Working Families, an anti-Conservative coalition of public and private-sector unions and individuals, failed to overturn legislation reining in third-party capacity to advertise.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 13, 2021.

OTTAWA—An Ontario provincial court judgment just muzzled Doug Ford’s greatest opposition voice.

Working Families, an anti-Conservative coalition of public and private-sector unions and individuals, failed to overturn legislation reining in third-party capacity to advertise.

Previous restrictions on third-party advertising had been thrown out by the courts on the grounds that they violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ford government invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter in order to introduce legislation that knowingly violates the Canadian Constitution.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association joined unions and individuals in the unsuccessful appeal, claiming the law may “unreasonably chill people’s willingness to criticize the government or to engage in campaigns related to important policy issues of the day.”

In its factum to the court in November, CCLA argued that restrictions governing the right to vote, violated a Charter right that cannot be overridden by the application of the notwithstanding clause.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Ed Morgan disagreed with that interpretation, claiming third-party restrictions do not infringe on voters’ rights to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The same judge had previously ruled that the government restrictions on third-party advertising were a violation of the Charter.

The new legislation sets a $600,000 spending limit for advertising campaigns while extending the advertising restrictions from six months to one year before an election.

This further limit on ad spending, prompted unions to argue that the ruling would render third party campaigns toothless.

Union lawyer Paul Cavaluzzo was quoted as saying, “they don’t see how an election can be fair and legitimate when the government …violated their free speech … the court has found that independent third parties have the constitutional right to run ineffective campaigns.”

All this makes great fodder for lawyers on all sides. And in the end, it could have a profound impact on all future election outcomes.

Working Families spent more than $2-million in the campaign that brought Liberal leader Kathleen Wynne to power.

Polls were predicting a Tory win, but Canada’s first elected lesbian leader swept to power when forces opposing Conservative leader Tim Hudak combined to give Wynne the edge.

Wynne moved the Liberals from minority to majority in 2014, marking the fourth successive Grit election victory.

That win was the result of a call by Working Families to vote strategically against the Conservatives, whose campaign promises included a pledge to fire 100,000 public servants.

The third-party campaign was backed up by advertising targeted to let voters know what impact firings would have on teachers and nurses.

Wynne won because most voters who opposed Tory cuts voted for the candidate in their riding who could best defeat the Conservatives.

In previous Ontario elections, centre-left voters often split their ballots between the Liberals and the New Democrats.

The Progressive Conservatives managed to govern in Ontario for 42 years straight by effectively splitting the opposition down the middle.

Until 2014, union help generally went to the New Democrats, but Working Families changed that dynamic as well.

By joining forces in favour of workers, the organization managed to bridge the divide that has always existed between Liberals and New Democrats.

That bridge has definitely worked in favour of the Liberals, as it has been the party best positioned to defeat the Conservatives in an election.

The same strategic vote at the federal level has permitted the Liberals to remain in power for three terms. Progressive voters in Canada definitely outnumber conservatives.

Ford’s court victory last week will definitely change that dynamic.

In this instance, the change will affect the New Democrats most, since in sheer numbers, they are currently best positioned to replace the Tories if progressive voters unite.

If progressives splinter, as is likely the case in the absence of an effective third-party coalition like Working Families, the biggest political winner will be Ford.

Last week’s decision will probably be appealed, with the final ruling in the hands of Canada’s Supreme Court.

Whether that esteemed group will be prepared to validate a court-recognized violation of the Canadian charter remains to be seen.

Whatever their decision, Ontario is heading to the polls in less than six months.

Any definitive court ruling will likely not be heard before that date.

In the absence of effective third-party voices, the current government has definitely strengthened its chance for re-election.

However, current issues like the ragged handling of the pandemic, may outweigh the absence of a strong third-party Working Families information campaign.

In any case, Ford breathes easier today.

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 June 11, 2018.

OTTAWA—Nobody wants to vote for a loser. Which is why in most elections, even the candidate who is running last has an intrinsic belief that they can win.

Even those who are savvy enough to read the numbers, keep up a bold front for the sake of their supporters.

To keep the volunteers pumped, candidates actually lead the charge, even when the numbers tell a different tale.

When former Ontario premier David Peterson lost the election to Bob Rae back in 1990, he spent the last days of the campaign in a mad dash across the province, stopping at multiple airports where party faithful gathered for quick mini-rallies to pump up the troops.

By the final Hamilton stop, Peterson was hoarse and bedraggled, hardly the image of a winning candidate. But he continued to beat the victory drum, encouraging party workers to get out the vote.

The tide had turned and the momentum was unexpectedly seized by the New Democrats. The situation was not as dismal for the Liberals as last week’s election but there was no doubt the party was headed for defeat.

But for the sake of the team, no one spoke of loss.

Not so this time.

In what has to go down as one of the strangest political moves ever, someone convinced Premier Kathleen Wynne that she should concede defeat the week before the election.

After the move, her campaign co-director David Herle went on a media offensive, characterizing the Wynne decision as selfless and courageous.

I beg to differ.

What Wynne’s move succeeded in doing was to throw candidates under the bus in tight ridings across the province.

Why should anyone support a party in an election when it’s leader has already run up the white flag?

The campaign was a confused parody from the get-go. The final good-bye was simply a reflection of a strategy that never got off the ground.

First, Wynne’s unpopularity was not a surprise. Poll after poll in the year leading up to the election had shown that public response to the leader was visceral and negative.

Wynne was wearing some mistakes that had happened during the time of the previous administration but the bottom line was that people had made up their minds and they simply did not like her.

Many of the negatives were spawned because she is a woman and a lesbian, a double whammy in an old-boy’s world.

But politics is not fair. And she should have had a frank conversation with her campaign team early enough for the party to reach out to a new leader.

Even then, victory would have been a long shot. Any party in power for 15 years ends up with more enemies than friends.

But once the writ was dropped, that door was closed. So given Wynne’s personal numbers, why was campaign messaging all about her?

Instead of advertisements focused on softening the leader’s image, why didn’t the party promote a great team, what had been achieved and plans for the future?

A positive, ideas-based campaign, that highlighted depth and breadth in Liberal ranks would have given the Liberals a fighting chance. Even at the end, the sorry, not sorry message was contradictory at best, and continued the focus on Wynne’s Achilles heel, her unpopularity.

The pièce de resistance was when Wynne decided to announce her defeat almost a week in advance of voting day.

Why not hang on, focus on the ridings where strong local candidates had traction, and work to motivate the party base to get out and vote? Of course the numbers were grim. Twenty per cent and falling. But the reality is, in a provincial election half the province does not bother to turn out to vote.

So even at 20, the possibility of a strong opposition was still there.

Local riding associations would not have been left to fend for themselves, selling the message that even though their leader has given up, they have not.

Wynne’s advisers must have convinced her that quitting early was the right thing to do.

This is not the first time that Herle championed a scorched-earth strategy. As chief adviser to former prime minister Paul Martin, he personally plotted the replacement of dozens of Liberal members with hand-picked supporters. In the end, the party was torn apart and Liberals were defeated in most of those seats.

No election is easy.

But once committed, a leader sticks it out. When the going gets tough, the tough don’t bow out.

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 May 28, 2018.

OTTAWA—Politics is the only profession where the more experience you get, the more people want to get rid of you.

People have great respect for journalists who practise their craft for decades, and business people who achieve gravitas with age.

Bay Street is sprinkled with eminences grises who are called on to offer the benefit of their wisdom on big issues facing the market and the country.

But on the campaign front, Premier Kathleen Wynne is bearing the brunt of the change theme that plagues all incumbent politicians.

Wynne’s unpopularity is palpable, whether deserved or not. In reality, she has done a pretty decent job as a leader. But her enemies have been very successful in casting her as the source of all that is evil in Ontario.

Voters are in a cranky mood. They are certainly not happy with the status quo but they are almost equally flummoxed about the alternatives.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario proved, once again, that it could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when it chose a leader who provokes more questions than answers.

A couple of weeks ago, the Conservative candidate in my riding knocked on my door to say hello, and I wished her well, commenting that Doug Ford did not make her job any easier.

She sighed in agreement, confiding that she had actually been backing his opponent Christine Elliott in the nomination battle. We both agreed that the choice of Jim Flaherty’s widow would likely have clinched a Tory victory in the province.

Instead, the party went with a strident, scary right-winger who has members of his own party refusing to vote for him.

He is a lot more like previous Conservative leader Tim Hudak, who appeared headed for victory in the last Ontario election until he happily announced his major campaign plank was to fire 100,000 people. Hudak’s mistake permitted Kathleen Wynne to change the channel on the change agenda.

But she has not been so successful this time. Her campaign strategy, to target Ford as the Trump of the North, has had some success.

Ford’s numbers, while initially stable, have been faltering, and the uncertainty around his leadership is as profound as that of Wynne’s.

The Trump-Ford comparison has stuck. And with good reason. But the Liberals have not been the beneficiary of anti-Ford sentiment.

Instead, New Democratic Party leader Andrea Horwath has surged in the last weeks of the campaign.

Horwath, who holds the seat that I occupied back in the eighties, is an able campaigner, and a solid, likeable person. She speaks well and gives the impression of a politician who really cares about the people. Kind of like a Kathleen Wynne without the warts.

As the leader of a third party, Horwath has not been subject to the same level of scrutiny that the premier and Ford have been subjected to.

That changed last week when multiple polls showed the New Democrats closing the gap with the Tories. Some even had her neck and neck with Ford in vying for the premier’s seat.

But that momentum comes with a lot more public attention.

Her editorial roundtable with The Globe and Mail last week led to some big questions about the New Democratic platform.

The most glaring hole was Horwath’s suggestion that all Ontario hospitals should admit patients without asking them to produce proof of health insurance.

She is tackling a real problem of non-coverage that affects some refugees. But her solution is to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.

A health-care system that does not ask patients to provide proof of residence would result in a flood of unintended consequences, including displacing other patients in an already crowded system.

What would prevent any border town from being inundated by American visitors who want to take advantage of our free hospital care without even providing proof of residence?

The health-care promise was designed to underpin an NDP pledge to turn Ontario into a sanctuary province, reminiscent of the role churches have played in providing a safe haven for the persecuted.

Given Ontario’s welcoming record for existing refugees, that NDP promise will generate more questions than answers.

It is one thing to support a third party leader with a conscience. It is another turn the reins of government over to New Democrats.

Bay Street will buck back. That is not necessarily fatal, as more people from Main Street will be voting.

It does mean that this volatile election is not over.

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 on April 2, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Data mining is the key to election wins.

The more tools at your disposal, the easier it is to target volunteer efforts in the most efficient manner.

The 21st century reality for political parties is that the pool of volunteers, primarily non-working women, is shrinking and the way we reach voters is changing.

Any political party worth their salt is going to utilize all tools at their disposal to outsmart the opposition.

Most observers in Ontario are writing Kathleen Wynne off. But don’t jump too quickly to the conclusion that her days as premier are over.

The Ontario Liberals have a finely honed, micro-targeting machine, and every promise they roll out is designed to identify that base, and grow it where possible.

Last week’s announcement of universal access to child care for all kids once they reach the age of two-and-a-half directly appeals to more than 100,000 parents and child-care workers.

For families, the announcement represents an estimated savings of $15,000 a year. Since the premier specified the offer includes only licensed child-care centres, it also targets child-care operators and employees.

Couple that with the Liberal plan to increase the minimum wage again next January and you have a very good idea of which voters are being targeted by Wynne’s team. Both policies widen the swathe of potential support for the Liberals.

The minimum wage hike targets potential swing voters away from the New Democratic Party.

Those on the Liberal left, who support the fair wage campaign, include unions and social advocates who fight for the working poor.

Many of those would align naturally with the NDP. However, if the race unfolds as a two-way fight, they will not want to risk the hard-fought minimum wage gains to a right-wing government that could roll it back.

You can already see the Liberal ads, focused on pushing Doug Ford over into an ever smaller corner of supporters based on his own core vote.

Wynne is also going straight for the suburban soccer mom, who loves the idea that child care is universally available. That demographic is usually on the centre-right of the spectrum. Her family does not want to pay higher taxes, but she considers universally accessible child care an investment in children, not a tax grab. Seniors definitely do not share her passion for universality.

The promise unveiled last week reminds voters that it was the Liberals who introduced the wildly successful full-day junior kindergarten program which has already involved considerable child care savings for young, two-earner families. Wynne does not have to look far to find out who will support the child-care expansion plan.

Her election team is already equipped with packages designed to regurgitate to voters exactly what the Grit polling teams have identified as their key campaign concerns.

The roll-out is micro-targeted, to the point where on a single street, canvassers will have their choice of three or four brochures to give out.

If they are knocking on a senior’s door, the information will target health care and retirement concerns. They certainly will not be trumpeting universal child care because that could turn off older voters who figure they should not have to support someone else’s child rearing costs when no one did it for them.

What most voters do not realize, is that the real targeting work is done long before anyone ever knocks on your door. Data mining permits political campaigns to dig deeply and understand exactly what each individual voter wants.

A good campaign will even drill down to different voters within a single household. Many city dwellers split political allegiance among multiple parties.

In the last two elections, the Ontario voter turnout was the worst in history. Half of eligible voters do not even show up. So a smart data-based voter strategy will definitely pick the winner.

Conservatives will use the same strategies to identify their supporters and get them to the polls. Evangelical voters opposed to sex education are particularly committed and will swell the ranks of Tory volunteers so crucial in voter identification.

But the number of Ontarians who will choose their premier on that issue is minimal. Ford’s challenge will be to broaden his appeal and expand the pool of eligible support.

The Ontario election outcome depends on knowing where your support is and making sure they vote.

No matter what grilling may be dished out to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in Washington, political data mining is here to stay.

It wins elections.

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 on March 19, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Doug Ford could well be the next premier of Ontario. He just has to keep his mouth shut for three months in order to pave the way for a victory in June.

That could be more difficult than it appears.

Just last week, Ford predicted he would win the biggest majority in the history of the province.

This statement came hours after opponent Christine Elliott’s endorsement. The putative frontrunner finally conceded defeat after initially refusing to acknowledge her loss in a complicated voting system where she carried the popular vote and he won the riding splits.

Instead of predicting victory, Ford should be downplaying expectations. The one factor standing between himself and the premier’s chair is his own unpopularity. Even in the afterglow of victory, polls show he is disliked by the majority of Ontarians.

The numbers show that Kathleen Wynne’s personal unpopularity is the millstone weighing down Liberal electoral numbers. The Hill Times file photograph

That puts him in exactly the same position as the current premier. The numbers show that Kathleen Wynne’s personal unpopularity is the millstone weighing down Liberal electoral numbers.

So two unpopular leaders square off against each other, leaving a whole lot of room for people to consider policies instead of popularity.

Andrea Horwath, the leader of the Ontario New Democrats, should be the beneficiary of the standoff between the two major parties. Instead, she almost seems to have faded into the background of a gunfight between two capos determined to take each other down.

In the hours following the Conservative vote, Horwath had a perfect opportunity to be front and centre as the reasonable, centrist alternative to the Ford choice. Instead, she was missing in action.

Tories themselves must have been reeling when the complicated weighting system set the stage for a surprise Ford victory. Had Christine Elliott won, the road to Conservative government would have been much clearer.

Photogenic and articulate, Elliott would not have been burdened with the same baggage as Ford.

Even the walkabout of the two candidates was a study in contrasts during the weekend convention.

Andrea Horwath, the leader of the Ontario New Democrats, should be the beneficiary of the standoff between the two major parties. Instead, she almost seems to have faded into the background of a gunfight between two capos determined to take each other down. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Ford, surrounded by fur-bearing, heavily lacquered family members, was accompanied by a security detail that looked more like a touring Las Vegas casino boss than a future premier.

His appeal brought immediate comparisons to the unlikely rise to power of television entrepreneur Donald Trump.

But it would be a huge mistake for the Liberals to play the Trump card.

That was exactly how Hillary Clinton lost the American presidential race. She focused so much on the negatives of her opponent that nobody knew what she stood for.

In Wynne’s case, she really needs to pose the question, what kind of province do you want for your children?

Wynne’s government has tackled some tough issues and fought for real change in Ontario.

The premier was never afraid of the truth. She even ran in the Liberal leadership as an openly gay woman and the first member of the legislature to marry her long-time partner.

What’s not to like about someone who exhibits that kind of courage?

She has fought off Conservative opposition to raise the minimum wage for the working poor. She has also gone out of her way to build bridges between provinces. Wynne has invested heavily in public transit, a total of $30-billion on transportation during her tenure.

For the first time, the economic powerhouses of Ontario and Quebec are actually working in tandem to attract economic investment, instead of fighting against each other.

One only has to look at the growing rift between the two premiers of Alberta and British Columbia to get an understanding of how not to manage relationships between two political powers.

Wynne has an uphill battle. The Liberals have been in power in Ontario for four elections and if there is one constant in politics, it is the desire for change. Seeking a fifth Grit mandate, Wynne is facing an uphill battle at best.

Ford is currently best positioned to ride that wave of change into office.

But he could also represent a change of direction that is not embraced by the majority.

His promise to reverse Wynne’s sex education curricula in the schools was a mistake.

Support from the right wing of the Tory party may have prompted that promise. But if he has any chance of reaching out to the moderate middle, Ford cannot afford to be typecast.

Ontarians want change but may fear the kind of change that Ford would bring.

Fear and loathing will be undeniable factors in the next election.

But a campaign based on policy would favour the Wynne.

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 on January 29, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne must have been born under a lucky star.

Against all odds, she beat a Liberal establishment choice to win the party’s provincial leadership.

Then she parlayed her reputation as a straight-talking minister and a proud lesbian into the premier’s chair.

She confounded the pundits, sidestepping certain defeat after the departure of former leader Dalton McGuinty.

With a savvy, targeted campaign, Wynne snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

No one was predicting another Liberal victory lap in the election scheduled in June.

But that was before last week. Before Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown threw his party into turmoil following a late-night resignation stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct from two separate women.

Brown was the second provincial Conservative leader to step down last week.

Nova Scotia chartered accountant Jamie Baillie resigned early Wednesday morning following completion of a report into alleged sexual improprieties that surfaced last December.

In Baillie’s case, he resigned his leadership and seat immediately, claiming personal reasons for accelerating an already-announced departure.

Federal Liberals were facing accusations of their own, with a claim of inappropriate elevator comments by Alberta federal cabinet minister Kent Hehr who later resigned from cabinet.

As for Brown, he tearfully proclaimed his innocence and vowed to remain on as a member of provincial parliament to clear his name.

Until last week, Brown’s political future looked bright. His party was facing competitive nomination races across the province, usually a precursor to a strong election showing.

Brown was working effectively behind the scenes, improving his French and building alliances with key multicultural communities. It was Brown’s deep organization links into the Indo-Canadian community that prompted his surprise leadership win in the first place.

Brown was the primary beneficiary of a desire for political change. That electoral force is sometimes unstoppable.

But who could have foreseen the chaos that the Progressive Conservatives would plunge themselves into, with the daunting task of securing a new leader before an election looming in four months.

Even though most of Brown’s loyalists deserted him, the party’s decision to hastily dump him will not be supported by all.

The press conference suggestion by deputy leader Sylvia Jones that Brown’s departure was just a “hiccup” prompted an apology on Twitter. Some may even wonder whether the allegations, which date back five to 10 years, were a thinly-disguised leadership coup.

The Ontario Tory process was quite different from that facing the Nova Scotia Conservative leader. In Baillie’s case, allegations were revealed to party officials last December and they sought an independent review of the facts. Receipt of that report is what precipitated last week’s resignation.

The answers to numerous questions may never be revealed, as the party is trying to keep the names of the alleged victims out of the media.

That cone of silence comes with its own set of challenges. Two former Liberal Members of Parliament were effectively removed from their posts after engaging in what they claimed were consensual relations with two New Democratic Members of Parliament.

One accuser, whose identity was shielded, stated on camera that she had brought condoms on a hotel room visit to her aggressor after the couple had been drinking together.

Nobody condones stepping out on your spouse, and both Liberals were married. But surely an extra-marital dalliance is not a firing offence.

Nor does it make sense to put the harassment of employees in the same category as after-hockey member to member (literally) socializing.

Whatever the circumstance behind the Brown resignation, the fulminations that flow from his leave-taking will do serious damage.

Like it or not, we live in a leader-driven political world, and a party cannot possibly go into the election with only an interim leader.

That means the Tories have two short months to establish a new leadership process that has everyone’s support.

Even when they pick a winner, the in-fighting that goes on in a leadership race takes time to heal.

Add to that, the potential dynamic of a leader being done in by his own back room rivals on the eve of an election, and that could be a poison cocktail.

Hours after Brown’s exit, potential leadership candidates were out in the media making all the right noises.

At least four women are being touted as replacements, including Lisa Raitt, Christine Flaherty, Lisa MacLeod and deputy leader Jones.

In the end, Ontario may go to the polls next June with a woman leader in every party.

In a curious twist, last week’s harassment allegation may put a woman in the premier’s chair.

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 on Monday, November 27, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne may have just governed her way to victory last week.

With passage of a labour bill hiking the hourly minimum wage to $15, Wynne set the stage for an election showdown with the Conservatives.

The Tories, who voted against the bill, are banking on the fact that business owners oppose the hike. The government says the changes will affect more than one-quarter of the workforce, including part-time workers. The legislation also provides for long-term statutory cost-of-living increases.

But politics is a numbers game. And one-quarter of the workforce adds up to a lot of votes.

This minimum wage fight provides a platform for the Liberals to campaign from the left, effectively neutering the New Democratic Party.

For the Liberals to win, they need to attract left-leaning voters to ensure the race becomes a split between the left and the right.

In voting against the bill last week, Conservative leader Patrick Brown played right into Wynne’s plan. That was a surprise because right up until the vote, Brown had managed to eschew the right-wing mantra that destroyed his predecessor Tim Hudak.

Hudak, who was on the conservative wing of the Progressive Conservative Party, sunk his own election chances by announcing a crazy plan to revive the economy by firing 100,000 civil servants.

That promise killed him, and should have been a harbinger to Brown’s team that campaigning from the right will not work in Ontario.

Had Brown supported the minimum wage hike, it would have been a non-issue in the election. Instead, the Conservatives have just handed a giant wedge issue to the Grits. And they are going to run all-out with it.

Six months ago, the prevailing view was that the Wynne Liberals were dead in the water.

Brown and the Conservatives were positioned to win in an election slated early next June, with the Grits lagging behind.

The New Democrats, led by experienced and articulate Andrea Horwath, would hang onto their core vote and pick up some seats from the fading Liberals.

For the New Democrats to experience any kind of a bounce, they need a wedge issue that separates them from the government.

Wynne, who has moved aggressively on traditional “left-leaning” issues like support for the LGBT community and anti-harassment legislation, has not given Horwath much wiggle room.

Meanwhile Tory leader Brown has been travelling the province, quietly honing his French-language skills, and avoiding mistakes.

A few messy Tory nominations created ripples, but political insiders know that hotly-contested nomination fights are usually a portent of a winning election.

The first indication that a party’s electoral chances are waning is when it cannot attract multiple candidates to a nomination.

The recent spate of retirement announcements by senior Liberal ministers is another signal that experienced politicians sense a sea change in the offing.

All Brown had to do was to occupy the muddling middle of the political spectrum and the change theme would have carried him to victory.

Politics is the one profession where the more experience you get the more people want to get rid of you. And the Liberals have already accomplished the near impossible; by getting elected for four successive terms with two different leaders. They have been in power for 14 years. Under those circumstances, defeat should be preordained.

However, Ontario has a historical habit of voting for years for single parties as long as they occupy the centre ground.

The Progressive Conservative run in the province was uninterrupted for more than four decades. Red Tory rule included respected leaders like John Robarts and William Davis, both of whom cherished their reputation for civility and moderation.

Instead of exploiting Liberal mistakes, the Tories have now set the stage for a single-issue campaign.

It will be the third election in a row where the Tories have defined their campaign on the wrong side of a wedge issue.

The first was when leader John Tory offered full funding for all religious schools. That promise led to his defeat.

This time, the decision to oppose a minimum wage hike puts the party at odds with one quarter of the potential electorate even before the campaign starts.

At the end of the day, there are more workers than owners.

“I’d rather walk with the workers than ride with General Motors,” was a famous quote from a former Liberal labour minister who resigned when the government of Mitch Hepburn introduced anti-union legislation back in 1937.

It stands the test of time.

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 Monday, May 15, 2017.

OTTAWA—The minority victory of the Liberal Party in British Columbia will shortly become a majority.

The nine-vote New Democratic Party margin in Courtenay-Comox will flip when the results of the military and absentee vote are counted. As the Liberal candidate was formerly the base commander in that riding before the election, he will surely lap the NDP to deliver a razor-thin majority to the Grits.

After 16 years in government, it is a credit to Premier Christy Clark’s campaign skills that the Liberals are even there at all.

And while the focus has been on her tenuous hold on government, the real story is the split vote on the left.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne will be poring over these results, looking for clues as to how the Ontario Liberals can trump their hat trick in an election next June.

But the real power grab in the British Columbia election is that of the Green Party. With three new players in the legislature, their clear agenda on financing reform is a no-brainer.

Less clear is where the province goes on resource development. The Liberals were able to carve out a new base in rural British Columbia by promoting the link between jobs and energy.

The New Democrats, if they are ever to form the government, need to square that circle. But with the Greens nipping at their environmental heels, the path to government is less clear.

Much has been written about the majority three-peat of prime minister Jean Chrétien,

As part of his team, I would like to think that the combination of good government and financial management had a lot to do with his success. Chrétien also know when to step into an issue and when to merely brush it off with a casual quip. Who can forget the pepper-spray malapropism?

But another element that played in favour of the federal Liberals was the split on the left between the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party.

Until last week, such a split did not exist in British Columbia. Indeed, similar to the swing between the left and the right in France, British Columbia voters always managed to choose either extreme in any given election.

The arrival of the Green Party will change that scenario. Depending on the skill of leader Andrew Weaver, last week’s Green breakthrough could either be a flash in the pan or a game changer.

Federal counterpart Elisabeth May was publicly encouraging her provincial counterparts to make common cause with the NDP.

That is a great strategy for the Greens, as it provides a possible wedge into the block of environmental supporters that have historically voted for the New Dems. But it provides a huge risk to the traditional NDP base, because if the Greens look good, they garner support at the expense of the other party on the left.

Greens will argue, rightly so, that their platform is not left-leaning, but rather based on the conservative values of not consuming more than you can reasonable produce without damage to Mother Earth.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland was in Alaska last week, meeting with other members of the Arctic Council on the thorny issue of global warming.

If anyone needs a keen example of what happens to water levels when ice caps melt, they only have to review the recent havoc wreaked on eastern Canadian water levels.

But when the waters recede, and the insurance haggling commences, most Canadians vote with their pocketbook. And the party that can present the most reasonable prospect of economic growth will carry the day.

Clark’s resource development agenda will undoubtedly have to be reworked, given the makeup of the legislature.

But she is also sitting with an important advantage. In a hung parliament, the government gets to return to the people.

And with a growing split on the left, and the chance for the Greens to grow in numbers in their newfound role as kingmaker, Clark is probably already planning her next move.

Politics is where Clark shines. Her mid-campaign call to block transport of American coal likely carried her over the top.

The next year will be a harrowing game of political chess for all three parties. At the moment, the newfound strength of the Greens could actually set the stage for an environmental showdown and another election in the near term.

That scenario is a winning one for the Libs and the Greens.

New Democrats are left wondering how to unite the left.

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