By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 19, 2023.

OTTAWA—A Conservative private member’s attempt to revive the abortion debate by conferring unique legal status on pregnant women was clobbered in the House last week.

The governing Liberals united with New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois to defeat Bill C-311 by almost a two-to-one margin.

Opponents of the bill introduced by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall numbered 205. Supporters mustered only 113 votes.

Under most circumstances, that should be the end of the story. But with the Conservatives leading in national public opinion polls, and their strong support for the bill, it will only be a matter of time before the question of the legal status of fetuses ends up being litigated when a future Wagantall bill is passed.

Witness the debate concerning the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act in Parliament to understand why this legislation could represent a threat to legal abortions in the country.

The United States is already experiencing a wave of anti-women and anti-gay legislation as a result of a Supreme Court ruling that put legal abortions at risk in parts of their country.

Canadian pundits said this could not happen here, but another item in the news last week paints a different picture.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith named her cabinet, including a health minister with a strong bias against legal abortions. Adriana LaGrange served as education minister in the United Conservative Party government of former premier Jason Kenney. In that role, she presided over one of the largest public sector cuts in Alberta history, firing 20,000 educational assistants, substitute teachers, bus drivers and maintenance staff.

With LaGrange at the helm and Smith’s well-documented ruminations on private medicine, it likely won’t be too long before the new government moves to start charging for more health services.

Even more concerning is the minister’s opposition to legal abortion in the province. Her maiden speech in the Alberta legislature four years ago was entitled, “The lord leads me where he needs me.”

While she was a school trustee, LaGrange served on the provincial board of Alberta Pro-Life. In her first provincial election, she was backed by RightNow, an activist anti-abortion organization.

As education minister, LaGrange introduced a controversial piece of legislation requiring parental notification when any student joined a gay-straight alliance club. The original protection from parental notification was designed to protect those students who could face danger if their parents became aware of their sexual orientation. Students were also denied the right to use the word ‘gay’ or ‘queer’ in describing after-school clubs, and administrators were permitted to keep their inclusivity policies secret.

If LaGrange was controversial in education, there is no reason to think she won’t repeat that history in health. Those who think that access to abortion is safe across the country need to face facts.

Wagantall in Saskatchewan and LaGrange in Alberta are only the tip of the iceberg. When the bill on pregnant women was introduced, the Conservative party was pretty much unanimous in support, starting with the leader.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said that he will not introduce legislation on abortion, but he has also stated that other members of his caucus are free to do so.

He is the only leader ambivalent about his support for the LGBTQ2S+ communities, refusing to attend Pride parades or showing visible support for those struggling with a wave of homophobia across the country.

With a raucous parliamentary session coming to close, Poilievre’s popularity continues to outstrip that of the governing Liberals.

Abacus Data released a poll last week in which 35 per cent of the respondents said they would vote Tory if an election were held today. That number had increased three percentage points since the previous month, while the Liberals were down two points at 28 per cent.

The appetite for electoral change is there and the Conservatives are the beneficiaries. Approximately 80 per cent of those polled said it is time for a change in government.

Polls move, and most would agree that both Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are stellar campaigners. The fight may come right down to the wire in a tight election in 2025 (or whenever it happens).

If there is a Conservative majority win, do not be surprised if limitations on women’s reproductive rights and rights for those in the gay community resurface.

Premier Smith did not hide her intention to move toward health privatization.

Her party has many abortion opponents sitting in the legislature. A key one is now occupying the health minister’s chair.

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

Voters are always happier in the spring and the economic fallout won’t yet be felt.

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

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has to keep saying that he does not want an election. Forcing the country into a vote in the middle of a pandemic may be seen as an impolitic move.

However, the three provinces that have gone to the polls during this pandemic have all been rewarded with majority governments.

So those who say the calling of a COVID election would cost votes are wrong. Sure, there would be a couple of days of grumbling at the beginning of the campaign. But very quickly, pundits and politicians would start debating the big issues facing Canadians at the moment.

Economic and health uncertainty are the obvious themes that need to be addressed.

Thus far, these are both issues where the opposition parties have not been able to secure much traction.

The Conservatives have been hitting hard at pandemic mismanagement. With Pfizer delaying their promised deliveries, and provinces adding their criticism to the rollout, the government has suffered some political damage. However, that will be forgotten as soon as the rollout returns at the end of February.

These hiccups are happening around the world, and Canadians are not alone in the challenge of securing and delivering vaccines to needy citizens.

But most Canadians will not hold that against the government once the election is called. Instead, they may attack the opposition for being offside in a world pandemic situation.

Last week Green Party Leader Annamie Paul tried to carve out her own COVID space, accusing the government of being a bad global citizen because it tapped into a previously contracted number of vaccines from Covax. Paul said the Canadian government should not have access to a vaccine that was developed primarily to assist poorer countries.

But the Green Party leader won’t get much support on that one. If she had read the fine print of the Canadian Covax funding announcement last fall, she would know that one-half of the $440-million invested in the Covax vaccine was intended for Canadian vaccine use.

And when Canadian lives are at risk, it seems strange for a Canadian politician to deny the vaccine to her own country.

Similar criticism was reflected in some international media reports, which accused Canada of being greedy as one of the few developed countries tapping into the Covax vaccine.

While the world needs a global strategy, all politics is still local. And Paul will not get a lot of support for attacking the Liberals’ desire to protect Canadians.

The government is also facing a long-term economic meltdown as province by province, businesses are forced to shutter, and citizens are required to stay home in lockdown.

Liberals delivered a death blow to the airline industry by asking them to shut down flights to the Caribbean and Mexico in a popular, but misguided effort to stop the spread of the virus.

By all accounts, air travel was responsible for little more than one per cent of the COVID transmission, but that did not stop the government from introducing a punitive hotel quarantine for any citizen returning from abroad after next week. This requirement has zero pandemic value, as it supplements a COVID PCR test before anyone gets on a plane and after they get off. It also requires those who have been vaccinated to quarantine.

And even though the viral mutations came from the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, none of these destinations have been shut down.

The move was largely intended to keep people from travelling during spring break and it worked. But the airlines have also laid off thousands and Air Canada shut down Rouge last week. Professor Fred Lazar, of the Schulich School of Business at York University, said travel is being unfairly targeted in the pandemic fight. “They are doing it to cater to the vast majority of Canadians that have a holier than thou attitude toward travel.” Full disclosure, I am one of those shameful snowbirds who left Canada for southern climes, despite the best advice of my government.

But even if the move did not make health sense, it was very popular, and managed to distract attention from vaccine rollout problems.

Some Canadian routes, cancelled during COVID, will never return, exacerbating regional isolation.

Meanwhile, once the vaccine gets rolling, there will be a collective sigh of relief. That is the moment to trigger an election. Voters are always happier in the spring and the economic fallout won’t yet be felt.

Most Canadians will reward the Liberals for taming the COVID beast.

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

Two confidence votes, two near misses in two weeks prepares voters for the fact that an election will come sooner rather than later.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 22, 2020.

OTTAWA—The nail-biter vote in the House of Commons on Oct. 21 is a precursor of things to come.

Two confidence votes, two near misses in two weeks prepares voters for the fact that an election will come sooner rather than later.

A national campaign might be a nice break from the onslaught of bad news prompted by the coronavirus.

Held on the first anniversary of the minority Liberal government win, the vote came on the heels of another close call. In both instances, the New Democratic Party voted with the Liberals. But NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh was obviously frustrated about having to prop up the government. Singh risks alienating his base if he is too close to the government.

Confidence vote fatigue will soon set in. It won’t be too long before a House of Commons money bill is defeated, triggering the election that nobody allegedly wants.

The Liberals would be the most likely beneficiaries.

Just recently, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was re-elected with her party’s largest popular vote in the past half-century. Since the country adopted proportional voting, she was the first leader who managed to secure a majority government with 49 per cent of her fellow citizens supporting the Labour Party.

Just a few months earlier, Ardern was facing certain defeat. But her handling of the pandemic, quickly locking down borders and isolating the island, saw her popularity soar.

Three Canadian premiers have called an election during the pandemic, and it appears the trio will all be rewarded with majority governments.

Lockdown fatigue is also creeping into the equation. With the second wave rolling across Canada, citizens are starting to ask more questions.

In the beginning of the pandemic, it was comforting to see public health officials and politicians appearing together in a daily briefing to update a nation reeling from the worldwide viral transmission.

But now people don’t even bother to tune in. And the comfort that came from the solid science of public health officers is being replaced by ridicule.

Halloween is cancelled in one province but not in another.

Movie theatres are closed down in the hot zones, despite a lack of evidence that a single case of the virus has been transmitted in cinema.

The gradual erosion of confidence in the overall public handling of the crisis probably began when Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam veered into the world of sex advice.

On coupling, she suggested that if you don’t know your partner very well, you should wear a mask. Why not a paper bag?

The question of transmission is not the only thing on people’s minds when they hop into the sack together, especially if they are relatively new partners. Instead, it is all about getting as interconnected as possible, and that could be quite difficult if they are both wearing masks.

Then came the Thanksgiving advice, or lack thereof.

At first, Ontarians were informed that a dinner within your bubble with up to a maximum of 10 people was permitted. Then the advice was altered a few days before the blessed event, and we were told to dine only with those we live with.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford tried to explain the confusion by saying the 10-person rule was supposed to apply only to that number of people who lived in the same household. But in Canada, there are not too many 10-member families living under one roof.

The province recently shut down gyms and restaurants in the hot spots. The City of Ottawa issued a new ruling that outdoor tennis would only be allowed for singles players. All doubles matches were verboten.

That happened without a scintilla of evidence that a single tennis player had contracted the coronavirus while on the court.

As for gyms, there was a reported case of a super transmission at a spin class, where the owners claimed to be following the guidelines, but the bicycles were too close together. But why punish all clubs for the mistake of one. And how did dance studios secure an exemption?

Nobody expects science to have all the answers. But people do expect government lockdowns based on facts.

Instead, we are seeing different approaches across different provinces, and public support for pandemic efforts is eroding.

On balance, Canadians are happy to join queues and follow rules. We have willingly integrated hand-washing, masking, and social distancing into our daily routines. But the cancellation of Hallowe’en was the tipping point.

A snap election would actually be a welcome diversion.

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

In a minority situation, an election can happen at any time if parties clash on spending priorities. But these are not ordinary times. In the middle of a pandemic, even getting to the polls is complicated.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 28, 2020.

OTTAWA—The election cat and mouse games begin.

In a minority situation, an election can happen at any time if parties clash on spending priorities.

But these are not ordinary times. In the middle of a pandemic, even getting to the polls is complicated.

The British Columbia government just called an Oct. 24 election. Hours after the call, it was revealed that voting results could take weeks to tabulate.

Because of the second wave of the pandemic, many people are limiting their movement amongst larger crowds.

Within hours of the election call, 20,000 requests for mail-in ballots had been sent to Elections BC.

According to officials, they expect a mail-in participation of up to 40 per cent, which means 800,000 ballots, compared to only 6,500 people in the 2017 campaign.

Election law says that absentee ballots cannot be tallied until the final results of the polls are counted, and that could be up to 13 days after the vote.

Given Canada Post’s COVID-based backlog as more people shop via the internet, the arrival of that many ballots could clog up the system for up to three weeks.

British Columbia Premier John Horgan called the snap election a year sooner than the end of his mandate, but his announcement came as no surprise. He and his team have been busy rolling out pre-election promises for weeks.

The early call is a gamble for Horgan, but he is also banking on the pandemic bounce that has been felt by leaders across the country.

New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs recently launched a similar quick COVID call two years into his minority mandate and was rewarded with a comfortable majority.

Popularity numbers for Ontario Premier Doug Ford and François Legault have also risen during the pandemic.

Even though both provinces are plagued by high levels of contagion and an increasing concern with the arrival of the second wave, the electorate has been happy with their work.

Voters are also witnessing unprecedented federal-provincial harmony which provides a peaceful backdrop in a world pandemic that could easily morph into panic.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not oblivious to the crisis bump.

When the Corona virus impact appeared to be waning, the summer was replete with scandal stories like the one that caused WE Canada to shutter its operations.

But with the return of kids to classrooms, and more people back at the workplace and larger social gatherings, the predicted second wave is upon us.

The prime minister’s televised national address was designed to promote calm but also encourage Canadians to stay the course with limited social contacts and self-distancing.

He has also set out a plan designed to put the Liberals on a collision course with all opposition parties.

On the left, New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh is doing his best to put his party’s stamp on promised items like national pharmacare and childcare.

But the Liberals are crowding their space with the intention of securing support from voters who might swing between both parties.

On the right, Erin O’Toole is going to have to refrain from coming away from the Throne Speech as Mr. No. His focus on the deficit and spending may sit well on Bay Street but it does not comfort Main Street Canadians who are losing jobs, homes and life savings because of the financial havoc wreaked by the pandemic.

Then there is the Bloc Québécois. Trudeau’s promise to introduce national standards for long-term care facilities, a direct result of the deaths of thousands of innocent seniors, has raised the hackles of the premier and the nationalists in the province.

They claim that Ottawa should merely increase health budgets and that will solve all the problems.

However, the image of the premier calling in Canadian soldiers to clean up the mess in multiple facilities was not lost on the ordinary Quebecer.

Long-term care is solely the provincial jurisdiction, but it is obvious that the basic rule of protecting the health of citizens and workers was sadly ignored in multiple institutions in more than one province.

Canadians are wise enough to know that it makes sense to work on a national plan in a pandemic that has already killed almost 10,000 people. There is a public interest argument that trumps federal-provincial fights.

Trudeau is itching to test his vision in a federal election, but he risks a backlash if the Liberals are seen to provoke it.

However, Liberals would be happy if an opposition party pulls the plug,

Meanwhile the political war games are on.

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

But with the continual barrage of mass shootings in the United States, the issue is not likely to go away anytime soon. Almost weekly incidents of gun violence in Toronto pretty much guarantee that Liberals will not be able to dodge the question in the upcoming election.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 12, 2019.

OTTAWA—Guns are now a mental problem. So says American president Donald Trump, who continues to claim there is “no political appetite” for legislation governing the guns themselves even though he is finally admitting that it might be wise to improve background checks on those who want to purchase them.

On this side of the border, Liberals seem equally flummoxed in their plan to restrict weapon access in Canadian cities.

In reacting to multiple shootings in Toronto last weekend, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said a package of gun reforms would be included in the Liberal campaign.

He was responding to mounting calls in Toronto, Montreal, and elsewhere to ban handguns in Canada’s major cities. Toronto Mayor John Tory reinforced a near-unanimous city council request after 17 people were involved in weekend shootings. Goodale also referenced action on domestic terrorism, specifically pointing to white supremacy movements that seem to be gaining ground in our country and elsewhere.

While Goodale’s comments were welcomed, many are wondering what the Liberals are waiting for.

A strong response to recent shootings in Canada and the United States would certainly be welcomed in many constituencies where Liberal support has been slipping.

Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Bill Blair’s handling of the gun file has left many supporters scratching their heads. A member of the public consultation process on guns resigned because she could not support the government’s weak-kneed response to a 2015 election promise of gun reform.

A briefing note published last year by Public Safety Canada downplayed the effectiveness of a handgun ban, claiming it would “primarily affect” collectors and sport shooters who own most of the country’s 900,000 registered handguns, while having only an “indirect” impact on the illicit market by reducing the number of weapons that could be potentially diverted or stolen.

The note also suggested that the evidence on the effectiveness of gun bans remains inconclusive.

“In all cases, the data does not conclusively demonstrate that these handgun or assault weapon bans have led to reductions in gun violence, though some studies drew other conclusions,” it said. “The variation in study results reflects the fact that patterns of gun violence are influenced by many factors and the impact cannot be attributed to one factor.”

Mandated by the prime minister to “lead an examination of a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians” the minister seems to have forgotten the 2015 election promise of gun legislation. Simply punting the issue to the upcoming election will definitely hurt the party amongst its core supporters, especially women.

Blair’s consultations were criticized as sloppy when pro-gun advocates admitted they were able to skew the results of a Public Safety online survey in their favour by including thousands of responses from a single computer.

François Bellemare, a Quebec-based engineer and member of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, was reported in the media back in March saying he alone submitted between 25,000 and 35,000 responses using a computer automation application called Macro Recorder.

That survey ultimately concluded by a majority of 76 per cent that there was no appetite for a ban on assault weapons in Canada. But the report was obviously bogus and distorted the real public appetite for action on gun reform in Canada.

Blair botched the consultations and now Liberals are wavering over whether to come down hard on the availability of assault weapons and handguns in our country.

The party was probably hoping to get through the election without a lot of attention focused on that issue.

But with the continual barrage of mass shootings in the United States, the issue is not likely to go away anytime soon. Almost weekly incidents of gun violence in Toronto pretty much guarantee that Liberals will not be able to dodge the question in the upcoming election.

Women and young people, those supporters whom the Liberals need to win the next election, want action.

They fear the increase in gun violence and spike in domestic hate crimes and want Justin Trudeau to follow the example of New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern. She acted immediately following the mass shootings in a Christchurch mosque to introduce a ban on military-grade semi-automatic weapons.

Canada is experiencing a hike in gun-based violent murders, from the Québec City mosque attack to the Danforth shooting of ten people, to the recent British Columbia murder spree.

The time has come for Liberals to get a spine on guns in Canada.

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

The book launch guarantees that Jody Wilson-Raybould’s story will dominate the news, ensuring the Liberals receive more criticism for their faulty handling of the file.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 29, 2019.

The book launch guarantees that Jody Wilson-Raybould’s story will dominate the news, ensuring the Liberals receive more criticism for their faulty handling of the file.

OTTAWA—In the heat of the SNC-Lavalin controversy, the government was slammed for claiming jobs may be at stake.

Pundits attacked the statement that some of the of 9,000 company jobs could be lost, if the company did not benefit from a deferred prosecution agreement.

The narrative had a distinctly anti-Quebec flavour. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was attacked for saying he had a responsibility to protect jobs in his riding. He was blasted for even suggesting that, as a Member of Parliament, he had a duty to protect jobs in his riding.

Six months later, the chickens have come home to roost and the jobs are being lost. SNC is coming apart at the seams while Jody Wilson-Raybould is promising to lift a veil by publishing her own version of events the week after the election is officially called.

Hopefully she has a good ghostwriter because if she really intends to get elected as an Independent in Vancouver, the former minister won’t have time to be burning the midnight oil on writing a book too.

The book launch guarantees that her story will dominate the news, ensuring the Liberals receive more criticism for their faulty handling of the file.

Wilson-Raybould’s publisher announced the upcoming book launch the same week the Assembly of First Nations was meeting in Fredericton. The book, From Where I Stand: Rebuilding Indigenous Nations for a Stronger Canada, published by Purich Books and UBC Press, will be launched on Sept. 20.

Wilson-Raybould’s nemesis, Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett, attended that meeting and outlined her government’s efforts on reconciliation. She drew particular attention to the decision to abolish the department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. “INAC was really about paternalism and in no way reflected the original spirit or intent of treaties or the original understanding of what that relationship was to be about,” she told the AFN’s annual gathering.

Wilson-Raybould could have partnered in this important work if she had accepted a cabinet appointment as the minister responsible for Indigenous services.

Instead, she could go down in history as the aboriginal leader who singlehandedly derailed her people’s agenda.

During the course of the unfolding debacle, Wilson-Raybould continued to state that she wanted to run as a Liberal in the next election because she shared the values of the party.

She and colleague Jane Philpott both repeated that, other than the prime minister’s treatment of the SNC-Lavalin case, they were pretty much onside with most other issues.

If Wilson-Raybould is really concerned about progress on Indigenous issues, why is she doing her best to make sure that Andrew Scheer wins the next election?

Personal hubris must trump her commitment to her people. That is the only explanation for her decision to publish a book timed to come out just days after the writ is dropped to formally launch the October election.

The book is being billed as a collection of speeches and previously published articles on her vision for achieving reconciliation. She is calling for the acknowledgement of Indigenous rights, replacement of the Indian Act, and Indigenous self-government.

All of those goals were possible, had she decided to remain in cabinet. Along with Bennett, she could singlehandedly have transformed the relationship from one of paternalism to a partnership of equals.

Instead, she is on the outside looking in, writing a book which will be long on theory and short on practical application.

Her decision to publish in mid-campaign is timed to do the maximum amount of damage possible to the first government that has actually embodied a vision for reconciliation.

Wilson-Raybould would be hard-pressed to name another prime minister that has made reconciliation the centrepiece of his governance effort.

Not only has the government aggressively pursued infrastructure investments in Indigenous communities, it addressed the most egregious inequality in the system, the fact that education funds available to Indigenous kids were only 60 per cent of what was spent on regular education.

Aboriginal language funding, one of the first cuts made by Stephen Harper, has been reinstituted under the Liberal watch. That decision offers some hope that more than 50 Indigenous languages may actually survive the very real threat of extinction in one more generation.

Liberals may have overpromised on reconciliation.

But at least Trudeau’s government is trying.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has given five major speeches which are supposed to outline his vision as a future prime minister.

The word “reconciliation” is not mentioned once. Conservative Senators have succeeding in blocking passage of bill C-262, which would have guaranteed that Canada’s laws respect the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

If Wilson-Raybould really wants to be a nation builder, she should stop helping Scheer.

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 October 29, 2018.

OTTAWA—Politics used to be fun. The House of Commons was partly theatre where all were encouraged to make their point, often with props.

Now-deceased New Democrat Member of Parliament Jim Fulton once slapped a stinking dead salmon on the desk of prime minister Brian Mulroney to highlight mismanagement of the Pacific fishery.

After hours was a different story. Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats would get together and share a beer over at the National Press Club across from Parliament.

Some even enjoyed close friendships across party lines.

Former Conservative minister David MacDonald officiated at the wedding of Liberal minister Ethel Blondin-Andrew and was the domestic partner of New Democrat leader Alexa McDonough for a brief period.

My public relationship with Newfoundland minister John Crosbie was stormy. In private, we were friends, and I still get his Christmas card every year.

Links were nurtured by a love of politics and a mutual belief that public life was the best way to improve lives.

Last week, hundreds of friends joined former prime minister Jean Chrétien to celebrate the launch of his new book.

Ever the organizer, Chrétien scheduled the event to coincide with the 25th anniversary of his rise to power in 1993.

My Stories, My Times is vintage Chrétien. His memoirs are sprinkled with humour, and intimate backroom glimpses into what made this very unique politician tick.

Throughout the autobiography, there is evidence of the funny bone that Chrétien often used to connect to difficult subjects.

He could always hammer home a serious message via a joke. One of the most memorable was his response to separatist claims that the country could be broken up in a simple majority vote “You don’t break up a country because someone forgot his glasses at home, “ was vintage Chrétien.

Of course, there were melancholy moments. The internecine warfare which marked his last two years in power were not pretty.

But by and large, Chrétien’s time was a period when politics was fun and all political parties shared a common bond.

Chrétien explores the issue of partisanship in a chapter entitled “Political Foes and Friends.”

Decrying the current extreme partisanship in the United States, he tells the story of two foes who became his unlikely friends. One was former Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark, whose tribute graces the book’s front cover.

The other was Pierre Bourgault, the father of the Quebec independence movement and founder of the Rassemblement pour independence nationale.

Although the two had opposing visions of Quebec and Canada, they respected each other greatly and shared a common love of public policy debate.

Nowadays, it seems as though rational discussion has been replaced by the viciousness of the anonymous twitter world.

People tweet before they think. The level of rancour in parliamentary debate is unprecedented. Likewise, the odious nature of political criticism has become the norm. It is not uncommon to witness tweets wishing death upon the recipient. President Donald Trump constantly refers to his opponents as evil.

It used to be that politicians would have a few hours to reply to critiques raised in the daily news cycle. Now, they have only seconds. Thoughtlessness has replaced prudence in the way the political world speaks. Twitter has infected the body politic in a deadly way.

Just last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested the upcoming campaign would get downright ugly.

My sense is that in the world before instant communication, most politicians liked each other and some were also friendly with journalists.

Of course, there are moments when politicians and journalists butt heads. That is as it should be. Good reporters are necessary and skilled adversaries. But they are just doing their job.

The current firestorm brewing in America is an offshoot of the new political norm where politicians score points by promoting hate and discrediting real news.

Hate the Democrats, hate the migrants, hate the media is the dominant primary run-up theme. Anti-Trump critics are now subject to bomb attacks that have been foiled in multiple states.

Yet Trump is still tweeting about what he calls fake newsmakers like CNN. He is increasing the temperature through tweets that promote hatred of his opponents.

Trump’s chief spokesperson continues to blame the media, and deflects any criticism that serial bombings might have been encouraged by the continuing drumbeat of loathing emanating from the White House.

In the face of bomb threats and twitter speak, politics today certainly does not seem to be as much fun as it was during Chretien’s time.

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

Great book launch on the 25th anniversary of the Chretien government! pic.twitter.com/p2vg6M3vlo

— Hon. Sheila Copps (@Sheila_Copps) October 27, 2018

By SHEILA COPPS

First published in The Hill Times on June 25, 2018.

OTTAWA—Smart politicians make course corrections.

Byelections and provincial trends often provide the impetus for political redirection.

So what is the takeaway from last week’s Quebec byelection and the recent tectonic shift in Ontario politics?

In both instances, there was a shift away from Liberals and towards Conservatives.

But they may actually result in completely different impacts on federal politics.

The Quebec byelection in a bellwether riding that has voted for every party in the 93 years since it was created, should ring alarm bells for the federal Liberals.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently edged ahead of his Conservative opposition in public opinion polls, but the Quebec jury is still out.

The last time a Conservative was elected in the riding was in 1997, when André Harvey, who had served under prime minister Brian Mulroney, returned to politics.

Harvey subsequently left the Tories, sat as an Independent, and then joined the Liberals.

Since his time, the riding has actually mimicked the national wave, electing a representative from every single political party. The only Chicoutimi loyalty is to trends, the riding switched from the Bloc, to the New Democrats, to the Liberals in a single decade. The significance of its return to the Tory fold should not be underestimated.

Nor should it be overblown. The popularity of former hockey coach and political junkie Richard Martel is without challenge. When the sitting Liberal announced his resignation, it appeared as though the local Conservative organizers were quicker on the draw.

In a byelection, the stature of a local candidate is far greater important than in a general election. Just look at the number of popular Liberals dumped in the Ontario vote. Local candidates don’t count for many votes in a general election.

So the question mark about Conservative leader Andrew Scheer in Quebec has not yet been answered. But the strength of his party’s local organization has.

By normal standards, as the retiree was a Liberal, the governing party should have had the time and foresight to land a big fish as their candidate.

Instead, the official opposition won that battle.

This Liberal misstep could be a reflection of the lack of federal Liberal organizational depth in eastern Quebec.

If the Liberals are poorly organized, the fate of the New Democrats is even more troubling. Having carried the seat in the Jack Layton orange wave only two elections ago, this time the party did not even secure their deposit.

The NDP joined the Bloc Québécois, in the single digits, raising questions about the winnability factor.  That is deadly in Quebec.

Unlike other parts of the country, most Quebec voters have a tendency to vote with the trend. It is no mistake that Chicoutimi electors have copied the winning wave for the past two decades.

This is good news for the Conservatives, but not so much for anyone else.

However, the Conservative win in Ontario could have a perverse effect of helping the federal Liberals.

Ontarians are suspicious about investing too much power in one political ideology. So when they choose Tories in Toronto, they swing to Liberals in Ottawa.

The provincial New Democrats official opposition status will attract Ottawa back room talent, depleting human resources needed by the federal party to rebuild.

Former leader Tom Mulcair suggested in a media appearance last week that Jagmeet Singh’s popularity would grow once people get to know him. According to Mulcair, Singh’s rise in visibility would not happen without a seat in the House of Commons.

But the leader cannot afford to run and lose, so he will likely be sidelined until next year’s election, with potentially precipitous consequences.

Meanwhile, Trudeau has made some bold moves to woo the West, including the pipeline purchase and marijuana legislation.

Those successes will pay dividends in Alberta and British Columbia, but neither province is likely to carry the Grits back to power. Instead, the prime minister needs to pay attention to his home base and parts east.

Conventional wisdom says the native son always has an edge in Quebec, which should favour Trudeau.

But if modern day politics has taught us anything, the only certainty is uncertainty.

A clean sweep in Atlantic Canada is not likely to recur. Current Maritime polling favours the Tories.

With Quebec softening, and a rumble afoot in Ontario, Atlantic Canada could prove to be the Grit bastion that must not be breached.

Byelections can be the canary in the mine.

Trudeau and the Liberals need to heed the messages this canary is sending.

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 January 29, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne must have been born under a lucky star.

Against all odds, she beat a Liberal establishment choice to win the party’s provincial leadership.

Then she parlayed her reputation as a straight-talking minister and a proud lesbian into the premier’s chair.

She confounded the pundits, sidestepping certain defeat after the departure of former leader Dalton McGuinty.

With a savvy, targeted campaign, Wynne snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

No one was predicting another Liberal victory lap in the election scheduled in June.

But that was before last week. Before Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown threw his party into turmoil following a late-night resignation stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct from two separate women.

Brown was the second provincial Conservative leader to step down last week.

Nova Scotia chartered accountant Jamie Baillie resigned early Wednesday morning following completion of a report into alleged sexual improprieties that surfaced last December.

In Baillie’s case, he resigned his leadership and seat immediately, claiming personal reasons for accelerating an already-announced departure.

Federal Liberals were facing accusations of their own, with a claim of inappropriate elevator comments by Alberta federal cabinet minister Kent Hehr who later resigned from cabinet.

As for Brown, he tearfully proclaimed his innocence and vowed to remain on as a member of provincial parliament to clear his name.

Until last week, Brown’s political future looked bright. His party was facing competitive nomination races across the province, usually a precursor to a strong election showing.

Brown was working effectively behind the scenes, improving his French and building alliances with key multicultural communities. It was Brown’s deep organization links into the Indo-Canadian community that prompted his surprise leadership win in the first place.

Brown was the primary beneficiary of a desire for political change. That electoral force is sometimes unstoppable.

But who could have foreseen the chaos that the Progressive Conservatives would plunge themselves into, with the daunting task of securing a new leader before an election looming in four months.

Even though most of Brown’s loyalists deserted him, the party’s decision to hastily dump him will not be supported by all.

The press conference suggestion by deputy leader Sylvia Jones that Brown’s departure was just a “hiccup” prompted an apology on Twitter. Some may even wonder whether the allegations, which date back five to 10 years, were a thinly-disguised leadership coup.

The Ontario Tory process was quite different from that facing the Nova Scotia Conservative leader. In Baillie’s case, allegations were revealed to party officials last December and they sought an independent review of the facts. Receipt of that report is what precipitated last week’s resignation.

The answers to numerous questions may never be revealed, as the party is trying to keep the names of the alleged victims out of the media.

That cone of silence comes with its own set of challenges. Two former Liberal Members of Parliament were effectively removed from their posts after engaging in what they claimed were consensual relations with two New Democratic Members of Parliament.

One accuser, whose identity was shielded, stated on camera that she had brought condoms on a hotel room visit to her aggressor after the couple had been drinking together.

Nobody condones stepping out on your spouse, and both Liberals were married. But surely an extra-marital dalliance is not a firing offence.

Nor does it make sense to put the harassment of employees in the same category as after-hockey member to member (literally) socializing.

Whatever the circumstance behind the Brown resignation, the fulminations that flow from his leave-taking will do serious damage.

Like it or not, we live in a leader-driven political world, and a party cannot possibly go into the election with only an interim leader.

That means the Tories have two short months to establish a new leadership process that has everyone’s support.

Even when they pick a winner, the in-fighting that goes on in a leadership race takes time to heal.

Add to that, the potential dynamic of a leader being done in by his own back room rivals on the eve of an election, and that could be a poison cocktail.

Hours after Brown’s exit, potential leadership candidates were out in the media making all the right noises.

At least four women are being touted as replacements, including Lisa Raitt, Christine Flaherty, Lisa MacLeod and deputy leader Jones.

In the end, Ontario may go to the polls next June with a woman leader in every party.

In a curious twist, last week’s harassment allegation may put a woman in the premier’s chair.

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