Liberals are positioned to fight Donald Trump. Thanks to Alberta’s premier, the Conservatives seem to be ‘in sync’ with him.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 31, 2025.

OTTAWA—With friends like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre needs no enemies.

In the first week of a very short federal election campaign, Smith managed to solidify the ballot question in the Liberals’ favour.

Her major gaffe involved an intervention with the White House, asking American officials to delay tariffs until after the election because that would help Poilievre. Smith stated Poilievre was “in sync” with U.S. President Donald Trump.

All this was recorded in an interview Smith gave to Breitbart, a right-wing podcast that’s been advocating a constitutional amendment to make Trump president for life.

Instead of apologizing for foreign interference in an election, when confronted, Smith simply doubled down and claimed this was her lobbying effort for Canada.

The Alberta New Democrats did not agree, organizing the unveiling of a Canada flag in front of the Alberta legislature to underscore their belief in our country.

Smith added insult to injury by flying to Florida on March 27 to headline an extremist American fundraiser for an Islamophobic group that, according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, denies the history of slavery.

Smith was set to share the stage with Ben Shapiro, who has called Canada “a silly country” and the “Puerto Rico of the North.” Shapiro believes that Canada should be annexed as the 51st state without the right to vote.

Despite multiple requests to cancel her trip, Smith spoke in the Alberta legislature where she blamed the controversy on Liberals because the federal government had asked premiers to join in an all-in tariff lobbying effort.

Smith claimed the opposition to her Florida fundraiser came from eastern Canadian media elites, and the Liberals and New Democrats. She insisted that Albertans supported her.

The more she speaks out, the more Canadians learn about the deep ties between Canada’s Conservatives and MAGA supporters south of the border.

With the American vice-president joining his wife on an uninvited trip to Greenland, Canadians are taking the annexation threat very seriously.

Trump has refused to rule out the use of force to take over the island, but the local appetite for annexation is close to zero.

In the recent election, only one per cent of Greenland voters supported a party that promoted unification discussions. That party was the only one that did not get a single seat in parliament.

Back in this country, the ballot question for the April 28 election appears to be a vote on which leader is best placed to fight American tariffs and annexation.

Poilievre is trying to portray himself as the person with the chops to fight Trump’s tariffs, but quisling Smith’s cosy relationship with extremist Trump supporters is killing that narrative. Smith’s position is not lost on Canadian voters, and has helped to send Tory polling numbers downward.

The turnaround for the Liberals has been nothing short of astonishing. It is so positive that even a former Nova Scotia minister who left politics for “family reasons” made a surprise decision to return. Sean Fraser said last week it was a personal request from the leader that made him reverse his retirement decision, even though a successor for his riding nomination had already been chosen.

Other star candidates like a former mayor of Vancouver, the former acting mayor of Toronto, and well-known journalists Evan Solomon and Anthony Germain have jumped into the fray for the Liberals as the party’s popularity continues to rise.

The first week of the campaign has Liberals on a high.

Polling numbers across multiple platforms show that Prime Minister Mark Carney has eliminated Poilievre’s lead, and has moved to top spot.

The NDP has felt the pain of this Liberal swing because polls show leader Jagmeet Singh moving to single digits.

As Trump continues to threaten more tariffs and annexation, Liberal numbers continue to rise. Carney is viewed as the best choice to stare down the American president.

When it comes to the question of affordability, the Conservative leader fares best.

But it looks as though the ballot question will be who is best equipped to fight the United States. Carney’s massive resumé beats Poilievre’s by a mile.

Trump just added 25-per-cent tariffs to the automobile sector, and that is a huge blow to the Canadian economy.

As a pre-emptive strike, Carney announced a plan to fight the tariffs with a $2-billion auto industry fund the morning before Trump’s announcement. Poilievre was campaigning on tax cuts for seniors.

Liberals are positioned to fight Trump. Thanks to Smith, Tories seem to be in tight with him.

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

Karina Gould is a force to be reckoned with. If Liberal voters actually want a future that will reflect the best elements of the Trudeau era, they should vote Gould, writes Sheila Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 3, 2025.

OTTAWA—Karina Gould, who I endorse for leader, blew everyone out of the water in the English Liberal leadership debate last week.

In her own words, repeatedly, she is not Conservative light.

Why is that important? Because contrary to the media crowning of Mark Carney, this is actually a race for the hearts and minds of Liberals.

Many Liberals are extremely happy with the legacy left by the team of outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The list of accomplishments is long. Trudeau will be viewed as the most progressive prime minister in my lifetime.

Universal childcare, school food programs, dental care, reconciliation, educational parity for Indigenous children, real action on climate change, hiking seniors’ benefits, managing a pandemic with amongst the lowest death rates in the G7, heavy investments in mass transit as part of the fight against global warming, taking the lead in housing for the first time in 30 years, signing a health agreement that will force provinces finally to share critical data, the first ever gender-equal cabinet—I could go on, but you get my point.

For Liberals who believe that public life is a chance to do something for the betterment of all, Trudeau’s record has proven it in spades.

Of course, he was unpopular in the end, and his decision to leave was the right one. Anyone who has studied politics knows that three terms is the maximum in the modern age as politics is the only profession where the more experience you get the more people want to get rid of you. The only governments that extend beyond that are dictatorships where public money is spent to massage the image of the leader, and opponents are either jailed or murdered.

In that context, don’t be surprised to see a move to end the two-term limit imposed on American presidents. At the latest meeting of Conservative zealots in the United States, President Donald Trump’s pardoned friend Steve Bannon gave a speech promoting presidency for life status for Trump which ended in a Nazi salute.

Given the U.S. vote at the United Nations, refusing to condemn Russia for the illegal invasion of Ukraine, anything can happen.

Much of the two Liberal debates in French and English focussed on how to fight Trump, and the stormy seas ahead under his watch.

Chrystia Freeland positioned herself as the Trump-beater, and given that the American president has personally singled her out when attacking Canada, she has the credibility to back up that claim.

But this election is not just about Trump.

Carney has made it clear that he wants to move the party to the right, and he took some swings at the current government for too much spending.

That approach will definitely appeal to Conservatives who can’t support Pierre Poilievre’s “broken” vision of Canada.

But for Liberals to win the next election, they will need to draw the majority of their support from liberally minded New Democrats.

Recent polls focusing on the post-Trudeau Liberal surge have confirmed that the majority of the shift is coming from left-wing voters who are returning to the Liberals.

If they think the party has a Conservative-light leader, the door will open for Jagmeet Singh to reassert himself in the same way that Jack Layton did during the Orange Crush that almost brought the New Democrats to government.

So the election of a Liberal leader who is focused on moving to the right may not be the best bet for the party.

By all accounts, Gould was the clear debate winner in English, and had the greatest of ease in French.

It was obvious to all that Carney needs work in that department, and Freeland is also not as convincing in French.

By articulating a clear difference with Carney, Gould has managed to vault herself into a fray which previously included only the two so-called front-runners.

Gould is a force to be reckoned with. If Liberal voters actually want a future that will reflect the best elements of the Trudeau era, they should vote Gould.

That includes support for the carbon rebate, which was destroyed by Poilievre’s sloganeering.

Trudeau refused to spend any government money explaining what the program involved because early in his first term, he opted out of advertising. That was a dumb mistake which cost the Liberals dearly.

But the program itself is sound, and the fact that Gould defended it as vociferously as she did—while all others were running away—is another point in her favour.

She is a truly liberal Liberal.

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

Karina Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Mark Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 15, 2025.

OTTAWA–Why Karina Gould? That’s the question friends posed when I gave a couple of television interviews promoting her as the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

At press time, Gould had not yet announced, but her team was putting together a campaign to create a fighting chance in this shortened race to name the next prime minister of Canada. Gould has already recruited more than a dozen caucus members.

Not overwhelming, but considering her campaign only started a week ago, it is a good start.

Mark Carney has been running for the job for years. Press reports say he has about 30 MPs on his team. That number should be twice as large if Carney’s support is as wide and deep as the media keep claiming.

On just about every network, including his American pre-campaign interview on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, Carney is constantly presented as the almost certain winner of the upcoming race.

Resisting that pull may be difficult, but many Liberals would like to support a leader who’s in it for the long haul.

Does anyone really think that Carney—who declined offers of more than one nomination in the last election—will stick around if the party ends up in third-party status? The answer is no.  

Liberals need a leader who will appeal to young people. Gould is the most appealing to that cohort because she reflects their values and energy. Gould has managed multiple cabinet portfolios with energy and savvy.  

A superb communicator in multiple languages, Gould negotiated Canada’s national childcare via multiple provincial agreements. While child care is seen as crucial for Canadians, Gould is being critiqued internally by those who say motherhood is a reason not to vote for her.

Before we dismiss misogyny’s role in leadership, we cannot forget what happened to the Kamala Harris vote in the United States. She lost the presidency because American men voted against her. Had the election been determined only by women, Harris would have won. 

No one asked Justin Trudeau if he could manage both politics and a young family when he ran for office at age 36 back in 2008. Instead, his youth and a campaign that included cannabis legalization managed to ignite the attention of a new generation.

Gould has been generating much interest with young people. She also has support from senior Liberals who have supported the party for decades.

Unlike some colleagues, Gould reaches out regularly to party elders, seeking their advice and wisdom while other leadership candidates have either ignored them or publicly denigrated them. 

Party faithful remember the very off-putting negative response of Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland when former prime minister Jean Chrétien offered to go to China to negotiate a solution to the extradition of Meng Wanzhou to the United States.  

Freeland scorned his offer, and ended up with a protracted fight with China that cost our country economically and politically. But Freeland’s high profile during the Trudeau years have set her up as an obvious runner-up to Carney’s stardom.

Neither Carney nor Freeland have Gould’s likability factor. Parties make decisions based on whom they think can win. Canadians make decisions on the emotional feel they get from a politician. Is that person someone you would like to have a beer with? Kim Campbell was elected Progressive Conservative leader and prime minister because she was seen to be the best choice to rebuild her party in the post-Brian Mulroney era.  

It turned out to be a terrible decision that left the Tories reduced to two seats in a Liberal majority government in 1993. Today, Liberals have little time to judge the emotional IQ of each of the candidates.  

But when it comes to support from young people, reaching out to party faithful, and a commitment to the long-term rebuilding process, Gould is our best bet. 

The first question at any leadership debate should be, “If the Liberals lose the next election, are you willing to remain as leader?” The second question should be, “How can we recapture the dynamic wave of support by young people that carried Trudeau to power in 2015?”

The answer to both questions is Gould studied Latin American and Caribbean studies at McGill and philosophy at Oxford and who worked for the Organization of American States on migration.

She learned Spanish while volunteering at a Latin American orphanage. Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

Correction: This column originally incorrectly reported that Karina Gould is a lawyer. She is not, and the column was updated at 8:09 a.m. on Jan. 16.

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

At the conclusion of the anti-Boissonnault attack, there’s only one question that matters: which political party has a plan to tackle the gross injustices Indigenous People have faced since colonization?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 25, 2024.

OTTAWA—Identity politics run amok. How else to explain the resignation of employment minister Randy Boissonnault on Nov. 20?

Boissonnault was forced to step down for claiming that he is a Métis except he has never done so.

By his own admission, he was adopted into a Métis family and raised by them although he has often mentioned the influence of a Cree grandmother.

A prime ministerial statement said Boissonnault “will focus on clearing the allegations made against him.”

Boissonnault was listed as Métis by the Liberal Party Indigenous Peoples’ Commission when they compiled a list of successful Indigenous candidates after the 2015 election.

According to a commission member, an adoption by a Métis family confers Métis status on the child, which is why Boissonnault was so identified.

The Conservative Party has made Boissonnault a clear target. Three members were ejected from the House of Commons last week because of the nature of their personal attacks.

Seven Tories peppered Boissonnault with a dozen questions while Government House Leader Karina Gould tried to set the record straight.

Gould said the company managed by Boissonnault while he was not in politics was never listed as an Indigenous company, and did not receive any contracts from the government.

NDP MP Blake Desjarlais joined the attack, suggesting that Boissonnault should resign as minister because he is making decisions about Indigenous lives without knowing about his own.

Allegedly, Boissonnault’s grandmother is listed as a person with German ancestry, although Boissonnault’s understanding was that she was full Cree.

The bottom line is that this so-called scandal was nothing more than a successful attempt to unseat a minister so popular that he got elected during a Conservative near-sweep of his home province, Alberta.

Boissonnault’s departure leaves the province without a federal minister at the table.

This opens the door to the ministerial elevation of Calgary Liberal MP George Chahal.

Boissonnault’s departure is a huge loss for Indigenous and minority supporters.

He was one of the most well-liked ministers in the government with a reputation for speaking out for the underdog. He is also a self-identified gay man.

Liberal First Nations MP Jaime Battiste defended Boissonnault as an advocate for Indigenous people who never self-identified as Métis.

Battiste characterized the attack as a witch-hunt, and said that the whole issue was blown up to score points. Boisssonnault was a member of the Liberal Indigenous caucus, but there are also supportive men who have been members of the women’s caucus.

Embittered former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould weighed in on the controversy, blaming it all on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and saying “we get to watch white people play ancestry wheel of fortune.”

The wheel of fortune has been anything but. Until Trudeau actually began tackling Indigenous issues with real financial support, the education of on-territory Indigenous children was funded at a level 40 per cent less than the rest of Canada’s children.

The wheel of fortune meant that if you lived in Indigenous territory, you were likely to suffer for years under a boil-water advisory. Trudeau and the Liberal Party fixed that.

As for Indigenous ministers, the Liberal Party actually set up a recruitment system to attract Indigenous candidates. That was how Wilson-Raybould was rewarded with an uncontested nomination in the coveted Vancouver-Granville, B.C., riding in 2014.

Conservatives who succeeded in ousting Boissonnault have zero strategy of their own on reconciliation and the recruitment of Indigenous Members of Parliament.

They are ready to use identity politics to destroy the reputation of someone as earnest and hardworking as Boissonnault.

When Andrew Scheer was leader of the Conservative Party, Indigenous voters in his own riding voted against him because he did not represent the views of Indigenous constituents.

Yet he was frontline in the attack on Boissonnault. According to everyone who follows the issue, Boissonnault’s departure means the loss of a vociferous supporter of reconciliation and minority political engagement.

At the conclusion of the anti-Boissonnault attack, there is only one question that really matters: which political party has a plan to tackle the gross injustices that have been faced by Indigenous People ever since Europeans settlers arrived to overtake their land?

Certainly not the Conservatives, whose slash-and-burn political strategy would turn back the clock on reconciliation, housing, and a huge array of other issues.

Pierre Poilievre’s carbon-tax election isn’t happening. Instead of focusing on character assassination, why doesn’t he work on specific positive issues to get things done?

That could actually make Indigenous lives better.

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

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.

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.

The government would like nothing more than a channel-changer on foreign interference investigations. Even if the Liberals succeed, with the appointment of a special rapporteur and multiple committees, all eyes are still on government foibles. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 13, 2023.

OTTAWA—In one month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will celebrate 10 years as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

That celebration will be fêted in early May at the party’s national convention in Ottawa.

There will be much to celebrate. Back in 2013, pundits were writing off the Trudeau leadership.

He was leading a third party that was supposed to be on the verge of extinction.

Then came the blockbuster campaign of 2015, in which he was able to ignite the youth vote and encourage many non-Liberals to swing over to support the prime minister’s vision, including the legalization of marijuana and a commitment to end the current first-past-the-post voting system.

Back in 2015, Liberals moved ahead with their promise to legalize marijuana, but shelved their promise to change the voting system.

One out of two ain’t bad.

But in the lead-up to a potential election later this year, a 50 per cent success rate won’t help the government attract more swing voters.

Some say the Liberals promised to bring in proportional voting. But that is not accurate. In the prime minister’s mind, he was looking at the possibility of a weighted vote, with Canadians choosing to rank their choices in every local election.

Whatever Trudeau’s vision, the change was not accomplished and that failure is one of the issues that will affect the next election.

The promise to change the voting system appealed to those in smaller parties, like the New Democrats and the Green Party, as neither realistically hoped to form government.

Instead, they would be satisfied to have direct influence in shaping government policy.

Minority government has given them that opportunity. The New Democrats have been key to the introduction of dental care and potential pharmacare.

But whether the third party will be rewarded by the electorate for promoting these initiatives remains to be seen.

New Democrat supporters who switched to the Liberals in 2015, left in 2019 and did not return in 2021.

Green Party voters may make a switch as their party’s internal challenges have definitely damaged their credibility.

Looking forward, voters can be expected to make decisions on what parties will do in the future, not what they promised in the past.

Liberals will be particularly challenged since, as government, the party has been in power for eight years, and politics is the only job where the more experience you have, the more voters want to dump you.

Trudeau hopes to make history as only the second prime minister in Canada to be elected four times in a row.

He would follow in Liberal Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s footsteps by pulling off a four-peat.

But it is a daunting task.

The government is working hard to put some successes in the window. The recent health-care agreement is a great win.

It will help assuage Canadians’ fears about access to health care: from primary providers through to mental health and continuing care.

The next election will not be fought on political successes.

Public attention is focused on allegations of foreign interference in elections, in particular from the Chinese government.

Most Canadians don’t follow the allegations closely. They will be aware that the heated political temperature in Ottawa is putting pressure on the current government.

Trudeau stepped up earlier last week with a series of measures to respond to the allegations, but whether that is enough to cool things down remains to be seen.

If not, the Liberals may be positioning to move to an election sooner rather than later.

The official opposition has been searingly critical in recent exchanges in the House of Commons. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been clear and concise in his attacks, and is obviously trying to keep the issue front and centre in the public mind.

The Liberal hope is to dampen down the heat and move the issue to the back burner.

Conservative MP Michael Cooper may have inadvertently helped the Liberals when he made a clearly sexist attack at Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly while she appeared before committee.

Even New Democrats demanded an apology.

The government would like nothing more than a channel-changer on foreign interference investigations.

Even if they succeed, with the appointment of a special rapporteur and multiple committees, all eyes are still on government foibles.

With that in mind, a successful Liberal convention in May and a summer spent travelling and rolling out budget announcements may mean we are heading for a fall election.

That could be the only way to douse the parliamentary fires.

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

Carey Price learned that lesson last week when he weighed in on the current anti-gun debate roiling in the House of Commons.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 12, 2022.

OTTAWA—Hockey players should stay out of politics. Carey Price learned that lesson last week when he weighed in on the current anti-gun debate roiling in the House of Commons.

Poor Price should have stuck to hockey. He is definitely one of the best goalies in the business, but his depth of political knowledge is somewhat limited.

How else to explain the claim by the Montreal Canadiens that Price had never heard of the misogynistic massacre at École Polytechnique?

Their apologetic excuse, subsequently denied by Price, was that the event happened before he was born.

But that poorly-crafted lie inflamed the situation to the point where it even became a main topic for discussion in the Quebec National Assembly.

Price remembers who scored the winning goal in the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series, even though he wasn’t born when it happened. 

Price remembers the famous Montreal Canadiens record-breaking lineup of the Rocket Richard, Jacques Plante, Doug Harvey, and Jean Béliveau.

But for some reason, Canadian women’s history does not seem to have had the same historical resonance, according to the Canadiens’ management. 

There is nothing wrong with someone weighing in on the facts around gun possession.

As a gun owner, Price was speaking from a place of personal experience. 

But before he decided to become the chief spokesperson for the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, he should have done a little research into the details of the subject.

The ongoing gun violence in Canada’s major cities obviously needs action. But that urban desire for action runs smack into a rural desire to continue recreational hunting and fishing. 

Any political move must balance the wishes of both, unless the government has decided it does not want to elect any rural Members of Parliament. 

Price isn’t the only one who is opposing the current gun amendments.  

The Saskatchewan Party is using the legislation as a fundraising tool, having already launched a protest petition called “Stop the Trudeau gun ban”.

When it comes to gun laws, even some Liberals and New Democrats think the proposed legislation has gone too far.

New Democrat MP Charlie Angus has publicly attacked the government for amendments which include banning approximately half a million widely used hunting rifles that were approved for sale in the last batch of gun amendments. 

“I think they made some serious mistakes with this amendment and they have to fix it” was his blunt assessment of the gun ban extension to semi-automatic SKS rifles.  

Angus is right. Chances are the decision to extend the ban to SKS rifles was made by someone who had no idea of the political uproar it would cause.

The government has always argued that its gun legislation was meant to prevent mass murder, not to criminalize legal hunters. 

Many Canadians have actually purchased the SKS rifles in good faith as they were not on any previous ban list.

But the recommendation by Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino that the government should buy back the banned weapons is not going to cut it. 

Instead, the cabinet needs to incorporate some political smarts into its policy-making.

If a key opposition voice like Angus, a northerner with a long and successful political career, can’t stomach the amendments, chances are they need to go.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that the current list of banned guns is being reviewed to ensure that it does not target legitimate gun owners. 

But Price’s inflammatory comments could encourage the government to double down on its position. 

The issue was a public relations fiasco for the Montreal Canadiens, who wrongly issued the original statement that Price did not know of the Polytechnique massacre.

He subsequently reversed that position in a social media post when he said he knew about the massacre of 14 women on Dec. 6, 1989.

On the eve of the anniversary, further outrage was provoked when the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights used the promo code “POLY” for purchasers to secure a 10 per cent discount on arms’ items from its online store. 

Price’s posting gave oxygen to the PolySeSouvient movement, which is lobbying for more limits on guns. 

Gun laws in Canada have proven to be political quicksand for successive governments in the past half century. 

It is impossible to table a piece of legislation which will satisfy both sides of this highly polarized debate.

However, if politics is defined as the art of the possible, the government needs to find a middle ground.

The best new gun law will likely satisfy neither side completely.

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

In the end, the only party that really ended up ahead at year’s end is the Bloc. But this party also has the benefit of never having to be held accountable for what it might do in government as it vows never to form government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 20, 2021.

OTTAWA—As the year draws to a close, it is time to reflect on politics past and future.

In the past year, the governing Liberals limped out of an election, barely making any inroads into their dream of a governing majority.

In the past year, the newly-minted Conservative leader dreamed that this was his party’s time to form government. He opened with a slick campaign brochure that promised change, but everything cratered during the campaign.

In the past year, the New Democratic Party leader was crowned by young people as the king of TikTok. But in the end, his clock ran out as too many followers simply did not turn out to vote.

In the past year, the Green Party leader went from breaking through a glass ceiling only to be covered in shards as her party imploded in internal infighting.

In the past year, the Bloc leader went from being almost forgotten in the House of Commons to reinserting himself in the public domain with a strong election effort.

In the end, the only party that really ended up ahead at year’s end is the Bloc. But this party also has the benefit of never having to be held accountable for what it might do in government as it vows never to form government.

So the new year offers opportunity for all political parties. In the case of the government, being in command of a progressive agenda will heal a lot of the wounds caused by an aborted attempt at a majority.

The childcare agreements with almost every provincial and territorial government are a great place to start. In addition, the all-party decision to move ahead with a ban on conversion therapy, showed that parties can accomplish much when they work together.

Continued management of the COVID situation will dominate politics for everyone in the new year, but if the government manages the Omicron threat well, the Liberals will be the greatest beneficiary of public support.

As for the Conservatives, the first step in the right direction was the unanimous support for the anti- conversion bill. The new year will provide opportunities for Erin O’Toole to continue to make movement toward the moderate middle. The only thing holding him back is the right-wing pull in his own party. And with an 18-month review process roiling inside the party, his freedom as a leader is certainly curtailed.

His party also needs to moderate its image as a collection of angry, white men. The finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, while a wonderful wordsmith, simply creates the impression that his work is being done for Bay Street and not for Main Street. While Poilievre is anxious to tag Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland as the inflation minister, most Canadians still don’t think the moniker fits.

As there is inflationary pressure worldwide, it is pretty hard to hang that problem on a single minister in a single government. Poilievre is no doubt banking on the fact that growing inflationary pressures will become a potent political tool for the Tories. That remains to be seen, but in the meantime, his overheated rhetoric could not pass a reality test.

In the new year, the New Democrats need to flex their muscles in Parliament to ensure that any legislation gets their seal of approval. Otherwise they risk being eclipsed by the government in the field of progressive politics. They also need to start spreading the news about their team. The current messaging is so fixated on the leader that it is hard for anyone to recognize the bench strength in Jagmeet Singh’s party. He has some excellent performers who need to take centre stage in the battle for the hearts and minds of Canadians.

In the new year, the Green Party needs to go back to the future, with emphasis on its roots and why the party was created in the first place. Internecine warfare based on Middle East politics is not going to win the party any support. And with a swathe of doctorates around the political table, one has to wonder who is able to guide the party back to a winning path.

With an unexpected breakthrough in Ontario, when Kitchener Centre sent Mike Morrice to Parliament, there is an opportunity to rebuild the party from scratch. Their interim leader, nonbinary astrophysicist Amita Kuttner certainly has her work cut out for her.

As we sweep out the old to ring in the new, all parties have a chance to right their respective ships. Happy Holidays.

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

A petition to dump Erin O’Toole is already circulating and you don’t even have to be a party member to sign.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 27, 2021.

Politics is a vicious business.

A petition to dump Erin O’Toole is already circulating and you don’t even have to be a party member to sign.

Who can forget how ignominiously the New Democrats disposed of leader Thomas Mulcair after he took them so close to power that they could taste it?

Perhaps the Tories could learn something from the NDP’s misplaced haste.

Notwithstanding the personal popularity of Jagmeet Singh, the party sputtered to a near-draw in an election that saw their party pick up a single seat.

The same stall could be said of the Liberals, as the party in power only gained three seats and decreased in popular vote.

But the government in power has significant more leadership leverage than the opposition parties.

If you analyse on performance alone, the parties that should be looking for new leaders are actually the New Democrats and the Greens.

Singh focused much of his campaign strategy on building a reputation as a nice guy. But it is sometimes said that nice guys finish last. And you certainly cannot view the NDP result as a victory.

The Liberals ran first in British Columbia, lapping the NDP even though the provincial New Democrat government threw its weight behind Singh.

The Liberals’ top standing in British Columbia is partly due to Justin Trudeau’s personal and professional roots in the province. Being able to grow in successive elections may allow the Grits to plant deeper roots that outlive a single leader.

In O’Toole’s case, he did increase his popular vote and made some inroads into Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and Ontario.

But his party’s penchant to appeal to the extreme right, cost him seats in vote-rich suburban centres that blocked his path to power, including the GTA and Metro Vancouver.

It must be said that O’Toole’s campaign got surprise liftoff, and even had him in the running to become prime minister until the midway point.

O’Toole tried to move his party to the centre, but he will now be punished for that by the same people who trashed Peter MacKay for his caustic “stinking albatross” reference to social conservatives.

Social conservatives are now after O’Toole’s neck and will probably succeed in getting him dumped.

But in the end, they will not be any closer to victory by throwing their support behind another right-wing leader.

Leslynn Lewis must be chomping at the bit. She won a seat in Haldimand-Norfolk and as a racialized party star, has huge support from those in her party who support conversion therapy and oppose women’s right to reproductive choice.

So if the Tories are successful in ridding themselves of their leader, they may find themselves in the same rebuilding phase that has left the NDP struggling for two successive elections.

Meanwhile, a future Liberal leadership race will unfold more quietly.

Obviously, no one wants to be viewed as launching a campaign to dump the leader even if they already hope to replace him.

This ugly situation faced the Liberals when Paul Martin launched an internal effort to force prime minister Jean Chrétien out of office.

The caucus was badly split, and the internecine fight eventually cost the Liberals an election.

The front-runner in any future leadership certainly appears to be outgoing Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland.

She was travelling extensively during the campaign and that work also grows the political Rolodex so crucial in a party leadership race.

François-Phillipe Champagne is one of the potential contenders as he is quietly going about his work.

With strong ministers like Anita Anand in the mix, Trudeau’s succession should be a very interesting race.

However, as a three-time election winner, Trudeau is joining an elite group of prime ministers.

He will be given the chance to chart his own course. With a progressive agenda of child care, housing and mandatory vaccinations, Trudeau already has the support of two parties to proceed with a groundbreaking agenda.

That work will give him a chance to solidify his own legacy, in which case he may choose to leave on a high.

On the other hand, he may follow in the footsteps of the former Ontario premier, the very popular Bill Davis.

Steve Paikin of TVO reminded us of all in a column this week that, like Trudeau, Davis started off as a young leader with a majority. But his popularity ebbed in two minority elections.

Davis worked on consensus-building and came roaring back to a majority.

The Trudeau team likely hopes that Davis magic can work for them.

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