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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are at the halfway point in the election, but much could happen in the yin and the yang of the campaign. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 14, 2025.

OTTAWA—Does size matter? Pierre Poilievre seems to think so.

In this regard, he is aligning himself closely with U.S. President Donald Trump, who claimed that his inauguration day crowds during his first term were bigger than anything posted by Barack Obama.

Poilievre has also claimed his crowds are the biggest in history, which, of course, is false.

Back in 1979, governing Liberals managed to organize a rally of more than 20,000 people in Toronto’s Maple Leaf Gardens and then went on to lose the election to the Conservatives.

Rallies definitely help to charge up the base, which serves to grow the ground game of local candidates, but they also chew up a lot of time that could be better used recruiting new supporters.

In Poilievre’s case, he has a solid group of core followers who will never waver. They also tend to be opponents of vaccinations, and the so-called “woke” world they are living in.

But the work to grow his base will actually decide the election. If he cannot do that, it doesn’t matter how many of the faithful line up to join his rallies, he won’t win.

As for organizers, most will tell you that the campaign focus should be on local organizational voter-identification. This is not getting done when people are busy getting supporters to rallies.

How is that relevant?

When prime minister Brian Mulroney won his second election back in 1988, his party managed to secure victory in 20 ridings by less than 1,000 votes. In a tight race, what matters most is who actually gets to the polls to vote.

If the current numbers hold, (and that is not likely) the Liberals will win a comfortable majority and the race will be called within an hour of the polls closing.

But if the gap narrows, the number of seats with a margin of less than 1,000 votes could actually decide the election.

We are at the halfway point in the election, but much could happen in the yin and the yang of the campaign.

The debates in French and English will be very important because if Prime Minister Mark Carney stumbles, he will definitely curb the enthusiasm of his campaign.

Poilievre’s support is obviously not as wide, but it is very deep. In the case of Carney, his supporter is much broader, but without the depth of loyalty that Poilievre is enjoying.

People like Carney’s background and think that he has the right financial chops to deal with the chaos caused by Trump’s tariffs.

He will need to reinforce that impression during the debates, with particular attention to his performance in the French language.

Most French speakers are satisfied that Carney’s capacity in Canada’s second official language is not a vote-loser. Carney is particularly popular in Quebec.

During the final days of prime minister Justin Trudeau’s time in office, Liberals were lagging badly, but the Conservatives were not much more popular. The Bloc benefited from those numbers, with leader Yves-François Blanchet looking to form a majority in Quebec. But the Quebec numbers now show that Blanchet could lose even in his own riding.

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh is facing the same possibility as his single-digit polling could mean a massive rout for his party, including the potential loss of his own seat.

Singh is focusing his message on convincing Canadians that minority governments work better for people, in an effort to stem the massive move of New Democratic voters to the Liberals.

As long as Trump keeps threatening the world order, Canadians who are seeing their cost-of-living rise and their bank accounts shrink, want to rally around a leader who will fight the American president.

A minority Parliament would not provide Canadians with certainty in the global crisis that Trump has created.

A tight race between the Liberals and the Conservatives will create even more challenges for the Bloc and the NDP. In the global crisis, Canadians will want a strong prime minister. Those dynamics mean that this election has become a two-party race. And if you look at crowd-size, it looks as though Poilievre has an edge.

Carney’s crowds are growing in size as well, but the Liberal party’s focus is on a tight, get-out-the-vote campaign in every riding. That means that, while Tory supporters are following their leader in rallies, Liberals are looking for new voters in canvassing, phoning and social media activities.

Both parties are obviously working their ground game, but Poilievre’s push for big crowds does not mean victory.

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

Liberals are positioned to fight Donald Trump. Thanks to Alberta’s premier, the Conservatives seem to be ‘in sync’ with him.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 31, 2025.

OTTAWA—With friends like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre needs no enemies.

In the first week of a very short federal election campaign, Smith managed to solidify the ballot question in the Liberals’ favour.

Her major gaffe involved an intervention with the White House, asking American officials to delay tariffs until after the election because that would help Poilievre. Smith stated Poilievre was “in sync” with U.S. President Donald Trump.

All this was recorded in an interview Smith gave to Breitbart, a right-wing podcast that’s been advocating a constitutional amendment to make Trump president for life.

Instead of apologizing for foreign interference in an election, when confronted, Smith simply doubled down and claimed this was her lobbying effort for Canada.

The Alberta New Democrats did not agree, organizing the unveiling of a Canada flag in front of the Alberta legislature to underscore their belief in our country.

Smith added insult to injury by flying to Florida on March 27 to headline an extremist American fundraiser for an Islamophobic group that, according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, denies the history of slavery.

Smith was set to share the stage with Ben Shapiro, who has called Canada “a silly country” and the “Puerto Rico of the North.” Shapiro believes that Canada should be annexed as the 51st state without the right to vote.

Despite multiple requests to cancel her trip, Smith spoke in the Alberta legislature where she blamed the controversy on Liberals because the federal government had asked premiers to join in an all-in tariff lobbying effort.

Smith claimed the opposition to her Florida fundraiser came from eastern Canadian media elites, and the Liberals and New Democrats. She insisted that Albertans supported her.

The more she speaks out, the more Canadians learn about the deep ties between Canada’s Conservatives and MAGA supporters south of the border.

With the American vice-president joining his wife on an uninvited trip to Greenland, Canadians are taking the annexation threat very seriously.

Trump has refused to rule out the use of force to take over the island, but the local appetite for annexation is close to zero.

In the recent election, only one per cent of Greenland voters supported a party that promoted unification discussions. That party was the only one that did not get a single seat in parliament.

Back in this country, the ballot question for the April 28 election appears to be a vote on which leader is best placed to fight American tariffs and annexation.

Poilievre is trying to portray himself as the person with the chops to fight Trump’s tariffs, but quisling Smith’s cosy relationship with extremist Trump supporters is killing that narrative. Smith’s position is not lost on Canadian voters, and has helped to send Tory polling numbers downward.

The turnaround for the Liberals has been nothing short of astonishing. It is so positive that even a former Nova Scotia minister who left politics for “family reasons” made a surprise decision to return. Sean Fraser said last week it was a personal request from the leader that made him reverse his retirement decision, even though a successor for his riding nomination had already been chosen.

Other star candidates like a former mayor of Vancouver, the former acting mayor of Toronto, and well-known journalists Evan Solomon and Anthony Germain have jumped into the fray for the Liberals as the party’s popularity continues to rise.

The first week of the campaign has Liberals on a high.

Polling numbers across multiple platforms show that Prime Minister Mark Carney has eliminated Poilievre’s lead, and has moved to top spot.

The NDP has felt the pain of this Liberal swing because polls show leader Jagmeet Singh moving to single digits.

As Trump continues to threaten more tariffs and annexation, Liberal numbers continue to rise. Carney is viewed as the best choice to stare down the American president.

When it comes to the question of affordability, the Conservative leader fares best.

But it looks as though the ballot question will be who is best equipped to fight the United States. Carney’s massive resumé beats Poilievre’s by a mile.

Trump just added 25-per-cent tariffs to the automobile sector, and that is a huge blow to the Canadian economy.

As a pre-emptive strike, Carney announced a plan to fight the tariffs with a $2-billion auto industry fund the morning before Trump’s announcement. Poilievre was campaigning on tax cuts for seniors.

Liberals are positioned to fight Trump. Thanks to Smith, Tories seem to be in tight with him.

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.

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 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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 25, 2023.

OTTAWA—Protests and counter-protests on the rights of children to use their chosen pronouns were held across the country last week.

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh led a counter-protest in Ottawa, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took to X (formerly Twitter) to condemn “hate and its manifestations,” and reiterate his support for the 2SLGBTQ+ community across Canada.

Not surprisingly, Conservative Members of Parliament were silent on the issue, with the Canadian Press reporting that the leader’s office had told them not to discuss the protests with the media or on social media outlets.

A memo, shared with CP, was sent from the leader’s office claiming that protesters against LGBTQ education in the schools have a legitimate point to make about “parental rights.”

Heated clashes in cities across the country led to arrests in Halifax, Vancouver, Victoria, and Ottawa. The issue is heating up as governments in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have introduced legislation requiring students to get their parents’ permission before teachers can address them in their preferred he/she/they pronoun.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s office may not be able to stop Members of Parliament from weighing in when so many of them were elected thanks to support they received from social conservatives who do not support LGBTQ education in schools. The fact that the opposition leader is trying to keep a lid on comments shows that he understands the issue is a political hot potato that will win his party no new supporters.

As his party’s numbers climb, Poilievre has to be very careful to appeal to voters who are leery of social conservatism. Chances are the solidarity of potential power will not be enough to silence those in the caucus who got their political feet wet on recruiting social conservatives.

It is no coincidence that when Leslyn Lewis first ran for her party’s leadership in 2020, she was the first choice of Saskatchewan Tories. She swept the province where the premier and his government have recently enacted legislation to prevent minors from changing their pronouns without their parents’ permission.

Anti-trans rallies were organized across Canada last week by a group identifying itself as the “One Million March For Children,” which said it stood against gender ideology. But the marches were countered by groups defending the rights of 2SLGBTQ+ youth. Some are concerned that adolescents should not be outed to parents, and others wanted to support those teenagers who have self-identified as trans or gay.

Hate crimes against the gay community are on the rise, according to a report by Statistics Canada released last December. The report stated that police-reported hate crimes increased by 60 per cent between 2019 and 2021, reaching their highest level in five years.

Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford promised to change the sex education curriculum when he was courting socially conservative voters during his leadership campaign. However, while in government, he was accused of re-introducing a sex education curriculum that was virtually identical to the one he had criticized during his campaign. Ford learned quickly that modifying sex education is probably not a top-of-mind priority for most Ontarians.

Poilievre is likely discovering the same challenge at the federal level. But how is he going to be able to stop his right-wing caucus members from aligning themselves with the thousands who rallied across the country against sex education involving the 2SLGBTQ+ community? The temperature is rising on both sides, so it is difficult to see how the Conservatives are going to be able to stay out of the fray.

And when the leader of the New Democrats makes it his business to lead the counter-demonstration, he obviously understands the political issues at stake.

Most Canadians don’t really involve themselves in the adolescent pronoun debate. However, they do support rights for the LGBTQ community. With the advent of same-sex marriage and support for choice in sexual orientation, most people appreciate the wave of equality that has evolved in the past two decades.

But the small percentage of people who oppose transgender teaching in schools has unleashed the wrath of the silent minority. The number of parents and grandparents who showed up last week to support their transgender progeny could translate into a significant voting bloc in the next election.

If the issue provokes enough interest, it will actually move votes in the next election. Therein the reason why the Tories don’t want to be on the record with any comment when it comes to transgender policies in local school sectors.

Their political silence is golden. But it may not be sustainable.

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 July 17, 2023.

OTTAWA—According to Albert Einstein, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Someone should tell that to Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem. The bank has hiked interest rates 10 times since March of last year.

Instead of cooling the economy, the action simply hits workers harder. The Canadian economy continues to expand, with 60,000 new jobs added last month. Companies continue to face a worker shortage, forcing employers to increase their wage offerings in the hunt for employees. That is not a bad thing.

But hiking interest rates increases costs and depresses wages. Macklem insists his monetary policy is working, but he cannot say whether or not last week’s rate rise will work, calling for patience to see whether the actions succeed in reining in inflation.

Patience may be fine for those managing the money markets, but what about ordinary citizens on the verge of losing their homes because of the hike in interest rates?

The moves are fodder for New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh, who says these interest rate hikes are simply making things worse for workers and businesses. Singh is calling the current situation “greedflation,” and he blames the problem on greedy CEOs who are using the inflationary crisis to make more profit and gouge consumers. He says the government has to take another approach to tackle the current inflationary spiral.

Singh says supply chain issues, the war in Ukraine, and the cost of housing and groceries are responsible. None of these factors will be affected by interest rate increases. Only the pocketbooks of ordinary Canadians are touched.

Singh’s criticisms enjoin the year-long campaign of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who started calling for the firing of the Bank of Canada governor during his run for the party leadership. However, Poilievre’s financial acumen took a hit when he also suggested that Canadians should invest in cryptocurrency because it allows them to escape the inflation being created by the central bank.

Leadership opponent Jean Charest attacked Poilievre’s firing promise, and then Conservative finance critic Ed Fast stepped down from his post, claiming, “I’m deeply troubled by suggestions by one of our leadership candidates that the candidate would be prepared to interfere already at this stage in the independence of our central bank.”

That statement was made more than a year ago, but the continual climb in interest rates has started to create political pressure from both the right and the left. Singh is not calling for Macklem’s resignation, but he is asking for a change in the bank’s conventional approach to fighting inflation.

With complaints from both sides, the government is going to face some real pressure to pivot financially. Liberals can’t afford to fight inflation and an election. However, the fact that the Federal Reserve in the United States is expected to raise rates slightly at the end of the month could blunt criticism of the Canadian situation.

At the end of the day, ordinary Canadians are feeling the pinch at the grocery store and in the housing market. The cost of rental accommodation is skyrocketing across the country, and the path to home ownership for many is blocked by the high cost of mortgages.

Macklem is not the only central bank governor using interest rates as a blunt instrument, and if there is another route, it must be determined by the government, not the bank governor.

With grocery profits in the eye of the storm while prices seem to increase weekly, more needs to be done in that area. The recent price-fixing decision of the Competition Bureau, issuing a $50-million fine against Canada Bread, was a good first step.

But that money should go back to those Canadians who paid excessive prices for years.

Likewise, the bureau can do more, including speeding up the length and breadth of its investigations into price-gouging. The bread investigation took seven years and involved immunity to Loblaw Companies for revealing its part in the scheme. On average, the Competition Bureau found that Canadians paid $1.50 extra for bread products for the past eight years because of the collusion.

There are undoubtedly other food groups and other consumer items that face a similar lack of competition because of price-fixing. A move to strengthen the budget and investigative strength of the Competition Bureau would be a good place to start.

Firing the bank governor is not the answer. But doing something to stop price gouging would be a good start.

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 June 26, 2023.

OTTAWA—The four federal byelections last week sent a definite change message.

This time, the call for change went not to the prime minister, but to the leader of the Conservative Party.

Those byelections on June 19 saw the Tories’ percentage of the vote fall in three of the four ridings.

The Conservatives were not even close to being in the running in Winnipeg South Centre, Man., and their victory narrowed to a mere five per cent in Oxford, Ont., one of Ontario’s safest Tory ridings.

That close result was in stark contrast to the 2021 federal election, when the Conservatives in that riding were at 47 per cent of the vote compared to only 20 per cent for the Liberals.

The good news for the Conservatives was the poor performance of People’s Party of Canada (PPC) Leader Maxime Bernier in the Tory stronghold of Portage—Lisgar, Man.

In 2021, the PPC garnered their best national showing in that constituency, winning 21.58 per cent of the vote. With Bernier running this time, they dropped to 17.2 per cent.

The Tories’ right flank could be damaged by Bernier. On the money front, in the last quarter of 2022, the PPC experienced its best non-election fundraising quarter ever, raising $725,293, not far from the $866,505 donated to the Green Party.

But the Tory left flank is in deeper disarray.

The Oxford battle wound was self-inflicted, as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre parachuted his chosen candidate into a riding where outgoing MP Dave MacKenzie was promoting his own daughter.

The internal party situation got so ugly that MacKenzie endorsed local Liberal candidate David Hilderley after accusing his party of rigging the nomination results.

It is difficult to read much into the shift in the Oxford vote because it was prompted more by internal infighting than by a popularity spike for the Liberals.

The presence of winning candidate Arpan Khanna, a co-chair of Poilievre’s successful leadership campaign and a lawyer who practices in Mississauga, Ont., turned the riding nomination into an internal battle.

The result could simply be a political one-off, but Poilievre doesn’t appear to be changing his strategy in his take-no-prisoners approach to electioneering.

His tactic may delight his hardline supporters, but it is certainly not helping him with moderate Tories.

Another political slap was levelled at the Conservative leader last week when former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney praised Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during an Atlantic economic forum in Antigonish, N.S.

Mulroney hailed Trudeau’s leadership on big issues like COVID-19 and free trade, and said that those issues are what he will be remembered for, not for “the trivia and the trash and the rumours that make the rounds in Ottawa.”

Mulroney’s comments were noteworthy, not just for what he said, but also what he didn’t say. The former leader with the largest electoral majority in Canadian history did not even mention the name ‘Poilievre’, instead focusing his criticism on the tone of politics today.

But the message was not lost on anyone. If there is one person responsible for the negative tone in Parliament today, it is Poilievre.

The New Democrats saw their vote percentage fall in all of the byelections. That must also be a cause for concern, as their role in supporting the government’s agenda on progressive social items like dental care and pharmacare appears to be going unrewarded.

That conclusion presents a dilemma for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, because if he extricates his party from the agreement, it would likely prompt a quick election. The NDP can’t afford a quick vote unless the party can show there is political momentum in their direction.

Instead, the general analysis of the byelection patterns shows voters deciding between the Liberals and the Conservatives, edging out any chance for New Democratic growth.

The Green Party’s candidate for co-leader, Jonathan Pedneault, was also roundly trounced in the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Que., byelection that saw former Liberal president Anna Gainey elected by a majority vote.

Most of the opposition votes were split equally among the Greens, the NDP and the Conservatives.

General elections are usually dependent on the popularity of the government, not the strength of the opposition. If there is a national desire for change, that is a difficult wave to reverse.

But if the call for change is focused on the person who wants to replace the prime minister, that could complicate the narrative.

Last year, Mulroney warned Poilievre that he would have to moderate his rhetoric if he wants to win.

Mulroney and the byelections last week reinforced a message of moderation.

It remains to be seen whether Poilievre will listen.

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

Most Canadians who have not had a double-digit wage hike generally support the government’s approach of holding the line on increases.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 1, 2023.

OTTAWA—Modern technology blunts the effect of any government strike. With most Canadians’ finances now governed by direct deposit, the pain of a work disruption doesn’t hit them too hard.

The strike may help some by providing a little more time to pay taxes as any snail-mail cheques are not likely to be cashed for some time.

So how does a union make its point? Unfortunately, it does involve an attempt to disrupt normal government activities.

That includes slowing traffic at international borders and disrupting train travel at the Crown corporation Via Rail.

But those escalating actions may simply anger those whose travel plans have been disrupted. That anger is translated into news clips which focus on Canadians complaining about the strike.

The union’s attempt to secure public support is further eroded.

Almost two weeks into the strike, the public has been relatively untouched by its effects.

The same cannot be said for those who need specific services, like passport renewals.

The pressure right now is on the strikers’ pocketbooks, whose $75 daily picket line pay will not cover a mortgage payment.

As those employees are on the lower end of the public service payment scale, they are the most likely to be living from paycheque to paycheque. Their level of financial stress must be growing daily.

Meanwhile, negotiations have ground to a halt with PSAC president Chris Aylward denouncing the minister and demanding that the prime minister get involved directly.

That is not likely to happen anytime soon, as Treasury Board President Mona Fortier and her team have thus far been winning the battle of public opinion.

Even the New Democratic MPs have been relatively silent on the strike taking place outside the walls of Parliament.

They are under pressure to side with the workers, but most are relatively unengaged.

The opposition did pile in on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for travelling to New York for a United Nations gathering last week.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh attacked Trudeau’s absence during the largest strike in the history of the Canadian government. But the applause Singh received from colleagues for his attack has not been replicated in ridings across the country.

With the Liberal-NDP supply-and-confidence agreement still in place, the New Democrats are not speaking too loudly in favour of strikers outside of Question Period.

Those workers walking the picket line in the nation’s capital are having trouble enlisting public support.

One striker lamented to a local reporter that “people hate us.”

That reaction hurts because if there is any community where people should be siding with the workers, it is in the city of Ottawa.

It’s hard to drum-up support on the issues dividing the government and union, particularly when it comes to the question of who decides where to work.

The majority of Canadians work where their employment dictates. In some cases it is a no-brainer. Hospital and continuing care workers cannot work from home.

The same holds true for those in the lowest paid jobs in the service industry. From donut shops, to hotel and restaurant workers, they do not have the option to do their work from home.

The private sector is watching the work issue closely because any move to transfer workplace decisions to employees in the public sector could have a ripple effect.

So, it is pretty hard for the union to drum up public support for their request that work-from-home be part of the negotiation.

The government has taken the position that the location of a workplace is the sole discretion of the employer, and not an element for negotiation in a collective agreement.

So, the difference boils down to money.

The government has offered a nine per cent salary hike spread over three years, while the union has been seeking 13.5 per cent over three years.

That is an area where there could be some wiggle room, but on the money front, the Liberals are already facing criticism from the Conservatives for being too generous with tax dollars.

Most Canadians who have not experienced a double-digit wage hike generally support the government’s approach of holding the line on increases.

Pierre Poilievre’s narrative that Canada is broken could be buttressed by a lengthy strike.

If the Conservative leader can prove that the Liberals can’t govern, that will definitely help his electoral momentum.

But if the public is not supportive of the strikers, pressure to settle is definitely one-sided.

The longer the strike lasts, the more the union must bend.

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