In last week’s palace revolt, there is no heir apparent standing in the wings. Although several candidates are already preparing, including some in cabinet, there is no single juggernaut organizationally.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 28, 2024.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dodged a bullet from his own party last week.

A document signed by 24 caucus members set out the reasons why they think he should resign. One surprise element in the document was the deadline for his decision.

He has been told in no uncertain terms that he must make his future known one way or the other by Monday, Oct. 28.

The number of caucus members who did not sign the document is just as noteworthy as the number who did.

In a caucus of 153 members, some 130 chose not to participate in this ultimatum.

That doesn’t mean that they are all happy with the leadership, no matter what cabinet members have been saying for the cameras.

With poll numbers stagnating and a 19-point gap to close with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, many ministers and MPs are repeating privately what the dissidents said at the Liberal caucus meeting on Oct. 23.

Some are voting with their feet, decided they are not seeking re-election for all kinds of good reasons. Most of them cite family and quality of life issues, but the cloud hanging over everyone’s head is winnability.

If they don’t make a move soon—and drastically—they are all risking defeat in an election expected next year.

Media reports said Trudeau listened attentively to the criticism and got emotional at times when he recounted the sacrifices his own family has made on his behalf.

In his own words, the prime minister has said that his decision to continue in politics was a factor in the end of his marriage.

That is an incredible sacrifice to make, and at some point, he has to evaluate whether it is really worth it.

The past year has been an unsuccessful effort to reboot the Liberal image.

The move to shake up cabinet and bring in younger, more diverse voices has not resulted in any upswing in Liberal support.

If anything, that shakeup actually accelerated Trudeau’s downward spiral as caucus grew more concerned when two relatively safe Liberal seats were lost in byelections in the key battlegrounds of Toronto and Montreal.

Trudeau has consistently refused to used paid advertising as a way to change the channel on his leadership. When he was elected in 2015, he promised to do away with government advertising that was deemed to be partisan.

But that promise is blowing up in his face as most Canadians have no idea that the federal government has introduced enhanced pharma care, national daycare, increased dental care and cross-Canada school food programs.

Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith underscored the decision by the Liberal Party not to spend a lot on advertising in a media interview after the caucus last week. He also called for an end to the “palace intrigue.”

His wish may be granted as most Liberal MPs don’t want to stab themselves in the back.

Back in the days of the fight between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, a similar letter circulated for weeks.

Martin supporters in the caucus had been working for years to smooth the way for their guy to take over, and this letter-writing campaign garnered more than 70 signatures.

The difference is that there was well-oiled machine behind the man who wanted to force Chrétien out.

Martin was widely viewed as a successful finance minister who could be a three-term prime minister himself.

In last week’s palace revolt, there is no single heir apparent standing in the wings. Although several candidates are already preparing—including some in the current cabinet—there is no single juggernaut organizationally.

The Oct. 28 deadline is a recognition that the time to replace Trudeau is running short if he were to decide that he wants to step down and prompt a leadership race.

With loss of the supply-and-confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party in September, the uncertainty of an early election also has Liberal members spooked.

They know that even if Trudeau goes, the time to put together a leadership scenario is a minimum of five months, and even that is cutting it short.

They may not have five months if all opposition parties decide they want to vote non-confidence.

Trudeau exited caucus last week pledging to reporters that “the Liberal Party is strong and united.”

That may be wishful thinking. They are certainly united in wanting some specific changes to how the government is getting its message out. And some simply want him out.

But don’t expect Trudeau to follow his father’s footsteps and take a walk in the snow this week.

Hill Times Editor’s note: Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith was referring to the Liberal Party of Canada’s lack of political advertising, not the Government of Canada’s. This column has been corrected and updated online.

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

Without Alfonso Gagliano in Quebec and Ron Irwin in Ontario, Jean Chrétien’s almost unprecedented majority three-peat would never have happened.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 21, 2020.

Two Liberal warhorses passed away within days of each other recently.

Both served as ministers in the government of Jean Chrétien and were best known for their love of the political side of politics.

Ron Irwin had politics in his blood. He loved the Liberal Party almost as much as his beloved hometown of Sault Ste. Marie, where he served as mayor and minister.

Alfonso Gagliano was more of a backroom operator, working as Quebec lieutenant to ensure the inner workings of the Liberal Party political apparatus were not sclerotic.

Many politicians have little understanding of or involvement in the critical role played by the party in an election.

But in every cabinet, there are political ministers whose job it is to build a robust party organization which can make or break an election.

In 1988, the government of Brian Mulroney won a majority because 20 winning Tory seats, primarily in the Toronto area, were decided in their favour by margins of less than 1.000 votes.

In this scenario, the party workers, not policies, can claim credit for victory. That means having boots on the ground and money in the coffers.

Irwin and Gagliano were responsible for many of those mechanics even while they served as ministers in the government, Gagliano working in Quebec and Ron mostly in Ontario.

Irwin was appointed by Chrétien to make sure that after every election, (three majority wins), the next party convention would give the boss a resounding vote of support. In the Liberal Party, the constitution called for a post-election leadership review vote, even when the party won a majority in the previous election.

As Quebec lieutenant, Gagliano was responsible for making sure that party operations were well-oiled and well-funded. That meant heading up the tough job of political fundraising.

Both were politicians who loved the people, and the party side of politics. To campaign with Gagliano in Saint Leonard, Que., or Irwin in the “Soo” was to witness political people beloved by their constituents.

Without either of them, Jean Chrétien’s almost unprecedented majority three-peat would never have happened.

Supporters of Paul Martin were waiting in the wings during three successive elections, readying for a takeover.

To guarantee that outcome, they sought to control party machinations.

That is the back story to the findings of the Gomery Commission. Commission conclusions were subsequently discredited by a federal court judge in 2008 and that decision was upheld on appeal. The judge said neither Jean Chrétien nor Jean Pelletier was to blame for the mismanagement of the program designed to heighten federal presence in Quebec.

When Gagliano passed away last week, most of the headlines were devoted to his alleged role in the scandal that ultimately cost Paul Martin the government.

Liberal Party coffers in Quebec dried up because of the bitter internal war between Martin and Chrétien and it was Gagliano’s unlucky responsibility to head up fundraising.

Martin’s people, strategically placed in important positions across the country, put the word out that no supporter should be contributing a penny to the party until he took it over.

After Chrétien beat Martin in the leadership race of 1990, Martin retained a group of key political organizers, whose job it was to secure control of the party in every province.

Each organizer had a budget to entertain prospects and keep a close watch on federal and provincial party activities, making sure they elected “friendlies” in all available positions.

Their message was simple: to be friends of the next prime minister, do not support or donate to this one.

“Friendlies” were working to secure a change of leadership so Martin might finally achieve his goal of becoming prime minister.

In some provinces, ministers who were working for Martin insisted that government appointments should never go to Chrétien supporters.

As Chrétien’s political life was coming to an end, even former supporters were trying to make common cause with Martin to position themselves in a future government. That is the way of politics.

But neither Gagliano nor Irwin would join in that game. They were loyal to their leader and worked their hearts out in a climate where the biggest political challenge was the civil war roiling in the party.

Irwin managed to avoid fallout from that war but Gagliano was not so lucky.

Thankfully, in post-political life, this Italian immigrant found the peace that eluded him and became a prized vintner of wine that bears his name.

May two loyal warriors rest in peace.

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