By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 26, 2023.

OTTAWA—The four federal byelections last week sent a definite change message.

This time, the call for change went not to the prime minister, but to the leader of the Conservative Party.

Those byelections on June 19 saw the Tories’ percentage of the vote fall in three of the four ridings.

The Conservatives were not even close to being in the running in Winnipeg South Centre, Man., and their victory narrowed to a mere five per cent in Oxford, Ont., one of Ontario’s safest Tory ridings.

That close result was in stark contrast to the 2021 federal election, when the Conservatives in that riding were at 47 per cent of the vote compared to only 20 per cent for the Liberals.

The good news for the Conservatives was the poor performance of People’s Party of Canada (PPC) Leader Maxime Bernier in the Tory stronghold of Portage—Lisgar, Man.

In 2021, the PPC garnered their best national showing in that constituency, winning 21.58 per cent of the vote. With Bernier running this time, they dropped to 17.2 per cent.

The Tories’ right flank could be damaged by Bernier. On the money front, in the last quarter of 2022, the PPC experienced its best non-election fundraising quarter ever, raising $725,293, not far from the $866,505 donated to the Green Party.

But the Tory left flank is in deeper disarray.

The Oxford battle wound was self-inflicted, as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre parachuted his chosen candidate into a riding where outgoing MP Dave MacKenzie was promoting his own daughter.

The internal party situation got so ugly that MacKenzie endorsed local Liberal candidate David Hilderley after accusing his party of rigging the nomination results.

It is difficult to read much into the shift in the Oxford vote because it was prompted more by internal infighting than by a popularity spike for the Liberals.

The presence of winning candidate Arpan Khanna, a co-chair of Poilievre’s successful leadership campaign and a lawyer who practices in Mississauga, Ont., turned the riding nomination into an internal battle.

The result could simply be a political one-off, but Poilievre doesn’t appear to be changing his strategy in his take-no-prisoners approach to electioneering.

His tactic may delight his hardline supporters, but it is certainly not helping him with moderate Tories.

Another political slap was levelled at the Conservative leader last week when former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney praised Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during an Atlantic economic forum in Antigonish, N.S.

Mulroney hailed Trudeau’s leadership on big issues like COVID-19 and free trade, and said that those issues are what he will be remembered for, not for “the trivia and the trash and the rumours that make the rounds in Ottawa.”

Mulroney’s comments were noteworthy, not just for what he said, but also what he didn’t say. The former leader with the largest electoral majority in Canadian history did not even mention the name ‘Poilievre’, instead focusing his criticism on the tone of politics today.

But the message was not lost on anyone. If there is one person responsible for the negative tone in Parliament today, it is Poilievre.

The New Democrats saw their vote percentage fall in all of the byelections. That must also be a cause for concern, as their role in supporting the government’s agenda on progressive social items like dental care and pharmacare appears to be going unrewarded.

That conclusion presents a dilemma for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, because if he extricates his party from the agreement, it would likely prompt a quick election. The NDP can’t afford a quick vote unless the party can show there is political momentum in their direction.

Instead, the general analysis of the byelection patterns shows voters deciding between the Liberals and the Conservatives, edging out any chance for New Democratic growth.

The Green Party’s candidate for co-leader, Jonathan Pedneault, was also roundly trounced in the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Que., byelection that saw former Liberal president Anna Gainey elected by a majority vote.

Most of the opposition votes were split equally among the Greens, the NDP and the Conservatives.

General elections are usually dependent on the popularity of the government, not the strength of the opposition. If there is a national desire for change, that is a difficult wave to reverse.

But if the call for change is focused on the person who wants to replace the prime minister, that could complicate the narrative.

Last year, Mulroney warned Poilievre that he would have to moderate his rhetoric if he wants to win.

Mulroney and the byelections last week reinforced a message of moderation.

It remains to be seen whether Poilievre will listen.

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

Sure, it comes with some demographic challenges. With increased demand, the cost of housing in Canada’s major cities is under extreme stress. But that is something that smart government immigration policy can plan for.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 27, 2023.

OTTAWA—One million new Canadians is something to celebrate.

Statistics Canada’s announcement last week that the country’s population will shortly reach 40 million was something of a shocker.

I remember when we were only 15 million strong.

But what is so fantastic about this population jump is that the majority of Canadians are happy about it.

In most nation-wide surveys, by and large, Canadians believe the country’s immigration has led to economic prosperity.

Sure, it comes with some demographic challenges. With increased demand, the cost of housing in Canada’s major cities is under extreme stress.

But that is something that smart government immigration policy can plan for.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser announced last week that his department would be making some changes to the immigration policy. They include targeting specific subsets of workers for the immigration fast track, and incentivizing the immigration point system for people who are willing to move to underpopulated areas of the country.

Both moves make sense. We need skilled workers to cover off the job gap in certain sectors, and if they can come from abroad, the holes will be filled more quickly than waiting for apprenticeship and college graduates.

That doesn’t minimize the need for the government to aggressively promote apprenticeship and interprovincial migration of skilled labour. But it can supplement the shortages on a short-term basis.

As for the changes to where new immigrants live, that will be met with approval by big-city and small-town politicians.

Big-city mayors know that increasing populations put additional pressures on high-ticket items like local transit and infrastructure.

Municipalities are also grappling with the challenge that most downtown locations are becoming too expensive for the locals, pressuring developers into messy evictions and legal disputes with long-term tenants.

By moving immigrants into smaller communities, the changes plug the workforce gap that those communities are facing and simultaneously encourage local economic growth with the arrival of new families who need to purchase housing, appliances, furniture, and other big-ticket items.

With the exception of the People’s Party of Canada, most federal political parties seem to approve of the direction the government is taking in announcing an increase in the number of annual immigrants welcomed into the country.

Parties usually follow the wishes of the population. In most regions, the population is favourable to the hike in numbers.

However, Quebec is always tricky as the voters there do not want to see the French language undermined by immigrants who have a tendency to prefer raising their children in English.

Quebec has not exactly rolled out the red carpet to newcomers, with rules that prohibit religious headgear in public service positions, including teaching.

It is probably the only province where the majority of citizens would likely oppose a plan for mass migration.

As for the rest of the country, most provincial governments have experienced a direct economic boom related to immigration.

If the current population growth rate continues, the country will end up with almost 50 per cent immigrants within the next quarter century.

At the moment, immigrants comprise one-fifth of the country’s population.

But you only have to visit cities like Toronto and Vancouver to see the impact of migration on the new face of Canada.

And thus far, communities seem to be adapting and thriving.

Of course, there are problems. Triads and some gang elements well-established in their home countries have taken root in Canada.

But most studies show that Canadian-born residents are far more likely to commit crime than those who have come from other countries.

That doesn’t stop PPC Leader Maxime Bernier from railing against all forms of immigration.

But the Conservatives are playing it a lot smarter. For those who oppose immigration, they have been very active in demanding that the government close off leaky borders. In that respect, they are able to satisfy those who oppose immigration while at the same time wooing the communities who very much depend on family reunification and the chance to move to Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had to tackle that issue when the American president put migration front and centre on the bilateral agenda.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Ottawa has partly focused on amending the safe country agreement so that land borders cannot be used by those who want to transit illegally from the United States to Canada.

With a better safe country agreement, the boom is welcome.

It makes the country stronger.

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

Lionizing illegal occupiers has nothing to do with freedom. Instead, it is an attempt to overthrow the social compact that Canada was built on.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 4, 2022.

OTTAWA—Freedom obviously means different things to different people.

In some parts of the world, freedom is survival.

If you don’t have access to food or water, how can you worry about anything more than securing the basics of life?

If you are a woman in some countries, you do not even have the right to leave home unless accompanied by a male member of your family. Absurd though it may be, your son may actually have the authority to keep you locked inside.

If you are a girl in Afghanistan, you don’t have the right to an education. Even if your family could afford to send you, schools are verboten for those who have been born with a vagina.

If you are not a straight male, there are many places in the world where you could be imprisoned or even killed simply for loving someone.

You are not free to be who you are, but must either hide your sexual orientation or simply bury your sexuality to be free.

In some countries, there is no freedom.

But that is not the case in Canada. And as we celebrated our national holiday on July 1, it is time to start calling out those fakers who claim they are fighting for freedom in our country.

Can you imagine any other country in the world where you are so free you can park a bouncy castle in front of Parliament for weeks, paralyzing the operations of government, without being arrested?

Threatening judges and disobeying court orders is common amongst those who claim they are fighting for our freedoms.

Our “freedoms” involve infecting others with variants of COVID simply because they refuse to embrace the reality that vaccines make us all safer.

Why would any political party want to associate themselves with a bunch of fake freedom fighters whose main claim to fame is an illegal occupation of Canada’s capital?

Last week, interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen authorized all caucus members to meet with these fakers, in the name of democracy. She told CTV “I support peaceful and legal demonstrations, and if my MPs want to be there, they’re free to do whatever they want and they’ll answer to their constituents.”

Conservatives are currently battling with the People’s Party of Canada for the favour of those illegal occupiers who continue to display their disdain for the very system they claim to support.

Illegal convoy organizer Tamara Lich was released from prison in March after she agreed to bail conditions which prevented her from inciting another illegal occupation.

Instead, her lawyer confirmed she was arrested last week in Medicine Hat, Alta., for allegedly violating bail conditions. Meanwhile, political parties battle to share the spotlight with Lich.

“This is disgusting,” tweeted Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada. “Tamara Lich is a political prisoner and the Liberal regime is persecuting her like all authoritarian regimes do with dissidents. We will continue to support this courageous woman.”

Meanwhile, one judge involved in convoy prosecutions is alleging claims of harassment, intimidation, and even death threats.

In an interview with Radio Canada under concealed identity, the judge said multiple threats forced them to change the locks on their home, vary their daily path to work and consider moving their children out of the family residence.

This is harassment and intimidation from a group that claims to be fighting for freedom. The fact that any of these illegal protest organizers could be characterized as political prisoners illustrates just how bizarre our political narrative has become.

Even more strange is the fact that any legitimate political party would want to be associated with this group of twisted malcontents.

Conservative front-runner Pierre Poilievre constantly peppers his speeches with references to freedoms, underscoring that his political goal is to give liberty back to Canadians.

There may be many challenges facing our country, including the bite taken out of our wallets by rising inflation, but it is pretty hard to absorb the notion that we live in a country replete with political prisoners.

That claim has zero credibility.

As we celebrated our real freedoms on Canada Day last week, let’s not fall into the trap of legitimizing the goal of those who use illegal means to make their message heard.

Shutting down communities, blocking roads with bouncy castles and hot tubs, lionizing illegal occupiers has nothing to do with freedom.

Instead, it is an attempt to overthrow the social compact that Canada was built on.

Living in society comes with collective responsibilities.

Happy and Free Canada Day!

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 September 23, 2019.

OTTAWA—The debate about the debates is debatable.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was criticized for not attending the first televised debate organized by Maclean’s magazine and CityTV.

He will face more criticism next week as a likely no-show at the Munk Debates on Foreign Policy Oct. 1 in Toronto.

Trudeau’s explanation is that he is attending three debates, including two organized by a national commission established to manage fair and open televised debates.

The Leaders’ Debates Commission was under attack last week for allowing People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier to join the official debates on Oct. 7 in English and Oct. 10 in French.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, reacting to the flip-flop by the commission headed by former governor general David Johnston, issued a statement attacking “Trudeau’s hand-picked debate panel.” New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh decried the decision, disagreeing with People’e Party views that, “promote an ideology of hate.”

Scheer neglected to mention that former prime minister Stephen Harper named the commission head governor general. At the time of Johnston’s debate appointment, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May called the decision “inspired” and lauded the fact that transparent and open criteria would decidedly ensure her presence.

After being denied debate participation in 1988, the Green Party unsuccessfully sued the previous broadcast consortium.

This first attempt to have an independent body set the rules for political debates is certainly not perfect. But it is better than what happened in the 2015 election.

If the Conservatives have anyone to blame about the new format, they need to look no further than their recent leader.

Up until Stephen Harper became prime minister, a broadcast consortium was responsible for ensuring nationally televised debates in both official languages. Established in 1968, the process worked reasonably well for the major parties until, in 2015, Harper refused to participate.

Instead, he joined as many as five independent debates, with little apparent criteria for who organized the events and what was debated.

With the boutique debate strategy, audience participation numbers plummeted. Rogers Media reported an average audience of 1.5 million for the Maclean’s English-language debate. The previous consortium debate surpassed 10 million viewers. The appointment of a former governor general signalled this would not be a partisan effort. And the criteria for debate participation, included in the terms of reference, guaranteed that smaller parties like the Greens would not have to sue to be heard.

The new process ensures broader participation because one of the three criteria is that any party receiving four per cent of the vote in the previous general election is invited. The third criterion, and the one the commission underscored in allowing Bernier in, was that his party has a reasonable chance of winning some seats in the upcoming election.

Those who organized 2015 debates were invited to participate in the Leaders Debate Commission organization. Some refused, launching social media campaigns to convince Trudeau to change his mind and join their separate broadcast efforts.

As it turned out, Trudeau’s absence from the first debate may have played in his favour. The Green and New Democratic parties primarily focused their attacks on Scheer, who appeared defensive and unfriendly.

Trudeau’s absence from next week’s Munk Debate is easier to explain.

No doubt, the admission of Bernier into the debates will change the dynamics. Not only will Canadians see different views on the left of the political spectrum. They will also see real fractures on the right. Much of what Bernier has to say will not be supported by the majority of Canadians.

Bernier’s anti-immigrant message is no doubt going to raise some hackles. But the bottom line is, if an election period is not a good time to discuss different viewpoints on policy, there is no good time.

Former prime minister Kim Campbell announced at the beginning of the 1984 campaign that an election was no time to discuss policy. She ended up going down in flames, with only two members of the Progressive Conservative party left in Parliament after her defeat.

National debates need competing viewpoints. This is really the only time when ordinary Canadians get an insider’s glimpse at what makes political parties tick.

You don’t have to agree with any of them.

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

Many of the Brexiteers voted ‘Leave’ over immigration, but few in the U.K.—and Canada—seem to understand how vital immigration is for economic growth.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2019.

OTTAWA—Brexiteer Boris Johnson is taking his country to the brink.

Parliamentary chaos, left in his wake, is a reminder to all of us that governments matter.

British singer-songwriter Billy Bragg characterizes the current mess as “the most divisive years” in the history of his homeland. Bragg compared last week’s hasty prorogation to the work of the last proroguer, King Charles the First, who was ultimately beheaded.

“Consensus is further away than any time I can remember,” bemoaned Bragg in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview.

Brits are getting a bird’s eye view of the importance of government.

Johnson is pledging to leave the European Union on Halloween, whether or not his country has been able to negotiate an exit agreement. He may not succeed in prorogation, as senior members of his own inner circle have resigned in protest. But the self-imposed, drop-dead departure date of Oct. 31 is sure to throw the United Kingdom into deeper crisis.

The whole exercise is a glaring example of how not to operate in a democracy. The country is split right down the middle between Leavers and Remainers. The financial centre of London is overwhelmingly opposed to the decision, while most other parts of the country are slightly in favour.

The initial referendum was launched by former Prime Minister David Cameron as a way of shutting down internal Conservative opposition to the country’s increasing integration with the rest of Europe. Cameron made a foolish miscalculation on the matter, setting the benchmark for referendum victory at a simple majority. His country is now reaping the results of this ill-advised decision.

The younger the voter, the more likely they are to want to remain in the European Union. Conversely, older citizens, who remember the days before the United Kingdom joined the European Union back in 1973, are more likely to want to leave. Polling shows a strong correlation between age and a desire to exit the union. The majority of older people hold the view that European membership has deprived Britain of the power to control immigration. Younger pro-Europe voters believe immigration has made the country a more vibrant place and assisted economic growth, in complete contrast to their older counterparts.

Whatever happens in the next few weeks, one thing is certain: the importance of governments in planning for the long-term future has never been clearer.

Liberals took a beating in Canada when we asked the courts to establish a clear path forward in the event of another referendum on separation. The courts confirmed that separation approval would require a clear question supported by a clear majority. This principle was enshrined in the Clarity Act. A similar British law would have ensured that any decision to leave the European Union would have required a clear majority. The only thing clear today is that the country is split in half.

If the United Kingdom does exit with no deal, Scotland and Northern Ireland will quickly be knocking at Europe’s door to get back in. One country ends and another begins. The notion of a painless exit from the European Union is a pipe dream that not even Johnson will be able achieve.

Confusion belies a bigger question. Modern Canadian Conservatives claim that less government is better. They are positioning the upcoming federal election as a fight between over-governing Liberals and the party that wants to keep government out of your pocketbook and your life.

Libertarians like Maxime Bernier go even further. They believe the job of government is to get out of the way so the private sector can have free rein over the economy.

Most of us understand very little about how immigration policy and economic development go hand in hand. As Canadians have fewer children, the only way the country can meet workforce demand is by increasing immigration. Bernier’s plan to cut those numbers by more than a half is not only bad politics, it is bad economics, especially in struggling regions of the country. With an aging population, we need more young people to replenish the retiring workforce.

But the older we grow, the less we seem to understand or welcome the integration of immigrants and diverse populations into Canadian communities. Immigrants are key to revitalizing Canada’s flagging rural economies. They bring families, spending power, and entrepreneurial talent.

It is no surprise that British younger people welcome immigrant diversity as an economic asset. Their world has been turned upside-down by a generation that will not be around to bear the pain of Brexit madness.

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

Maxime Bernier’s ideas should be defeated at the ballot box, not in the back rooms of the Leaders’ Debates Commission.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 26, 2019.

OTTAWA—The broadcast debate rule makers need to take another look at their election work. By the current rules established for party leader participation, floor-crosser Lucien Bouchard would have been silenced.

At the time of the 1993 election, Bouchard was the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, having been previously elected as a Progressive Conservative. His party did not field candidates across the country, the second of the three criteria established for entering October’s debates.

The rules currently bar the People’s Party of Canada from the debate because leader Max Bernier was elected as a Tory. Can you imaging the uproar if the founding leader of the Bloc had been denied a seat at the televised debating table?

Rules say a party must run candidates in 90 per cent of the ridings across the country, which again eliminates new regional parties like the Bloc. The threshold for support is either a reasonable chance to win a couple of seats, or support from approximately four per cent of the popular vote in a general election. Current polling numbers situate the PPC just under 3 per cent with a chance to win one seat. Those numbers will fluctuate once the campaign begins.

Not surprisingly, the decision to block Bernier has been met by other parties with muted acquiescence. Conservatives are breathing a sigh of relief because Bernier is trying to tap into the right wing of their base. New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh went so far as to claim the party should be blocked because its viewpoints are odious, and do not deserve a platform.

Many Canadians might have felt the same way about a separatist party, but it was never denied a voice at the table.

Politicians of any stripe should not welcome state-mandated censorship, even when they vehemently disagree with another party’s viewpoint. An organization headed by a sitting Member of Parliament, with candidate recruitment across the country, deserves a chance to be heard.

Last weekend, Bernier’s party held a countrywide candidates’ convention in the nation’s capital, attended by 500 people. The party has managed to nominate candidates from coast to coast and has even recruited some dubious stars, like the widow of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford.

Bernier, who came within two percentage points of leading the Conservative Party, is no political neophyte. His father sat as a Tory member before him, and with his deep roots in that party, Bernier also managed to recruit a number of former Conservative colleagues. Most of them claim to have left the Conservative party to pursue more freedom of speech. They believe the current crop of Tories are too mainstream, denying debate on race and immigration issues.

The PPC is officially advocating a reduction in annual immigration targets by two-thirds, and an end to multiculturalism in the country. Their leader also claims that climate change has not been caused by human activity, despite ample scientific evidence to the contrary.

I am not a fan of Bernier’s ideas. From his misrepresentation of global warming to his call to build a wall against Canadian immigration, he represents the antithesis of my political philosophy. But surely his viewpoint is relevant.

If politically-appointed committees are destined to decide which perspectives can be aired, how does that strengthen democracy?

Bernier’s ideas should be beaten at the ballot box, but he should not be outside the debates looking in. That only strengthens his party’s capacity to play the victim card. Marginalized supporters will claim that their voices are being ignored in favour of other politically correct perspectives.

Given the makeup of the moderators for the English language debate, you can hardly blame them. The debate airing on October 7 features five respected women journalists, including Lisa Laflamme of CTV, Rosemary Barton of CBC, Dawna Friesen of Global, Althia Raj of Huffpost and The Toronto Star’s Susan Delacourt.

All of the aforementioned have the qualifications and the experience to be excellent moderators. But why should a panel on Canadian politics only include participants of one gender? I would be first to complain if the debate consortium had chosen only men. So why is it okay to repeat gender bias with a women-only line-up? Former governor-general David Johnston, the first-ever debates commissioner, is treading a fine line in decisions on the format and composition of the debates. In French, there will be a mix of genders, with three men and two women journalists.

By excluding Bernier from this politically correct table, Johnson is providing dangerous fodder to the populists.

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 August 27, 2018.

OTTAWA—Maxime Bernier’s surprise resignation last week will not put an end to a raucous Tory debate on identity politics.

Instead of buying peace in advance of the writ, the Conservative announcement of a Canada-wide immigration tour will serve to magnify internal differences of viewpoint.

As for Bernier’s plan to start a new party, his reach far exceeds his grasp. Former allies will be reluctant to throw their support behind an also-ran who seems to be suffering from an aggravated attack of sour grapes. His claim that he did not change, but the party did, is simply not credible.

On the diversity issue, Bernier is stoking the same flames as former leader Stephen Harper, who supported a snitch line for un-Canadian behaviour in the dying days of the last campaign. Harper thought it was a winning wedge issue, but he turned out to be dead wrong and it was one of the reasons he lost the election.

When it comes to multiculturalism, the Tory party may embrace less diversity. But the country does not. Consider the backlash already facing immigration critic Michelle Rempel for her supportive statements about a white supremacist’s heckle directed at the prime minister.

Rempel sided with a right-wing, anti-immigrant group member who asked Trudeau whether he was tolerant of “vieille souche” (old stock) Quebecers. The meaning of that phrase has evolved over time.

In recent years it has become code for race, but the term is much older. It harkens back to a time when divisions in Quebec were based on battle lines drawn between French and English. The designation of “old stock” was a way of differentiating francophones from anglophones.

Like another Quebec term “pure laine” (pure wool), the definition references those who share unblemished French roots.

Former CBC journalist Normand Lester, who was fired from Radio Canada for publishing a three volume “Black Book on English Canada,” presents a frightening perspective of old-stock thinking in his tomes.

According to Lester, “Since the Conquest, English Canada has been guilty of crimes, of violations of human rights, of exclusionary behaviour toward all those who did not have the happiness to be white, protestant Anglo-Saxons. This overview of the history of Canada reveals injustices, discriminatory practices, racist and hateful utterances, encouragement to commit violence and claims by political men, journalists, and Anglo-Canadian intellectuals against French-Canadians.”

In Lester’s words, I was one of the main perpetrators of lies because as minister of Canadian Heritage, I funded projects that promoted an understanding of our shared history.

Lester had no idea that my own mother’s French roots are traced to the fifty founding Acadian families that settled in Nova Scotia four centuries ago, and fought against the English in the battle of Grand-Pre.

Our prime minister is also the product of a so-called mixed-marriage, as his grandfather was French-Canadian and his grandmother was Scottish. His mother is also an anglophone. The Elliott in his father’s middle name is an homage to that side of the family.

Add race to the mix and you have potential for a real political explosion.

Politics is about identifying and rallying like-minded people and convincing them to support your position, and your party. Increasingly, in the Canadian context, individuals have multiple identifiers.

In the last century, many political battles were based on religion. Catholics fought Protestants, everyone else fought the Jews. But as religions became less dominant in Canadian life, their political importance diminished. Unlike the United States, where churches still play a huge role in politics, the dominance of Canadian secularism supersedes that influence.

Provinces like Quebec and Newfoundland have largely rejected former political fiats from the Catholic Church in their national affairs. In Ontario, the Orange Order can no longer use their clout to ensure the election of Protestants to public office. Those powers have been diluted by religious intermarriage and the convergence of many cultures.

Bernier may decry the notion of “extreme multiculturalism” but he is marching against time. So are those Canadians, mostly Tories, who support him.

So-called visible minorities are actually the majority in Toronto, and identity markers are multiplying at a phenomenal rate.
My own daughter has ancestors from Europe, Latin America and Asia. She is hardly going to respond to an old stock call for support. And neither will most of her generation.

Bernier is playing with fire. That does not matter to a man on his own leadership mission. Burning down the Tory house suits this twisted narrative. Bernier may torch his former rival in the process.

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, May 22, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Like it or not, we are back in the free trade debate.

But chances are, it won’t be as divisive as the one we experienced in the election of 1988.

This time, there will be a fair bit of unanimity around the big issues. But be prepared for a few Canadian sacred cows to be sacrificed in the process. When I speak of sacred cows, I am of course not referring to the beasts themselves, but rather what they produce.

U.S. President Donald Trump has his sights squarely set on the abolition of the supply-managed Canadian dairy system.

Trump believes that Wisconsin carried him to the White House, and in so doing, it brokered a favour and secured a champion to open northern borders to state milk.

Canada can trot out all the data it wants to prove that the United States is getting as good as it gives in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The figures prove it.

But in the alternative Trump truth, what matters is politics. And he has supply management in his crosshairs.

It is also true that support for this unique made-in-Canada solution to dairy productions has been facing mixed reviews at home for years.
 
The latest politician to line up against the dairy farmers is none other that the likely future leader of the Conservative Party, Beauce Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier.

The strongest political support for the existing system comes from Quebec, but the loudest voice to kill it belongs to Bernier.

Ontario dairy farmers are not as vocal but they are equally political, with strong lobbying efforts in Ottawa, and direct contact with every Member of Parliament in rural Canada.

Those members punch above their weight. But given the vocal opposition of Bernier, if the government is forced to sacrifice supply management, it will be less politically damaging.
 
Most Canadians are too young to remember when supply management was introduced into Parliament. The system was the brainchild of a former minister in the Pierre Trudeau government, colourful Windsor-area Eugene Whelan, whose signature green Stetson was recognizable across the country.

Whelan left politics after an unsuccessful run against John Turner for the Liberal leadership back in 1984.

But his unique contribution remains to this day, and the beauty of the system is that the government offers no direct subsidies but, instead, controls the supply of milk to secure better financial yields for farmers.

The unique process drives most economists crazy and opponents often cite the high cost of Canadian milk to justify eliminating the tool in every international trade negotiation.

It survived several rounds of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiation, it survived the Free Trade Agreement and its’ successor NAFTA. It survived the Trans Pacific Partnership, despite fierce opposition from dairy-rich New Zealand. It even survived the recent Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) signed with the European Union.

But it may not survive Trump’s bombast. Dairy farmers and their cooperatives have been preparing for the end for years. They have been economically savvy in developing and marketing their own value-added milk products, through companies like Agropur, which is tapping into the burgeoning yoghurt market, and producing other dairy-based foods.

If the Canadian government is forced to put supply management on the chopping block, the blow could be softened with some value-added transformation financing, like that offered to the grape growers during the first round of bilateral trade agreements almost 30 years ago.

The reopening of NAFTA may offer opportunities in other sectors.

With the United States facing a world backlash based on some of Trump’s protectionist, wall-building pronouncements, Canada can actually become a stronger North American business hub.

In the growing fin-tech, creative and service sectors, our country could pick up where the United States is leaving off.

Certainly, Trump’s diminishing political capital in Washington may blunt his negotiating force.

As we saw during the recent British Columbia election, Canada has a few weapons of our own, when it comes to Canada-United States trade disputes.

Any border blockage of resource-rich materials actually wreaks havoc with manufacturing facilities down south that are dependent on raw product for transformation.

The reality for both countries is that a seamless North American border is a sine quae non to confront the onslaught of Asia-Pacific competition. From China to India, the world economic poles of influence are changing. Like it or not, Europe and North America are no longer privileged players.

America needs seamless northern borders as much as we do.

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, May 1, 2017.

OTTAWA—Kevin O’Leary is not the first business person to stare politics in the face, and back away.

And he most certainly won’t be the last.

The annals of history are littered with the remains of high rollers lured from business or academia for a short-lived political flirtation.

In some cases, defeat was inflicted by the electorate. Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff had all the credentials of a winner.  

Bright, articulate, and photogenic, he was convinced to leave a prestigious job at Harvard University because political operatives convinced him he could be the next prime minister.

Like Ignatieff, O’Leary was living in the United States when he fell victim to the lure of politics.

He, too, had deep Canadian roots, and was convinced that his business background and pedigree as an outsider was enough to put him in the running to become the next prime minister of Canada.

Unlike Ignatieff, O’Leary had zero command of the French language, but he naively insisted this would have no effect on his leadership bid.
 
But after little more than three months on the hustings, O’Leary took a second look at his political standing and bowed out. In doing so, he left behind thousands of new Conservative members who had signed up on line with the expressed purpose of making him their next leader.

O’Leary was widely touted as the Donald Trump of the North. In Trump’s case, he parlayed his outsider status into a plus, surprising the pundits and the world by winning the American electoral college, and thus securing the presidency of the United States.

In O’Leary’s exit statement, he claimed that his reason for stepping down was that he could not see a clear path to victory against Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

With almost one-quarter of the country made up of francophones who would not appreciate his unilingualism, O’Leary decided to throw his support behind Quebecer Maxime Bernier.
 
Less than two months ago, the two were sparring partners, with Bernier accusing O’Leary of being “a tourist in Quebec” and arguing that you can’t “govern Italy without speaking Italian.”

Last week, the final numbers were in and Bernier was proved right. O’Leary knew exactly how many members he had recruited and realized that his supporters were not numerous enough to win the leadership.

So rather than lose, O’Leary dropped out, citing the electability factor and suggesting that he was doing the Conservative Party a favour by exiting the race instead of losing a national election.

Only three months ago, O’Leary was singing quite a different song. In his opening online statement, he was blunt:  “With the election of Donald Trump to our south, Canada’s largest trading partner is headed by a businessman with an aggressive strategy that could hurt the Canadian economy. Trudeau doesn’t stand a chance, and we deserve better.”

His time on the hustings must have given O’Leary an up-close and personal view of politics that few business people get to see.

The long hours, the countless rubber chicken dinners, the multiple coffee klatches with prospective delegates are a lot less sexy than getting powdered up for a televised edition of Dragon’s Den, or its American counterpart, Shark Tank.

In many respects, the job of a politician is much more demanding for much less money than most private sector ventures.

And O’Leary the business man is all about return on investment.

He discovered that political life is really a lot more difficult than most business people realize.

O’Leary’s parting claim that he was unlikely to beat Trudeau does not bode well for any Conservative leader.

With his notoriety, and business credentials, O’Leary might have become a formidable foil for the current prime minister.

Instead, the libertarian mantle has now been passed on to Bernier, who has a reputation as a smooth communicator with deep political roots in Quebec.

When it comes to policies, Bernier’s views are even more radical than O’Leary’s. Sell the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, dump supply management, and deny climate change are just a few of ultraconservative positions that Bernier espouses.

He does not believe government should ever give money to business, opposes equalization payments to have-not provinces, and believes most federal services should be decentralized.

His pared-down platform resonates with former O’Leary followers, and will probably propel Bernier to party victory.

But winning the country is another story. O’Leary revealed his decision to step down was based on the belief he could not beat Trudeau.

Bernier should heed O’Leary’s blunt analysis.

Canadians don’t elect extremists.

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