At the conclusion of the anti-Boissonnault attack, there’s only one question that matters: which political party has a plan to tackle the gross injustices Indigenous People have faced since colonization?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 25, 2024.

OTTAWA—Identity politics run amok. How else to explain the resignation of employment minister Randy Boissonnault on Nov. 20?

Boissonnault was forced to step down for claiming that he is a Métis except he has never done so.

By his own admission, he was adopted into a Métis family and raised by them although he has often mentioned the influence of a Cree grandmother.

A prime ministerial statement said Boissonnault “will focus on clearing the allegations made against him.”

Boissonnault was listed as Métis by the Liberal Party Indigenous Peoples’ Commission when they compiled a list of successful Indigenous candidates after the 2015 election.

According to a commission member, an adoption by a Métis family confers Métis status on the child, which is why Boissonnault was so identified.

The Conservative Party has made Boissonnault a clear target. Three members were ejected from the House of Commons last week because of the nature of their personal attacks.

Seven Tories peppered Boissonnault with a dozen questions while Government House Leader Karina Gould tried to set the record straight.

Gould said the company managed by Boissonnault while he was not in politics was never listed as an Indigenous company, and did not receive any contracts from the government.

NDP MP Blake Desjarlais joined the attack, suggesting that Boissonnault should resign as minister because he is making decisions about Indigenous lives without knowing about his own.

Allegedly, Boissonnault’s grandmother is listed as a person with German ancestry, although Boissonnault’s understanding was that she was full Cree.

The bottom line is that this so-called scandal was nothing more than a successful attempt to unseat a minister so popular that he got elected during a Conservative near-sweep of his home province, Alberta.

Boissonnault’s departure leaves the province without a federal minister at the table.

This opens the door to the ministerial elevation of Calgary Liberal MP George Chahal.

Boissonnault’s departure is a huge loss for Indigenous and minority supporters.

He was one of the most well-liked ministers in the government with a reputation for speaking out for the underdog. He is also a self-identified gay man.

Liberal First Nations MP Jaime Battiste defended Boissonnault as an advocate for Indigenous people who never self-identified as Métis.

Battiste characterized the attack as a witch-hunt, and said that the whole issue was blown up to score points. Boisssonnault was a member of the Liberal Indigenous caucus, but there are also supportive men who have been members of the women’s caucus.

Embittered former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould weighed in on the controversy, blaming it all on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and saying “we get to watch white people play ancestry wheel of fortune.”

The wheel of fortune has been anything but. Until Trudeau actually began tackling Indigenous issues with real financial support, the education of on-territory Indigenous children was funded at a level 40 per cent less than the rest of Canada’s children.

The wheel of fortune meant that if you lived in Indigenous territory, you were likely to suffer for years under a boil-water advisory. Trudeau and the Liberal Party fixed that.

As for Indigenous ministers, the Liberal Party actually set up a recruitment system to attract Indigenous candidates. That was how Wilson-Raybould was rewarded with an uncontested nomination in the coveted Vancouver-Granville, B.C., riding in 2014.

Conservatives who succeeded in ousting Boissonnault have zero strategy of their own on reconciliation and the recruitment of Indigenous Members of Parliament.

They are ready to use identity politics to destroy the reputation of someone as earnest and hardworking as Boissonnault.

When Andrew Scheer was leader of the Conservative Party, Indigenous voters in his own riding voted against him because he did not represent the views of Indigenous constituents.

Yet he was frontline in the attack on Boissonnault. According to everyone who follows the issue, Boissonnault’s departure means the loss of a vociferous supporter of reconciliation and minority political engagement.

At the conclusion of the anti-Boissonnault attack, there is only one question that really matters: which political party has a plan to tackle the gross injustices that have been faced by Indigenous People ever since Europeans settlers arrived to overtake their land?

Certainly not the Conservatives, whose slash-and-burn political strategy would turn back the clock on reconciliation, housing, and a huge array of other issues.

Pierre Poilievre’s carbon-tax election isn’t happening. Instead of focusing on character assassination, why doesn’t he work on specific positive issues to get things done?

That could actually make Indigenous lives better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that will not turn the corner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their patience is wearing thin.

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

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

Just last week, the Liberals and the New Democrats both launched their environmental platforms. But analysis of those platforms did not even manage to make the front page of most newspapers.

OTTAWA—Former prime minister Kim Campbell once said an election is no time to discuss policy.

Her party went on to face a historic defeat, saving only two seats in the House of Commons.

In this election, Campbell’s viewpoint seems to be shared by some journalists on the campaign trail.

Just last week, the Liberals and the New Democrats both launched their environmental platforms. But analysis of those platforms did not even manage to make the front page of most newspapers.

Instead, The Globe and Mail chose to print a front-page story allegedly exposing insider details of why a former Liberal Member of Parliament was not re-offering.

The piece, by the same journalist who broke Jody Wilson-Raybould’s story, reflected a similar message. Strong woman, who would not defend the PM, are allegedly shown the door.

Delving deeper into the details, the MP claimed that all three colleagues in ridings neighbouring her own had been bullying her. She claimed intimidation and harassment starting in 2016.

She also showed The Globe the screenshot of a text conversation with Montreal Minister Mélanie Joly. She said the minister called to ask why she wasn’t supporting the prime minister when his feminist credentials were under attack by media during the SNC-Lavalin case.

Presumably The Globe published the piece on the front page because editors believe this “Liberal woman as victim of Trudeau” narrative was relevant.

But voters are smart enough to make decisions based on current issues, not on fake personality politics.

That explains why Justin Trudeau’s Liberals did not lose ground following the revelations that he costumed himself in blackface and brownface on more than one occasion 20 years ago.

Media blackface coverage dominated the airwaves in Canada and around the world for a week. Trudeau tackled the issue head on, with a town hall meeting in Saskatchewan on the evening after the revelations. He also apologized immediately and appeared to genuinely understand the gravity of his childish actions.

It was a shocking news story. But the notion that somehow Trudeau is a racist did not ring true.

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi put it best in an op-ed he wrote for The Washington Post. “He should be judged on the totality of his record and whether Canadians believe in his ability to do good in the future.”

When Trudeau demoted Wilson-Raybould, he was accused of being a fake feminist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

He was the first prime minister in the history of the country to deliver a gender equal cabinet. Andrew Scheer has refused to commit to doing the same, if he forms government while NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has committed to a gender equal cabinet in the unlikely event of a New Democratic Party victory.

Journalists attacking Trudeau’s feminist credentials in the Wilson-Raybould case included so many misogynists that the claim was obviously fake news. When the sexist Sun chain decried misogyny, women laughed.

Differing viewpoints on the use of the deferred prosecution agreement has nothing to do with sexism.

So attacks on Trudeau required caucus and cabinet women to come forward and set the record straight. That is how politics works.

There are many strong women in Trudeau’s caucus and cabinet.

The decision of Wilson-Raybould to quit the cabinet had nothing to do with feminism or sexism.

Although the minister was upset to lose her “dream job” as attorney general, she accepted another ministerial post in veterans affairs. She even tried to remain in caucus, all the while secretly taping conversations and breaching the trust of all those who served with her on the team.

When you are part of caucus, you don’t screenshot internal texts and you don’t secretly tape conversations. You trust each other and work as a team.

As a minister, you do not write copious notes about cabinet conversations because they are supposed to be confidential discussions between trusted colleagues. This is the normal functioning of a healthy political team.

In an election campaign, the public is not focused on the internal machinations of a caucus. They are interested in what policies differentiate the political parties.

On Sept. 27, thousands of young people gathered in a huge strike in Montreal with Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg.

Young Canadians want to know what the parties are doing to confront the climate crisis that, if unchecked, will destroy their futures.

Trudeau, who has actually submitted a substantive climate plan, joined the young people in this march.

Scheer took a pass. That is real news.

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 16, 2019.

OTTAWA—The Justin Trudeau campaign plane being hit by the media bus could be a metaphor for his campaign. Or not.

It depends on the success of what appears to be a campaign by The Globe and Mail to keep the SNC-Lavalin story on the front page.

The first two official days of the race have been dominated by stories of fresh, anonymous claims in the ongoing story involving allegations of undue pressure on former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Globe’s Ottawa bureau chief Bob Fife tweeted that RCMP interviews earlier last week with Jody Wilson-Raybould were “to discuss political interference in SNC criminal prosecution.”

The only person who publicly claimed she participated in a recent RCMP interview is Wilson-Raybould. The Liberal leader’s office issued a statement saying no one on their team has been contacted or interviewed.

Wilson-Raybould had initially testified before the House Justice Committee that there was nothing illegal in the interventions of the prime minister and his officials on the issue of SNC-Lavalin.

But, according to The Globe, she appears to have revised that opinion, now claiming that the ethics commissioner’s report opened new questions. “I believe the public deserves to know and to have full knowledge of this matter.”

She will no doubt have more to say on the matter when she launches her book this week.

The unschooled observer might be forgiven for thinking that an RCMP interview of Wilson-Raybould constitutes an investigation.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer jumped on The Globe story, falsely claiming on television and in tweets that the RCMP has opened an investigation into possible obstruction of justice.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Globe was careful not use the word “investigation.” Instead, it focused on the fact that police went to Vancouver to interview the former attorney general.

But travelling to a former minister’s riding to take a statement is a well-established police protocol.

The RCMP has interviewed me several times during my life in politics. Sometimes, it was at my request. Sometimes the police initiated the interview.

When they come to your office to take a statement, that action does not constitute an investigation.

The RCMP does not take statements by phone. So if the former minister called them to provide further information, after telephone contact, she would always be interviewed in person.

The Globe story did not clarify who initiated the “several telephone conversations” that precipitated the in-person interview.

Some believe, present company included, that The Globe is ginning up the story in tandem with Wilson-Raybould and her advisers, in an effort to do maximum damage to the electioneering Liberals.

It remains to be seen what impact these confusing RCMP claims will have on the election trajectory.

Some polls say Canadians have already made up their minds on the actions of all parties in the SNC-Lavalin deferred prosecution agreement question. Whether they support Trudeau or Wilson-Raybould, the issue has already been factored into their voting intentions.

But the explosive headlines on the first two days of the campaign could change that.

It wouldn’t be the first time that the spectre of an RCMP investigation was used to sow uncertainty during an election campaign.

Back in 2006, RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli faxed a letter to an NDP MP, confirming that the force had commenced a criminal investigation into budget leaks from the Finance Department headed by Ralph Goodale, named in the communication.

Stephen Harper won that election. In the end, Goodale was completely exonerated but a departmental official was charged.

Some say the letter from Zaccardelli literally changed the outcome of the election. Up until that point the Liberals had been leading in voter intentions.

One only has to look at the last election in the United States, where a judicial intervention in the last 11 days of the debate changed the outcome of the election.

FBI director James Comey’s letter in the dying days of the American election had a lasting impact on democracy.

His announced reopening of a stale-dated investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails was the likely tipping point in securing Donald Trump’s election victory.

At the time, Comey claimed he acted because polls showed Clinton would win and he did not want to be accused of concealing relevant information.

To avoid undue election influence, the RCMP has announced it will not be investigating anything during the writ period. That fact was buried in The Globe story.

Front-paging a self-generated police interview makes great headlines.

Time will tell whether the story influences the election result.

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

The book launch guarantees that Jody Wilson-Raybould’s story will dominate the news, ensuring the Liberals receive more criticism for their faulty handling of the file.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 29, 2019.

The book launch guarantees that Jody Wilson-Raybould’s story will dominate the news, ensuring the Liberals receive more criticism for their faulty handling of the file.

OTTAWA—In the heat of the SNC-Lavalin controversy, the government was slammed for claiming jobs may be at stake.

Pundits attacked the statement that some of the of 9,000 company jobs could be lost, if the company did not benefit from a deferred prosecution agreement.

The narrative had a distinctly anti-Quebec flavour. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was attacked for saying he had a responsibility to protect jobs in his riding. He was blasted for even suggesting that, as a Member of Parliament, he had a duty to protect jobs in his riding.

Six months later, the chickens have come home to roost and the jobs are being lost. SNC is coming apart at the seams while Jody Wilson-Raybould is promising to lift a veil by publishing her own version of events the week after the election is officially called.

Hopefully she has a good ghostwriter because if she really intends to get elected as an Independent in Vancouver, the former minister won’t have time to be burning the midnight oil on writing a book too.

The book launch guarantees that her story will dominate the news, ensuring the Liberals receive more criticism for their faulty handling of the file.

Wilson-Raybould’s publisher announced the upcoming book launch the same week the Assembly of First Nations was meeting in Fredericton. The book, From Where I Stand: Rebuilding Indigenous Nations for a Stronger Canada, published by Purich Books and UBC Press, will be launched on Sept. 20.

Wilson-Raybould’s nemesis, Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett, attended that meeting and outlined her government’s efforts on reconciliation. She drew particular attention to the decision to abolish the department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. “INAC was really about paternalism and in no way reflected the original spirit or intent of treaties or the original understanding of what that relationship was to be about,” she told the AFN’s annual gathering.

Wilson-Raybould could have partnered in this important work if she had accepted a cabinet appointment as the minister responsible for Indigenous services.

Instead, she could go down in history as the aboriginal leader who singlehandedly derailed her people’s agenda.

During the course of the unfolding debacle, Wilson-Raybould continued to state that she wanted to run as a Liberal in the next election because she shared the values of the party.

She and colleague Jane Philpott both repeated that, other than the prime minister’s treatment of the SNC-Lavalin case, they were pretty much onside with most other issues.

If Wilson-Raybould is really concerned about progress on Indigenous issues, why is she doing her best to make sure that Andrew Scheer wins the next election?

Personal hubris must trump her commitment to her people. That is the only explanation for her decision to publish a book timed to come out just days after the writ is dropped to formally launch the October election.

The book is being billed as a collection of speeches and previously published articles on her vision for achieving reconciliation. She is calling for the acknowledgement of Indigenous rights, replacement of the Indian Act, and Indigenous self-government.

All of those goals were possible, had she decided to remain in cabinet. Along with Bennett, she could singlehandedly have transformed the relationship from one of paternalism to a partnership of equals.

Instead, she is on the outside looking in, writing a book which will be long on theory and short on practical application.

Her decision to publish in mid-campaign is timed to do the maximum amount of damage possible to the first government that has actually embodied a vision for reconciliation.

Wilson-Raybould would be hard-pressed to name another prime minister that has made reconciliation the centrepiece of his governance effort.

Not only has the government aggressively pursued infrastructure investments in Indigenous communities, it addressed the most egregious inequality in the system, the fact that education funds available to Indigenous kids were only 60 per cent of what was spent on regular education.

Aboriginal language funding, one of the first cuts made by Stephen Harper, has been reinstituted under the Liberal watch. That decision offers some hope that more than 50 Indigenous languages may actually survive the very real threat of extinction in one more generation.

Liberals may have overpromised on reconciliation.

But at least Trudeau’s government is trying.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has given five major speeches which are supposed to outline his vision as a future prime minister.

The word “reconciliation” is not mentioned once. Conservative Senators have succeeding in blocking passage of bill C-262, which would have guaranteed that Canada’s laws respect the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

If Wilson-Raybould really wants to be a nation builder, she should stop helping Scheer.

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

Overexposure probably explains why no other media outlet even bothered to cover the Sun front-page story. There was no exposé.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 27, 2019.

OTTAWA—Warren Kinsella was granted an exclusive interview last week with former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould who promised to spill all, once she had permission from a new prime minister to speak.

The “exclusive” Toronto Sun headline screamed, “SHE’LL TELL ALL.” But in the article there was nothing to tell.

According to Kinsella, that can only happen by defeating Justin Trudeau. The story claims that Wilson-Raybould wants to “lift the veil” on what really goes on in Ottawa “when, say, a Prime Minister Andrew Scheer gives her the legal green light to do so.”

So now the former attorney general is promoting a Liberal government defeat so she can tell her story.

Just a few weeks ago, the same former minister said publicly that she still wanted to run for the Liberals in the election because her values on most issues best aligned with those of that party.

When the Wilson-Raybould story was boiling over, I was accused of racism and sexism for criticizing Canada’s first Indigenous justice minister. I received death threats, and multiple verbal attacks on Twitter for writing that the only person Wilson-Raybould was helping in her drip-drip-drip of allegations was Scheer.

And now Wilson-Raybould is on the front page of the Toronto Sun promoting a change of prime minister to “say, Prime Minister Andrew Scheer,” according to Kinsella.

Wilson-Raybould says she has made Indigenous reconciliation the focal point of her political beliefs.

It looks like she’s more interested in her own career story than in supporting the most progressive prime minister on Indigenous issues.

Multiple experts, including parliamentary lawyers, have stated there is absolutely nothing preventing the former minister from speaking her truth. In any case, solicitor-client privilege ended the day she left the Justice Department. There are no limits on what happened after that.

Her story has been more than fully aired, domestically and internationally. Her allegations could end up dooming the government.

But overexposure probably explains why no other media outlet even bothered to cover the Sun front-page story. There was no exposé.

The interview did, however, cast doubt on more than Wilson-Raybould’s motivations.

We know she is bitter.

Kinsella has been on a rant against Trudeau for years. And his alliance with Wilson-Raybould has given oxygen to his battle.

And her story has changed so many times.

She said the Veterans Affairs posting was not a demotion.

She said she believed almost all of the same things as the prime minister, and their shared vision was why she wanted to stay inside the Liberal caucus.

She said her real reason for entering partisan politics was to help Indigenous peoples yet she refused an opportunity to take the lead as minister responsible for Indigenous services.

She now believes that her most important political mandate is getting her story out.

When a politician makes the front page, it is usually because they have something newsworthy to say.

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

Not last week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was not.

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

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

Once again, too little, too late.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the minister did not understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trudeau had no choice but to lance this caucus boil.

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

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

By Sheila Copps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunny ways will not last forever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But sunny ways will not work.

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

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

By Sheila Copps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Kinsella’s own cyber presence is revelatory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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