By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 8, 2026.

OTTAWA—Do Canadians deserve clarity on the separation question?

Separatists don’t think so.

Last week, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to repeal the 26-year-old Clarity Act.

Ironically, they tabled the bill in the very Parliament that they would like to exit.

Motivation for the move was a decision by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to promote a referendum on a potential secession process in her province.

At least the Bloc is consistent.

Along with its provincial counterpart, the Parti Québécois, the Bloc has never wavered in its commitment to leave Canada. However, referendum fatigue has kept the issue on the back burner.

As recently as last August, former separatist premier Lucien Bouchard called on the current PQ leader to drop his plan for a first-term referendum. Paul St.-Pierre Plamondon agreed to disagree with the PQ icon.

Meanwhile, Smith met with Quebec Premier Christine Frechette last week, ostensibly to discuss economic ties and strategies to create more provincial autonomy.

Frechette is opposed to another Quebec referendum, but Smith claimed the two provinces are so aligned that their names should be changed to Alberbec or Queberta.

Their brief discussion did not include any talk about the federal clarity rules.

Prime Minister Mark Carney made it clear that a single vote does not meet the conditions for separation.

The Clarity Act requires a clear question and a clear majority, but the Bloc thinks a simple majority of 50-per-cent-plus-one is enough. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien said a simple majority was so ridiculous that if a voter forgot their glasses, they could accidentally vote to leave Canada.

The Alberta premier claims support for Canada, but has used her powers to encourage the referendum. She has intervened on three occasions to promote the separation question.

Her party’s claim, included in a bill passed by the Alberta legislature, promotes a “Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada.”

Bill 1, passed in 2022, sets out the legal framework for the province to stop enforcing federal initiatives.

Smith is facing a political pickle. The majority of Albertans want to remain in Canada, but the same cannot be said for the members of the premier’s United Conservative Party.

The Republican Party of Alberta lists 18 separatist UCP members of the legislature.

Multiple polls place the percentage of UCP members who want to separate at about 60 per cent.

Smith has to satisfy those members to keep her job, but in doing so, she risks losing the rest of Alberta.

Smith’s plan to campaign in favour of Canada is based on the high costs of separation.

But her actions tell a different story.

Smith lowered the threshold for the number of signatures needed to launch a referendum. She also launched grievance panels, touring the province, and providing separatists with an official platform to air their complaints about the country.

Her party president, Rob Smith, has publicly stated the UCP would remain neutral on the separation question, while the premier has contradicted him.

She also defends the referendum by repeating that 700,000 Albertans asked for this vote. That statement is disingenuous at best, as 404,000 of the signatories signed the Forever Canada Petition, whose organizers explicitly opposed the holding of a referendum on the question.

The second problem with the 700,000 number is that the signatures to separate have not been verified by Elections Alberta because of a court decision that the push for separation violates Indigenous rights.

Smith’s government has appealed that decision, opposing the initial court judgment that cited a failure of the legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples as a reason to block the referendum.

She claims the duty to consult comes after a referendum triggers a separation process.

But Indigenous leaders have been clear that there was a failure by Smith to consult with the Athabaska Chipewyan First Nation, Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, and Siksika First Nation.

Siksika chief Samuel Crowfoot was clear, “the Alberta government would do well to change their course in dealing with First Nations and engage with us in a respectful and meaningful way … we want to be part … (of) improving Alberta, not roadblocks in their efforts to appease a fringe majority.”

Smith knows her government has failed to consult First Nations and Métis before the referendum.

She will have a tough time convincing Albertans she believes in Canada since she has been the main proponent of her party’s path to departure.

New Democratic Leader Naheed Nenshi’s best chance of victory in next year’s Alberta election is the fight for Canada.

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

This is not simply a test of construction and security issues. It is a test of whether the Canadian government actually respects history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 23, 2026.

OTTAWA—U.S. President Donald Trump can tear down the White House Rose Garden to build a banquet hall with barely a peep from the American people.

Three prime ministers have not been able to move into Canada’s prime ministerial residence, and nobody can make a decision on how to fix it.

What is wrong with this picture? Presidential authority can go too far. We are currently on the brink of a global war started by the president without any support from the U.S. Congress or the majority of allies.

But a decision on the fate of 24 Sussex Dr. has been lagging for more than 15 years and the political class will not tackle it.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is not a traditional politician. Maybe he will have the guts to save the place that has been home to multiple prime ministers for more than 75 years. In making his decision, hopefully he will establish a process to ensure that no prime minister is ever faced with this Hobson’s choice again.

If Carney agrees to spend the money, he will be seen as self-serving, and simply building a home for himself. If he doesn’t spend money, Canada will be the only country in the G7 that refuses to properly house its leader.

Full disclosure: I was hired by Historic Ottawa Development Inc. to press for the preservation of the prime minister’s residence at 24 Sussex, and I lobbied the previous government on this issue. My contract with HODI ended almost a year ago.

I have no insider information, but I am hoping that Carney will finally bite the bullet and save 24 Sussex.

Previous prime ministers, including Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper, have already offered to raise money for the project.

To involve private donations would not be unprecedented. When former Conservative minister Ray Hnatyshyn became governor general, his wife Gerda was appalled at the state of the residence. Peeling wallpaper and shoddy furniture were what greeted visitors to the home of Canada’s head of state. Determined to change that, she was involved with the establishment of the Friends of Rideau Hall, whose mandate was to augment public funding for restoration work to the building and gardens of the magnificent home of the governor general.

After her husband left office, Gerda continued her philanthropic endeavours, working with the Canadian Heritage Garden Foundation to develop a heritage garden on the grounds.

Pierre Trudeau, who was a great believer in personal fitness, had a swimming pool installed on the grounds of 24 Sussex, funded by private donors. Designed by Stig Harvor, the indoor pool cost $275,000 and was paid for by donations from those who were promised anonymity. Trudeau initially wanted public funding for the site, but was convinced by advisers that would be too controversial. In the end, the anonymous donations were just as controversial, and the fundraising effort headed by Senator Keith Davey became a political albatross.

That controversy likely explains why his son, prime minister Justin Trudeau, was unwilling to make a decision on the site during his 10 years in office. His personal time at 24 Sussex must have been bittersweet, as his parents’ marriage failed during his youth at the residence.

But Carney does not have any of that personal baggage to deal with. At his one-year anniversary last week, the most notable observation was that he is a non-political politician. Perhaps his private sector experience will make a business case for the restoration of 24 Sussex as the prime minister’s home.

In the end, this is an affair of the heart. The heart of a nation that respects history and values heritage. The heart of a nation that doesn’t tear memories down, it builds them up. The heart of a nation that honours 24 Sussex as a home for all Canadians.

This is not simply a test of construction and security issues. It is a test of whether the Canadian government actually respects history.

The restoration of 24 Sussex as the national home of our prime minister is definitely the decision Carney should make.

For those who believe in sustainable living, it makes no sense to build a behemoth in Rockcliffe when we have a perfectly suitable government precinct including Rideau Hall, Rideau Cottage and 24 Sussex. The lifespan of most buildings in Europe is more than a century. In Canada, we are quick to tear things down after thirty years. Material from building demolitions and renovations is a major contributor to our landfills.

Canada would be an international laughing stock if we decided to abandon 24 Sussex for a new build.

Let’s hope our prime minister believes that the story of Canada, expressed through built heritage, is worth saving.

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

The prime minister’s refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy did not get him a single vote. Nor did the abolition of an ambassadorship. But women are taking notice.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 8, 2025.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney was elected this past April thanks to an estrogen wave.

That was what a key female Liberal organizer had to say about his victory. She said that wherever she travelled, knocking on doors for the Grits, women had confidence in him, and they were the ones reversing the Liberal electoral fate.

Only a few months ago, Liberals were expecting to hold their next Christmas party in a phone booth. Instead, the party is flooded with requests from people who want to join the winning team in this seasonal celebration.

All has been going well. But there are some clouds on the horizon that the leader should be taking seriously.

Words matter—especially when you are in politics. A single comment can be parsed to death.

How many articles were written when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1997 downplayed the police use of pepper spray during a protest against a G20 meeting in British Columbia?

“For me, pepper, I put it on my plate,” was Chrétien’s comical way of minimizing the confrontation.

More recently, Prime Minister Mark Carney declined to characterize Canada’s foreign policy as “feminist” during a press conference following the recent G20 summit in South Africa.

Some saw this as wordsmithing.

Others saw it as a pivot away from the Justin Trudeau government’s 2017 Feminist International Assistance Policy, intended to focus on foreign aid that supports women’s empowerment and gender equality.

The policy was a rebuttal of the previous Stephen Harper Conservative government, which instructed officials to remove gender-based analysis from all cabinet documents.

Carney’s international admission that Canada’s feminist foreign policy was dead has sent ripples throughout the domestic foreign aid community.

Last week, a group of 92 organizations headed by Oxfam addressed an open letter to the prime minister, complaining of foreign aid cuts, and confusion around gender equality.

The organization also called for the re-establishment of an ambassador for women, peace, and security, a post that was folded into the foreign affairs department last March.

Most of us have probably never heard of this envoy, but according to Global Affairs Minister Anita Anand, Jacqueline O’Neill will continue to advocate in that area, sans official ambassadorial designation.

Carney’s statement in South Africa reinforced his initial cabinet decision to eliminate the department of Women and Gender Equality, arguing it could responsibly be included in the ministry for culture and identity.

That faux pas was reversed two months later because of the political backlash it caused.

Similar opposition is quietly brewing internally on feminist foreign policy issues.

A group of senior Liberal women, united on social media, have made it very clear they would be lobbying colleagues at the Christmas party next week.

There is also work within the Liberal women’s caucus, headed by Quebec MP Linda Lapointe, to have the issue referred to the main caucus.

The women’s caucus was crucial in getting Carney to reverse his position and reinstate WAGE as a full ministry.

The open letter from many groups that work internationally on women’s issues will definitely have some effect, but the angst of Liberal women will be even more crucial.

Carney probably thought his rebuttal of a feminist foreign policy would be understood.

He said he wanted gender equality to be a part of the government’s funding mechanisms.

But his focus on defence spending and identifying major projects for national funding means the majority of mega-financing will be focused on men’s jobs.

Like it or not, fewer than 20 per cent of the jobs in the energy sector go to women.

Less than 20 per cent of the Canadian military is also made up of women, and similar numbers apply to defence industries supplying the military.

If only one in five of the big jobs created goes to women, it will be felt in our employment numbers.

More importantly, Carney’s election to the top job was largely dependent on the women’s vote. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was able to secure support from young and middle-aged men in numbers big enough to form government.

But it was women who made sure that Carney got the nod.

No wave lasts forever. An estrogen wave is just as vulnerable to destruction as any other wave.

But surely the loss of support from women should not be based on misspoken messages.

Carney’s refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy did not get him a single vote. Nor did the abolition of an ambassadorship. But women are taking notice.

The prime minister needs estrogen to win. A feminist agenda reset is in order.

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

While Philippe Léger and others beat the drum to reopen questions around federal interference in the 1995 vote, nobody is asking how provincial agencies and Crown corporations received cash to spend on Parti Québécois propaganda in the year leading up to the vote.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 1, 2025.

OTTAWA—”Operation Citizenship” was all the buzz in Quebec last week. Former immigration minister Sergio Marchi was quoted in a Quebec newspaper saying he was instructed by then-prime minister Jean Chrétien to speed up citizenship applications in advance of a potential referendum vote.

That article followed a revelation by Marchi in the Journal de Quebec coinciding with the referendum’s 30th anniversary.

It was the first time that “Operation Citizenship” was confirmed by any federal cabinet minister although reports of a potential surge in citizenship were originally noted by journalist Chantal Hébert almost 30 years ago.

Marchi has recently written a book, Pursuing a Public Life: How to Succeed in the Political Arena.

The book, published by Dundurn Press, was published on Nov. 4, and launch parties are being held to get some attention.

Two weeks ago, a presentation was held at Library and Archives Canada, and next week, Conservative MP Michael Chong and Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi will co-host a reception with the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians.

Marchi does not write about the citizenship issue in his book, and thought the journalist’s interview would be about his tome.

He spoke freely about the prime minister’s intention to make sure that the right to vote was not denied anyone who had applied for citizenship.

Journalists reported a spike in application processing in the month leading up to the October 1995 referendum, but the confirmation of a citizenship strategy after 30 years exploded like a bombshell in Quebec media circles.

Journal de Montreal columnist Philippe Léger, no fan of the former prime minister, had this to say about the revelation: ”In the pantheon of Canadian history of deception and anti-democratic manoeuvres, Jean Chrétien holds a prominent place … if there is one political constant for Chrétien, he has always put Canada first, at the cost of cheating and undermining the democratic will of Quebecers.”

Newly-elected Quebec Liberal Leader Pablo Rodriquez downplayed the revelation, saying that Quebecers were tired of going back 30 years to debate an old question.

Most people believe Rodriquez is right. But there is a cadre of disappointed separatists who will never accept the fact that Quebecers want to stay in Canada.

While Léger and others are beating the drum to reopen questions around federal interference in the vote, nobody is shining a light into how provincial agencies and Crown corporations were funded with pro-separation budgets to spend hard cash on Parti Québécois propaganda for a year leading up to the referendum.

For example, at the time, Tourism Quebec was providing paper placemats to all restaurants, stating “Welcome to my country, Quebec” with a flourishing fleur-de-lis flag. Those menus were primarily used by small mom-and-pop restaurants who couldn’t afford tablecloths and personalized menus.

That was exactly the demographic the Parti Québécois was looking to influence.

In a radio interview more than 20 years later, I debated Jean-Francois Lisée on the issue. Lisée, a former Radio Canada journalist, became leader of the Parti Québécois from 2016 to 2018. He confirmed in the interview that government agencies were funded in the year leading up to the 1995 referendum with a budget specifically designed for independence.

His rationale was that the funding stopped before the referendum was called, so it did not need to be included in referendum spending documents.

On the show, he admitted that Hydro Québec and other Crown corporations were financed to develop separatist promotions in their work for the year before the vote.

However, for some reason, there has been lots of interest in federal involvement in the referendum, but zero interest in covering actions that favoured the separatists.

One that stands out was the decision by a trucking convoy to block the road to Montreal’s West Island on the day of the referendum. That was a definitive strategy to snarl traffic in areas where the vote was expected to be almost 100 per cent pro-Canada.

Not surprisingly, neither public officials nor police did anything to get cars moving, but that has never been investigated. Thousands were denied the right to vote on the West Island because of the illegal blockade.

So while “Operation Citizenship” may get separatists’ hackles up, there are plenty of unanswered questions about dirty tricks on the other side.

Just before the referendum, then-premier Jacques Parizeau told a group of diplomats that if Quebecers were to vote ‘no’ in the referendum, they would be like “lobsters in boiling water.” The lobster gaffe was widely denied, even though Parizeau was caught on tape.

In politics there are usually no saints on either side.

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

Jean Chrétien belled the Alberta cat in a way that everyone can understand: ‘They never sold as much oil as they have today and they’re complaining as if they are going bankrupt?’ 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 10, 2025.

OTTAWA—Jean Chrétien spent more than 40 years in public life. Upon taking his leave, he still maintains a rabid interest in politics, and has often joked about returning to help the Liberal Party when it has been in need.

Prime Minister Mark Carney thought so much of Chrétien that he invited him to the government’s first swearing in on March 14 at Rideau Hall. At that point, Chrétien revealed a little historical gem. Carney’s father had run for the Liberals in an Edmonton riding back in the 1980 federal election.

Carney’s invitation to Chrétien was an abrupt departure from his predecessor’s government’s treatment of the former prime minister.

Justin Trudeau liked to reach out across the aisle to enlist former Conservatives like Rona Ambrose to work with cabinet on files. But his government was loathe to involve former prime ministers or former senior Liberal cabinet ministers in any policy or political development.

At one point, business leaders across the country and former prime minister Brian Mulroney reached out to Trudeau to convince him that Chrétien could negotiate a peace agreement with the Chinese after the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou in 2018.

The offer was leaked to the media before it had been accepted by the Prime Minister’s Office. Then-foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland went ahead to publicly snub Chrétien by stating that if she needed his help, she would be in touch.

Trudeau was probably worried about working too closely with his father’s generation, since Chrétien had been a minister with Pierre Trudeau, working closely on the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution and the establishment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As political offspring, younger Trudeau obviously wanted to chart his own course, but in bypassing Chrétien, his government ignored wisdom that could have helped.

Trudeau’s fight with the Chinese went on for two years. Even after the telecom executive had been freed in a deal crafted with the Americans in 2021, Canada continued to suffer the ire of a Chinese government insulted by the government’s treatment of a senior business leader.

Chrétien could easily have gotten the Canadian government out of this mess because he also had a deep personal relationship with members of the Chinese government, and that history would have resulted in a solution.

Instead, political neophytes like Freeland kept repeating the promise to uphold “law and order,” all the while doing the Americans’ dirty work.

The United States government used Canada as a stand-in, and then cut a deal with Wanzhou that made our southern neighbours look good while this country suffered.

Chrétien’s wisdom shone through again last week when he weighed in on current Canadian politics and the peculiar stance of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

His simple “I put pepper on my plate” logic applied in many areas. And as he said about Smith, she is flirting with the separatists on the one hand, while on the other hand, she wants Canada to intervene in the provincial politics of neighbouring British Columbia.

Chrétien also pulled no punches when recently referring to U.S. President Donald Trump as a leader who is posing a threat to democracy.

The former prime minister, who learned to speak English in his thirties, possesses the gift of straight talk in both official languages.

Some Quebec elites in his day criticized him because they felt his use of the French language was not sophisticated enough for their crowd. They believed his vocabulary could be subjected to ridicule.

On the contrary, people love his ability to take a complex question and boil it down to the truth.

The truth for Smith is that she is talking out of both sides of her mouth. While loosening the rules and numerical requirements for a referendum, Smith is sending a signal to her supporters that separation is positive.

She also continues to threaten separation if her government’s proposed pipeline project is not immediately endorsed by the rest of Canada. She can’t convince a private sector company to invest in the project, but, nonetheless, she keeps repeating that this is a test for the country.

Chrétien belled the Alberta cat in a way that everyone can understand: “They never sold as much oil as they have today, and they’re complaining as if they are going bankrupt?”

Chrétien always mixes wisdom with humour.

When his beloved wife Aline was alive, the former prime minister joked that she was only one stopping him from jumping back into politics.

He still weighs in periodically, and reminds all of us that to be good in politics, funny trumps nasty.

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

With referendums now being threatened in Alberta and Quebec, the current prime minister and his cabinet should remember what we almost forgot: ‘Les absents ont toujours tort.’

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 3, 2025.

OTTAWA—Thirty years ago last week, Canada’s future hung in the balance.

In a second referendum in less than 15 years, it looked very likely that Quebec was going to vote to separate in 1995.

At the time, many argued the question was misleading, as it asked voters to engage in a new negotiation with Canada, and only separate if the negotiations failed.

Whatever the nature of the question, the momentum was on the side of the “Yes” vote. Of course, the Parti Québécois government established the question and their answer was a positive ”Yes.”

From the beginning of the campaign, the Parti Québécois appealed to the heart. Their posters featured springlike sunflowers offering a happy world after separation, with the Canadian dollar and the Armed Forces remaining intact.

The “No” team ran a campaign of the pocketbook, suggesting that the cost of separation would be too onerous to bear, and that the quality of life of Quebecers would suffer if the province tried to go it alone. In an election campaign, pocketbook issues usually work. But when it comes to the fight for a country, suggesting that the province was simply too small to succeed was a negative message that did not sit well with Quebecers.

It wasn’t surprising that less than two weeks before the vote, polling showed the separatists were pulling ahead of the “No” campaign and momentum was on their side. That was the grim message revealed to the federal cabinet and subsequently to the Wednesday caucus meeting where the frightening polling numbers were met by a stunned silence by everyone.

Politicians are not ones to sit on their hands in a crisis. They want to do something. So the federal Liberal caucus decided that it was going to organize a massive rally in Montreal at Place du Canada, and invite the rest of the country to come and tell Quebecers in person why they wanted them to stay in Canada.

In my own case, I organized 14 school buses from Hamilton, Ont. Contrary to press reports, every person paid their own way, chipping in $20 for the round trip. The group travelled 10 hours each way, attended the rally and immediately returned home. A 20-hour ride in a school bus is a sacrifice, and the gesture definitely bore witness to the love Canadians had for Quebec.

The massive rally of more than 100,000 people was reluctantly accepted by the “No” committee. They made it very obvious from the beginning of the campaign that they did not want to hear from anyone outside Quebec. Nor did they want to hear from then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, as they claimed he was unpopular in la belle province.

In the face of certain defeat, Chrétien and the caucus ignored the committee’s advice. Chrétien hosted a televised rally at the Verdun Auditorium where he made a plea to Quebecers to remain in Canada, promising federal recognition of a “distinct society” after the referendum.

As for the rally, the “No” campaign was so afraid of campaigners from outside the province that when then-Liberal MP Brian Tobin and I stood on the stage to pep up the audience in advance of the official event, the organizers pulled the plug on our electricity. Their view was this should be decided by Quebecers. But when we arrived at the Place du Canada for the rally, hundreds of people asked us, “What took you so long?”

In French, there is an expression that says: “the absentees are always wrong.” The prime minister, cabinet, and caucus had largely been absent from the campaign, and had the last-minute intervention not bypassed referendum organizers, our country could have been lost forever.

In some instances, “No” organizers said that they wanted to win, but they didn’t want to win too big. Claude Garcia, an insurance executive, was excoriated at the beginning of the campaign when he dared to tell a rally “it isn’t enough to win, we have to crush them.”

For that affirmation, he was attacked by most members of the “No” committee who accused him of playing hardball in a family setting. But when your country is at stake, there is something worth fighting for.

Post-referendum surveys showed that 69 per cent of Quebecers who knew an anglophone who voted “no.” That tells us that this is a fight for all Canadians and in both official languages, and others.

With referendums now being threatened in Alberta and Quebec, the current prime minister and his cabinet should remember what we almost forgot: “Les absents ont toujours tort.”

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 December 23, 2024.

OTTAWA—Politics 101: Do not fire your most senior minister by Zoom.

And if a firing is in the works, be prepared for all eventualities, including a resignation.

At the Liberal Christmas gathering last week, senior ministers and MPs were privately shaking their heads at the incompetent way the deputy prime minister and finance minister was terminated.

They also wondered exactly what the prime minister’s office was doing on the weekend to prevent expected fallout from the Chrystia Freeland departure.

Chief of Staff Katie Telford was busy posting on social media, but not about politics. “We got away and spent a holiday season weekend in New York City! It was the best. We saw the lights, some stars (on stage!) and did a lot of walking and talking. Thanks to those who tried to minimize the phone calls….”

Lovely for her family. Not so lovely for the country.

The chief of staff should have realized that after her boss fired Chrystia Freeland, there would be pushback from the minister. Freeland is not the first finance minister to be fired, nor will she be the last.

With zero prime ministerial strategy, Freeland was able to pen her version of the exit, seizing the narrative, and dealing a deadly blow to Trudeau’s future. The Prime Minister’s Office is solely responsible for the crisis.

When then-prime minister Jean Chrétien fired Paul Martin from the finance portfolio, the move actually averted a major financial crisis.

At the time, Martin and his caucus supporters were working internally to force Chrétien’s resignation.

The two had run against each other for the top job, and Martin kept his leadership ambition active by taking over the party apparatus, including the installation of a party president who spent most of his time attacking the leader.

But Chrétien was not about to be moved, and to be fair, his personal popularity and polling numbers were robust enough that most of the caucus did not join in moves to destabilize his leadership.

Martin was getting impatient, and so his team hatched a plan to announce his resignation as finance minister at a Montreal meeting of the International Monetary Conference, including senior global banking officials and finance ministers in June 2002.

His intention was to drop the financial bomb on the world, and cause a run on the Canadian dollar to force the prime minister out.

Chretien got wind of the plot on a Saturday when a truck was seen at the department of finance exporting shredded documents from the minister’s office.

Chretien’s riposte was to get ahead of the Martin narrative, and to fire him.

Martin was informed that Sunday that he was fired, and he expressed absolute surprise at the decision.

But, in the end, the Monday meeting was chaired by newly-minted finance minister John Manley, whose fiscal rectitude and legal tax experience calmed international waters.

Martin’s attempted coup was foiled by the Prime Minister’s Office. As soon as they got wind of the shredders at Finance, instead of waiting, they elevated it to a firing offence.

Chinese military general Sun Tzu is said to be the originator of the proverb “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

It is the job of the prime minister’s inner circle to keep enemies close. In the case of Freeland, she had been one of Trudeau’s most loyal defenders, so her visceral and very public reaction to the firing could have been predicted.

Caucus members know that Freeland was previously viewed by the PMO as a potential future replacement for Trudeau.

Other ministers are now wondering if the prime minister could treat the most senior minister this way, what could happen to them?

As soon as the proposed cabinet shuffle occurs, there will be more public declarations from those who have been passed up for the top jobs.

What should have been a year-end celebration of some big wins on the social policy and housing fronts is instead a crisis of unprecedented proportions inflicted by the incompetency of the prime minister’s inner circle.

At one time, several caucus members called for the firing of the chief of staff. That call went unheeded.

It took more than two years for caucus to convince the PMO that the government needed to support its climate change strategy with paid advertising.

PMO’s refusal to brief caucus or seek ministerial advice before promoting issues like the ill-conceived GST holiday created this crisis.

Trudeau will pay the price for an inner circle that has lost its way.

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

Peter Mazereeuw speaks with Sheila Copps, a former deputy prime minister in Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government, about Chrystia Freeland’s resignation from the cabinet and the troubles plauging the Liberal Party.

Ed Broadbent, before his passing, agreed to join Liberals and Conservatives in an effort to save the structure and he was ready to co-sign a letter with Chrétien. So I approached Chrétien, who had an even better idea. He suggested that he would reach out to Harper so the pair could head up a fundraising effort which would be devoted to restoring the residence.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 18, 2024.

OTTAWA—As the country mourns the passing of two great former political leaders, much has been written about the time when politicians from all parties were able to work together.

A recent effort to rebuild the prime minister’s residence involved just such a collaborative effort.

But last week the Prime Minister’s Office said no to a proposition where former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper would work together on a fundraising campaign to rebuild 24 Sussex Dr. as the prime minister’s residence.

For the past several months, a group of Canadians has been trying to secure a future for the residence, which had become rat-infested after years of neglect.

I was approached to help with the project and reached out to former political leaders in an effort to build some political support.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, before his passing, agreed to join Liberals and Conservatives in an effort to save the structure. He was ready to co-sign a letter with Chrétien so I approached Chrétien, who had an even better idea.

He suggested that he would reach out to Harper so the pair could head up a fundraising effort which would be devoted to restoring the residence.

Harper agreed with the plan, and both planned to raise money for a restoration of the house with no additional wings added to the residence. They also proposed a scaled-down version of the security package which allegedly was responsible for ballooning restoration costs.

At the last count, the National Capital Commission set the cost of rebuilding at $37-million.

Chrétien met privately with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office in February to pitch the plan, and went away thinking it was a winner.

But last week the answer came back negative. The Prime Minister’s Office communicated that it was not interested in engaging the volunteer services of two former prime ministers in a fundraising effort for 24 Sussex Drive.

It is hard to understand how a such an offer would be rejected, particularly in view of the public climate on current government spending.

According to a recent Nanos poll for Bloomberg, 63 per cent of Canadians think the government should cut back on spending.

Respondents are not unanimous on what should be done with the savings. According to Nanos, 38 per cent of those who want less spending would like the savings to go to debt reduction, while 25 per cent would like tax cuts.

The prime minister probably thinks the renovation is one more political hot potato that he simply cannot handle at the moment.

But by turning down the co-operative support of three political leaders, he risks an even bigger problem.

As the cost of housing rises across the country, Canadian are naturally skeptical about spending public money on a prime ministerial mansion.

Private donations would certainly be a solution. But there would undoubtedly be criticism about who is donating and what do they expect to get from it.

When Trudeau’s father built an indoor swimming pool at the residence, via private donors, he spent months dodging questions on who donated and why.

Chrétien and Harper were prepared to handle the backlash, as was Broadbent.

With a trio of leaders of that stature, it is pretty hard to understand why the government would refuse an offer to fix a political problem that has been percolating for years.

The last time a similar offer was refused was when a group of political and business leaders were trying to mend fences with China after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou was arrested at the Vancouver airport because of an American extradition order.

In that instance, Mulroney was among those suggesting that Chrétien could head up a high-level visit to China to try and solve the diplomatic spat could be solved by face-to-face, diplomacy.

That suggestion was publicly labelled as “dangerous” by then foreign minister Chrystia Freeland, who stated a move to drop extradition proceedings in return for the prison release of two Canadians would set a precedent leaving all Canadians in danger.

The imprisoned Canadians spent two more years in jail before China bypassed Canada to negotiate a deal with the Americans for her release.

Just last week, it was reported that the Canadian government paid $7-million to compensate Michael Spavor for its role in the detentions.

The latest offer by former leaders pales in comparison to the international implications of the Two Michaels’ arrests.

But saving 24 Sussex is also in the public interest.

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

Those who attended last May’s Liberal policy convention marvelled that Jean Chrétien and his Shawinigan colleague François-Philippe Champagne outshone the dynamic duo of Hillary Clinton and Chrystia Freeland in a fireside chat format where Chrétien stole the spotlight.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 15, 2024.

OTTAWA—Jean Chrétien celebrated the triple crown last week.

He fêted the 30th anniversary of his election as prime minister, the 60th anniversary of his arrival in parliament, and the 90th anniversary of his birth.

And what a celebration.

For the little guy from Shawinigan to reach the apex of political and personal achievements, there was only one person missing.

And that was his beautiful life partner Aline, who had been at his side for most of this incredible journey.

A full house was expected last Thursday evening at the Sir John A. Macdonald Building, just across from his second home in Parliament.

And Chrétien wouldn’t disappoint. While some would fumble for words as they enter their ninth decade of life, Chrétien continues to astonish with his wit and wisdom.

Those who attended the Liberal policy convention last May marvelled at the fact that he and his Shawinigan colleague François-Philippe Champagne outshone the dynamic duo of Hillary Clinton and Chrystia Freeland in a fireside chat format where Chrétien stole the spotlight.

It isn’t just the wisdom of a nonagenarian that shines. It is also his incredible memory and terrific sense of humour.

Even in the midst of a referendum that almost cost the country, Chrétien was able to see the comical elements in the other side.

In a December pre-birthday interview for Canadian Politics and Public Policy by former journalist and retired Senator Jim Munson, Chrétien even found something funny to say about a separatist voter in his former constituency of Shawinigan.

As he recounted to Munson, “I was the object of some hate at some times because some separatists hated my guts in Quebec. But I didn’t pay much attention. I remember one day I was in a restaurant and a guy had had a few drinks and he said, ‘What the hell, Chrétien, you’re here! I never voted for you,’ and I said, ‘You have the right to be wrong, sir.’ And then he said, ‘I’m a separatist. But I want to tell you, you were a very good prime minister for Canada.’”

As Munson put it, “that about sums it up.”

Chrétien’s smile brightens up any room, and the stories he has gathered from a lifetime in public service can regale the toughest crowd.

One of the most difficult was the Bay Street annual fundraiser when Liberals were in government. Most titans of business were rabidly Conservative, and believed the trope that Liberals were the free spenders, including the ever-frugal Chrétien.

They attended the dinner because they had to. That didn’t stop Chrétien from using his “second language” English to his advantage.

When explaining how he got a fractious caucus to work together, Chrétien told the stiff-lipped audience that his command was to get all the “[h]oars rowing in the same direction.” Although today the mispronunciation—deliberate or not—would have been politically incorrect, in those days, the speech got even the tightest of Tories onside.

I had the privilege of joining him last spring at a Japanese embassy conferment ceremony of the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun. His Excellency Kanji Yamanouchi hosted the event, and Chrétien was at his absolute finest.

He went so far as to recall the time and date of a dinner hosted by a Japanese ministerial colleague who suggested that Chrétien should run for prime minister.

His Japanese counterpart may have been among the first foreign dignitaries to recognize potential leadership qualities in this rural Quebec politician, but he certainly wasn’t alone.

Mitchell Sharp, former finance minister and external affairs secretary under prime ministers Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, was quick to spot the up-and-comer. He took Chrétien under his wing early on, helping pave his way to the top job in the land.

Sharp remained a close friend and political ally, participating in the vetting process when prime minister-elect Chrétien was about to name his first cabinet, and offering advice on how to balance the social needs of the country with the financial challenges of a heavy national debt load.

Chrétien became the 50/50 man, balancing his approach by promising to apply half of any savings to the debt, and half to social needs.

It was that balance, in politics and in life, that helped him reach the apex to be celebrated in the nation’s capital on Jan. 11.

Few politicians remain popular long after they leave political life.

In this regard, Chrétien is also exceptional.

Even the most hardened separatists understand why this man wears the triple crown.

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