Like the survivors of the Linda May, descendants of the ‘Lucky Seven’ will keep their story alive.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 29, 2024.

OTTAWA—The homecoming of the ‘Lucky Seven’ was something to behold.

A crowd gathered in New-Wes-Valley, N.L., to celebrate the impossible: their men had survived.

After three days lost at sea, hope was beginning to run out while a massive ocean search continued.

But the seven fishers of the Elite Navigator were sighted, and the message came back. “They are alive.”

Every fisher’s family dreads the possibility of them being lost at sea. Many don’t get the good news that the families of the ‘Lucky Seven’ received last week.

Stories of shipwrecks capture our collective imagination, but little is often recounted of those who survive.

My husband tells one such story.

He was a sickly babe in arms in 1948—barely a month old—when his father Philip Thorne and 13 others went out to the ice for sealing season.

They call it “out to the ice” because the North Atlantic is so frozen at that time of year that sealing boats wend their way through narrow open passages in search of the elusive herd of pups born on the front from St. Anthony to St. John’s.

Seals less than two weeks old are all white, and therefore most valuable.

After two weeks, the pups moult and become grey-spotted bedlamers, which are hunted on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland’s south coast.

Philip and the crew of the Linda May had already secured half a load of pups, and were on the Grand Banks hunting bedlamers when disaster struck.

Because sealing boats were surrounded by ice, the wooden-walled schooners were ill-suited for winter work. These wooden boats were primarily used to fish, but in March they were repurposed for sealing to feed families that lived on little else than what was caught in the ocean.

The schooner’s wooden walls could be crushed by shifting ice, so someone always stood watch when the vessel was navigating between two ice floes.

Philip was on watch that fateful night when the Linda May was literally cut in half by the forces of moving ice. The crew was aroused and had minutes to gather up food, water, and gear.

They escaped with just enough to fill a wooden dory with kerosene oil, charts, canvas for protection, wood, food and water. Lighting fire to the sinking ship, they hoped the smoke would be seen.

They then struck out toward Nova Scotia and the lighthouse at St. Paul’s Island, which they figured, by dead reckoning, would be the closest point of land.

By their charts and navigational knowledge, they figured it was a 100 mile walk. The march was slow because they were up and down rafted ice.

They dragged the dory by day and huddled under canvas at night while Atlantic winds howled around them. After more than a week, the dory’s wooden bottom gave out. They set it on fire in the hopes of a rescue signal.

No such luck.

Philip’s wife, Stella, and the other waiting wives were all told the men were lost at sea. Like the ‘Lucky Seven’ families, they hoped against hope, but the search was called off when authorities thought survival was impossible.

The men kept walking until the captain, the oldest of the lot, lost his mobility. He was carried on the backs of the others. After almost two weeks, they saw a light in the night sky.

Sure enough, their dead reckoning was right. They were in sight of the St. Paul’s Island lighthouse.

They finally arrived 100 metres from shore only to face the rush of freezing open water blocking passage. The youngest and strongest tied a rope around his waist and swam to shore, using the lead to ferry the others to safety.

When they finally landed on the rocks—hypothermic and desperate—they faced a 100-foot cliff, which could not be scaled. Exhausted, they literally laid down to die.

But the lighthouse keeper happened to see them and quickly organized a rescue party of his family. They lowered ropes over the cliff to pull the men up one by one.

The keeper sent a Morse code message to Halifax, ‘We got the crew of the Linda May. They are all alive.’

Imagine the joy of those families who had literally been told their men were lost at sea.

My husband’s mother had never given up hope.

The story of the Linda May is legendary in Dingwall Harbour and the communities nearby the lighthouse.

Like the survivors of the Linda May, descendants of the ‘Lucky Seven’ will keep their story alive.

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

Most confused Canadians received the payment with no explanation. If they already receive direct deposit payments, the climate bonus arrived with a simple annotation: Climate Action Incentive Plan. Talk about a missed opportunity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 22, 2024.

OTTAWA—Last week, 80 per cent of Canadians found a new year’s bonus us in their bank accounts.

The surprise deposit came from a quarterly rebate which is part of the federal government’s pollution pricing program to tackle climate change.

The numbers are impressive.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the average family of four in Alberta received $386, followed by Saskatchewan with $340, and Newfoundland and Labrador at $328.

Manitobans received $264, with Nova Scotia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island netting $248, $244 and $240 respectively. New Brunswickers received $184.

That was a quarterly, tax-free payment from the Climate Action Incentive Program destined to buffer the adjustment to the price on carbon prompted by an effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

Most confused Canadians received the payment without any explanation.

If they are already receiving direct deposit payments, the climate bonus arrived with a simple annotation: Climate Action Incentive Plan.

Talk about a missed communications’ opportunity. Most Canadians don’t have an idea what CAIP is. Somebody in government should have been able to come up with a sexier moniker to explain the new price on pollution.

A name like POP, price on pollution, would have served to refute the Conservative claim that this is a carbon tax.

Most Canadians don’t make money from a tax.

But the rollout was so quiet that many people were calling their banks to find out whether a mistaken deposit had been made.

The silent deposits were a missed moment to refute the narrative that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been peddling all year on his carbon tax.

He may be using unorthodox methods like YouTube videos and other social outreach measures, but compare that to the work of the government.

Why did nobody even write a letter to all climate action recipients explaining the basics of why they were getting the money, and how it would help them offset increased costs associated with the price on pollution?

The supply chain is facing hikes in transportation costs which ultimately get transferred to the consumer. Fuel, especially home heating, is also facing a hit.

But a payment that in some cases will amount to more than $1,500 a year should ease the pain. Poilievre has promised to cancel this payment should he form government.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau brought some new faces into cabinet last fall, with the specific aim of upping the communications game.

He also brought in a new director of communications, which some saw as a signal that he was finally going to get serious in combatting the Conservative storyline.

Some new faces have been very successful in getting out their individual messages, but when a government is floundering in the polls, ministerial announcements simply won’t be enough to turn the tide.

Instead, the government needs to invest real cash in explaining to Canadians what is at stake.

We have a planet that is burning itself up by the use of fossil fuels, and governments around the world are working to try to reduce carbon consumption.

A price on pollution is the way that the Canadian government has chosen in an effort to move the dial toward carbon reduction.

The quarterly rebate is an attempt to protect more vulnerable Canadians from the financial hit they could face because of pollution pricing.

Everyone needs to do their part, but getting a quarterly cheque from the government is not a bad political move.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears, did it really fall?

If a payment goes into your bank account with no explanation, did the government really send it?

The fact that people had no idea how this money ended up in their bank accounts is proof positive that the Liberal communications strategy needs an enema.

Either the government gets serious about using paid means, including major advertising and direct communication with each taxpayer, or the Liberals might as well cede the next election.

They have a great story to tell. But the old way of ministerial announcements is outdated and ineffective.

In the last century, when families received the baby bonus cheque to help with family expenses, the payment went directly to women and was clearly marked “Baby Bonus.”

Pretty hard to mistake that payment. That was a program that people still remember.

Now is the time to POP the question. Are Canadians ready to help in the battle to put a Price on Pollution?

The answer is yes. But the question has not even been asked.

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 14, 2023.

OTTAWA—While forest fires rage around the world, some Canadian leaders continue to deny climate change.

Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault launched regulations last week to build a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, as opponents lined up against him.

Canada’s official opposition leader continues his “Axe the Tax” campaign while premiers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba add their voices to those who want to get rid of carbon pricing.

National pollsters added fuel to the debate with findings that the majority of Canadians do not think the carbon pricing has actually positively influenced the environment.

A poll published last week by Nanos research said two-thirds of Canadians say it is a poor time to increase the cost of carbon, and a majority who said they believe the carbon price increase is ineffective at tackling climate change.

That result was not surprising. When is there ever a good time for a tax increase in most peoples’ minds?

To be fair, ordinary Canadians are not involved in the minute details of what needs to be done to tackle climate change.

But the notion that an increase in the cost of carbon will not affect carbon use is simply not logical, whatever the polling says.

It was the increase in the cost of gas during the climate crisis in the last century that encouraged the introduction of smaller vehicles and increased focus on reducing emissions.

Emissions are reduced when less carbon is burned. Less carbon is burned when vehicles are lighter, smaller and more fuel efficient.

The rise in the purchase of hybrid vehicles and electric cars is directly linked to the increasing cost of fuel.

One only has to travel to Europe or Asia to see how the high price of gasoline has encouraged people to move into smaller cars, and multiple means of lower-emitting forms of transportation.

A poll about taxation or carbon pricing does not delve deeply enough into the real problem.

The question should be comparative. Are you willing to pay more in energy costs to reduce fires and floods? That is the real cost-benefit analysis that must be done by governments, companies, and consumers.

According to Driving, most recent 2021 statistics show that one in four vehicles purchased in Canada is a pickup truck. The highest number of pickup truck users are in Alberta with the highest per capita usage of trucks in Saskatchewan.

Ontario’s population is more than three times greater than that of Alberta, but consumers in Canada’s most populous province don’t buy as many trucks. Ontario’s rural footprint is also much larger than Alberta’s.

The more it costs to fill up those vehicles, the more consumers will make decisions to move to smaller and more energy-efficient vehicles.

Carbon pricing will affect purchasing practices, but changes won’t show up immediately.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston was on the news last week attacking the federal carbon pricing program.

But he is also lined up looking for financial help in the wake of disastrous loss of life and property caused by fires and floods resulting from global warming in his province.

The federal government pays 90 per cent of the cost of disaster relief.

This year will likely be the most expensive for disaster relief payouts in history based on the number of forest fires and floods across the country.

Houston did not have a plan to tackle climate change. He did refer to the potential of ocean wind power, and blamed the lack of wind investment on the federal government.

Houston kept repeating that he believed in solutions to climate change, but had nothing specific to offer except opposition to increase the price of carbon.

Nobody likes to pay more for anything.

But if we are serious about tackling the reality of climate change, something has to give.

Not all carbon pricing opponents are in denial. Houston kept repeating that he realized there is a problem. But he seemed ill-equipped or unprepared to offer alternatives.

The only way to move consumers toward energy efficiencies is to increase the cost of pollution caused by burning carbon.

When the world was facing a growing hole in the ozone layer, the solution was a replacement to the chemical in use as a coolant in refrigerators and air conditioners.

The new coolant was vastly more expensive. Not surprisingly, wastage dropped dramatically solving the ozone layer problem.

When things cost more, people conserve. When energy costs more, they cut back on consumption.

When transportation costs more, people’s driving habits change.

Pricing pollution is key.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 5, 2023.

OTTAWA—The political fires surrounding foreign interference are being dwarfed by real fires.

Special rapporteur David Johnston’s decision to ignore a negative parliamentary vote could have added fuel to the firestorm.

But even Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre toned down his Question Period rhetoric, asking only one foreign influence question on June 1, the day following the Johnston vote. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who introduced the “Dump Johnston” resolution, did not lead off on that issue, focusing instead on fires in Nova Scotia.

The fact that two major opposition parties moved away from Johnston indicates that the public is not as engaged with the issue as some believe.

Most people don’t know David Johnston, but they do know that he served two different governments and has a personal history as a non-partisan. He has been widely recognized for his experience in legal and university sectors, and accepted the responsibilities of being governor general.

The opposition may not like Johnston’s answer, but it is pretty hard to argue with his logic. In his decision to stay on, Johnston made it clear that he was mandated by the government and could not be removed by Parliament.

That is obvious. But it doesn’t coincide with the opposition’s attempt to keep the issue burning.

A majority in parliament should wield huge political clout. But by refusing to annul his own mandate, Johnston is banking on the fact that his personal history is strong enough to withstand the critics.

And the public may be moving on to other issues.

With real fires burning across the country, Canadians are rightly focused on that.

With firefighters working round the clock in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canadians are getting a taste of the damage that global warming can wreak upon a country with so much land vulnerable to forest fires.

According to the federal government, multiple fires are the new normal.

With the summer still ahead, politicians are rightfully concerned about fire fatigue. Professional help to fight the fires has arrived from as far away as South Africa.

More than 200 homes have burnt to the ground in Nova Scotia, with evacuees awaiting the green light to return to residences that still remain.

The forest fires and floods were predicted by scientists more than a quarter century ago, but the human toll taken by the heating of the planet is only starting to be felt.

The mayor of Halifax and the premier of Nova Scotia are working diligently with emergency services to keep residents of that city safe and battle the flames. They are also working with Ottawa to clarify the level of support coming from the federal government once the rebuilding process begins.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted personally that he would be there for any measures required to restore normalcy.

The country’s attention has been riveted by urban encroachment and the speed of fires in Halifax. The sister of a friend of mine had 10 minutes to get out of her house, which subsequently burned to the ground in a matter of hours.

The before and after pictures of her home were devastating. There was literally nothing left. No photos, no mementoes, nothing.

She has insurance, but it is going to take months to figure out whether her family will rebuild onsite or simply move on.

Heat wave warnings are in place across the country and the military is moving in to help with the aftermath of the fires in Nova Scotia. But we should expect that the evacuations being suffered in eastern Canada will continue over the summer in all parts of the country.

There are currently 2,400 firefighters attacking blazes in Alberta. Northern Quebec is currently evacuating citizens from two smaller communities.

When it comes to political issues, the public’s attention is shifting just as quickly.

At a press conference to update citizens on the situation in Nova Scotia, Progressive Conservative Premier Tim Houston accused the federal government of dragging its feet on post-Hurricane Fiona funding. He urged the federal Liberals not to repeat that mistake.

The Prime Minister’s Office rebutted his claim, saying the Fiona fund was approved within six hours of receiving the request.

In an emergency situation, all parties work together, but as the damages mount, forest fires can also become a political issue.

In the end, the real fires facing Canadians have nothing to do with China.

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

After three years and more than $25-million, it is inexplicable that the commissioners did not do a deeper dive into how the RCMP was structured.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 3, 2023.

OTTAWA–The final report of the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission came up with 130 recommendations to prevent a future massacre.

Not a single recommendation was costed. Nor was there any advice on whether the current contracting system of the RCMP is effective.

According to the commissioners, it is the job of governments to cost and deliver on their recommendations. It is also the job of governments to review contractual arrangements that provide the basis for RCMP operations in Nova Scotia.

Solutions that have no cost attached to them are going to be somewhat problematic to implement, and refusing to weigh in on the RCMP structure is inexplicable.

There was also much attention paid to gender-based violence and the need for society to tackle it.

The commission chair suggested at the press conference that men need to be humble and seek help.

He spoke about educating the perpetrators. But that is a question that is much deeper and broader than anything that can be accomplished by police forces, and it certainly did not need three years of study to reach a vapid conclusion on gender-based violence.

The commission blamed the slaughter on an inexcusable lack of communication prompted by a systemic failure in the RCMP.

There was a tweet sent out by police during the attacks, but it did not mention anything about the replica police vehicle. It also underplayed the incident, claiming police were dealing with a firearms issue.

The commission also recommended that there should be a national alert system to inform all citizens if, God forbid, a similar massacre should happen again.

Apparently, local police forces knew how to activate an alert-ready emergency, but the RCMP said it did not know how to operate the messaging system.

The commission also focused on changing the culture at the RCMP.

Likewise, this isn’t the first time that an outside body has asked for a change to the culture of the RCMP.

Former RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki made culture change her top priority, and she was knee-capped from within her own organization. Some of her colleagues appeared quite happy to publicly and regularly undercut the first woman to head the RCMP.

One report finding was a criticism that the RCMP didn’t make efforts to alert residents of threat. They were too focused on finding the gunman.

In retrospect, that is an obvious conclusion. But the reality of tracking a killer is that police are supposed to be focused on finding and neutralizing the gunman.

At the time, the police were also dealing with fires that had been set by the gunman, and houses burning down while the assailant moved through communities in a fake police vehicle on his murderous mission.

The communications gaps in the police handling of the massacre were widely documented.

The most glaring error is that the police did not let citizens know that a fake police vehicle was being used by the assailant.

The lack of that information undoubtedly led to many victims assuming that an approaching police vehicle was there to help them avoid the assailant.

Instead, they were slaughtered.

But at the end of the day, the key question is all about the sharing of information. In normal police operations, secrecy is paramount. In many instances, less communication is considered better.

So, it may be understandable that public communication of the situation was not the top priority of those few police officers who were in the field trying to track down the attacker.

The commission did not make any recommendations on changing the system of contract policing under which the Nova Scotia RCMP currently operates.

At the March 30 press conference, they defended that omission, saying that decision was a political one and they felt it should be made by politicians.

But after three years and more than $25-million, it is inexplicable that the commissioners did not do a deeper dive into how the RCMP was structured.

The commission roundly condemned the RCMP and suggested their historical RCMP Depot training system should be replaced by university degrees in policing within a few years. Again, no cost on that.

The messages on gender and domestic violence have been repeated ad nauseum, but do not necessarily lead to solutions.

Asking violent men to “seek help” sounds like a great idea, but when you are dealing with a crazed gunman, he is probably not going to follow that advice.

The commission delivered decent recommendations on bullets and gun ownership changes, but it did little to prevent future massacres.

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

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 30, 2021.

The first weeks do not an election make. But they do get volunteers fired up or worried, depending upon the momentum of each political party.

Conservatives and New Democrats are buoyed by an uptick in their support, while Liberals are understandably concerned about an unexpectedly slow start.

Between Afghanistan and the surprise Tory win in Nova Scotia, there was no good news coming the Liberal way during a launch that should have been seamless. After all, the prime minister had control over the date and timing of the election.

No one could have predicted the speedy fall of Kabul to the Taliban, and with American President Joe Biden digging his heels in on a quick departure, the Afghanistan exodus is beyond Canada’s control. While fingers will be pointed at Justin Trudeau, the reality is that no other party can point to anything that they would have done differently.

Some commentators are comparing the Afghanistan situation to a turning point in the demise of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. But this time around, no one is promising a snitch line to report on barbaric practices. In that election, foreign policy positions of the two main parties offered real choices. Tories said it would take years to bring Syrian refugees to Canada, reinforcing the impression that refugee resettlement was not a priority. Liberals offered, and acted upon, a speedy resettlement.

This time around, all parties are on the same page when it comes to Afghanistan. The election will not turn on that issue. Instead, Canadians will be voting on pocketbook priorities.

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole crafted a platform document designed to move his party closer to the critical political centre. Some claims need to be challenged. His support for universal healthcare is questionable because he refuses to cut transfers to provinces that allow queue-jumping for people who can come up with cash payments. Saskatchewan currently allows preferential treatment for some patients requiring an MRI. If you pay up to $1,000, you can jump the line and get your diagnosis dealt with quicker than those who cannot afford personal payment.

His position on daycare is equally problematic because O’Toole plans to tear up the new provincial/territorial childcare agreements signed across the country.

O’Toole has come up with some high-profile promises to reach out beyond his usual right-wing support base. His plan to put a workers’ representative on the board of every major corporation was designed to let Canadians know that he is union-friendly, a far cry from his predecessors’ perspectives.

The tightening of the race so early in the campaign may actually play in the Liberals’ favour.

New Democratic leader Jagmeet Singh has made multiple billion dollar, uncosted promises, like his vow to nationalize private retirement homes and his proposal to build 500,000 affordable Canadian homes. In previous campaigns the NDP’s third-party status meant there were very few tough questions during most of the campaign. But this time, the big-ticket promises are being put under early scrutiny.

Singh needs to make a breakthrough in places like Hamilton, where his party has only one returning federal Member of Parliament but four provincial representatives. Singh’s pledge to cancel all pipelines directly hits the steel industry and hurts Hamilton. Perhaps that is why he has not been able to find a Hamiltonian to run in either of the two seats where the party has the best chance.

In Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, a riding held by the party provincially, their candidate lives and works in Ottawa. On Hamilton Mountain, where the outgoing Member of Parliament was a New Democrat, their candidate is a 67-year-old defeated Member of Parliament from Welland, approximately 75 kilometres away. He lost in that riding twice, beaten by Liberal Vance Badawey in 2015 and 2019.

Instead of trying to win in his own home, Malcolm Allen was parachuted into a Hamilton seat following the retirement of NDP MP Scott Duvall. Why would the party choose someone who cannot win in his own riding?

The quality of candidates will also be weighed by voters. If Hamilton is any indication, the New Democrats may have a lot more work than simply costing their promises.

The Liberals still have time to pivot. This tight race means the leaders’ debate will be even more crucial than previous elections, as voters square up behind the Conservatives or the Liberals. That may once again put the New Democrats in the unenviable position of trying to convince Canadians that a vote for them will not elect the Tories.

Campaigns matter.

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 January 14, 2019.

OTTAWA—Scott Brison’s surprise departure is a wake-up call for Atlantic Liberals.

His successor will have big shoes to fill.

Brison was always ahead of the curve. One of Canada’s first openly gay Members of Parliament, he moved seamlessly from the Progressive Conservatives to the Liberals when the Tory party severed with its progressive wing.

Brison was a great minister and MP, continually re-elected and popular in Ottawa and his constituency.

He posted seven successive election victories and served as a capable, no-nonsense minister in two Liberal governments. He also found time to build strong hometown ties, fathering two daughters with his partner Maxime Saint-Pierre. The retirement will not doubt provide more time to spend with his growing family.

As Brison’s social media post said “now is the time for others to walk that path, and I pass the baton knowing that Canadians will always collectively make the wise, democratic choice that puts good women and men in the Parliament of Canada, year after year, election after election.”

Brison has always had a great political antenna and, while he said his decision was family-based, his reflection had to include a review of the party’s political popularity meter in Nova Scotia.

In the last election, Liberals swept Atlantic Canada with Brison garnering 70 per cent support in his riding. It goes without saying that will not be the outcome of the next election.

The Liberals have nowhere to go but down. And unlike most other parts of the country, the biggest beneficiary of Liberal losses will be the Conservative Party.

Brison’s own riding was always blue until he decided to cross the floor and the constituents entrusted their confidence in him.

Tory popularity is on the rise in the East. The Liberals are definitely down but not out.

But the Grit focus on pipelines in the West has left their longtime supporters wondering what is in it for them.

Brison was a senior minister in Atlantic Canada. With his resignation, the region has lost a national heavyweight but that will be addressed this week.

With the exception of Dominic LeBlanc and Lawrence MacAulay, other Atlantic ministers are junior in rank and experience. Some in the party are complaining that the region is underrepresented in cabinet.

With election year kicking in, it is tough to point to a visionary eastern project that will excite voters in the next campaign. While the country is deeply involved in the government’s attempt to facilitate a western pipeline, there does not seem to be a similar Atlantic agenda.

Having made a British Columbian breakthrough in the last campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau undoubtedly wants to hold onto his gains.

But in the down and dirty world of electoral politics, the most important supporters are those who have been with you longest.

Atlantic Canada has been a bastion for Liberals even during tough times.

And they might be feeling a little taken for granted.

Brison said all the right things about his support for the party and his intention to help win the next election.

But by voting with his feet, he becomes the first Liberal to leave on the eve of an election.

The New Democrats have bled resignations in the past year, and that is usually a portent of diminishing electoral expectations.

If Jagmeet Singh is not successful in the upcoming byelection, the party will undoubtedly see more departures.

As for the Tories, Andrew Scheer has a bounce in his step and his team appears to be solidly gearing up for the fight.

Brison’s decision may be a solitary one. But if more Liberals decide to leave, there is a message in that as well.

One of the challenges of the new fixed date election system is that the campaign is already off and running even though the date is Oct. 21.

Every decision is now seen through an election lens. The Brison story has the potential to move from a single resignation to that of a potential eastern narrative.

Trudeau delivered on the marijuana promise, and Nova Scotia is actually the biggest beneficiary of that decision.

But the party’s electoral hopes in Atlantic Canada could go up in smoke if they don’t have anything more to offer.

A carbon cheque will not cut it, as people will be happy to cash in and vote for the competition.

The reality is that most regions do not decide on what government did yesterday. They want to know what is coming tomorrow.

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

Atlantic Canada is waiting.

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.