But Doug Ford’s move in cutting off the possibility of advertising that could depict him negatively will have an impact in the fight ahead. It may also have a rebound effect federally and not in the way Ford intended.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 14, 2021.

OTTAWA—Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s decision to limit third-party political advertising by invoking the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause is not surprising.

The Ontario legislature was recalled last week, less than a week after it rose for the summer, for a vote to overturn a court decision on the controversial use of third-party advertising dollars before elections.

An Ontario Superior Court judge just ruled that a new Ontario law limiting third-party advertising in the lead up to an election was an unconstitutional limit on free expression.

The ruling did not overturn a current $100,000 limit on third-party advertising during the course of an election writ period.

Ford’s majority will have no problem passing legislation to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Both opposition parties called the move an attack on free speech. And while they have the courts behind them, chances are the vote will have zero political impact outside of the inner circle of political parties.

Most people have little understanding of the myriad of rules that govern spending and advertising within the writ period and on an ongoing basis. Nor do they care.

They have a lingering belief that all politics is slightly slimy and care little about rules for political advertising.

Most voters will stoutly claim that they are not influenced by ads, and the majority will claim they oppose negative messaging.

But the bottom line is that negative third-party advertising works.

In two successive elections, anti-Liberal advertising money from right-wing coalitions was able to effectively label Liberal leaders Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff long before the election writ was dropped.

On the campaign trail, voters even quoted directly from negative ads in explaining why they oppose a particular candidate.

The Conservative campaign victory in both instances was partially prompted by the onslaught of negative campaigning long before the election was even called.

Ford’s party felt the same sting when Liberal premier Kathleen Wynne scored a surprising victory with the help of advertising support from Working Families, a union-sponsored initiative that encouraged people not to vote for the Tories.

Working Families was the same coalition that took the Ford government to court because of the recent limits on third party advertising in the year leading up to the election.

The judgment in their favour will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

And we can expect a court appeal of the upcoming notwithstanding legislation.

The drafters of the original Charter of Rights and Freedoms included the notwithstanding clause as a quid pro quo to get almost all provinces on board. Quebec has never signed the constitutional document.

However, the clause was supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances. It certainly was not seen as a tool with which to rewrite election law.

By invoking the clause for this political reason, the Ford government risks damaging the overarching message of the Charter, which protects and supports the rights of all, including minorities.

The Charter was instrumental in paving the way for marriage equality in the LBGTQ communities.

An attack on that Charter could become a political issue in communities that are still struggling to achieve full equality.

With racism and sexism still top of mind concerns for some voters, the decision to weaken the Charter could become an election issue.

But more likely, the Conservative government’s decision to cut off third-party advertising with the notwithstanding clause will help narrow the election gap that currently exists.

A recent poll commissioned by Ontario’s public broadcaster, TVO, shows that Ford has potentially leapt back into re-election contention after a disastrous spring.

In a survey by Maru asking Ontarians who they would have preferred at the helm during the pandemic, 42 per cent cited the Tories, with the New Democrats at 25 per cent and the Liberals at 24 per cent. Surprisingly, the Green Party garnered nine per cent support.

Those numbers will not remain stagnant until the election. With federal infighting in the Green Party, that will likely filter through to the provincial results.

But Ford’s move in cutting off the possibility of advertising that could depict him negatively will most likely have an impact in the fight ahead.

It may also have a rebound effect federally and not in the way Ford intended.

The biggest third-party spenders in federal politics have been supporters of the Conservatives who load up on advertising to fight the Liberals.

If Ford’s plan works, the federal Liberals might be encouraged to replicate it. In that instance, the national Tories will lose out.

For now, all eyes are on Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so this time.

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

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

I beg to differ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No election is easy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that momentum comes with a lot more public attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does mean that this volatile election is not over.

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