Canadians are miffed by the WE mess, but they are still willing to give the prime minister the benefit of the doubt. Their patience is wearing thin. The opposition parties will continue to push for Justin Trudeau’s head, and unless he does something soon, they may succeed.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 3, 2020.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to learn a valuable lesson from the last scandal that almost buried his government.

The agonizing internal bleed caused by the cabinet resignations of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott almost cost him the government.

Instead of earning a robust majority in the midst of a strong economy and great job numbers, Liberals limped back with a minority. The loss of seats was the result of integrity questions related to SNC Lavalin’s effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement.

The prime minister suffered a personal hit in his popularity when allegations from two ministers dragged on for months.

History seems to be repeating itself. The damage being done by the WE funding agreement is growing daily. It appears the government does not have a strategy to make it go away.

The only thing that will work is a high-profile firing or two. That will remind the public that someone has actually paid a price for this mess.

The deeper we plumb the international workings of the WE network of not-for-profit to business links, the more the government is being damaged.

Recent surveys show that most Canadians have lowered their opinion of the prime minister because of the WE problems.

They are still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but simply saying sorry is not enough.

At some point it was rumoured that Bardish Chagger would have been on the chopping block as she was the minister directly responsible for delivering the program.

Thankfully, that did not happen, as that would simply have reinforced the Raybould/Philpott narrative that Trudeau was not really supportive of women on his team.

Trudeau and chief of staff Katie Telford did a decent job of defending themselves in their testimony before a parliamentary committee.

But that will not turn the corner.

And in the dog days of summer, the opposition parties will continue to do their level best to keep the WE saga on the front pages of the newspaper.

That is their job, and they have been superb in keeping new information about WE to a public that is fatigued from hearing nothing but COVID news.

The internal machinations of WE have certainly provided fodder for critics.

Ousted WE Charity chair Michelle Douglas testified last week that she did not know the organization paid people as WE day speakers. That was a complete contradiction to statements issued by the organization when it was revealed that Trudeau family members had been paid for their appearances.

The fact is that the prime minister’s mother has built up a national following because of her personal experience with and advocacy for mental health issues.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Margaret Trudeau being paid for her work, but there is something wrong when one arm of the WE organization has no knowledge of the payouts by another arm of the organization.

Recent news concerning WE’s hiring of high-priced American lobby firms to support their initiatives in the United States is also prompting more opposition questions.

In reality, an international movement with the reach of WE needs to rely on paid help to get support and sponsorship.

And the Kielburger brothers made it very clear that if this line of inquiry continues, the very survival of the organization could be at stake.

Thousands of young people will be deprived of an opportunity to learn about community contributions because somebody jumped the gun on awarding a contract to WE.

The prime minister needs to staunch the bleeding by some bold internal moves.

One of them definitely includes moving the minister of finance out of his portfolio.

The second one must include a restructuring of the inner advisory circle of the prime minister, who apparently did not understand the basic concepts of parliamentary recusal.

Ultimately, the buck stops with the prime minister, but if his office did not provide him with proper advice, he needs to ensure that does not happen again.

The leader has done a fantastic job in carrying the country through the COVID crisis.

It is a shame that a not-for-profit sidebar could undo all the good that has been happening.

But unless the prime minister moves quickly with some dramatic internal departures, that is exactly what could happen.

Canadians are miffed by the WE mess, but they are still willing to give the prime minister the benefit of the doubt.

Their patience is wearing thin.

The opposition parties will continue to push for Trudeau’s head, and unless he does something soon, they may succeed.

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

That means responding quickly and forcefully to false opposition claims and moving aggressively on a progressive policy agenda.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 15, 2019.

OTTAWA—Justin Trudeau has obviously decided that his Kumbayah method of leadership needs a switch.

He came out swinging in the caucus speech, announcing his decision to turf Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.

And then he moved swiftly by warning the leader of the opposition that Andrew Scheer faces a defamation lawsuit if allegations about Trudeau committing a crime were to continue.

This attack mode runs counter to his normal, sunny disposition and desire to work things out.

Even when he does go out on the attack, he appears reluctant to carry through with it.

Consider the recent case of the legal letter from Trudeau lawyer Julian Porter to Scheer.

Scheer received the letter almost a week before he revealed the contents.

One of the basic rules on communication is that he who leads with the story controls the narrative. So why didn’t PMO get a head start?

Even though Trudeau launched a legal salvo, the public spin on what it could mean was completely in the control of Andrew Scheer.

Trudeau’s seeming unwillingness to get ahead of many stories is one of the reasons that his personal popularity has taken a major hit, following the two-month Jane and Jody show.

Wilson-Raybould’s story was leaked to The Globe and Mail, and the substance was not immediately dealt with in an open and forthright fashion by the prime minister.

She was bitter at being removed from her dream job of attorney general and justice minister. But her treatment of a number of files during her time in justice were sufficient cause for the prime minister to make a change.

No one is a minister for life and it is up to the prime minister to choose his team. Her attempt to promote an anti-Charter justice in the top job of the Supreme Court was itself sufficient to warrant a job change.

But instead of defending his decision with a fulsome explanation of the whole story, Trudeau kept insisting the mess was a simple matter of miscommunication.

It was not.

Wilson-Raybould was blocking documents requested by the Privy Council Office, and criticizing colleagues who dared to ask her whether there were other options in the consideration of a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin.

After weeks of leaks, which painted the prime minister into a corner, Trudeau finally came out to reinforce his commitment to exhaust all options given the jobs that could have been at risk in the SNC-Lavalin case.

Once again, too little, too late.

Even when the Prime Minister’s Office or surrogates went on the attack with their own discrediting leaks, no one seemed able to put a name to a single one of the criticisms.

The final straw occurred when the PMO revealed the reason the firings took so long was because the prime minister was trying to negotiate a way back with the two former ministers.

Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough was mandated to speak to the media about the negotiations.

She prefaced her remarks by saying she could not speak about the substance of the negotiations.

If not, what was the point of scrumming when you refuse to speak about the message you want to reinforce?

Once again, the former attorney general fired back with a denial of the most damning allegation, that she demanded the prime minister tie the hands of the new minister with the same level of direction that she had decried in her own case.

Wilson-Raybould issued a very carefully worded denial, which was not a direct no.

But since no one on the other side countered it, it muddied the waters and countered the prime minister’s claim that his office had worked diligently to get the two recalcitrant members back on board.

The whole business of who is allowed to fire a member from caucus was confusing because the Liberals took so long to respond to Michael Chong’s claim that the firing was questionable because of new amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act.

Trudeau and his team had three years of sunny stories and positive domestic and international media. Two of his own colleagues have managed to derail that momentum, and now the Liberals are going to have to fight to get back on their agenda.

That means responding quickly and forcefully to false opposition claims and moving aggressively on a progressive policy agenda.

Climate change and gun control are two items that clearly differentiate the Grits and the Tories.

The prime minister better start getting ahead of those stories instead of fighting a continuous rear-guard action.

Editor’s note: This column originally reported that Michael Chong claimed the authority to fire an MP was illegal, but this has been corrected. Mr. Chong did not claim it was illegal, but did question the prime minister’s authority to fire an MP without a caucus vote. At that first caucus meeting, a recorded vote of Liberals MPs was required because of new amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. Liberal MPs were required to adopt or reject the rule concerning the expulsion of a member by caucus through a secret-ballot vote. That recorded vote never took place, as confirmed by Liberal MP John McKay. That the recorded vote never took place contravened of Sec. 49.8 of the act.

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

The former justice minister’s actions show that protecting the prime minister wasn’t her priority.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 8, 2019.

OTTAWA—Imagine being given the privilege to serve in not one but two positions in cabinet, an opportunity that is afforded to only a few Canadians in every generation.

All members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the prime minister, something that seems to have escaped Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former justice minister and attorney general.

It is almost comical to see her claiming her motivation was protecting her boss and promoting the independence of the judiciary. She sees no problem in demanding that the prime minister tell her successor what to do.

She also sees no problem in breaking her own legal oath by secretly taping a client, and then claiming it happened because she didn’t have a handy note taker at home.

The former minister’s infamous five conditions prove one thing: the self-identified truth teller does not always tell the whole truth.

Her fifth condition was a blatant breach of prosecutorial responsibility. All prosecutors have a duty to continually consult and to update decisions based on new facts that can emerge right up until court judgment day.

Maybe the minister did not understand that.

The biggest mistake made by the prime minister was putting someone in the job so lacking in judicial experience.

That lack of wisdom became clear two years ago, when the former minister was charged with finding a replacement to retiring chief justice Beverley McLachlin. She wrote a 60-page report recommending that a Manitoba judge take the top job, even though he had never served in the top court.

The prime minister balked because the candidate had publicly questioned the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

She appeared to be motivated principally by the creation of an opening in Manitoba’s top job, not the experience required by a chief justice. Media reports said she hoped to replace the top judge with Manitoba’s first Indigenous chief justice.

Trudeau vetoed her choice, as well he should have. That marked the beginning of the breakdown in trust between the former minister and the prime minister.

In the case of SNC-Lavalin, the prime minister never directed her.

The secret tape she made of her conversation with the former clerk of the Privy Council made that very clear.

Rather, the prime minister wanted to make sure that all legal options were exhausted in advance of making a decision, which sounded reasonable and within prosecutorial parameters. A second opinion from a former chief justice was entirely reasonable.

The minister should have understood her obligation to review the facts right up to a criminal conviction. But that runs counter to her claim that politicians should never give any input to any attorney general. Except her.

Wilson-Raybould’s five conditions have prompted a lot of people to revisit their perspective that she was acting out of principle and not political expediency. Even the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party weighed in with this viewpoint before his leader hastily shut him down.

The former minister’s five demands run counter to the long-held principle that a minister serves in cabinet at the pleasure of the prime minister.

Instead, Wilson-Raybould seems to believe the reverse. The prime minister is supposed to publicly apologize and staffers in his office are to be fired. She wanted the head of the former clerk of the Privy Council, even though the secret tape she released shows that Wernick treated her with professionalism and courtesy.

So many people have viewed this issue through a feminist or Indigenous lens, but they missed the big picture.

Wilson-Raybould kept saying she wanted to protect the prime minister. If that was the case, why did she not quickly respond to the original Globe and Mail leak saying there was no problem, and she would review the matter?

Instead, she and her colleague Jane Philpott worked industriously to shop the story around Ottawa for weeks.

When the government introduced the budget, Philpott made sure she disrupted the message by giving an interview to Maclean’s magazine, which landed like a thunderbolt in the middle of the budget debate.

Philpott said she did not seek any interview opportunities, but other journalists came forward to say they had been offered the same story.

Trudeau had no choice but to lance this caucus boil.

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

While Justin Trudeau’s own house is burning around him, the prime minister continues to claim that all is well in Liberal land and he welcomes the input of two former ministers who have engaged in the death of a thousand cuts with all their colleagues.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on April 1, 2019.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s precipitous poll drop should serve as a pre-election wakeup call.

Whatever side of the Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott show you are on, one thing is clear: the biggest loser in the war of allegations is the prime minister.

Players are busy issuing affidavits that they didn’t leak the initial story that vaulted the Jody Wilson-Raybould story to the front page of The Globe and Mail.

Wilson-Raybould herself has been quoted saying she was not responsible for any leak. But if her interpretation of a conversation with the prime minister ended up in print, she must have told someone.

While his own house is burning around him, the prime minister continues to claim that all is well in Liberal land and he welcomes the input of two former ministers who have engaged in the death of a thousand cuts with all their colleagues.

The women and young people who vaulted Trudeau from third to first place are beginning to have second thoughts.

Trudeau swept to power in a surprising win promising sunny ways and appealing to next generation voters.

Sunny ways will not last forever.

Trudeau needs an aggressive Plan B because the sunny words passing daily from his lips are not credible.

Trudeau is now bleeding support from the very demographic he needs to win an election, because his own brand has been badly damaged by internal allegations from a former cabinet colleague unhappy about losing her “dream job.”

The internal warfare has damaged the leader directly and delivered the possibility of a majority government to Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer.

This past week, we have seen some semblance of prime ministerial pushback with a couple of unfavourable stories about the former attorney general being leaked to the media.

But even those leaks were damaging, as Trudeau publicly claims no ownership of the breach in confidentiality faced by the judicial appointments process.

In the same way that the negative stories about Trudeau could only have come from Wilson-Raybould, the reverse is also true.

At some point, a leader has to stop apologizing and lead. Trudeau really needs to signal to his caucus that he is ready to do battle. He needs to start with an internal housecleaning.

If that means turfing a couple of bad apples out of the caucus, it could not happen soon enough. Eight weeks of public bloodletting from inside the Liberal team is enough.

Let the caucus do the job the majority would like done. When a senior member with the political experience of Judy Sgro challenges the pair to “put up or shut up” you know what action the wisdom of experience is dictating.

The time has come for Trudeau to show that he actually wants to continue as prime minister.

Prime minister means first minister. He is the boss of the team, the leader to whom all colleagues are looking for signals as to how they can extricate themselves from this mess. Instead, his sunny demeanour is making it worse.

Inaction has already cost him a principal secretary and the clerk of the Privy Council. Neither resignation has staunched the flow of bad ink coming from the whisper campaign of allegations being levelled by the duo.

We know from the testimony of the former attorney general that the actions of the prime minister were legal. End of story. So why the post-budget claim from Philpott that there is so much more to come?

As Philpott was not present for the discussion between Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould, she must have received information from her friend. Passing along that information is a clear violation of cabinet confidentiality. Obviously, if Wilson-Raybould broke her cabinet oath of confidentiality, she cannot be trusted to respect caucus confidentiality.

Philpott was taking copious notes during her appearance before Ontario caucus and was told to stop, as nobody is supposed to record what goes in inside caucus.

Just last Thursday, Trudeau was again apologizing for allegedly using a sarcastic tone against protesters who disrupted a Liberal fundraiser.

Trudeau commented that he was disrespectful to the protesters, but made no mention of how they disrespected him. There are plenty of avenues open to protesters, but disrupting an event and then actually getting a refund of their ticket price, is hardly the response one expects from a leader.

Trudeau is going to have to decide if he is willing to fight for his government. Fighting may run counter to his natural instinct.

But sunny ways will not work.

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

Celina Caesar-Chavannes left the Liberal caucus after publicly challenging the character of the leader. Her two former cabinet colleagues should follow suit.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on March 25, 2019.

OTTAWA—Celina Caesar-Chavannes did the right thing. She left the Liberal caucus after publicly challenging the character of the leader.

Her two former cabinet colleagues should follow suit. In defending her decision, Caesar-Chavannes showed some insight into how her actions might have caused some damage to the Liberal Party.

She said she was leaving because she did not want to cause any more “grief’ to her constituents, especially those who were strong Liberal supporters.

The rookie Member of Parliament declined to comment on whether she had patched things up with the leader.

But at least she is on the outside looking in, which is where the other two should be.

There is a difference among the three, and therein lies the rub.

Caesar-Chavannes has already announced that she has no intention of running in the next election. The other two both plan to run as Liberals while they are doing their best to damage the leader.

Jane Philpott kept the anti-Liberal rhetoric going with an accusatory interview to Maclean’s magazine.

Jody Wilson-Raybould sent out a 684-word manifesto on why she would be seeking re-election “currently” as a Liberal.

That is the only time she mentions the dreaded L-word.

We all know Wilson-Raybould chooses her words carefully. She does not always tell the whole story, as when she neglected to mention the prime minister’s offer of a cabinet switch to the Ministry of Indigenous Services.

So why would she qualify her Liberal standing with the adverb “currently”? The dictionary defines the word as “at the current time.” That leaves the door wide open for her to switch sides.

Several weeks ago, I wrote that her father had referenced Wilson-Raybould’s potential to take down the government and replace Justin Trudeau.

My viewpoint was skewered in the Twitterverse. One virulent critic is Warren Kinsella, a political operative and former Liberal staffer who has a hate-on for Trudeau.

Kinsella accused me of acting as a spokesperson for the prime minister’s office. I tweeted him directly, seeking a retraction, which never came.

But Kinsella’s own cyber presence is revelatory.

He has set up a petition to collect names and emails of all those Canadians who supported the former attorney general and tweets virulent anti-Trudeau messages on a regular basis.

The government was hoping the budget would be a channel-changer on the damaging internal fighting that has cost the prime minister and the caucus dearly.

Wilson-Raybould needs media oxygen to keep her name in lights.

She needs to stay in caucus to keep this drama going.

By refusing to resign, they both prove their motives are not so pure as those of Caesar-Chavannes.

In an open letter to constituents, Wilson-Raybould made some stunningly sophomoric generalizations. Referring to constituents she writes, “You are the true leaders who reject the increasing culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games that are far too common, and you are committed to building a culture of ever greater collaboration, truth-seeking, and principled service for the well-being of Canada and all Canadians.”

However, she makes no mention of who is actually creating this culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games.

The only conflict she has claimed is with the prime minister, his staff, and former Privy Council colleagues.

So how does she square the “cynicism and empty partisanship” claim with her stated desire to run for the Liberals?

If the top job is the former minister’s endgame, Wilson-Raybould needs the Liberal Party more than the party needs her.

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 on Monday, September 4, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Last week’s cabinet remake will prompt a much-needed reboot of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

By splitting it in two, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is legally acknowledging what many have realized for years.

The promised delivery of territorial services in remote Indigenous communities is a huge undertaking that will take more than an election promise to deliver.

Trudeau has announced a five-year timeline to abolish all boil-water advisories on territorial lands.

For most of us, comfortably ensconced in homes with ample access to running water, a day’s shutoff is a catastrophe.

But for hundreds of Aboriginal communities, the idea of daily access to clean drinking water is literally a pipe dream.

At the end of 2016, more than 150 communities across the country had to boil their tap water before use.

In some cases, like Shoal Lake in northwestern Ontario, and Kitigan Zibi in Quebec, the local population has not accessed safe drinking water for up to two decades.

By splitting Indigenous Affairs into two separate departments, the prime minister is fleshing out the specifics of his promise to reconcile historic divisions with First Nations, Metis, and Inuit.

As he said in support of the shuffle, “There’s a sense that we’ve pushed the creaky old structures at INAC as far as they can go”.

Minister Carolyn Bennett will continue to take responsibility for legal and treaty rights, as minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs responsible for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit relations with the government.

Former Health minister Jane Philpott has taken over responsibility for delivering services like education, health, and housing in her role as head of the Department of Indigenous Services. The switch from her former Health portfolio to Indigenous Services is not as much of a leap as it might seem at first blush.

The federal government is actually the seventh largest provider of health care services in Canada. When provincial health ministers gather to discuss issues, they often insist the sole federal role is financial. But in reality, with responsibility for Indigenous and military health delivery, the government of Canada has more responsibility for service delivery than many provinces and territories.

Philpott’s success in the Health portfolio, and her professional background, will stand her in good stead with these new responsibilities. She is also going to discover that Health ministry challenges were a walk in the park compared to the enormity of Indigenous service shortcomings and requirements.

Modern interpretation of the decades-old Indian Act implies that this paternalistic legislation was totally designed by white people who were determined to reinforce an imbalanced relationship. In some measure, that interpretation is correct. But the elephant in the room is that when it comes to legislative changes, there is no unanimity amongst different Indigenous communities.

When the Indian Act was amended back in 1985 to conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the biggest opponents of abolishing institutionalized sexism were Aboriginal chiefs.

At that time, if an Aboriginal woman married a white man, she lost all rights and could be kicked off her ancestral home. If an Aboriginal man married a white woman, the marriage contract would confer his rights upon the wife and all her descendants.

The greatest opposition to post-matrimony equality came from the chiefs. The Assembly of First Nations categorically refused to endorse a legislative amendment to confer equal marital rights on women and men. National native womens’ associations lobbied Parliamentarians for equality, and many of us, especially women politicians, were on their side.

Canada’s first Aboriginal minister, Len Marchand, an Indigenous leader from British Columbia, lead the charge for full equality. In the end, he lost the battle, when the act was amended to confer equal marriage status for Aboriginal women and their children but exclude descendants. To this day, vestiges of gender discrimination exist in the legislation, largely because Aboriginal leadership has blocked full equality.

Philpott will be dealing with multiple challenges in her new job, not the least of which will be working with remote communities to secure the kind of access to services that the rest of us take for granted.

Last week’s cabinet changes will ensure that service delivery will merit undivided ministerial attention.

Philpott immediately dampened down expectations, explaining that “we’re undoing generations of dysfunctional and discriminatory structures. We don’t want to pretend that this is going to be done overnight.”

The minister is right about the dysfunction. But the sad reality is that those discriminatory structures are not just a white man’s legacy.

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