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.

There are leading Liberals who can speak on issues like health, childcare, and the environment. Justin Trudeau’s personal unpopularity has become an anchor for the party.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2021.

If Justin Trudeau wants to get re-elected, he needs to get out of the way.

That may sound counterintuitive, but the Liberal leader is actually dragging his party down.

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole needs to get as much airtime as he can muster, because people do not know him. The election period is a time to introduce him to the general public. Jagmeet Singh is already known to the public, but since no one expects him to form government, he is not a political target, so his smiling face keeps people relaxed and listening.

In Trudeau’s case, he is known, and that comes with its own challenges. Those who like him are going to cut him some slack, but that group is getting smaller.

Men have never really been the most avid supporters of the prime minister. His feminism and obvious support for women and minorities rubs some the wrong way.

Back in 2012, Trudeau was able to prove his pugilistic nature by taking on a senator in a boxing challenge, where he surprised everyone by delivering the knockout punch. The next year he won the race to lead the Liberal Party, and in 2015, the federal election.

In 2021, most people have an opinion about Trudeau, and some of it is not all that positive.

A friend of mine confessed recently that she was going to abandon the Liberals for the first time in her voting life. Her explanation? She has taken a visceral dislike to Trudeau, and is sick to death of hearing him apologize for things that happened in the past.

She likes the Liberal platform, but the person fronting it simply turns her off. She is an older woman, exactly the kind of voter that Trudeau needs to attract if he is going to swing support back to the Liberals in the home stretch of the campaign.

To turn those voters around, Trudeau needs to keep his face off the air, and focus on the team and the programs that Liberals are offering to Canadians.

Women tend to be more supportive of environmental and health investments than their male counterparts. So, the Liberal platform contrasts nicely with that of O’Toole, who strangely dropped the requirement for green investments in his infrastructure announcement last week.

O’Toole is backpedaling on carbon targets, aligning his commitment to the puny promises of Stephen Harper. He is also vowing to reverse court-ordered pipeline cancellations.

His position on universality of health access is also under fire because O’Toole continually says he also supports choice for Canadians. Choice is usually code for allowing wealthy Canadians to choose a shorter line by paying extra.

There is plenty of fodder for Liberals to counter Tory program plans, but the attack should not be carried out by the leader. There are respected spokespersons on multiple files.

The environment is a specialty of Quebecer Steven Guilbeault and current environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson. Child and health care issues could both be addressed by multiple women in the cabinet, including finance minister and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland.

On childcare, the Liberals are also on the right side of the issue as far as most Canadian women are concerned. It has been widely reported that the brunt of the childcare burden created by home schooling during the pandemic has fallen on women. They are the ones who understand that a proper, licensed childcare system overseen by government is worth a lot more to them than the cash-in-hand contribution being promised by the Conservatives.

An extra cheque every month means little compared to the palpable relief of having your child in a well-managed care facility when you are not able to be with them. In childcare, health and the environment, the Liberals have a great story to tell.

By promoting the Liberal platform via the use of his team, Trudeau can remind Canadians that his party is best positioned to carry the country through these trying times. With the spotlight on himself, Trudeau runs the risk of reinforcing the negative views of people like my friend. His sunny personality handed the Liberals a majority in 2015, but two terms in government can take a toll on any leader.

Most people don’t reward parties for the good things they have done in the past. They vote for the party they want in the future. And the reality is that opposition parties do not defeat governments. Governments defeat themselves.

After six years, the number of enemies is on the rise. The leader becomes the lightning rod for that criticism. But Liberal ideas could carry the day.

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

It would be dangerous for Liberals to skew their campaign to millennial voters. That cohort was a winner in 2015, delivering a solid majority to the Liberals. But it is not likely to be as effective this time around.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 12, 2021.

Liberal Rainmaker Keith Davey led the party to multiple successful elections.

Such was the Senator’s electoral prowess that he is widely credited with the Liberals becoming the “natural governing party” in the last century.

Last weekend’s Liberal convention reflected Davey’s rule.

He always said that the key to Liberal success was campaigning from the left and governing from the right.

The party secured the best policies for a socially progressive country while remaining fiscally prudent, so as not to scare the business community.

But this century is turning politics on its head.

In an effort to guide Canada through the pandemic, the government is spending as widely and rapidly as possible.

So, when it comes to a pre-election message, the party will have to prove that it can also be fiscally prudent.

So do not expect a blanket endorsement of a guaranteed annual income, even though this has been on the agenda of many progressives for decades.

Instead, there will be a resolution to cost the plan, and incorporate the views of provincial and Indigenous governments before anything specific moves forward on the national level.

Such a resolution will give some comfort to Bay Street, which is already making noises about excessive Liberal spending. And main street will be reassured in knowing that national income support will be available at least through the pandemic.

The convention will also embrace near unanimity on a resolution calling for the implementation of national standards for long-term care residences across the country.

There was a time when such a resolution would have meant political death in Quebec.

And everyone knows that it is near impossible to secure a majority government without substantial support in La Belle province.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec Premier François Legault have been making multiple joint announcements in recent time, so they will probably organize an opt-out clause to handle the claim of federal interference in provincial health matters.

But at the end of the day, the death rate in Quebec cannot be ignored and simply assuming that more of the same will be a solution does not make sense.

The sturm and drang of a convention will allow all sides to air their perspectives but, in the end, the party will come out united behind a policy that will ensure a national strategy for long-term care and no national consensus on the Guaranteed Annual Income.

Party organizers have been very pleased with the participation level at the convention, with more than 4,000 registrants, of whom 60 per cent are new members.

New members are good news, but the party also has to be concerned about the ongoing support of long-time, loyal Liberals.

I was chatting last week with a former cabinet minister, who was a very active political organizer in the past, and he is sitting the next election out.

In his words, the party seems a lot more interested in recruitment than in involving those who have been around for a long time.

That could spell trouble, because in most elections where the Liberals lose, their loyal voters don’t necessarily change sides. They just don’t bother to vote.

Pollsters have recently identified that the party is either behind or in a toss-up in 13 ridings which they need to form a majority government.

Most of those ridings are rural, with a population that is not likely as mobile so long-term, loyal voters are important to the victory.

New political participants are important for energy and excitement. The young generation is most likely made up of urban participants who will not carry the day in the case of a tight election.

It would be dangerous for Liberals to skew their campaign to millennial voters.

That cohort was a winner in 2015, delivering a solid majority to the Liberals. But it is not likely to be as effective this time around.

The longer any party has been in government, the harder it is to keep everyone happy.

Marijuana legalization is a distant memory, and that policy will not persuade those new voters to support the Liberals again.

Instead, the party will depend on older people to carry tight ridings in rural areas.

Seniors are usually most likely to vote in large numbers, but the pandemic has altered everyone’s habits.

Trudeau’s Covid hotels have also cost support among snowbirds who represent up to 500,000 voters.

Hopes for majority could depend on whether the Trudeau glow is losing lustre with loyal Liberals.

The convention could kickstart that renewal—or not.

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.

But the full return of Parliament will also focus more attention on Liberal mistakes, as the opposition parties will do their best to change the channel away from COVID solidarity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 6, 2020.

OTTAWA—The COVID-19 political bump has bounced the Liberals back into majority government territory.

That is quite a comeback from a time when the party literally limped into power following a gaffe-filled election campaign last fall.

The prime minister and all provincial premiers appear to be benefiting from a rise in public support attributed to their handling of the pandemic.

Daily communications have softened and strengthened images of each leader. That may seem like an anachronism, but most Canadians expect their leaders to be strong and approachable.

Leaders have also benefited from the absence of pandemic critics.

In a world outbreak, people expect political parties to work together, so it is very difficult to attack the life-saving measures being taken across the board.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, who was out early and often in heated attacks at the beginning of the lockdown, suffered criticism from within his own party for missing the mark.

The country expects leaders to work together in time of crisis, and they have been doing so.

For a brief period, even Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has set aside his Ottawa-bashing in an attempt to find common ground.

But the danger of this bump is that it is directly linked to a sense of danger.

If Canadians believe the third phase of COVID containment is going well, they will focus on issues other than the country’s stand in the fight against the coronavirus.

News reports say there are several vaccines which will be undergoing massive human test trials starting at the end of this month.

If any are successful, the path to a vaccination may be marked by months, not years.

The Canadian government has already stockpiled enough syringes to vaccinate the whole population. That could mean an end to the social distancing and bubble-making that have become a way of life for all of us.

Canada Day in the nation’s capital was a shadow of its usual self.

Virtual fireworks and concerts just don’t cut it.

So, a vaccine would liberate us from the spell that the lockdown has cast over the whole country.

But that also brings its own political risks.

With no national danger in sight, political leaders in regions across the country will fall into their old habits of blaming other provinces or the federal government for their challenges.

Kenney dropped the corporate tax rate last week because he said he wanted to make Alberta stand out as a magnet for business.

The financial markets responded to the stimulus plan, which included $10-billion in infrastructure spending this fiscal year, by cutting the province’s credit rating.

American-based Fitch announced a downgrade from Double A to Double A minus, citing the province’s heavy borrowing to fight the economic crisis.

Alberta is also facing the ongoing, worldwide crash in oil prices, which has been exacerbated by the COVID economic slowdown.

An international move away from fossil fuels is not likely to change anytime soon so Alberta will be facing continuing jobs pressure.

And with the safety of a vaccine, the spectre of COVID prompting interprovincial cooperation will dissipate quickly.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also faces the challenge of election timing.

The current numbers point to an early vote, but if the government moves too quickly, it will likely be accused of opportunism, sacrificing any residual goodwill from the crisis.

The full return of Parliament will also focus more attention on Liberal mistakes, as the opposition parties will do their best to change the channel away from COVID solidarity.

Racial and Indigenous inequities, post-COVID changes to the health-care system, and economic recovery will dominate the parliamentary agenda.

There will be criticism of government deficits, given the unprecedented payouts to millions of Canadians who were affected financially by the pandemic.

Canadians will also expect government action on migrant workers’ abhorrent conditions, and the patchwork of regulations governing long-term care facilities across the country.

There is plenty of fodder for parliamentary debate that will quickly overshadow the question of pandemic management.

If the economy rebounds well, the government will be rewarded in the next election.

Canada has been relatively successful in navigating the crisis, largely because governments spoke with a single voice, and citizens were vigilant in following instruction on lockdowns, distancing, masking and bubbles.

Canadians have not been subject to the same mess of mixed messaging and anti-mask libertarianism that has afflicted the United States.

And our return to normalcy will be more secure because of our sacrifices.

Thankfully the worst Canada Day in history is behind us.

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