of social conservatism.

Otherwise, Peter MacKay would have been the winner. But MacKay’s reference to the “stinking albatross” of social conservatism weighing the party down effectively cost him the leadership.

His observation was right, but his timing was all wrong as O’Toole was able to enlist the second ballot support of all those social conservatives, he is now trying to dissociate himself from.

Last week’s unanimous vote means that no individuals will have their votes recorded when it comes to the conversion ban status.

But that may not prevent internal Conservative infighting between the leader and the social conservatives in his caucus.

By laying out a strong case to support the conversion therapy ban and supporting it with real numbers in the House of Commons, O’Toole is definitely moving away from the stigma which has hurt his party in the last couple of elections.

But politics is a long game, and it may not be so simple for the Conservative leader when private members’ bills on issues like abortion come up for debate in the House.

With the anti-abortion movement gaining steam in the United States, their Canadian counterparts will be emboldened. And the only party that carries their brief, albeit briefly, is the Conservative Party.

Members who have been absent from last week’s conversion therapy voice vote will not stand down when it comes to restrictions on abortion.

O’Toole has managed to move his party closer to the centre with last week’s unanimous vote. But whether he can keep the rest of his caucus there is the larger question.

If he can, that spells trouble for Liberals. The one thing standing between O’Toole and government is the moderate middle.

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

The Throne Speech made it clear that management of the pandemic was front and centre on the Liberal agenda. To date, that has been a winner for them. For the official opposition to continue to muddy the COVID waters is a huge political mistake.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 29, 2021.

Politicians should save personal attacks for elections.

Canadians claim they don’t like these attacks, but history shows they work.

In the heat of a campaign, tagging someone as a part-time Canadian or just “not in it for you” works.

But we are likely three years away from an election. Using the same tactic on the prime minister makes the official opposition leader look angry and petulant.

Erin O’Toole may have reason to be angry. After all, Trudeau called the election, achieving few gains. But his job is not on the line.

Instead, all the post-election political heat is on O’Toole and his caucus in-fighting.

By attacking Trudeau personally, O’Toole and deputy leader Candice Bergen will likely push the undecided into the Liberals’ corner.

Bergen’s Question Period reference to Trudeau’s penchant for pricing surfboards instead of bread-and-butter issues was nasty.

Of course, the prime minister is not currently doing his own shopping, but neither is the leader of the opposition, whose house and grocery bills at Stornoway are paid for by the Canadian taxpayers.

What O’Toole and company should be examining are Liberal policies. When the attack is hard on issues, O’Toole may actually attract followers, instead of just turning people off.

The decision to run hard on inflation is policy-based and could yield some dividends for the Conservatives.

But the blame being focused on Trudeau and Liberal COVID spending runs counter to what most economists are saying.

There is also a chance that the interest rate spike will be short-lived as post-COVID spending splurges settle down to normal. All this remains to be seen but, in this case, the Conservatives are highlighting a fiscal issue that could differentiate them from the Liberals in a way that the Canadian public will appreciate.

If inflation continues to climb, even though it is a worldwide phenomenon, most people will blame the federal government, putting O’Toole in a good position to say, “I told you so.”

But if the Tory leader wants Canadians to consider a shift toward the Conservatives, he has to get his own party’s house in order.

It was a mistake to make COVID the first order of business in the new session. The Conservative whip asked re-elected House Speaker Anthony Rota to rule on the legality of the Commons Board of Internal Economy’s decision to block unvaccinated MPs from entering the House of Commons precinct.

The Conservative position runs counter to all other parties, which unanimously support the vaccine requirement for all their Members of Parliament. The Conservatives continue to claim they support vaccinations, but do not want to make them mandatory in any sector. They also refuse to provide full disclosure on which of their members have not yet been vaccinated.

By refusing to send a clear message on mandatory inoculations, O’Toole’s party is managing to offend the 80 per cent of the population that has followed scientific advice and gotten a vaccination.

The fact that Members of Parliament won’t reveal their vaccination status is frightening, as Question Period has the potential to become a super spreader event.

Government House Leader Mark Holland has already made noises about the number of Conservatives who have secured medical exemptions from the vaccine. Holland is publicly claiming that the number of Tories who may have already secured medical exemptions is statistically impossible.

No doubt, dubious medical exemptions will likely become another story that will serve to underline just how badly the Tories are offside with the rest of the country.

According to Holland, statistically speaking only one Conservative of the 119-member caucus should be qualifying for a medical exemption from vaccination.

No one knows how many Conservatives have been exempted as the party refuses to say.

But as long as the issue is on the public agenda, and parliament is seized with votes on mandatory vaccines for federal employees and travelers on trains or planes, the Conservatives will continue to be on the wrong side of the issue.

Almost two years into the pandemic, scientific experts are calling on governments to convince people to get vaccinated with hopeful messaging, not fearmongering.

But if Parliamentarians themselves are not on board, how can they possibly convince the country to vaccinate our children and follow up with booster shots when necessary?

The Throne Speech made it clear that management of the pandemic was front and centre on the Liberal agenda.

To date, that has been a winner for them. For the official opposition to continue to muddy the COVID waters is a huge political mistake.

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