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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 4, 2023.

OTTAWA—The trial balloon, floated last week about the demolition of 24 Sussex Drive, should be pricked.

Can you imagine a G7 country that does not have housing for its head of government? As former prime minister Jean Chrétien told the CBC earlier this year, the condition of 24 Sussex is an “embarrassment to the nation.”

Full disclosure: I am working with a not-for-profit heritage corporation that wants to save the prime minister’s residence by rebuilding it at a price tag substantially less than the $36.6-million quoted renovation cost.

The Heritage Ottawa Development Inc. (HODI) group is comprised of experts in conservation and restoration. Board members have all been involved in multiple projects to restore and retain built heritage in the nation’s capital. HODI’s board includes leaders in restoration adaptation like Sandy Smallwood, who saved Wallis House and many other heritage buildings from the wrecker’s ball.

HODI president Marc Denhez is challenging the price attached to the 24 Sussex restoration, comparing it to the grossly inflated cost attached to restoring the Aberdeen Pavilion in Lansdowne Park when developers were trying to justify demolition.

Affectionately known as the “Cow Palace,” Aberdeen was built in 1898 for the Central Canada Exhibition Association. Published cost estimates to restore the structure ballooned up to $82-million, prompting city council to approve demolition in 1991.

Community reaction to the destruction decision was swift. Heritage Ottawa led a massive community outcry, ultimately forcing a reversal of the demolition vote by a new council the following year. In the end, the city approved a restoration budget of $5.3-million, a far cry from the $82-million figure bandied about by those who supported demolition.

The same numerical bait and switch tactic appears to be happening in relation to the prime minister’s residence. The National Capital Commission, which has the lead in the project, said in a report last year that the price tag for restoration was almost $40-million.

That number has repeatedly been tossed around, but the NCC still refuses to release the financial documents backing up the inflated price.

Anonymous sources leak stories of the desperate condition of the building. It has mould and rats. Surprise, surprise, any building that has been unoccupied for almost a decade is going to be taken over by the rodent family.

The NCC’s refusal to release documents to verify the funding claim has been referred to the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, which has opened a file on the issue.

In the trial balloon floated in the media last week, security was the number one reason that anonymous sources claimed the official residence had to be moved. However, that claim also deserves further scrutiny. There is no security cost attached to an anonymous proposal to build a new residence on Rockcliffe parkland.

The NCC must also understand the environmental and legal implications of tearing down a classified federal heritage building. That classification means that any changes, including demolition, must be approved by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO), an office in Parks Canada designed to assist other federal departments in protecting heritage buildings. FHBRO must apply the Treasury Board policy on management of real property.

The demolition of a classified national building also runs counter to the sustainable development goals set out by the United Nations.

“Embodied carbon” was a hot topic at the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference in Glasgow in 2021, led by members of the Climate Heritage Network. Embodied carbon is the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in demolition compared to restoration. The network’s view is that “the greenest building is one that is already built”. Chris Wiebe, of the National Trust for Canada, is the North American vice-chair of the global network.

Following last week’s news on moving the official residence, community groups are already researching the additional greenhouse gas emissions involved in a plan to tear 24 Sussex down, along with the carbon sink loss of parkland involved in building a new residence, with a bigger footprint for entertaining and parking.

Naturally politicians are loathe to weigh in on a residence that houses politicians. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre missed an opportunity when he took himself out of the debate by saying the residence where the prime minister lives would be his last priority.

No one expects it to be his first, but respect for built heritage and the history behind 24 Sussex is something that should concern all Canadians, especially someone who wants to live there someday.

Demolition of our history is not 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 24, 2023.

OTTAWA—To do a makeover or not to do a makeover: that is the question.

‘Tis better to have tried and lost than never to have tried at all. At least that seems to be the approach taken by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

His decision to wait until the House of Commons adjourned for the summer to strut his new look was wise.

Summer is the best time to usher in a political makeover because politicians are heading to barbecues and picnics with a casual demeanour belying their obvious search for votes.

The first big event was the Calgary Stampede where just about every politico was photographed wearing a pair of jeans, boots, and a Stetson.

Some looked very natural in their attire, and others appeared somewhat uncomfortable. The verdict on Twitter was predictable.

Liberals thought the prime minister looked natural and the Conservative leader looked awkward: surprise, surprise. Conservatives thought the Liberal leader looked awkward and their leader was the natural.

Poilievre’s summer solstice is not just about a stampede getup. He has chosen this time to pursue a personal makeover, ditching his slicked-up haircut and nerdy glasses for some contact lenses and a softer do.

He has also decided to dress down, possibly taking a page from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s relaxed sunny disposition and clothing back in his first successful election.

In the case of Poilievre, the north of the Queensway beltway has been abuzz with comments about his image makeover.

Some purists think he should never have messed with his image because it simply reinforces the fact that he is a politician just like everybody else.

The reality is that he is a politician. And every politician needs to put their best face forward. If that means taking the pomade out of one’s hair, then that is a good thing.

Woe betide the politician who refuses to listen to advice on image.

Sometimes the advice is well-meaning, but difficult. When I was running for the Liberal leadership against Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, one of my supporters wrote a critique about my look, which was quite blunt. It involved changing my wardrobe—which I did—and losing 20 pounds, which I didn’t.

It’s not that I refused to lose the weight. It was just so difficult to put in the 16-hour days required on the campaign trail while eating healthy. It was not until I left politics that I shed excess weight, and even now it is an ongoing struggle.

My leadership opponents also made subtle changes that might have passed unnoticed but certainly enhanced their electability. In the case of future prime minister Jean Chrétien, he had his teeth capped, which offered up a much better smile when he was pictured in a jean shirt in the official campaign photographs.

At the time, the jean shirt attire was quite avant-garde. Like the Liberals’ policy package, the Red Book, no one had ever launched a campaign in anything less than the blue suit, white shirt and blue tie that was the go-to dress-wear for all successful leaders.

Nowadays, most politicians try to dress down so they don’t appear snooty to the voters.

But not every politician is open to advice on their appearance. When New Democratic Party leader Tom Mulcair was nipping at the heels of government, he was advised to shave his beard.

Millions of Canadians wear beards, but for Mulcair, his bushy appearance played into the unflattering narrative of “Angry Tom.”

Like it or not, beards make men look fierce, and his refusal to even consider a shave was a mistake. Politics is the art of the possible, and a good politician needs to be flexible enough to change their viewpoint—or appearance—as the situation warrants.

Mulcair’s refusal was probably one of the factors that ultimately contributed to his defeat.

When David Peterson was chosen Ontario Liberal leader, he wore glasses and perspired a lot.

He was given early advice to ditch the specs and powder up before he went on air in any television interview.

From a once-bespeckled opposition leader, Peterson used the changes as a springboard to victory.

He was followed as premier by New Democratic leader Bob Rae, who also ditched his glasses at some point in his political career.

The absence of eyewear didn’t deliver victory, but it did help to look people directly in their eyes.

Political willingness to soften an image can help a politician achieve their goals.

Poilievre has gotten that message. Going glassless won’t win over opponents.

But it could certainly help with voters.

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

But when supporters in the media start calling for your head, it is definitely worth taking a listen.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 17, 2023.

OTTAWA—Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

That aphorism is as true in politics as it is anywhere.

It is particularly relevant when it comes to elections, including when to call them and who should lead.

Back in 2000, almost everyone in the Liberal party was begging then-prime minister Jean Chrétien not to call an election.

Some in the caucus simply wanted him to leave and pave the way for heir-apparent Paul Martin.

Others were afraid the Liberals would be punished at the urn for calling an early election with just three years into the previous mandate.

Chrétien ignored the naysayers, pulled the plug, and managed to become the first prime minister since the Second World War to win three successive majority governments.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is, no doubt, being bombarded with the same kind of advice.

Some of it is in private, not to be shared with the world. He will get lots of that advice when the Liberal family gathers in Ottawa next month for the first in-person national convention since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Meanwhile, Trudeau is already getting lots of advice through the media.

It is fair to say that his promise of sunny days is long past, and most journalists seem to have decided that there is a dark cloud hanging over the prime minister’s head.

In some instances, that is not surprising. The National Post has had nothing but a hate-on for the Liberals ever since their founder Conrad Black was denied his British lordship by a Canadian government intervention based on the 1917 Nickle resolution.

The paper was founded in 1998 with a mandate to unite the right, and vowed to compete directly with The Globe and Mail.

That hasn’t worked so well, as only six years later Facebook was launched, with Twitter following shortly. Both platforms radically changed the way people received their news, especially millennials. They have never developed a daily newspaper-reading habit.

The National Post has been true to its mandate, but has also proved to be so far to the right that it does not hold much sway with the Canadian public.

That mistrust continues today, with columnist after columnist spewing vitriol at Trudeau and the governing Liberals.

Other newspapers are more balanced, but in recent months you can feel the pendulum swinging even there.

There is a definite anti-Trudeau shift in media coverage and that is affecting the party’s standing in public opinion polls.

Even The Globe’s Lawrence Martin, a thoughtful, liberal columnist, is suggesting the prime minister step down before the next election.

In a rather flattering article last week, Martin squibbed that Trudeau has already made a legacy worth defending, but in staying around, he runs the risk of tainting it.

Martin praised Trudeau’s political legacy, saying his progressive mission was accomplished, including national daycare, dental care, and a strengthened Canada Pension Plan. He also underscored Trudeau’s work on Indigenous issues, legalization of marijuana, women’s equality, and immigration.

Martin’s point was that Trudeau has done the heavy lifting on climate change, with a controversial carbon tax, and another term is not likely to achieve additional progressive legislation.

According to Martin, Trudeau runs the risk of “going down in flames” or leaving with a good liberal inheritance.

Martin’s advice was in the news, where the closest people to the prime minister will be offering their perspectives in private.

Trudeau also has to consider the sacrifices his family is making. As his children are getting older, it is tough to see their father’s foibles plastered all over the news.

Even the Trudeau Foundation is making front-page news, and not in a good way.

But the poll numbers still signal a difficult, but potential path to victory for the Trudeau Liberals.

The acerbic approach of Pierre Poilievre has not gone over well with Canadians, although he is still within reach of becoming prime minister.

Trudeau is a wonderful campaigner, and Poilievre constantly appears angry and disdainful, which does not increase his likeability factor.

But Trudeau also has a lengthening list of enemies, which is only natural after a decade in government.

Those enemies include multiple provincial leaders, who miss no opportunity to take a shot at the hated Liberals.

Let’s face it: politics is the only job where the more experience you get, the more people want to get rid of you.

When supporters in the media start calling for your head, it is definitely worth taking a listen.

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

When Jean Chrétien had a physical kerfuffle with a protester, the first official Flag Day certainly made history. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 13, 2023.

OTTAWA—Canada’s national Flag Day will once again take place on Feb. 15.

But none will likely be as wild as the very first one.

That was the day when Canada’s prime minister made international headlines by taking down a protester with his bare hands.

The incident became famously known as the “Shawinigan Handshake.”

To this day, it is still infamous. In the birthplace of prime minister Jean Chrétien—Shawinigan, Que.—a local brewery makes a beer named after the takedown.

Apparently, it is a hot seller for tourists coming to visit.

Who would have thought the incident would be so famous?

The day it happened, a blustery cold one back in February 1996, the political temperature was quite different.

The government was just coming out of a referendum where the country teetered on the edge of dissolution.

The prime minister had deliberately played a low profile in the referendum because Quebec organizers for the side that supported a Non separation vote asked him to stay away.

His political instincts said otherwise but he heeded the advice until, within two weeks of the vote, internal polling numbers showed the Yes vote was positioned to win.

The national Liberal caucus swung into high gear and, ignoring pleas from Non organizers, Members of Parliament from across the country gathered in Montreal for the famous rally in Canada Square.

That event, and the prime minister’s speech in Verdun, Que., turned the tide, but the country was still in a state of shock.

With such a razor-thin victory, the prime minister decided it was about time someone stood up for Canada.

I was appointed Canada’s heritage minister on Jan. 26 with a mandate to announce a dramatic measure for Canada’s first official Flag Day on Feb. 15.

Thus was born the million-flag giveaway by the Canadian government. Free flags were distributed to anyone who wanted to fly one at their home.

On a percentage basis, the majority of flags actually went into Quebec.

For too many years, the government had taken the existence of Canada for granted, and it was generally considered gauche to fly a flag in front of your house.

The flag program enraged the separatists and caused a fair bit of anxiety within the bureaucracy at Canadian Heritage.

As part of a program review, the department had just suffered a 25 per cent cut in budgets across the board, so many were miffed that we would spend millions on what they considered a frivolous giveaway.

The designation of flag day was equally hasty.

For some reason, the location chosen to hoist the first national flag was on Quebec soil, and the event was to happen at Gatineau’s Jacques Cartier Park.

I had literally been in the job for less than three weeks, and for the departmental chief of protocol, the first Flag Day was her first day on the job.

In preparation, we gathered in a small onsite meeting room about an hour before the event to discuss the program.

At the time, there was a large number of men already gathered at the venue.

I had an uneasy feeling about their presence, and asked the departmental official if the security was well in place. She replied in the affirmative and said it was being handled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Meanwhile, we had children from Grades 1 and 2 in the local school gathered to wave little paper flags in honour of the event.

When the prime minister arrived, he jumped out of his chauffeur-driven limousine sporting a pair of back sunglasses. I ran up to him, planning to suggest he take the glasses off, but he was moving so fast I could not catch up in my high heels.

When we both landed on stage, I introduced him, but as soon as he started to speak, air horns went off from all the men in the audience intent on drowning out his message.

Chrétien jumped off the stage and ploughed through a crowd of protesters. One of them shoved his airhorn into Chrétien’s neck. The prime minister thought it was a gun, grabbed the protester by the throat and took him down.

That image flashed around the world. His worried spouse, Aline, called him after the event, suggesting he should tender his resignation because of the incident.

His communications director Peter Donolo was closely monitoring the fallout. The next day Donolo was happy to report that the leader had jumped 10 points in the polls.

No resignation required. But the first official Flag Day certainly made history.

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 needs to write another book. This time he should focus on political lessons for the future. It could be a great road map for a future Canadian prime minister.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 16, 2023.

OTTAWA—Happy 89th Birthday, Jean Chrétien.

You have some wisdom to impart to the youngsters who are currently running or hoping to run the country.

As you celebrated on Jan. 11, you must have been reflecting on the current political climate in Canada and how it might be improved.

Going forward, you could provide some great advice for all political leaders, not just in your Liberal Party of choice.

After all, you managed to navigate a political trajectory that was unlike any other.

A unilingual francophone from Shawinigan, Que., you grew into one of the most popular prime ministers in Canadian history. You combined wisdom, humour and political street smarts in a way that made people get the message without feeling alienated or betrayed.

Your No. 1 asset was always at your side, a wonderful, loving partner in the person of your childhood sweetheart, Aline.

She also gave you her best advice, and her graceful demeanour was a fabulous foil to your Shawinigan handshakes.

Life is much harder without her, but as you enjoy another birthday celebration, please spend a few moments reflecting on how to heal our country.

No. 1 is humour. You were probably the best prime minister at getting out a clear, direct message without alienating the opposition.

Who could forget your comment on the pepper spray used on protesters at the APEC gathering in British Columbia. Quizzically you said, “For me, pepper, I put it on my plate.” That got everyone laughing, taking the temperature down on a tough situation, while still making the point.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre could use a birthday nugget on how to take the temperature down.

He always seems to be so angry at everything and it is hard to elicit empathy, and support from voters when the main message they hear is negative.

Poilievre’s own party has been asking him to be a little more positive, and a class in humour would probably help put a smile on his face.

Just this month, former Senator and prime ministerial adviser Marjorie LeBreton stated publicly that Poilievre’s anger quotient was turning off women voters.

You might not get Poilievre laughing, but at least you could help him understand that a happy face gets more votes.

As for the prime minister, he might take a page from your time management book.

You made it a point to stay in the background on many ministerial announcements. That achieved two purposes: your ministers were happy that they got to bask in the glory of their own departmental work, and you avoided the political problem of overexposure.

By letting your caucus members absorb the spotlight, your own face wasn’t on television every night. That approach allowed you to lead three majority governments without being a victim of political overexposure.

It doesn’t matter how good a job a leader is doing. If he or she dwarfs the rest of the team, people get sick of seeing the leader.

The other advantage you incurred by staying in the background was that when you stepped in to manage a situation, it upped the gravitas of the moment.

You got involved in ministerial files only when there was a huge internal division. The war in Iraq was one example of such a split.

The denial of bank mergers was another. You had to fight the finance minister on that one.

Your embrace of the Kyoto Protocol was a third example of how decisions could be made when there was deep disagreement in cabinet.

Your third winning quality was understanding the street-fighting involved in realpolitik.

In that sense, you might give some advice to New Democratic leader Jagmeet Singh.

Don’t play footsie with the Liberals. It might even cost you your job.

At this point, the message may be too late. But you always understood that the job of the Opposition was to oppose.

By co-signing an agreement to work in tandem with the government, the New Democrats may risk being relegated to irrelevance.

As for a piece of advice regarding the co-managed Green Party: be nice to everyone, especially Elizabeth May. She presents no threat to the government and any attempt to attack her could simply cost the attacker more.

Mr. Chrétien, you have ably chronicled the many stories of your life.

But you need to write another book. This time focus on political lessons for the future. It could be a great road map for a future Canadian prime minister.

Happy Birthday, to “the little guy from Shawinigan.”

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

She was the half that made Jean Chrétien whole.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 21, 2020.

OTTAWA—The passing of Aline Chrétien is more than just a political story. It is a love story of epic proportions.

Madame, as everyone affectionately called her, was more than a wise counsel for her husband.

She was the half that made him whole.

It goes without saying that Jean Chrétien would likely never have become prime minister without the advice, support and love of his lifelong partner.

Her passing was only two days after their 63rd wedding anniversary and they had been together for 68 years.

Madame was the partner who shaped a rebellious young man into a future Member of Parliament and prime minister.

While everyone thought of Chrétien as the “Little guy from Shawinigan” it was Aline who put the polish on the pair.

I was lucky enough to attend her funeral in Shawinigan and it was an incredible reflection of her life’s passions.

The service was held in a unique Québécois church that carries a national historic site designation because of the artist who painted incredible murals on the walls. The famed muralist Ozias Leduc was part of a Quebec religious painting mural movement and he spent the last 13 years of his life painting the walls in Notre-Dame-de-la-Presentation church. It was his chef d’oeuvre and a great illustration of the Symbolist movement.

The walls were literally a story of the community, including paintings of Indigenous persons, coureurs de bois, and the choppers of wood, and hewers of water who built Shawinigan.

Aline Chrétien’s private funeral was a blend of hometown roots with the classic touch that so epitomized her.

Even the music was reminiscent of her life as a small-town girl who rose to the highest heights of the land.

Gregory Charles, a famous Quebec musician, played and sang at the ceremony and his mix was truly unique.

The choices ranged from Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah to Panis Angelicus, a funeral hymn associated with most Catholic funerals.

The final tribute was from Felix Leclerc, his famous folksong, Moi, mes souliers, which could have been written for Aline Chrétien. The opening, “Me, my shoes have travelled far” was an allegory for her life.

Her daughter, France, delivered an allocution that was a perfect tribute to her mother’s private and public accomplishments.

Her love of music and language was present throughout. France said that when her father asked her mother about the value of establishing a Millennium Scholarship Fund, she thought it was a wonderful idea. She told her husband that if such financial help had been available when she was young, she might have gone to university.

Instead, she followed the path of many young women into secretarial school. But one of her proudest accomplishments was the recognition she received with multiple honorary degrees, and her ultimate appointment as chancellor of Laurentian, one of Canada’s few bilingual universities.

France also referenced her mother’s love of family and her fair-minded approach to life. On her deathbed, Aline Chrétien was visiting with grandchildren, and said to each, in French “Oh, how handsome you are.” One of the mischievous ones asked her directly, grandma, tell the truth, who is the most handsome.

She laughed and weakly retorted, oh you are bad. But she would not pick one over the others.

Madame was also a very religious person and the archbishop gave a wonderful homily in recognition of her values. She was a Chretien and a strong Christian.

Attendance at the funeral was limited by COVID distancing rules. Pews were roped off and attendees were also separated by the two-metre distance.

The attendance included close family, childhood friends and political allies through the years. One leadership organizer came all the way from Vancouver. Two current ministers were in attendance, Minister of Veterans Affairs and longtime friend Lawrence MacAulay and Foreign Affairs Minister and local Liberal Member of Parliament François-Philippe Champagne.

The former mayor of Shawinigan was there to pay her respects along with several Liberal political organizers who began and ended their lives in politics at the Chrétien’s side.

Aline Chrétien’s siblings were there as well as the family’s extensive clan on Chrétien’s side.

Jean Chrétien’s nephew participated in readings on the altar.

Because of COVID-19, there was no reception after the mass, but friends gathered on the front steps of the church to pay their respects to the family.

The family is planning a celebration of Aline Chrétien’s life in Ottawa once pandemic restrictions are lifted.

Jean Chrétien plans to take time with family and then get right back to work.

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

Our failing grade on international aid and peacekeeping were part of the reason that Canada did not succeed. The other part had to do with strategy.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 22, 2020.

OTTAWA—The bad news is that Canada lost its second bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

The good news is that most Canadians don’t really care.

In autopsying the defeat, a journalist said that had the seat been secured, the discussion would have been around the irrelevance of the win.

Ordinary Canadians do not lose any sleep worrying about Canada’s world status. We have a mildly misplaced belief in Canada’s role in peacekeeping and international aid.

But last week’s defeat should force us to take another look at how Canada has slipped so badly on the world stage.

It is not enough to tell the world that Canada matters. Canadian politicians need to convince Canadians that the world matters.

Our failing grade on international aid and peacekeeping were part of the reason that Canada did not succeed.

The other part had to do with strategy.

The key negotiator for Canada was named to the United Nations at the very moment that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signalled his intention to pull out all the stops in his campaign for a temporary seat.

United Nations Permanent Representative Marc-Andre Blanchard has impeccable Canadian credentials. As chair and CEO of McCarthy Tetrault, he has been named among the 25 most influential lawyers in Canada. He also served as a former president of the Quebec Liberal Party.

He knew the province intimately, but his international bona fides were less evident. So, he needed the help of heavy hitters.

According to press reports, Blanchard recruited two retired politicians for the campaign.

Former Quebec premier Jean Charest and former prime minister Joe Clark both travelled the world in support of Canada’s bid last year.

These political figures are well-known in Canada but their influence on the international scene is less apparent. Charest is also a partner in Blanchard’s former law firm.

Noticeably absent from the list of eminence grise political elders were names like Jean Chrétien, Brian Mulroney, and Lloyd Axworthy.

During his three majority governments, prime minister Chrétien established deep and strong relationships with a number of countries, including China. After he left politics, Chrétien also chaired the InterAction Council, a group comprised of former world leaders who advise the United Nations on issues like climate change.

As for former prime minister Mulroney, his relationships with political leaders in the United States and La Francophonie would have been very helpful. As Barrick International Advisory Board chair, his influence in Africa and Oceania is clear.

On the Security Council seat, China’s robust international aid program was reported to influence up to 50 votes. Canada was not the beneficiary of that influence. Nor were we in good standing with our American neighbours.

As for Axworthy, he served as president of the United Nations Security Council back in 1999-2000. He was also nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for his work in banning land mines.

The trio share robust international relationships across five continents which could have made a difference in the outcome.

Attracting five votes away from either Norway or Ireland would have forced the process into a second ballot, which could have yielded a different result.

It is certainly possible that there was an attempt to enlist the trio. If they turned down the invitation, that also speaks volumes.

Successful politicians usually try to avoid being at the head of losing campaigns. Both Ireland and Norway had entered the race years before Canada.

And Canada has also had almost double the prior Security Council participation rate of either competitor.

Trudeau was obviously very invested in the campaign, but being so personally committed also comes with its own risks.

Having made more than 50 calls to other world leaders, he obviously believed the seat was worth the effort.

The bruising his reputation will take is likely only an international blemish, not a domestic disaster.

But on the home front, the government really needs to undertake a major review of our foreign policy.

Questions around military deployment for peacekeeping need to be answered. So does the time frame for Canada’s commitment to increasing our international aid envelope.

The growing influence of China in the world, and Canada’s Huawei conundrum are also major reasons for the Security Council loss.

Chrétien offered his help on that file at the very beginning of the Canada-China downward spiral.

His offer was spurned, by way of an aggressive public rebuttal by then Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Maybe all-hands-on deck should be the new watchword for Canada’s foreign policy.

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

Canadians would never support a prime minister who could not speak English. So why would we think it’s okay to elect a prime minister who fumbles his French?

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

OTTAWA—Jean Chrétien did not speak a word of English when he was first elected to Parliament at the age of 30.

But he understood that to participate fully in Canada’s political process you need to speak both official languages.

In the end, his command of English opened up the top job in the country. While some said his language could be mangled, he knew exactly how to make it work.

During the height of the salmon wars between Canada and United States, then U.S. vice-president Al Gore had flown into Ottawa for an emergency meeting on the matter.

The prime minister hosted a small group in his dining room at 24 Sussex. It was summer and the air-conditioning was broken.

Brian Tobin, then fisheries minister, was hoping to bring Gore around to Canada’s point of view. The message was not exactly subtle.

The first course was smoked salmon, and the second was served on china featuring chinook salmon.

As the discussion grew more heated, the temperature in the room rose literally and figuratively. Gore was perspiring profusely as he and Tobin began to drill down to the details of their positions.

At one point, Gore raised his voice and shouted, “that is an outright lie.”

Chrétien jumped in with his mangled message to save the day. “Don’t worry,” he said to the vice-president. “We Canadians have had a hysterical claim to these waters for the past 300 years.”

Of course, Chrétien deliberately substituted hysterical for historical. But it was such a hilarious juxtaposition that everyone burst out laughing and the temperature between combatants went down about 10 degrees.

All that to say that thirty years ago, the prime minister knew the value of mastering a second language.

Which is why the Conservative backlash against the need for a bilingual leader is so bizarre.

Peter MacKay, the putative frontrunner in the Tory leadership race, was hoping for smooth sailing when he launched his campaign in his hometown of Stellarton, N.S., on a quiet Saturday on Jan. 25.

Family and friends were gathered, it was a MacKay love-in.

And with Jean Charest and Rona Ambrose officially out of the race, the show should have been a no-brainer.

MacKay had Tele-Prompters and beauteous prose. But he managed to massacre the few words of French that he had included in his presentation.

The mistake was not fatal. After all, MacKay’s first target audience is the membership in his own party, and some are decidedly ambivalent on the French fact in Canada.

Michelle Rempel Garner took to Twitter to complain there was really no need for a bilingual party leader.

Unlike Rempel Garner, MacKay understands the importance of a leader who can reach out in both official languages. The ability to bridge the two solitudes gave Progressive Conservative leaders like Brian Mulroney successive majority governments.

But perhaps, in his attempt to portray a relaxed, hometown feel, MacKay didn’t spend the time he should have in making sure that his few statements in French were grammatically correct.

It is also fair to say that, living in Toronto for the past several years, MacKay has not exactly been exposed to the French language to the same degree that he would in Parliament.

MacKay’s faux pas managed to make the front page of the Journal de Quebec. But in itself, that is not fatal. At least he is being talked about in the French media.

But what is disconcerting for his party is the continued insistence that it is fine to elect a unilingual English-speaker to the top job in the Tory party.

The late John Crosbie finished off his leadership chances back in the eighties when he compared speaking French to proficiency in Chinese.

Despite a great campaign team, and strong financial backing, he never got liftoff because of his inability to communicate in Canada’s second official language.

When one-quarter of the population claims French as a first language, it is evident that political leaders need to be able to master that language.

MacKay was on the Hill for 18 years before his recent hiatus. That was plenty of time to take advantage of the free private language classes offered to all Members of Parliament.

A unilingual Chrétien could never have been elected prime minister of all the people. Canadians would never support a prime minister who could not speak English. So why would we think it’s okay to elect a prime minister who fumbles his French?

MacKay has plenty of time to correct his mistake, but he better hit the books.

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