The boost in polling that Democrats have enjoyed since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the race would not be shared by the Liberals if Justin Trudeau were to do the same.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2024.

OTTAWA–The post-Biden bump for the Democrats in the United States has not passed unnoticed in Canada.

One of the first questions asked of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the summer cabinet meeting in Halifax last week was just that: Could the Liberals get a similar bump if the prime minister were to step down, and the voters were presented with a different face at the head of the party?

Trudeau sidestepped the question, and continued to insist that his job was to “be there to invest in Canadians.” But his close friend and cabinet colleague Marc Miller did say that robust conversations were taking place within the confines of the caucus, without public disclosure.

Other ministers, including potential leadership candidates Mélanie Joly and Chrystia Freeland, were quick to support the prime minister’s leadership. But the party is roiling, as ministers and Members of Parliament seek their own Canadian bump.

It has been a year since the Conservative lead entered into double-digit territory, and nothing the government does seems to narrow that gap. But the notion of a parallel result if Trudeau were to resign is misdirected.

First of all, the hike for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has resulted in an increase of three to four per cent for her party.

Three to four per cent in Canada would not be enough to return to government, as the current polling differential between the Liberals and the Conservatives is much higher.

The United States is essentially a two-party system, so a small shift can make or break a victory. Even an independent with the name recognition of Robert Kennedy Jr. managed only six per cent support at the apex of his campaign. It is doubtful that six per cent would even follow him into an election. Now that he has thrown his support behind Republican candidate Donald Trump, his supporters will probably split between the two main parties.

Also, a two-party system lends itself to a smooth transition. In the U.S. case, the Democrats were able to replace U.S. President Joe Biden with Harris without a full leadership convention because opponents were edged out by the current vice-president.

The fact that she would have replaced Biden in the event of a presidential illness or incapacity made it simpler to rally around her at a national convention less than three months from the election.

In Trudeau’s case, his succession would trigger a full leadership process. Contrary to some media reports, Mark Carney is not a putative leader in waiting. There are several current cabinet ministers who have been quietly setting the stage for their own leadership ambitions.

Pundits would suggest that it is better to have someone from outside the current crop of politicians, and Carney certainly has a polished Canadian and international pedigree. But the Liberal Party’s previous experience with global pedigree has not been positive.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant scholar with a renowned global reputation who was supposed to be the party’s saviour. Instead, he was quickly rejected as someone who came back to Canada only to run for office. Carney has declined multiple offers to run for office, and that doesn’t sit well with those working in the trenches.

While the public may be tired of Trudeau, the party’s volunteer base is actively working to explain why his leadership and the current government are worth supporting.

The checklist is long for Liberals. National childcare, dental care, pharmacare and school lunch programs send a message that the party is working for all the people.

But the government has been telling that story for several months, and so far, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Party members are ready for a leadership change, but also realize that the decision is in the hands of the prime minister.

Meanwhile, from François-Philippe Champagne to Dominic LeBlanc, many are weighing their future chances. Former parliamentarian Frank Baylis, who sold his heart-device business for $1.75-billion in 2021, is also actively assessing a potential campaign for the top job.

Baylis, son of a Barbadian immigrant, served in Trudeau’s government for one term, from 2015 to 2019, as the member of parliament for multicultural Pierrefonds-Dollard in Montreal, Que. If successful, he would be the party’s first non-white leader.

All of the foregoing means Liberals will not follow the American example and force out their leader. Multiple candidates are already planning their own robust campaigns, so there would be no shoo-in for Carney.

No huge bump, and multiple candidates rule out a smooth post-Trudeau transition in Canada.

Vive le Canada.

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

The centre is where the majority of Canadians would like to be. But there’s a big question as to whether Dominic Cardy’s party can become more than just a one-man show.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 19, 2024.

OTTAWA—Dominic Cardy registered a new party with Elections Canada this month, planning to field candidates in all upcoming federal byelections.

In an interview with The Toronto Star, the interim leader of the Canadian Future Party says he considers the current federal Conservative leader “terrifying.”

He says he plans to offer a centrist option to voters tired of electoral polarization, telling The Star: “Our tag line is saying we’re not left, not right, (we’re) going forward.”

Ironically, that was the same tag line that led the Liberals to form a minority government in 2021, with their slogan being, “Forward, for everyone.”

The former minister in the New Brunswick’s Progressive Conservative government is no stranger to new parties.

He served as the leader of that province’s New Democratic Party from 2011 until 2017.

He ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the legislature as a New Democrat, but won the same seat as a Progressive Conservative in 2018.

He endorsed Maxime Bernier for the federal Conservative leadership, so if Cardy needs advice on how to make a new party work, he can always reach out to Mad Max.

Both men must realize that in the current political system, building and sustaining a new party is almost impossible.

Just ask the Green Party that has been in existence since 1983.

In the 2004 election, the Green Party, under the leadership of Jim Harris, secured candidates in all ridings and received 4.3 per cent of the popular vote.

When Elizabeth May took the helm in 2006, she again moved the dial for the Greens, taking them to 6.8 per cent of the national popular vote in the 2008 election.

That was the party’s apex, followed by multiple elections which eventually saw the election of three Members of Parliament. May has held her seat in Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C., since 2011, and is the longest serving woman leader of a political party in Canadian history.

But despite a national showing in multiple elections, the Green Party has never been able to make a real breakthrough.

So how does the Canadian Future Party think it can do things differently?

It is targeting the centre, and claims a membership of former Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats, although Cardy has been coy on who those supporters are.

The party hopes to appeal to former Tories who are not happy with the shift to the right that has happened since the party dropped its progressive wing in order to merge with the former Reform Party.

Canadian Future also hope to attract Liberals who think their party has moved too far to the left in its alliance with the New Democratic Party.

The centre is certainly where the majority of Canadians would like to be. But there is a big question as to whether the Cardy party can become more than simply a one-man show.

The party’s standing in the upcoming byelections in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, Que., and Winnipeg-Transcona, Man., will be a bellwether of its possibilities.

The party has not managed to secure well-known candidates in either riding, which may be some indication of how uphill the climb will be.

The Liberals are unlikely to give up the coveted centre as it has spelled success for them in the majority of elections since the beginning of Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has moved the party to the left with programs like pharma care, childcare, and dental care. During the pandemic, that move has worked well for Canadians, especially those who were thrown out of work through no fault of their own.

But the chance of another party making any headway when the Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats are fighting for votes is unlikely.

The bigger question is: if they get any traction, from whom will the Canadian Future Party skim votes?

Most progressives have already left the Conservative Party, and Poilievre appears to be shaping his campaign far from the centre.

His promise to shut down the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is sure to scare off centrists, especially those in Atlantic Canada who depend on the public broadcaster for their only local coverage.

Poilievre’s new campaign attacking NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is also not attracting the centre. Instead, he is going hard after the left in order to encourage NDP voters to vault over the Liberals and join the Conservatives.

It is ironic but true that some blue-collar voters are more likely to switch from NDP to Conservative than to ever vote Liberal.

But the centre is still where political victory lies.

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

Trudeau’s tenure is brief but he needs to weigh his legacy against the risk of losing it all. Quite a balancing act.

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

Politics is a disease for which there is no vaccination.

How else to explain the reason why politicians have such a hard time retiring?

Most people count down the days until they can stop working. But U.S. President Joe Biden is 81 years old, and still refuses to entertain the idea of getting out.

Ditto for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau has accomplished extraordinary things during his decade in power, which have even his enemies damning him with faint praise.

Norman Spector recently tweeted that Trudeau had been “the most consequential prime minister in his lifetime.” He went on to say Trudeau was even more consequential than his father. That praise was tempered by adding “more decades than I have left will have to pass to know whether the massive changes he’s precipitated are making Canada a better country—or destroying it.”

Trudeau put Indigenous issues on the agenda with more investments and legislative change to support reconciliation than any prime minister in history.

He also introduced nationally accessible child care, dental care and pharmacare, permanently hiked seniors’ pensions, and launched a national school lunch program initiative during the quickest economic recovery in the G8.

Quite a record for a decade which included two years of focussed attention on a worldwide once-in-a-century pandemic.

So why don’t either of these accomplished men want to exit with their heads held high?

To paraphrase former Ontario premier Ernie Eves, the worst day in politics is better than the best day on Bay Street.

Outsiders may think it is hubris that keeps politicians going. But they would be wrong.

The capacity for societal change lands squarely in the lap of politicians, and they know how much their work can actually be the agent for change.

Trudeau understands that his vision will not likely be shared by any successor, whether it be from his own party or the Conservatives.

Biden has devoted his life to fighting for the workers, and he wants to continue that work.

It is up to those closest to these leaders to guide them in the right direction.

In Trudeau’s case, following his separation from Sophie Grégoire last summer, he won’t be getting any pillow-talk counsel. He may be hearing from his children, but their youthful wisdom may not parallel advice from close adults.

Biden is obviously getting an earful from his partner Jill Biden, and his adult children. They are pushing him to stay even though his public performances and aging issues have become the dominant theme on the eve of his presidential re-election fight.

Donald Trump is chomping at the bit, hoping to bait Biden into another encounter since the first debate was so damaging to the Democrats.

Senior Democrats are working on the Biden family to convince them that keeping Joe in the job will end up destroying his legacy, not enhancing it.

Senior Liberals are not able to work on family members who can exercise a considerable amount of influence. Instead, they are reaching out to the inner circle of Trudeau’s key advisers.

That group seems to believe that the prime minister’s campaign prowess will carry him through the current travails.

His chief of staff has been working the back rooms of leadership since she was at Queen’s Park with then-Premier Kathleen Wynne. Katie Telford was there in the 2014 election when Wynne was supposed to lose. Instead, she turned it around and Liberals served one more term in provincial government.

Telford’s job also depends on Trudeau staying, so it may be understandable that she sees possible redemption on the campaign trail.

But Wynne’s second try in 2018 was a disaster with the leader announcing her own retirement days before the campaign ended. The party ended up losing status with few seats, and the worst defeat in Ontario political history.

Telford was not responsible for that debacle, as the campaign was run by David Herle, former adviser to prime minister Paul Martin who led Martin back to the wilderness in 2006.

But Telford understands political history.

Every leader cares about the direction in which they take their country. But at some point, even consequential leadership loses its lustre.

The power of political change is inevitable especially in the post-information age.

In Biden’s case, he has admirably served his country for 52 years. He can leave with his head held high.

In comparison, Trudeau’s tenure is brief, but he needs to weigh his legacy against the risk of losing it all.

Quite a balancing act.

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

Justin Trudeau believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Pierre Poilievre, but Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited. The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 4, 2024.

OTTAWA—The winds of political change are blowing everywhere.

Instead of interpreting that as a renaissance of the right, we have to assume that voter fatigue in multiple countries is fuelling this desire for change.

In the case of the United Kingdom, that wind led to a majority Labour government win on July 4.

British Conservatives have been in power for 14 years.

But unlike Canadian Liberals, the British Tories have motored through five leaders during the same period.

The revolving door on British leadership is prompted by a rule similar to that of Canadian Conservatives. If the majority of caucus votes against the leader, they are dismissed from power.

In the British Parliament, the dumping of leaders by caucus springs from rules written into party constitutions.

In Canada, only the Conservatives can trigger a leadership review. That process stems from a private member’s bill adopted unanimously in the House of Commons on condition that implementation is up to each caucus to be voted on privately at the beginning of a new Parliament.

Because of this rule, even if Pierre Poilievre were to secure a majority government in the next election, if his popularity flagged, he could be quickly replaced.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the revolving door leads to internal party divisions that are hard to heal.

In the dying dies of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s campaign, former prime minister Boris Johnson was brought in to rally the troops. He rallied hard, but did little to support his leader.

Instead, he used his time on stage in London’s Chelsea neighbourhood to praise his own initiatives, and trash the left.

He simply ignored Sunak, who was part of the group that dumped him. With such Tory in-fighting, the Labour Party has doubled its lead heading into a vote predicted to be a washout for the governing party.

From France to Canada, from the United Kingdom to the United States, multiple western leaders are suffering from voter fatigue.

Some may also be suffering from personal fatigue.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s performance in the June 27 debate against Donald Trump was palpably painful to watch. He struggled to keep his train of thought, and spoke in a gravelly, weakened voice. There were moments when he appeared to be confused about what the issue was. His wife, Jill, went up to the podium at the end to usher Biden away, as one would do for an elderly relative with balance problems.

All in all, it reinforced the narrative that Biden should not be the Democratic Party’s choice in the next election if they intend to defeat Trump.

Americans are also suffering from price fatigue and inflation, but there does not seem to be the obvious stampede to the right that one witnessed in the first round of the French elections last week.

Instead, the American race is a sparring match between relatively equal political movements, with the two-party system almost split down the middle.

But with the mental and physical feebleness Biden displayed on debate night, his party will be ceding the election to the Trump Republicans unless he is encouraged to step aside.

In the French coalition system with multiple parties, the group led by President Emmanuel Macron is running a poor third in the vote he himself triggered early.

Like the U.K’s Sunak, Macron called a surprise election. Both seem to be facing imminent defeat because of their own bad judgement.

In Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s case, he is hoping that time will heal all wounds. But it may also be that time is running out because the governance agreement with Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats will expire early next year.

The shocking Liberal loss in Toronto-St. Paul’s, Ont., left the party with a sense of foreboding that will fester when they hear negative feedback on the summer barbecue circuit.

Unlike Sunak, Trudeau cannot simply be dumped by a vote of his caucus.

Like Biden, Trudeau must reflect on whether his presence in the next election will be a plus or a minus.

The prime minister believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Poilievre.

But the prime minister also needs boots on the ground, though with many Liberals both privately and publicly expressing their reservations, the volunteer base of the party will be shrinking.

Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited.

The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

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

Justin Trudeau has to do something dramatic to let Canadians know that he really is listening and the capital gains reversal could be it. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 1, 2024.

OTTAWA—Justin Trudeau should pull a Doug Ford.

Apologize and say his government got it wrong when it announced a hike in the capital gains inclusion rate from 50 per cent to 66.7 per cent for annual gains over $250,000.

Premier Ford reversed his controversial position on selling off greenbelt land by simply apologizing and changing his mind. The political fallout from that reversal was nil.

A flip on the capital gains hike could signal that Trudeau is willing to admit when he is wrong.

The budget announcement was one reason Liberals lost a key byelection in Toronto-St. Paul’s last week. According to a demographic analysis of the riding by Environics, the average household income there is $190,945.30.

That is more than double the average before taxes income of $92,764 for the rest of the country.

An apology would reinforce comments made by the prime minister the day after the shocking loss of a riding that had been held by the Liberals for three decades.

Commenting on the outcome, the prime minister said “I hear people’s concerns. And frustrations.”

Simply repeating that he is working to ameliorate the situation will not be enough.

Inside the caucus, members are quietly grumbling about their leader’s unpopularity, predicting a general election could be disastrous if the party’s numbers are not shored up.

Trudeau has to do something dramatic to let Canadians know that he really is listening and the capital gains reversal could be it.

The issue would not matter in most ridings as ordinary Canadians cannot hope to have an annual capital gain in excess of $250,000.

But for those who do, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back in last week’s vote.

That, and the prime minister’s personal unpopularity, were certainly factors in the surprising defeat. They both coupled with the government’s position on the Israel-Hamas war to create a perfect storm.

The war in the Middle East even had the mayor of a Montreal suburb calling on Toronto voters to repudiate Trudeau. Mayor Jeremy Levi of Hampstead used X (Twitter) to literally “implore” voters in Toronto to vote for Don Stewart and Pierre Poilievre.

The mayor accused Trudeau of lying to all Jewish Canadians about his promise to do something to combat antisemitism. “This is no longer about Jews, but a leader who consistently failed.”

Deputy Conservative leader Melissa Lantsman penned a similar message to constituents in the riding, asking them to send Trudeau “a message about his betrayal of our Jewish community” because of his silence on rise of “Jew hatred” since the beginning of the war.

According to the most recent census, approximately 15 per cent of the riding population is Jewish, but Lantsman refused to say whether the letter was sent selectively to Jewish households.

Couple that with the reality that the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church, well-known in political circles as chief of staff to Chrystia Freeland, was largely unknown in the constituency.

According to some Liberal sources, there were other, popular local candidates who were willing to step up when Carolyn Bennett vacated the seat, she had held for a quarter century.

But they were bypassed for Church, largely at the insistence of deputy prime minister Freeland.

Freeland holds an adjacent riding to that of Toronto-St. Paul’s. In University-Rosedale, the demographics are very similar, and with the shocking loss last week, Freeland must also be wondering about the vulnerability of her own seat.

She campaigned hard for Church, suggesting at a press conference on the day of the vote that the election was about “two visions of Canada, two sets of values.” Freeland said the alternative vision to the Liberal one was “cold, cruel and small” that would lead to cuts.

Freeland’s pitch did not appear to resonate with the local voters.

After the polls closed, Conservative organizer Jenni Byrne made an unusual appearance on CBC to say her candidate had lost the election, when a few hours later it turned out the opposite was true.

At 4:30 a.m., the final ballot put Conservative candidate Don Stewart ahead by almost 600 votes. Church had led the polls through most of the evening, but the numbers in the advance voting prompted the flip.

Liberal insiders knew it would be a tough fight, but they thought the tide was turning in their favour in the last few days.

Caucus successors to Trudeau are already quietly organizing, although most pledge public support for the beleaguered leader.

Something dramatic needs to happen to turn this ship around.

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

Liberals would be better off to focus on the good parts of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand and even fewer will be paying.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 24, 2024.

OTTAWA—The Liberals want to pick a fight on capital gains. And Pierre Poilievre is poised for battle.

He has characterized the tax changes announced in the budget as “economic vandalism,” and has taken the unusual step of appearing on mainstream media television to fight the changes.

For her part, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has been leading the charge for the Liberals.

The deputy prime minister repeated her message that richer Canadians would not want to see “the public sphere so degraded,” and that the “wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns hot.”

Not sure about the reference to compatriots? If Liberals want to occupy the political centre, they need to use ordinary language.

Freeland, and compatriot Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez have characterized the capital gains hike as tax fairness.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also publicly defended the changes are a matter of fairness.

He says it is simply not fair that a teacher pays tax on 100 per cent of their income, while a business owner pays taxes only 50 per cent of “passive’ income capital gains hikes.

The last budget proposed a hike to two-thirds of capital gains. In the 1990s, the capital gains tax—pegged at 75 per cent—was even higher.

If Poilievre wants to hike the temperature on taxes, he thinks there are some political points to be scored.

His party was the only one to vote against the proposed capital gains changes, but he has already promised to do a complete revision of the tax system without any specific details.

Depending on where you sit on the political spectrum, the question of fairness is a moving target.

The Fraser Institute—a bastion of conservatism—claimed in a 2023 report that the top 20 per cent of income-earning families in the country pay more than 60 per cent of the taxes.

On the other hand, the Broadbent Institute says those figures are skewed because top earners also account for two-thirds of the nation’s total net wealth, while the bottom 40 per cent of net earners comprise just three per cent.

So just where do Canadians land on what constitutes tax fairness?

This is where the question of who will win the tax fairness fight turns.

Most Canadians who don’t expect a personal tax bite on capital gains have already moved on to other issues in their lives.

Those who do expect to pay a capital gain are hopping mad, and they don’t plan to forget it any time soon.

The Canadian Medical Association says the tax changes will negatively impact on family doctor availability, already at a crisis level in many parts of the country.

They are lobbying, along with their provincial organizations, for an exemption for medical corporations or—at the very least—measures to allow individuals in the corporation to share the exemption threshold in an indexed tax amendment.

According to an Abacus survey commissioned by the CMA, 76 per cent of Canadians with an opinion on the issue felt changes should be reversed for doctors.

The CMA’s president has said that a special exemption should apply to doctors because “We are unique. …We need to be treated that way.”

But if doctors are exempted, then what about farmers, and small business operators in other sectors?

They, too, would like an exemption or a change in the proposed law. And that’s what Poilievre is banking on.

Most Canadians are fully in favour of taxing the rich, as long as it doesn’t include them.

But they have already forgotten about capital gains, and are moving on to other issues.

Affordability, inflation, food prices, and housing are high on their agenda. And they really don’t care about a capital gains change.

So Poilievre is planning to roll up a rather confusing tax change into his attack on the tax-and-spend Liberals.

In the end, the only people currently following the issue closely are those in the top bracket who could be affected by the changes.

As far as they are concerned, it is not fair for them to pay more taxes, and they are not going to be moved by concerns of their compatriots.

Liberals would be much better off to focus on the positive elements of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand, and even fewer will be paying.

The message on dental care, pharmacare, and daycare is positive news for millions of Canadians.

That’s the battle that Liberals should be fighting.

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

Parliament’s hyper-partisan climate has made the Speaker’s job doubly difficult, but Greg Fergus can defuse crisis situations with his moderate demeanour. But the Conservatives feel that any venal sin is reason for his dismissal.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 27, 2024.

OTTAWA—Three strikes and you’re out.

House Speaker Greg Fergus is currently on strike two.

According to the New Democrats, this strike was really the fault of the Liberal Party organization, and should not be blamed on the Speaker.

In the end, it was much ado about nothing. The Conservatives are all about focusing on anything negative, especially if it involves members associated with the governing Liberals.

Conservatives would not want the public to focus on the good numbers that have dominated the news recently.

A drop in inflation and a reinforcement of Canada’s AAA credit rating may make the governing Liberals smile.

But they don’t make the news with the same ferocity as a generic press release from Fergus’ local riding association which had not-so-nice things to say about Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

Fergus’ first strike occurred early in his tenure when he made the mistake of appearing in a partisan tribute video wearing his speaker’s robes.

He apologized for the mistake, and dodged the firing bullet with all parties eventually accepting his apology.

That was before Fergus threw Poilievre out of the House of Commons for refusing to apologize for the use of unparliamentary language against the prime minister.

In that exchange, both Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traded insults. The difference was that Trudeau quickly withdrew his statement while Poilievre would not.

The hyper-partisan climate in Parliament has made the Speaker’s job doubly difficult, but Fergus has a moderate demeanour, and is usually ready with a smile to defuse crisis situations.

The latest mess was not of his own making. The party posted generic information about the local riding association’s spring gathering, and included some negative comments about the leader of the opposition.

In normal circumstances, this would probably go unnoticed, but the Conservatives have obviously decided that any venial sin is reason for Fergus’ dismissal.

What must be particularly difficult for Fergus is that, although he is bound to impartiality in the management of House debate, he needs to get re-elected as a Liberal.

The Speaker is chosen from amongst Members of Parliament, most of whom are attached to a political party.

Never in Canadian history has a non-aligned member served as House Speaker.

So Fergus has to tread a very fine line between impartiality in the House, and partisan politics in the local community.

He also happens to represent a riding within a stone’s throw of Parliament, which makes it much easier for Hill staffers and political followers to keep an eye on all material that emanates from his local association.

Long-serving House Speaker Peter Milliken served a decade as Speaker, and also had the distinction of being the only one to preside over four Parliaments.

He was succeeded by Andrew Scheer, who used his private time in the Speaker’s chair to reach out to caucus members in a bid to become his party’s leader.

Having spent most of his parliamentary career in neutral positions, as deputy Speaker and then Speaker, Scheer managed to secure huge caucus support when he ran for the Conservative Party leadership.

One of the perks of being the Speaker is that you can organize parliamentary dinners on a regular basis, and invite small numbers of members to join you in Speaker’s chambers.

As Speakers don’t attend caucus meetings or parliamentary committees, most of their energy can be devoted to building relationships behind the scenes.

Those relationships are often partisan, as private dinners can include only members of your own party, but no one in the public has access to the list.

So it is easy to be quietly partisan but—heaven forbid—you have an event in your own riding for local activists.

Even though Speakers are expected to prepare for re-election, their hands are ultimately tied when it comes to riding-organized events.

Fergus cannot be blamed for this cock-up, but when you are the Speaker, the last thing you want to be making is the news.

The summer break is looming. That is good news as it will give all parliamentarians a chance to cool off in their ridings, and lower the political temperature.

That may not make the official opposition very happy. Their strong lead in recent polls reinforces the wish to have an election as soon as possible.

Chaos in the Commons plays into that scenario because an unruly Parliament is usually a precursor to an election.

Instead, Speaker Fergus can use the summer period to nurture government and opposition relationships.

He will need them to hang on to his job.

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

Going after an unpopular prime minister will likely not cost Pierre Poilievre politically. But it does give Canadians a glimpse into what kind of leadership he would provide if he were elected prime minister. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 6, 2024.

OTTAWA—Disrespect for Parliament is the only way to explain Pierre Poilievre’s exit from House last week.

Perhaps he is spending so much time on the campaign trail that he thinks hateful language against his opponent will attract voters to his cause.

“Shameless, spineless” leadership and “wacko” were comments exchanged between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Poilievre on April 30.

But Trudeau withdrew his unparliamentary attacks while Poilievre refused to.

As a result, House Speaker Greg Fergus was forced to “name” Poilievre and eject him from the House.

Fergus offered several chances for Poilievre to withdraw his accusations, but the leader refused to do so and made a dramatic exit with his whole team in tow.

Under House rules, the leader of the opposition was allowed back the day after his ejection, and he did not have to apologize.

Going after an unpopular prime minister will likely not cost Poilievre politically. But it does give Canadians a glimpse into what kind of leadership he would provide if he were elected prime minister.

Most leaders start their term in office showing respect for their opponents and the workings of Parliament.

By the end of their time, personal hubris and frustration may overtake calm, but it usually doesn’t start out that way.

In Poilievre’s case, his parliamentary outbursts are reflective of his dripping hate for the prime minister.

In the session where Poilievre was asked to withdraw his accusation that Trudeau is “the guy who spent the first half of his adult life as a practising racist” the attacks of both leaders were caustic.

Trudeau, for his part, had to apologize for name-calling of the leader of the opposition. The prime minister accused Poilievre of courting white supremacists, as allegedly the previous week, a symbol of white supremacist group Diagalon was seen at a carbon-tax protest which Poilievre attended.

At the end of the week, few spectators outside the House will pay that much attention to what appears to be a schoolyard scrap in Parliament.

But Poilievre’s refusal to respect the ruling of the House Speaker will have repercussions.

Conservatives have all made it clear that they are after Fergus’ head, claiming he is too close to the Liberals.

For its part, the government lost no time in comparing Poilievre’s tactic to that of former U.S. president Donald Trump, who recently complained that he was being muzzled in a New York courtroom because he violated a gag order.

Tories were complaining they were muzzled by the Speaker, and it was clear that Poilievre wanted to be kicked out.

Normally, this level of heat in the House usually happens just before an election.

When tempers get high, it is very difficult to cool things down, and sometimes the only way to clean the place up is by going to the people in an election.

That could be the reason behind the drama. As Poilievre is riding high in the polls, the timing for an election could not be better for the Conservatives.

Most people won’t be paying that much attention to the parliamentary shenanigans as Canadians generally expect that level of behaviour from politicians at the best of times.

But for those who do, the decision by Poilievre to simply ignore the Speaker’s ruling and focus his attack on Fergus should be a harbinger of what to expect in a Poilievre government.

Government Whip Steven MacKinnon linked Poilievre directly to Trump, referring to the dark state influence on the politics of both leaders.

Poilievre has worked hard to try and separate his party’s right-wing perspective from that of the former American president.

But his actions in the House make the link for him.

The government has obviously decided to pivot from “happy days” and attack the nature of Poilievre’s political support.

A week earlier, Trudeau had accused Poilievre courting conspiracy theorists and extremists. He highlighted Poilievre’s refusal to denounce American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones who recently endorsed Poilievre for “saying the same things as me.”

Trudeau is banking on the fact that the majority of Canadian voters may not want to be associated with white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.

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

With weekly hauls seeking donations of up to $1,725 and that kind of cash coming in, Pierre Poilievre will able to keep spending without being subject to the limits on advertising that kick in once an election is called.

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

OTTAWA—Pre-budget fever has returned the Liberals to the front pages for the first time in months.

The prime minister and his front bench have been travelling across the country offering glimpses of what kind of budget the minister of finance will deliver this week.

Liberal themes are broad and deep. The government wants to send a message of real product differentiation.

Unlike the Conservative leader, the Liberals will be reaching out to help those in need—from school lunches for kids, to rental rights for young Canadians who are struggling.

Recent messaging has been strong. But it remains to be seen whether it is too little, too late.

Will the prime minister be able to continue this cross-country blitz once the budget has been tabled?

Or will the Pierre Poilievre bandwagon keep gaining popularity as it rolls along from riding to riding?

The Liberals promised back in 2015 that they would not do government advertising to promote government programs and initiatives.

That promise was a reaction to the multi-million-dollar action plan delivered by former prime minister Stephen Harper, which included signage in the woods to reinforce support with the hunting community.

Trudeau has stayed true to that promise. And it has cost him dearly. In the absence of government messaging, Poilievre has raised and spent millions of dollars to shape his image and promote his messaging in all media.

The Conservative spending on advertising, in social media, and on so-called legacy media has managed to shape an image of the Conservative leader that is quite different from one year ago.

Sans glasses, and sporting muscle T-shirts, with an articulate spouse on his arm, Poilievre is working hard to soften the obvious hard edges.

He is still reaching out to the anti-vaccine and anti-abortion movements, but is making sure that is not the message dominating the mainstream.

Poilievre is fundraising aggressively, as well, with weekly hauls seeking donations of up to $1,725. With that kind of cash coming in, he will able to continue to spend in the lead-up to the election without being subject to the limitations on advertising that kick in once an election is called.

The shape-shifting prompted by the Conservative advertising campaign begs the question.

According to the Canada Elections Act, each party is subject to an annual advertising limit. The last reported annual limit was $2,046,800 in 2019 available to each party.

However, the law states that messages posted for free on social media do not constitute partisan advertising.

That means that a 15-minute video released on X does not need to be included in pre-election, reportable advertising expenses.

As the production costs for most social media videos can be hefty, the cost for the creation of social media videos and messaging should be considered in each party’s partisan advertising bill.

If social media costs were factored in, it would not be long before the aggressive Poilievre advertising campaign would exceed the annual limit.

The same law states that advertising is not considered partisan if it “promotes or opposes a political entity only by taking a position on an issue with which the entity is associated.” By that definition, an “Axe the Tax” advertising campaign would not be considered partisan.

The onslaught of political advertising by the Poilievre team is producing the desired results.

But perhaps it is also time to take a look at just what constitutes partisan advertising. Tighter limits should be placed on pre-election advertising in the same way that parties are limited once the election is called.

Under current rules, the governing Liberals should start sending out their own political messaging. By leaving the door open to the official opposition, the Liberals have missed an opportunity to remind voters of the differences between the two parties.

Instead, the messaging has focussed on all the negatives of the prime minister, with Poilievre blaming him for everything from global inflation to housing shortages to grocery prices.

Even provincial issuance of student visas for post-secondary education is now the federal government’s fault.

And with no response from the Liberals in the paid media domain, as they say in French, “les absents ont toujours tort”.

The absentees are always wrong.

Pre-election advertising rules governing social media are not about to change any time soon.

So if the Liberals intend to have even a fighting chance in the next election, they have to start fighting on the legacy and social media networks.

It is their only hope to turn the train wreck around.

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

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 8, 2024.

OTTAWA–I woke up to a news item last week that said Liberals had experienced a big spike in national popularity while the Greens and the Bloc were on the uptick.

Hardly believable, but in the world of politics, you are on a roller coaster. And six months is about the time-frame for either a dip or rise in popularity.

Then I had a coffee and realized it was April Fool’s Day. I was the fool. Because for a brief second, I thought Liberals’ flagging fortunes had turned around.

Both the Liberal and Conservative leaders seem to be in campaign mode.

Whether it’s an orthodox synagogue in Montréal, or a rally in Newfoundland or British Columbia, Pierre Poilievre is everywhere. And on his ‘Axe the Tax’ campaign, he really seems to be enjoying himself.

Finally, it looks as though the prime minister is also moving into campaign mode.

In a series of pre-budget announcement, Justin Trudeau and some of his key ministers have peppered the country with funding and programs.

From children’s school lunch funding, to a renters’ bill of rights, to carbon pricing, the governing party has finally realized that in government, you can control the agenda.

And they are definitely shaping a narrative that could play in their favour in the next election.

Poilievre is focusing on individual pocketbook issues. By pushing his anti-tax view, he is sending the message that under a Poilievre government, there would be cuts in government spending that would end up in your wallet.

He may be on to something. As altruistic as we would like to think ourselves to be, Canadians usually vote for what is in their personal self-interest.

Up until last week, not too many Canadians actually knew that 80 per cent of the population will receive a carbon rebate which exceeds the additional cost of the pricing program.

The frenetic pace Poilievre was keeping climaxed on April 1 when the new pricing regime went into effect.

He pulled out all the stops, including engaging oil-producing provincial premiers in a fight to roll back the carbon price increase.

But by associating so closely with leaders like Danielle Smith and Doug Ford, who are not universally admired across the country, he may be digging himself a petroleum hole from which he cannot get out.

Smith was hard-pressed to explain why, on the same day she was trashing carbon pricing, her government was hiking Alberta’s gas tax by a total of 13 cents a litre. Her supporters defended the hike, saying the money would be used to build roads and infrastructure, not to reduce carbon emissions.

When you compare the building of roads to the fight against global warming, which is more critical to our survival?

The younger generation—or NexGen as they are euphemistically known—consider global warming the challenge of our times.

Poilievre has been successful in attracting young voters on the basis that his policies will make housing and daily essentials more affordable.

Just like Trudeau rode the marijuana wave to victory in his first election in 2015, Poilievre hopes to ride the affordability train.

But on global warming, he has been strangely silent. His communications people say that the Conservative plan to fight climate change will come out when an election is called. That will be too late. By then, his image as a petro-politician will have solidified.

That will help in Alberta, but he certainly won’t become prime minister on the basis of that province alone.

His anti-environmental positions do not play well in Quebec or British Columbia, both provinces which were critical in getting the Liberals over the line in the last election.

Because Poilievre’s political message has been so tightly identified with carbon pricing, it will be hard for him to build any credibility on global warming.

His axe will also be used to cut government spending. But where will he start? Will he cancel dental benefits, pharmacare, or $10-a-day childcare? Something has to go.

The Axe-the-Tax campaign has finally created an opening for Liberals to start talking about what they have achieved, and asking the pertinent question: what will Poilievre axe?

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax.

With April 1 come and gone, if the sky doesn’t fall, Poilievre could be left looking like Chicken Little.

A campaign that promotes dental care, pharmacare, rental rights, and daycare sound a lot more interesting than one involving an axe.

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