By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 31, 2023.

OTTAWA—Justin Trudeau has rolled the dice.

Last week’s massive cabinet shuffle makes one thing certain: the prime minister plans to lead the Liberal Party into the next election.

The ballot question he is aiming for is the economy, and Trudeau is banking on enough political runway to convince Canadians that the best masters of the economy are already in the job.

The shuffle is a not-so-tacit admission that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is hitting the mark when he travels the country on his so-called “Axe the Tax” tour.

It matters little that the majority of Canadians are actually getting money back because of the way the carbon tax remittance has been structured. Canadians are reeling from rising prices and the hike in national interest rates. Global issues may be responsible for the cash crunch, as Trudeau mentioned during his press conference lauding the new cabinet team. But all politics is local.

Polls show that local politics right now is hitting the Liberals hard. On the same day as Trudeau announced the massive change in cabinet, Abacus Data released a poll showing the Conservatives were 10 points ahead of the Liberals. Pollara put out a poll earlier in the month claiming the Tories were 12 points ahead among Indigenous voters.

Trendlines are clear. Tories are climbing and the Liberals are lagging. The shuffle is supposed to staunch the political bloodletting.

Highlights included the appointment of Arif Virani, Canada’s first Muslim attorney general and Rechi Valdez the first Filipina woman in a Canadian cabinet. Original reports cited the appointment of a first Filipino, but that was amended, as the first Filipino member of cabinet was Rey Pagtakhan in the cabinet of Jean Chrétien.

The demographic changes to cabinet are pretty clear evidence that the shuffle is intended to launch an election team. As well as specific nominations in the Muslim and Filipino community, the prime minister also named a Tamil Canadian as minister responsible for Crown-Indigenous relations.

Gary Anandasangaree will have big shoes to fill because outgoing minister Marc Miller developed an excellent relationship with Indigenous communities, as both portfolios he has held in the past eight years involved work with those communities. Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu has regional experience with Indigenous peoples because of her home riding in Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.

Anandasangaree is a risky choice because his urban Scarborough background is not exactly a hotbed of Indigenous politics. However, he has a reputation as being accessible and active, and worked on an Indigenous consultation process for the Rouge National Urban Park.

He wouldn’t be the first minister to build a relationship with Indigenous peoples from scratch. But the popularity of Miller and Hajdu were undeniable, and, given the government’s commitment to reconciliation, the decision to make a change is potentially tricky.

The Trudeau inner circle of cabinet makers must be banking on the fact that these new appointments will buttress the party in areas of the country where they will be in pitched battles with the Conservatives. Suburban GTA ridings are always a dogfight, so the appointments of Anandasangaree and Valdez could have an impact on potentially tight races.

Trudeau is also trying to change the “change” message. With three terms under his belt, the prime minister is well known to the public and somewhat shopworn.

As my mother taught me, politics is the only job where the more experience you get, the more people want to get rid of you, and in three terms, you make enemies who want you out.

The change narrative is the movement when governments are voted out. It doesn’t matter what kind of a job they have done; their political time is up. In most instances, people vote governments out, they do not vote opposition parties in.

A new government is given the benefit of the doubt. The thinking is, with this sizeable change in positions, there is an element of newness surrounding the team. While that is true, there is no element of newness in the leader.

Trudeau is obviously banking on the fact the surly side of the Conservative leader will convince enough voters that Poilievre is not the right person to lead the country. While Trudeau may no longer be loved by all, his opponent has never been loved by many.

If the ballot question is the economy, the prime minister stands a fighting chance of re-election. If the question remains a need for change, his bold cabinet move won’t mean much at the ballot box.

This past week, the next election got started.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case, Ford breathes easier today.

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

If the prime minister’s team thought an early election could move the Liberals into majority territory, the uncertainty in Newfoundland may give them pause.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 8, 2021.

Three elections and three majority governments sent the message that a government managing COVID-19 is rewarded by the voters.

That was the general school of thought when Newfoundland and Labrador called its COVID election. But the arrival of the variant crisis has changed all that.

The Newfoundland and Labrador government was forced to call an election by August. Based on previous results in British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan, it appeared as though the electorate would put their trust in the party that was actually managing the pandemic. In all three of those previous elections, the governing party was returned with a comfortable majority.

So Liberal Leader Andrew Furey, a medical specialist, probably thought he was on solid ground when his government called the election in Newfoundland and Labrador. But in the middle of the vote, a virus variant crept into Newfoundland, taking a province that was almost COVID-free by storm, as Mount Pearl and parts of St. John’s were hit hard with the new virus.

All of a sudden, the province went from a place that had been a spectator in the coronavirus battle to a province that was facing a distressing multiplication of a frightening variant. Questions started coming: how can you have an election when people cannot get to the polls because they are forced into a quarantine to protect community transmission of these new variants?

So, health and election officials tried to sketch out a roadmap for a safe election. The government responded with more opportunities for mail-in ballots, but in order to achieve that goal, they needed to change the shape and date of the election.

In mid-February, the chief electoral officer of Newfoundland and Labrador postponed the voting date for almost half of the voting districts in Newfoundland. The delays occurring on the Avalon Peninsula represented most urban voters in the capital’s periphery.

The cancellations were spurred because frightened election workers resigned out of fear of interacting with the public on election day, according to chief electoral officer Bruce Chaulk. And voters were also frightened about what they might face in a lineup going into the voting booths.

Unlike most other provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador had been largely free of the virus, so citizens were extremely concerned that the variant had hit them hard.

The whole election process has been somewhat odd, with the premier participating in regular briefings with the chief medical officer of health, in the middle of an election.

Progressive Conservative Leader Ches Crosbie complained about the conflict of the premier’s appearance during an election, but that complaint was overridden by citizens’ desire for information.

Crosbie and Furey both carry an impressive political pedigree. Crosbie’s father was John Crosbie, the inimitable Newfoundland minister who served in the cabinet of prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Furey’s father is former backroom Liberal organizer and now Senator George Furey, who is the current Speaker in the Senate of Canada. His uncle is Chuck Furey, who served as a minister in the government of premier Brian Tobin.

Polls still predict victory for Furey, but the confusion around the COVID election has definitely eaten into his popularity.

Newfoundlanders are experiencing their first full lockdown. After three weeks, they are getting crusty. They understand it is for the collective good, but they also want to know why an election is happening in the middle of a medical crisis.

Taking a page from the Newfoundland book, a parliamentary committee in Ottawa passed a unanimous resolution last week demanding that no election be called during a pandemic. The Procedure and House Affairs Committee, not usually known for controversial recommendations, unanimously sought a commitment from the government that there would be no election, except in the case of a lost confidence vote. New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh endorsed the resolution, promising that his party would not trigger an election.

The Tories have not chimed in, although they claim the Liberals have been trying to trigger an election.

For their part, the governing grits claim they don’t want an election, but will not allow their legislative agenda to be blocked in by the Tories. The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of trying to block pandemic-related aid legislation designed to assist individuals and small businesses.

Now that Newfoundland’s election has been torpedoed by the pandemic, the prevailing wisdom that governments are rewarded during an election is definitely at risk.

If the prime minister’s team thought an early election could move the Liberals into majority territory, the uncertainty in Newfoundland may give them pause. Pandemic elections may not be so fruitful after all.

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

While Justin Trudeau’s own house is burning around him, the prime minister continues to claim that all is well in Liberal land and he welcomes the input of two former ministers who have engaged in the death of a thousand cuts with all their colleagues.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on April 1, 2019.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s precipitous poll drop should serve as a pre-election wakeup call.

Whatever side of the Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott show you are on, one thing is clear: the biggest loser in the war of allegations is the prime minister.

Players are busy issuing affidavits that they didn’t leak the initial story that vaulted the Jody Wilson-Raybould story to the front page of The Globe and Mail.

Wilson-Raybould herself has been quoted saying she was not responsible for any leak. But if her interpretation of a conversation with the prime minister ended up in print, she must have told someone.

While his own house is burning around him, the prime minister continues to claim that all is well in Liberal land and he welcomes the input of two former ministers who have engaged in the death of a thousand cuts with all their colleagues.

The women and young people who vaulted Trudeau from third to first place are beginning to have second thoughts.

Trudeau swept to power in a surprising win promising sunny ways and appealing to next generation voters.

Sunny ways will not last forever.

Trudeau needs an aggressive Plan B because the sunny words passing daily from his lips are not credible.

Trudeau is now bleeding support from the very demographic he needs to win an election, because his own brand has been badly damaged by internal allegations from a former cabinet colleague unhappy about losing her “dream job.”

The internal warfare has damaged the leader directly and delivered the possibility of a majority government to Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer.

This past week, we have seen some semblance of prime ministerial pushback with a couple of unfavourable stories about the former attorney general being leaked to the media.

But even those leaks were damaging, as Trudeau publicly claims no ownership of the breach in confidentiality faced by the judicial appointments process.

In the same way that the negative stories about Trudeau could only have come from Wilson-Raybould, the reverse is also true.

At some point, a leader has to stop apologizing and lead. Trudeau really needs to signal to his caucus that he is ready to do battle. He needs to start with an internal housecleaning.

If that means turfing a couple of bad apples out of the caucus, it could not happen soon enough. Eight weeks of public bloodletting from inside the Liberal team is enough.

Let the caucus do the job the majority would like done. When a senior member with the political experience of Judy Sgro challenges the pair to “put up or shut up” you know what action the wisdom of experience is dictating.

The time has come for Trudeau to show that he actually wants to continue as prime minister.

Prime minister means first minister. He is the boss of the team, the leader to whom all colleagues are looking for signals as to how they can extricate themselves from this mess. Instead, his sunny demeanour is making it worse.

Inaction has already cost him a principal secretary and the clerk of the Privy Council. Neither resignation has staunched the flow of bad ink coming from the whisper campaign of allegations being levelled by the duo.

We know from the testimony of the former attorney general that the actions of the prime minister were legal. End of story. So why the post-budget claim from Philpott that there is so much more to come?

As Philpott was not present for the discussion between Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould, she must have received information from her friend. Passing along that information is a clear violation of cabinet confidentiality. Obviously, if Wilson-Raybould broke her cabinet oath of confidentiality, she cannot be trusted to respect caucus confidentiality.

Philpott was taking copious notes during her appearance before Ontario caucus and was told to stop, as nobody is supposed to record what goes in inside caucus.

Just last Thursday, Trudeau was again apologizing for allegedly using a sarcastic tone against protesters who disrupted a Liberal fundraiser.

Trudeau commented that he was disrespectful to the protesters, but made no mention of how they disrespected him. There are plenty of avenues open to protesters, but disrupting an event and then actually getting a refund of their ticket price, is hardly the response one expects from a leader.

Trudeau is going to have to decide if he is willing to fight for his government. Fighting may run counter to his natural instinct.

But sunny ways will not work.

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

Celina Caesar-Chavannes left the Liberal caucus after publicly challenging the character of the leader. Her two former cabinet colleagues should follow suit.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on March 25, 2019.

OTTAWA—Celina Caesar-Chavannes did the right thing. She left the Liberal caucus after publicly challenging the character of the leader.

Her two former cabinet colleagues should follow suit. In defending her decision, Caesar-Chavannes showed some insight into how her actions might have caused some damage to the Liberal Party.

She said she was leaving because she did not want to cause any more “grief’ to her constituents, especially those who were strong Liberal supporters.

The rookie Member of Parliament declined to comment on whether she had patched things up with the leader.

But at least she is on the outside looking in, which is where the other two should be.

There is a difference among the three, and therein lies the rub.

Caesar-Chavannes has already announced that she has no intention of running in the next election. The other two both plan to run as Liberals while they are doing their best to damage the leader.

Jane Philpott kept the anti-Liberal rhetoric going with an accusatory interview to Maclean’s magazine.

Jody Wilson-Raybould sent out a 684-word manifesto on why she would be seeking re-election “currently” as a Liberal.

That is the only time she mentions the dreaded L-word.

We all know Wilson-Raybould chooses her words carefully. She does not always tell the whole story, as when she neglected to mention the prime minister’s offer of a cabinet switch to the Ministry of Indigenous Services.

So why would she qualify her Liberal standing with the adverb “currently”? The dictionary defines the word as “at the current time.” That leaves the door wide open for her to switch sides.

Several weeks ago, I wrote that her father had referenced Wilson-Raybould’s potential to take down the government and replace Justin Trudeau.

My viewpoint was skewered in the Twitterverse. One virulent critic is Warren Kinsella, a political operative and former Liberal staffer who has a hate-on for Trudeau.

Kinsella accused me of acting as a spokesperson for the prime minister’s office. I tweeted him directly, seeking a retraction, which never came.

But Kinsella’s own cyber presence is revelatory.

He has set up a petition to collect names and emails of all those Canadians who supported the former attorney general and tweets virulent anti-Trudeau messages on a regular basis.

The government was hoping the budget would be a channel-changer on the damaging internal fighting that has cost the prime minister and the caucus dearly.

Wilson-Raybould needs media oxygen to keep her name in lights.

She needs to stay in caucus to keep this drama going.

By refusing to resign, they both prove their motives are not so pure as those of Caesar-Chavannes.

In an open letter to constituents, Wilson-Raybould made some stunningly sophomoric generalizations. Referring to constituents she writes, “You are the true leaders who reject the increasing culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games that are far too common, and you are committed to building a culture of ever greater collaboration, truth-seeking, and principled service for the well-being of Canada and all Canadians.”

However, she makes no mention of who is actually creating this culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games.

The only conflict she has claimed is with the prime minister, his staff, and former Privy Council colleagues.

So how does she square the “cynicism and empty partisanship” claim with her stated desire to run for the Liberals?

If the top job is the former minister’s endgame, Wilson-Raybould needs the Liberal Party more than the party needs her.

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

By SHEILA COPPS
First published in The Hill Times on June 11, 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so this time.

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

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

I beg to differ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No election is easy.

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

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

By SHEILA COPPS
First published in The Hill Times on May 28, 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that momentum comes with a lot more public attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does mean that this volatile election is not over.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, April 16, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Thousands of Liberals from across the country will descend on Halifax this weekend to plan their path to a potential electoral victory.

It will be the final national meeting in advance of the next election and, in keeping with conventions of a party in government, will likely be non-controversial and inclusive.

Most raucous conventions, where party splits are on display for all to see, occur when a government is defeated and the party becomes the de facto vehicle for renewal.

Conventions can also be an expression of support for a political party.

Back in 2012, I ran unsuccessfully for president at the largest Liberal non-leadership convention in the history of the party.

The Ottawa-based meeting was the first get-together after the worst defeat ever suffered by the party. Many observers were predicting the demise of Liberalism. More than 3,000 people gathered to prove them wrong. The meeting became a confirmation that the deep and broad roots of the party had not been snuffed out by a single electoral defeat.

Under the leadership of Justin Trudeau, the party became the first in Canadian history to go from third to first place in a single election.

When a party is in government, convention organizers strive for excitement without division, and that is a tough assignment for any political organization.

The top executive position is uncontested, with outgoing president Montrealer Anna Gainey turning over the reins to Halifax native Suzanne Cowan.

Cowan, who works in Toronto, is the daughter of retired Senator and long-time party bagman Jim Cowan.

She describes her job as chief volunteer, and plugs the convention as the first step in the drive to a 2019 victory. Cowan says her focus will be on election readiness, organizing and fundraising.

Cowan is right. The volunteer network in politics is larger than that of any other charitable organization in the country.

And the desired outcome of every party’s national convention is to inspire the troops to get back to their ridings and begin election preparations.

Former U.S. Democratic presidential adviser David Axelrod is one convention speaker, who will reflect on his work as campaign manager for Barack Obama’s two successful presidential bids.

Former prime minister Paul Martin will be highlighted at the Aboriginal Commission fundraising breakfast while Labour Minister Patty Hadju is chief guest at the Judy LaMarsh Party, the Women’s Commission fundraiser designed to garner funds for future women candidates.

There are 30 party resolutions that have run the gauntlet of local and provincial conventions to be deemed priorities for discussion and voting. A youth resolution at a previous national meeting was the catalyst that lead to the Trudeau plan to legalize marijuana.

This time, most of the resolutions are non-controversial. Some are motherhood, but definitely costly.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Party is recommending a feasibility study for the construction of a fixed link from the Rock to the rest of Canada, citing the success of the federally-funded Confederation Bridge linking Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick two decades ago.

Decriminalization of consensual sex work and an end to taxation on menstrual products will probably dominate media headlines. Both of these resolutions have made it to the national floor as priorities.

Top resolutions target offshore tax havens. The National Women’s Liberal Commission is calling for a public registry of all offshore account holders, and a transparent, country-by-country reporting mechanism for all multinationals.

The commission is also seeking the creation of a new United Nations inter-governmental organization to craft a world anti-tax avoidance strategy.

The resolution claims that Canada is losing a potential revenue of $10- to $15-billion annually via international tax loopholes.

That debate will certainly garner the attention of the finance minister and the chief Liberal Party fundraiser, whose family business was reported to have used legal offshore mechanisms to minimize taxes.

It will also provide fodder for opposition parties seeking traction for their push to eliminate Canada’s tax loopholes for multinationals and family trusts.

The convention will also consider a proposal for an aboriginal ombudsman, national pharmacare, a renewable energy tax credit and support for pipeline construction.

Reading post-convention tea leaves will be the job of bureaucrats, lobbyists, opposition parties and policy makers.

The aftermath of the weekend will focus on which parts of the policy platform will make the election cut. A national pharmacare plan, supported by the caucus, and the Ontario and British Columbia wings of the party, will likely lead the pack.

The weekend is designed to rev Grits up for 2019.

Election win or bust.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

Published on Monday, December 4, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The Conservative Party may have gone too far in fanning finance disclosure flames last week.

But the Tories certainly threw the government off-message on the messy issue of Morneau money.

By calling for the resignation of Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer was vaulted to the front of the news cycle during a time when the Liberals were hoping for potential positive coverage.

By suggesting that Morneau benefitted from insider knowledge when he sold family shares, finance critic Pierre Poilievre ventured dangerously close to libel territory.

He must have been betting that Morneau would be loathe to proceed with legal action when a suit would simply spawn more negative media.

Poilievre, an expert in precisely worded prevarication, was careful not to repeat his allegations outside the House. But he did manage to keep the questions coming about the personal financial situation of the minister.

These interventions achieved precisely what the Conservative Party was seeking, an opportunity to keep the Morneau money story from going away.

The New Democratic Party moved away from personal attacks on the minister’s family wealth, but it is still pursuing the potential for conflict in financial decision-making.

No one, not even the Conservatives, really believe that Morneau got into politics in order to fatten his own wallet.

If anything, the revelations of family wealth on both sides make it patently clear that the minister actually stands to lose significantly by choosing public service over private gain.

Morneau was informed by the conflict of interest commissioner of the actions to take to when he became a minister. He followed her advice, and when that changed, he followed it again. He donated $5-million of his own money to assuage any notion of benefit from family share increases during his time in office.

We cannot set the bar so high for public life that no one in their right mind would accept the challenge.

At the same time, Morneau knows that his agenda, and that of the government, has been thrown off course because of these distractions.

Just last week, a historic apology by the prime minster to all members of the LGBT community had to compete with finance questions still dogging the minister.

Justin Trudeau’s statement to a packed House, brought tears to many eyes, including his own, when he said sorry for the “state-sponsored systematic oppression and rejection.”

Across the country, the message resonated positively, not just with gay and lesbian voters, but with all those who believe that the country’s quest for true equality involves everyone.

However, the moment was overshadowed by more discussion surrounding the tax system.

Just as the Conservatives launched their salvo to muddy the message, news emerged about a new Canada postal code Ministry of Revenue purge.

Based on documents obtained from access the information, the CBC reported the CRA was targeting five rich neighbourhoods to find out whether people were living above their tax-reported means.

According to the CBC, 30 households in those neighbourhoods have already been called to discuss their visible wealth. It remains to be seen what those conversations will lead to.

By targeting tony neighbourhoods, CRA reinforces the notion of widespread cheating amongst rich people.

Unfortunately, that was the same message the finance department peddled when it was trying to change the laws on incorporation. Alienation simply grows when citizens believe that rich people cheat.

That may fit nicely into the middle class narrative that propelled the Liberals to victory two years ago. But fomenting class struggle is not a winning long-term strategy.

Changing the law to prevent offshore tax avoidance would be much more lucrative than sending tax police to root around in neighbourhoods looking for evidence of undeclared income.

The CRA is just doing its job, but the loophole on offshore accounts needs to be closed.

Until it is, notwithstanding the Paradise Papers rollout, any Canadian who is legally investing offshore is completely within their rights.

Meanwhile, having a blue-blood as minister of finance, is merely adding to the class struggle theme that seems to be consuming this Parliament.

As long as Morneau is holding the reins at finance, the questions about his personal wealth and (now divested) family earnings will keep coming. The minister is a moving target for the Conservatives and the NDP.

Diversionary discussions are a distraction the government cannot afford, if it intends to promote the message of middle-class fairness.

Politics is about staying on message. With a weekly finance sideshow, that is becoming increasingly difficult.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It stands the test of time.

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