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.

The party that Peter MacKay built is not the party that will be voting on the leadership review next spring. Some left politics altogether (including MacKay), and some switched parties, like Scott Brison, André Bachand, and Bill Casey.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 4, 2019.

OTTAWA—Andrew Scheer has time on his side. Short time that is.

The Conservative Party is scheduled to review his leadership in less than six months.

When Joe Clark was under attack for his leadership, he personally set the bar very high. The youngest prime minister ever elected promised to step down if at least two-thirds of the Progressive Conservative Party membership did not support him.

He got the support of 66.9 per cent, missing his goal by less than 1 per cent. Clark stepped aside anyway and reoffered his leadership in a campaign which saw Brian Mulroney beat him.

Many are drawing comparisons to that race, with Peter MacKay as the foil for Scheer that Mulroney played with Clark.

But that was then, and this is now. Progressives have largely fled the party and MacKay is stuck with trying to convince current Conservatives that the party needs to veer to the left.

If the public had a vote, that shift would be a no-brainer, but this is a ballot within a political party, which is quite a different beast.

The decade-long leadership of Stephen Harper, followed by social conservative Andrew Scheer, have solidified the party’s role as guardian of the right. Scheer’s refusal to support gay rights, by marching in a parade, is not just a personal religious choice. It is a reflection of the political direction that won him the party leadership and will secure his position in the review.

The Progressive Conservative party that Peter MacKay merged with Harper’s Canadian Alliance back in 2003 does not exist anymore.

Except for a few pockets in Eastern Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, many current Tories likely support Scheer’s view that homosexuality and abortion should not be legitimized in equality legislation.

Throughout the campaign, Liberals were bombarded by media criticism for tying Scheer to the anti-abortion movement in past word and deed.

Scheer beat Maxime Bernier in a cliff-hanger leadership race on the 13th ballot by promising anti-abortionists that their private members’ bills could be introduced under his watch. During the leadership, he was captured on video telling the RightNow anti-abortion organization that he would not prevent private members from introducing anti-abortion bills and revealing that he has always opposed abortion in any House of Commons vote.

After the election, RightNow co-founder Alissa Golob said in a media interview that the total number of pro-lifers in the House of Commons has increased from 53 to at least 68 seats. RightNow plans to stay in politics for the long game, with the aim of taking over Canada’s mainstream Conservative movement by stacking nomination meetings and presumably leadership review votes.

The current Conservative mechanism for leadership review favours takeovers because the decision on who gets to vote for or against the leader falls to a delegated convention. That means each riding elects up to 10 representatives to attend the Toronto meeting and cast their leadership review ballots.

With anti-Scheer forces led by Peter MacKay, there will be a party showdown between former progressives and current Conservatives. Last week, MacKay was back-pedalling on his criticism of Scheer’s campaign strategy. After saying that gay and abortion rights issues “hung around Andrew Scheer’s neck like a stinking albatross,” MacKay declared his support for the leader less than 24 hours later.

However, behind the scenes progressives like MacKay will be trying to convince delegates that the party needs to move away from right-wing social ideology if it has any hope of forming the next government. But he may be facing a wall of social ideologues who were not a factor when MacKay and Harper convinced their supporters to merge two parties into one Conservative Party 16 years ago.

The party that MacKay built is not the party that will be voting on the leadership review next spring. Some left politics altogether (including MacKay), and some switched parties, like Scott Brison, André Bachand, and Bill Casey.

There is another operative truism in politics. The longer you have been around a party, the less work you do.

The up-and-comers in Parliament owe their victories to Scheer and will work hard to support the leader.

Losers will be busy trying to reinvent themselves, and may not have the energy or the appetite to mount strong local battles to unseat Scheer. In the end, the short time-frame, minority challenges and delegated convention all point to a Scheer victory next April.

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