By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 18, 2023.

OTTAWA—It’s nervous Nellie time in the Liberal caucus.

As the Conservatives climbs in the polls, the Liberals’ angst increases exponentially.

If one were a fly on the wall at the recent Liberal caucus in London, Ont., they would have been privy to some serious rumblings of discontent.

For most of the caucus, it was the first meeting after the cabinet shuffle.

One of the by-products of a shuffle is internal dissent. Those who were not promoted likely believe this was their last chance to accede to cabinet.

So, the discipline of power that usually muffles those who wish to remain in the favour of the leadership is weaker than it was before the change.

In addition, the caucus is spooked by the continuing poll climb by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

His simple, negative messaging about the country is obviously hitting a raw nerve with many Canadians.

That messaging, especially on social media, has resulted in a slow, steady climb in popularity to the point where most polls have the Conservatives substantially ahead of the Liberals.

That also contributes to the nervousness. Many Liberal members have little or no experience with running behind in the polls.

Since 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his team have managed to lap the Conservatives in just about every part of the country except Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Now the numbers in Ontario, and even Quebec, are changing, which has people asking questions of the leadership.

Immigration Minister Marc Miller weighed in on the rising temperature, saying Liberals have not decided exactly how to counterattack Poilievre’s “garbage” attacks. He told the media that his colleagues did not want to bring themselves down to a level of politics that they have foresworn.

“There’s a tension as to how to engage … whether you fight fire with fire and bring yourself down … there is a struggle and attention generally as to how to deal with a person like that, that Canadian politics, in particular, hasn’t seen much of,” said Miller.

The minister is right that the negativity in Poilievre’s messaging is not politics as usual. Most official opposition leaders try to build their image as thoughtful prime ministers in waiting.

But messaging on social media has changed radically in the past decade.

The depth of anger is amplified by voices that feed on negative posts from like-minded political naysayers.

Back in the last century, those negative voices also existed. “Nattering nabobs of negativism,” was a term coined by American vice-president Spiro Agnew, when he was complaining about the media coverage of the Nixon administration.

He accused the media of forming their own 4-H club, a riff on rural youth organizations, made up of “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.”

The same and more could be said today, but the reach of social media is much broader now.

The fact that Poilievre’s numbers have increased most rapidly amongst young people reinforces the power of social messaging. They are the ones gathering most of their information from social media sources.

They are also least likely to vote, which makes the short-term focus on numbers a bit of a mug’s game.

Those numbers could change and change drastically. When former prime minister Kim Campbell called the 1993 election, her party was in majority government territory.

At the end of the campaign, the party ended up with two seats.

Nothing is written in stone.

But the prime minister and his team would be well-advised to heed the ‘nervous Nellies’ in the caucus.

Caucus members are like the canaries in the mine, giving the leader a hint of the toxic atmosphere that the party is facing in the body politic.

It may be nice to be nice. As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said back in 2015, sunny days were back again.

But when storm clouds are on the horizon, they cannot be ignored.

The leadership needs to start responding in kind to Poilievre’s negative attacks. Learn from nature. You need to fight fire with fire.

The government also needs to start telling Canadians how it plans to make life better.

It is not enough for politicians to make housing announcements. Announcements need to be followed up with focused media buys to let people know what major federal initiatives are under way.

A $4-billion housing accelerator program is worth talking about.

That means serious advertising dollars to accompany the work that is actually being done.

It is fine to be the nice guy in politics.

But, unfortunately, everyone knows what they say about nice guys. They finish last.

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

At this point, there do not seem to be many voices siding with the Department of Finance. So Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s handling of the issue will be a make or break issue for the government.

During the GST fight, the finance minister’s viewpoint eventually carried the day. This time, Finance is strongly in favour of a position that has the potential to create an electoral problem for the government.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, September 11, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Summer caucuses are always hot. And when you combine heated politics with a sunny West Coast location, the temperature often rises.

After more than two months away from the Ottawa cocoon, Members of Parliament are eager to repeat the views they have heard in their ridings. Sad to say, most people don’t make appointments with Parliamentarians simply to tell them what a great job they are doing. On the contrary, riding office hours are usually a continuum of complaints about government policies, directions, and future plans.

The roughest critics tend to be party members. That may seem counterintuitive, as most political activists are usually committed to defending their party of choice. But inside the party, local supporters see themselves as a mirror of their community. They relish the role of the canary in the mine, warning their party if it appears to be taking a wrong turn that has raised the ire of the electorate.

No government can expect the support of all of the people all of the time. But a measure of success is achieved when there are complainants on both sides of any issue. Political equilibrium is in balance when no single issue takes precedence over all the others.

Both factors for a happy electorate were missing from the discussion of proposed tax changes that took centre stage at the recent Liberal caucus meeting in Kelowna.

The last time a tax measure was a key topic at a British Columbia Grit caucus meeting, was in the lead up to the 1993 election, when members revolted against a plan to keep the hated Tory goods and services tax.

At the time, it made tremendous political sense to fight the Progressive Conservatives unpopular tax. Brian Mulroney’s government had revoked an existing manufacturers sales tax, and replace it with a levy on all goods and services. But if Liberals formed government, some wanted to keep the revenue coming.

From an economic perspective that made sense, because it secured ever-increasing government revenues based on consumption, not production. Liberal supporters of the tax also argued that undoing the GST would be akin to unscrambling an egg. The Conservatives had already done all the heavy lifting, with the imposition of the despised measure. Why not simply shut up and reap the benefit?

That pre-election Vancouver caucus meeting proved to be the flashpoint for a heated debate. The majority of caucus members supported abolition of the GST. A smaller number, including the finance critic and supporters, urged the caucus to keep the tax. Liberal leader Jean Chrétien listened carefully to both sides.

At the end of the meeting, he told the media that the majority viewpoint to abolish the GST carried the day.

But he also expressed personal trepidation about whether the decision was the best long-term strategy for the financial health of the country.

Last week’s meeting in Kelowna highlighted eerily similar internal schisms. The broad-based coalition of small business and professional groups opposed to the incorporation tax changes, carried the day on the summer barbecue circuit.

A joint campaign by doctors and other small business owners appeared to have won the day in their public opinion battle. A delegation of women physicians even descended on Kelowna to make their case, claiming the income-sprinkling prohibition would force some female doctors to abandon their chosen profession.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau did his best to counter that, repeating his view that doctors should not get better tax breaks than nurses or police.

But nurses and police are not self-employed while doctors are.

Like other small business owners, they have no access to company pension plans, maternity benefits or sick leave. Many utilize tax avoidance to fill this financial gap.

The proposed changes would directly impact the small business sector in every community in the country.

The Finance Department can win any battle when there is a broad split in public opinion on a tax measure.

At this point, there do not seem to be many voices siding with the Department of Finance. So Morneau’s handling of the issue will be a make or break issue for the government.

During the GST fight, the finance minister’s viewpoint eventually carried the day.

This time, Finance is strongly in favour of a position that has the potential to create an electoral problem for the government.

The Kelowna message was clear. From a caucus perspective, constituents have spoken and they do not support the majority of the proposed changes.

It remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself.

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