A close race could help push left-leaning voters toward the favoured Liberals, especially if the NDP doesn’t get its act together.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 23, 2021.

Many punches were thrown in the first week of the campaign. Few landed.

From vaccines to abortions, the two main leaders sparred on the wedge issues that could shape the campaign. But the one issue that could be decisive got no attention whatsoever.

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole unveiled his party’s slick promotional magazine touting various aspects of the platform. Most commentary focused on his buff body and how great he looked in a black t-shirt. The magazine was obviously intended to appeal to the millennial crowd, a voter cohort that has traditionally shied away from the Conservatives. But he will have a tough time beating the TikTok king Jagmeet Singh, who was recognized on the streets of Vancouver not as a political leader but as “that TikTok guy”. Liberals are perusing the Tory document for ammunition they might use to widen the wedge between themselves and their main opponent.

Outgoing Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef was quick to point out a line in the platform promising to enshrine “conscience rights” for medical professionals in legislation. In and of itself, this might not be problematic, but O’Toole stated in July that he would not intervene if provinces defunded abortions in their health care planning.

“How provinces run their health care system is not what the federal government should be interfering with,” he told reporters during a whistle-stop in Fredericton, where the provincial government refuses to fund abortions performed outside the hospital setting.

The controversy swirls around a clinic that offers reproductive and general services to the LGTBQ community called Clinic 554. The federal Liberals have been withholding health transfers to the province because of their refusal to fund it, and the fact that there are no hospitals providing abortions in Fredericton.

O’Toole went to great lengths last week to convince Quebecers that he was pro-choice. But the fact that the majority of his caucus voted in the last Parliament to limit abortions does cast doubt on his affirmations.

Voteprolife has shut down public access to its website, which tracks abortion views of all candidates in the upcoming election. However, there is no doubt that over the course of the campaign, the views of all candidates will become public, and O’Toole’s solemn personal views will likely clash with his caucus majority.

In the last election, abortion became enough of a wedge to move some doubtful women voters over to the Liberals. I don’t think that is the issue to do so this time. Instead, the positions of the two main parties on childcare will cost the Tories dearly in terms of their capacity to attract support from the swathe of Greater Toronto Area so-called soccer moms so crucial to victory.

The value proposition for parents is clear: do you want money, or do you want safe childcare?

But parents with young children know that money is only part of the problem. The other issue is access to excellent licensed childcare spots. And a $10 dollar a day government-approved childcare establishment gives parents a lot more reassurance than a year-end refundable tax credit.

O’Toole won’t be able to attack the Liberal plan as profligate, since his approach costs approximately the same amount of money. In addition, he will have to tear up agreements with multiple Conservative provinces that have already signed onto the plan. But the biggest blunder is what could happen to his electoral chances in Quebec. La belle province has been living with subsidized childcare since it was introduced for $5 dollars a day by the Parti Quebecois government in 1997. With almost a quarter-century of experience, Quebecers are not about to give up a social program that they believe contributes to positive family and community life. And the government of Quebec has already signed an agreement to top up provincial spending with a lucrative cash transfer from the federal government. The childcare program is supported by the Bloc Quebecois as well, and they will be pounding hard at the Tories on this issue.

With several provincial governments already lining up to introduce more licensed childcare spaces to complement the federal plan, O’Toole’s promise to tear up those deals is not going to win him any support.

Instead, it will turn women off, the very voters he needs if he is to form the government.

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, January 16, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The new year cabinet changes in Canada and the United States are a keen study in just how different our two countries really are.

With the departure of Stéphane Dion and John McCallum, the face of the Liberal government is even younger and more diverse.

Dion and McCallum had decades of experience in government. Their departures deplete the experiential depth and breadth of the cabinet.

Most ministers don’t only manage their own departments and responsibilities. They may weigh in on major national issues, which impact on the government and the whole country.
 
Prime minister Jean Chrétien’s decision not to join the war on Iraq, was seen as seminal. Chrétien’s four decades in Parliament played a role in that decision, but he also consulted multiple cabinet members, especially those with lengthy political experience.

Youth has the benefit of energy and drive, but with age comes wisdom. History often repeats itself, which is why some wizened faces in cabinet are a good thing.

The deeper Trudeau goes into his mandate, the more he will need to count on colleagues with experience to weather difficult storms.

The youthfulness of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself has been key in attracting a whole new generation of engaged young people. His commitment on issues like marijuana managed to engage a new generation, one that previously had no interest in government.

That intergenerational change has served the Liberals well but it also has limitations.

Maryam Monsef came to cabinet with high expectations but had no political experience. She inherited a treacherous portfolio which could have used a veteran’s touch. Her successor is also a newbie. Karina Gould has impressive international organizational experience which could be a useful training ground for this tricky portfolio.

In his first wave of American appointments, the cabinet of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump is getting older and whiter.

Neither change should surprise us. Politicians promote those with whom they feel the closest connection.

Young leaders generally encourage younger faces, while older leaders can be more comfortable with those of their own age, gender, and race.

Women often support other women. Leaders hailing from minority communities work hard to recruit those from diverse cultures and races. U.S. President Barack Obama’s cabinet was a reflection of his own personal life experience.

Hillary Clinton surrounded herself with strong women and her team reflected a real gender change that, had she won, would have radically changed the face of the American administration.

Trump is a white, 70-year-old business man. It should surprise no one that most of those whom he has elevated to his cabinet are white businessmen.

For those Americans witnessing the changing face of Washington, it must be tough to see so few minority appointees at the table. It is as though the last 30 years of civil rights progress has been erased and Jim Crow is back to rule the roost.

The visible lack of diversity is one thing. Even more troubling is the fact that some cabinet viewpoints are a real throwback to America’s racist past.

Trump’s choice for attorney general is so polarizing that he is being publicly opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

Seventy-year-old Senator Jeff Sessions voted against hate crimes legislation, and publicly questioned whether women, gays, lesbians and transgendered even face discrimination.

Thirty years ago, an attempt by then president Ronald Reagan to make Sessions a district court judge was rejected by a Republican-dominated Senate committee.

Apparently, this brand of conservatism is more palatable today than it was in the eighties.

By most accounts, Senator Sessions has not changed.

But America has. The deep racial divide reinforced by this appointment is a glaring example of the growing differences between Canada and the United States.

It is easy to understand the frustration of civil rights activists and feminists confronted with a proposed cabinet appointment that is so controversial. How can the attorney general be trusted to promote human rights and protect the judicial gains for women and minorities if he does not believe in them himself?

New Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will, no doubt, make the case in Washington that Canada continues as the best friend and neighbour of the United States. She will be smart enough to avoid making a gratuitous enemy of President Trump.

Trudeau will make sure he is not caught in the crossfire in potential trade disputes.

Canadian jobs are too dependent on our interconnectedness. Trudeau has nothing to gain by accenting Yankee-Canuck differences.

But last week’s cabinet changes in both countries speak louder than words.

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 Monday, December 12, 2016.

OTTAWA—I took the MyDemocracy.ca voting test and discovered what I already knew. According to the online government survey, managed by Vox Pop, I am a pragmatist.

The pragmatist in me says electoral reform is dead.

Its public interment by the minister responsible for democratic reform was not a pretty sight.

Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef arrived in Parliament with great promise. She is fresh and authentic, two qualities that should have stood her in good stead in a tough portfolio. But what she made up for in enthusiasm, she lacked in experience.

The toughest political nut to crack is that of changing the voting system. It is not for the faint of heart, or the novice.

Voting changes have been entertained multiple times in Canada. Thus far, none have succeeded.

Back in March of 2004, the Law Commission of Canada recommended a change to the mixed member proportional system. That autumn, in the speech from the throne, the government promised to follow through with reform.

Multiple options were subsequently studied by a citizens’ consultation group, and a House of Commons committee, but in the end the current system prevailed.

British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have all taken a look, and decided against change. In two provinces, voters made the decision directly through a referendum.

In the rest, the politicians took a pass.

Prince Edward Island undertook a look at the issue this year, with a plebiscite last month proposing a new system of mixed proportional. Unfortunately, even with a decision to lower the voting age to 16, less than 40 per cent of islanders voted. It did not seem to excite many people.

But the Liberal dissent tabled last week killed any chance of federal change before the next election.

Other possible modernizations, including internet voting, may end up supplanting electoral reform, as the mainstay of a federal Liberal promise to change voting.

The possibility of online voting would definitely entice more millennial and younger generation citizens to the polls, especially if they don’t have to leave their keyboard or cellphone.

Voter turnout, or lack thereof, is not just a reflection of mistrust in the electoral system. The surprise victory of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau occurred because he appealed to those recalcitrant young people who did not identify with typical politicians.

Trudeau showed a side of himself that definitely appealed to a younger generation. It was the perfect foil to the aging demeanour of both Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair.

Trudeau may regret being so definitive on the issue of electoral reform. His statement that “We are committed to ensuring that the 2015 election will be the last federal election using first-past-the-post” left no wiggle room.

His minister was stymied by her lack of political experience.

Bowing to pressure, Monsef’s first mistake was to hand over chairmanship of the committee to the Opposition. That move set the stage for the impasse we witnessed last week between the Liberals and all Opposition parties.

The Conservatives certainly don’t want a change. The committee’s demand for a referendum on any proposed change pretty much guarantees that nothing will happen before the next election.

As for the New Democrats and the Green Party, they stand to gain the most with a proportional voting system.

Monsef was wrong when she accused the committee of not doing its job. The hefty report is thorough if not definitive.

But in playing politics with the outcome, the opposition participants gave each other exactly what they wanted, a guaranteed referendum for the Conservatives, and a party-run list system for the smaller parties.

If implemented, the biggest loser would have been the Liberal Party. So Monsef cut her losses and moved to immediately distance herself and her government from the report.

Electoral reform will not happen in this Parliament.

It may never happen. It is certainly not the top of mind issue that moves voters. If anything, it is a party issue for those who cannot make the breakthrough to government.

Bad electoral change comes with its own set of problems. Instead of encouraging centrist policies that accommodate the greatest number of people, proportional parliaments often hand more power to extremists.

Ideologically based parties may be small, but they are much more committed to organizing their membership and getting their vote out. Fringe groups could easily dominate the national agenda if a system of proportional voting replaced the current first-past-the-post Parliament.

I am a pragmatist. Change for change’s sake is not worth the risk, nor a referendum.

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