By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 2, 2023.

OTTAWA—Aestas horribilis. Horrible summer.

That is all that can be said about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attempt to reboot the agenda with a cabinet shuffle, new faces and a fresh parliamentary look.

Last week’s disastrous revelation of a former Nazi soldier getting a standing ovation in the House of Commons was simply the final nail in the coffin of a bad political season for the Liberal leader.

It is true that the prime minister was not responsible for the invitation to a former member of the Ukrainian 1st Galician division, a unit of the Nazi war machine.

That decision was the sole responsibility of the former speaker Anthony Rota.

Rota received a request from his constituency to have the war veteran at the parliamentary event welcoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenksy on Sept. 22.

The visit was supposed to showcase support for the Ukrainian effort to defend itself against the illegal invasion by Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Instead, it has become a tool for Putin’s false claim that his attack was really a defence against the Nazification of neighbouring Ukraine.

All Canadians were shocked to learn of veteran Yaroslav Hunka’s military record. The only person more shocked than the prime minister was Speaker Anthony Rota, who was forced to resign as pressure mounted following the revelation of the veteran’s Nazi status.

On Sept. 25, the New Democratic Party was the first to call for the speaker’s resignation. They were joined later in the day by the Bloc Québécois, and followed the next morning by several Liberal cabinet ministers, and ultimately by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

Poilievre expressed his views on Rota’s status via X (formerly Twitter).

But he spent the whole of Question Period blaming the debacle on the prime minister. Even though Rota told the House that it was his decision and his alone to invite and recognize his constituent, Poilievre laid the whole mess at the prime minister’s feet.

Poilievre repeated his false claim that it was up to the prime minister’s security people to vet all visitors to the parliamentary gallery.

In reality, all Members of Parliament are entitled to issue invitations to their own personal guest list, and that list is not vetted by the government.

Trudeau argued during Question Period that to follow Poilievre’s logic, the government would have to sign off on all parliamentary visitors, which would be a breach of the separation that exists between government and Parliament.

But the opposition leader has made it his personal mission to make Trudeau wear the mess that Poilievre has characterized as “the worst diplomatic embarrassment” in Canadian history.

All other leaders appear to have accepted Trudeau’s explanation that, as leader of the government, he has no authority over the visitors invited to Parliament.

It remains to be seen how the public will view the personalized nature of the attacks by the leader of the opposition.

Most are probably as confused as Members of Parliament who had no idea they were offering multiple standing ovations to a veteran who fought against the Allies in the Second World War.

It seems complicated but is likely the egregious mistake of an overzealous constituency assistant who responded to a community request to attend the session.

As House speaker, Rota was not involved in any aspects of the Liberal government activity. But he also runs for re-election, and as such, his role as the speaker offers an opportunity to invite constituents to Ottawa for major parliamentary events like the opening of the House and international visits by dignitaries.

The role of the Speaker in the House of Commons is sacrosanct. They are the leader of the place, and no one, including the prime minister, has the power to edit their speeches or guest list.

Poilievre’s approach is to lay the blame squarely on the prime minister’s shoulders.

In a proposal to the House operations committee, a Conservative committee member suggested a list of invitees to a proposed review committee that, curiously, excluded the speaker.

That approach may not be parliamentary, but the Tory intention is to damage Trudeau and his government, and facts do not matter in this mission statement.

Poilievre’s aggression may cause some backlash from the public. In the meantime, it is Trudeau who is feeling the pain from the commencement to a fall session that is as acrimonious as Poilievre.

Following her new appointment this summer, Government House Leader Karina Gould vowed to lower the temperature during Question Period by restoring a sense of civility to the institution.

But the first parliamentary week continued to be an aestas horribilis.

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

Carey Price learned that lesson last week when he weighed in on the current anti-gun debate roiling in the House of Commons.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 12, 2022.

OTTAWA—Hockey players should stay out of politics. Carey Price learned that lesson last week when he weighed in on the current anti-gun debate roiling in the House of Commons.

Poor Price should have stuck to hockey. He is definitely one of the best goalies in the business, but his depth of political knowledge is somewhat limited.

How else to explain the claim by the Montreal Canadiens that Price had never heard of the misogynistic massacre at École Polytechnique?

Their apologetic excuse, subsequently denied by Price, was that the event happened before he was born.

But that poorly-crafted lie inflamed the situation to the point where it even became a main topic for discussion in the Quebec National Assembly.

Price remembers who scored the winning goal in the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series, even though he wasn’t born when it happened. 

Price remembers the famous Montreal Canadiens record-breaking lineup of the Rocket Richard, Jacques Plante, Doug Harvey, and Jean Béliveau.

But for some reason, Canadian women’s history does not seem to have had the same historical resonance, according to the Canadiens’ management. 

There is nothing wrong with someone weighing in on the facts around gun possession.

As a gun owner, Price was speaking from a place of personal experience. 

But before he decided to become the chief spokesperson for the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, he should have done a little research into the details of the subject.

The ongoing gun violence in Canada’s major cities obviously needs action. But that urban desire for action runs smack into a rural desire to continue recreational hunting and fishing. 

Any political move must balance the wishes of both, unless the government has decided it does not want to elect any rural Members of Parliament. 

Price isn’t the only one who is opposing the current gun amendments.  

The Saskatchewan Party is using the legislation as a fundraising tool, having already launched a protest petition called “Stop the Trudeau gun ban”.

When it comes to gun laws, even some Liberals and New Democrats think the proposed legislation has gone too far.

New Democrat MP Charlie Angus has publicly attacked the government for amendments which include banning approximately half a million widely used hunting rifles that were approved for sale in the last batch of gun amendments. 

“I think they made some serious mistakes with this amendment and they have to fix it” was his blunt assessment of the gun ban extension to semi-automatic SKS rifles.  

Angus is right. Chances are the decision to extend the ban to SKS rifles was made by someone who had no idea of the political uproar it would cause.

The government has always argued that its gun legislation was meant to prevent mass murder, not to criminalize legal hunters. 

Many Canadians have actually purchased the SKS rifles in good faith as they were not on any previous ban list.

But the recommendation by Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino that the government should buy back the banned weapons is not going to cut it. 

Instead, the cabinet needs to incorporate some political smarts into its policy-making.

If a key opposition voice like Angus, a northerner with a long and successful political career, can’t stomach the amendments, chances are they need to go.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that the current list of banned guns is being reviewed to ensure that it does not target legitimate gun owners. 

But Price’s inflammatory comments could encourage the government to double down on its position. 

The issue was a public relations fiasco for the Montreal Canadiens, who wrongly issued the original statement that Price did not know of the Polytechnique massacre.

He subsequently reversed that position in a social media post when he said he knew about the massacre of 14 women on Dec. 6, 1989.

On the eve of the anniversary, further outrage was provoked when the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights used the promo code “POLY” for purchasers to secure a 10 per cent discount on arms’ items from its online store. 

Price’s posting gave oxygen to the PolySeSouvient movement, which is lobbying for more limits on guns. 

Gun laws in Canada have proven to be political quicksand for successive governments in the past half century. 

It is impossible to table a piece of legislation which will satisfy both sides of this highly polarized debate.

However, if politics is defined as the art of the possible, the government needs to find a middle ground.

The best new gun law will likely satisfy neither side completely.

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

The veteran MP from Wellington-Halton Hills is touting a trio of reforms that he claims will take power away from the prime minister and give it to members of Parliament.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 29, 2022.

OTTAWA—Member of Parliament Michael Chong is back on the reform bandwagon.

The veteran Conservative MP from Wellington-Halton Hills is touting a trio of reforms that he claims will take power away from the prime minister and give it to members of Parliament.

But before we jump on the Chong train-wreck, let’s review the result of his last round of reforms.

Chong came up with the idea that every caucus should be able to turf its leader if one-fifth of the caucus signs an expulsion petition, which is then followed by a secret ballot majority caucus vote.

The original reforms, introduced in a private member’s bill by Chong, were passed by a huge majority vote in the House of Commons.

There was one proviso that made the legislation palatable for everyone. Its implementation was subject to a vote by each caucus at the beginning of every Parliament.

So far, the only caucus that has actually embraced Chong’s reforms has been his own.

And we have seen what a disastrous result that has been for his party.

Since the introduction of Chong’s legislation, the Conservative Party has dumped two leaders within months of a national election, amid open crossfire by party dissidents looking for someone to blame for their loss.

The party has been in shambles with so much infighting that it is difficult to see how ongoing leadership rifts will be healed after the leadership change Sept. 10.

Chong claims reform was introduced to give power to members of Parliament.

But what about members of the party, who are not elected to Parliament?

Take the case of Erin O’Toole. He lasted 18 months as leader of the Conservatives until he was expelled, courtesy of the Chong bill.

In reality, O’Toole was chosen by a majority of almost 175,000 voters and rejected by 73 voters.

How democratic is that?

And how can members of Parliament give themselves the right to remove a leader when they do not have the right to elect a leader?

In Canada, leader selection still rests with the party members. Chong’s first reform bill was a slap in the face to all those who do not sit in Parliament but who devote thousands of hours of their volunteer time to promote a political vision they share with other party members.

There is a reason why no other party has yet adopted these measures.

One of the tenets of membership in a caucus is that you rise and fall together. After an election failure, there needs to be a period of calm reflection, after which all members of the party should have a say in the leader’s status.

It should not be the right of select few members of Parliament to pull the trigger.

Chong’s new triad of reforms are just as illogical. He is claiming that the elected Speaker should determine which members of Parliament have the right to speak in the House of Commons.

That right is currently delegated to parties, based on their standing in the last election.

In elections, people mark their ballot in favour of individuals, yes, but they also vote keeping in mind the party values those individuals represent.

It is not up to the Speaker to run a popularity contest for speaking privileges.

Chong claims that by giving the Speaker these powers, members of Parliament will have to work with other parties, thus promoting more collegiality.

At the end of the day, the parliamentary system works because people represent parties. Those parties include leaders, values, policies, and members who share a vision for the direction of the country.

It is also absurd to say the prime minister controls the House of Commons.

Anyone who knows the system will understand that it is the House leaders and party whips who control the House.

That duo exists in every party, and both meet regularly amongst all parties to negotiate fair House participation.

A single Speaker deciding who gets time in Parliament is much less democratic than a committee of all parties that negotiates times, bill placement, etc.

If Chong’s first reform is any example, it has inflicted more damage than democratization upon his party. After reflection, giving the power of expulsion to a couple dozen members of Parliament may not be such a good idea after all.

Ask Erin O’Toole. He secured the most votes of any leader in the country, and came close to his goal of forming the government.

Another try might have been the charm.

Thanks to Chong’s reform, we will never know.

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

The only party that must navigate this issue with great difficulty is the Conservative Party.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 9, 2022.

OTTAWA—The f-bomb was allegedly dropped in the House of Commons on May 4 by a frustrated prime minister.

It was not picked up by any microphone and even though Conservatives vociferously demanded an apology, even they were at odds over what exactly was said.

Upon exiting the House, Justin Trudeau himself mimicked his own father’s explanation when Trudeau senior was accused of using the same language in 1971.

Members of the official opposition jumped on the transgression, but their voices were muted when a clip of leadership front-runner Pierre Poilievre emerged on social media, saying, “Fuck you guys” at a legislative committee.

An f-bomb may have been fatal a half-century ago, but today it barely makes a ripple in news coverage.

In the same way as language has been liberated, so too have social attitudes.

The notion that a non-binary leader could be the head of a Canadian political party was unheard of 50 years ago.

In fact, no one really even knew what non-binary meant.

Today, the interim leader of the Green Party is non-binary and it is common to state his/her/their declaratory gender preference.

Fifty years ago, the notion of legalizing abortion was hugely controversial. Even the most liberal of politicians had to tread carefully when the issue was up for debate.

Today, it is accepted that the majority of Canadians are in support of a woman’s right to choose.

Even in the Conservative leadership, only one candidate is openly promoting an end to abortion in Canada, even though two other candidates with similar views have been been kept off the leadership list.

The same cannot be said for Conservative party members, many of whom have public views opposing abortion and have promised to vote against the procedure in any private member’s bill brought forward in a parliamentary session.

In the last election, observers attacked the Liberals for raising the spectre of a renewed abortion debate based on the number of Tories who had promised to do so.

But now that the United States Supreme Court is preparing to rescind the law legalizing abortions in that country, the issue will move to the forefront in Canada too.

The only party that must navigate this issue with great difficulty is the Conservative Party.

The prime minister has already said that the government is looking at a regulatory amendment to the Canada Health Act to guarantee a woman’s universal right to reproductive choice. No time limit has been put on the move but one thing is certain.

The amendment will force the Conservative Party to take a solid position on the issue once and for all.

The longer it takes to bring in any changes, the better it is for the Liberals. The government would love nothing better than to have that wedge issue to present to Canadians in the next election.

Six months ago, the issue was not even on the general public agenda.

But with the bombshell leak on Roe v. Wade last week, there is no doubt that a woman’s right to choose will be an ongoing political issue south of the border. And what dominates in the United States will undoubtedly have a spillover effect in Canada.

According to the Pew Research Center in Washington, 59 per cent of Americans support abortion access. That number jumps to more than 70 per cent in Canada.

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, expected in June, would immediately impact access in all states across the country, including those that currently offer the right of abortion to all.

The result of a legal reversal to reproductive access by the United States will embolden the minority of Canadians who have been actively opposing abortions for years.

It will also mean that more money, and more volunteers will be crossing the border with the same fervour enjoyed by the cross-border movement of ‘freedom fighters’ who joined the Ottawa truckers’ occupation.

There is no law in Canada on the issue of reproductive choice, but there are standards of care that have been developed by the medical profession.

However, there is an uneven application of these standards, with some provinces offer little or no access while most other provinces make abortions readily available.

The Liberals promised in the last election to introduce regulations forcing less-compliant provinces to open up their abortion access requirements.

In 2020 and 2021, New Brunswick suffered federally-imposed financial penalties totalling almost $300,000 for refusing to offer access.

Expect last week’s abortion bombshell, not the f-one, to dominate the fall agenda.

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

Time to move on from COVID.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 24, 2022.

The return of Parliament should provide a much-anticipated channel-changer from the constant barrage of COVID news that still saturates the airwaves.

Most people I know have simply tuned out to the daily update of hospitalization and infection information from every part of the country.

They are also taking the medical advice with a grain of salt. Travel advisories emanating from Ottawa are being discounted even by federal government service providers. Last year, the majority of snowbirds heeded the government’s advice to stay home and refrained from travelling because of the danger of contracting COVID.

This year, those same people have decided to ignore the repeated warnings and are heading to warmer climes to avoid the bitterly cold Canadian winters.

Even the federal government pensioners’ payment website has a general proviso that the travel prohibitions emanating from Ottawa have no affect on their insurance policies or plans.

Likewise, the travel industry is starting to fight back publicly.

Last week, the major airlines and Canada’s largest airport joined to urge the government to end the redundant random PCR testing that faces some travellers upon their return to Canada. They pointed out that the infection rate on planes hovers around two per cent and every single passenger has already undergone a PCR test to get on a plane so it makes no sense to undergo a second test on landing when tests are so scarce and the local infection rate stands at 20 per cent.

Infected residents cannot access tests because of a shortage while travellers are double-tested in an effort to discourage their movement.

The opening of the House of Commons will focus public attention on issues other than the pandemic, with inflation rearing its ugly head just in time for the return.

Statistics Canada inflation numbers published last week painted a grim picture with calculations showing the highest levels of inflation in three decades.

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole immediately tweeted out the negative results, claiming the Liberals are showing zero leadership on tackling the cost-of-living crisis.

O’Toole did not provide any specific suggestions himself, nor did he walk back his finance critic’s claim three days earlier that the cost-of-living figures were “vastly underestimated” in the methodology applied by Statistics Canada to the role played by inflation in the Consumer Price Index data.

Poilievre is great on grabbing the headlines, but the claim that Statistics Canada is cooking the books does not resonate well when his leader is about to launch a national campaign based on the very numbers the critic is questioning.

The chance for the Conservatives to make their mark on the inflation issue should not be muddied because their critic questions the veracity of Statistics Canada.

That kind of dog-whistle politics may serve Tories well in their fundraising endeavours, but it does little to prove to Canadians that they are really ready to govern the country.

To be that government-in-waiting they need to consider the big picture. Just like inflation could be a looming issue in this parliament, the Tories will want to make an example out of cultural policy when the government reintroduces legislation to amend the Broadcasting Act.

But by taking a hard line against new rules that put streaming services like Netflix on a more level playing field with traditional broadcasters, the Conservatives risk being viewed as a marginalized fringe party.

The Liberal legislation that passed a previous House of Commons vote was supported by the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois so the Tories’ support is not required for passage.

The new minister of Canadian Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez, has also been in the portfolio before and has the kind of political savvy that will make him a real champion for the legislation.

He will not get sucked down the rabbit hole of responding to social media influencers who think their blogs are the equivalent of major streaming services.

If the Tories have any hope of forming the government, they have to be able to broaden their reach in Quebec. And by fighting against C-10, they simply manage to reinforce their image as a right-wing, anti-culture party that really does not care about Canadian content, on traditional media or via the internet.

They have a small rump of ten members of parliament in Quebec. Perhaps those members will be able to convince their colleagues that a more moderated approach to broadcasting amendments will serve their long-term political agenda.

The return of the House will be a welcome channel changer. Time to move on from COVID.

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

In the old days, the House Speaker would host a Christmas party for all MPs, with plenty of carols sung to ring in the holiday season, and MPs really were friends, even those on opposite sides of the House. We all knew we had a job to do involving politics, but after hours, a lot of us socialized together. The result was a more humanized working environment.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Tiimes on December 23, 2021.

OTTAWA—Christmas used to be a time when parliamentarians on all sides of the House would get together in the holiday spirit.

Sometimes, the spirit had a twist. One Christmas, during a Progressive Conservatives majority, Santa Claus joined the children’s Christmas party dressed in blue from head to toe. Unfortunately, the colour change startled some kids and they ran out of the place crying. The next year, he returned in his regular red suit.

The other thing that political parties would do at Christmas is get together for a sing-along. After the swords were put down during the parliamentary debate in the Commons, the House Speaker would host a party for all, with plenty of carols sung to ring in the holiday season.

Even the public broadcaster joined in, with the CBC usually running a radio show featuring Members of Parliament from all sides of the house with a new take on an old Christmas carol. In those days, parliamentarians really were friends, even those on opposite sides of the House.

We all knew we had a job to do involving politics, but after hours, many would all adjourn to the National Press Club across the street from the Hill to join in holiday chatter and drinks, invited by members of the media to raise a glass together.

The result was a more humanized working environment. Most members of the press gallery knew politicians as human beings, and in some cases, friends. That didn’t mean they backed away from a story. But it did mean that they approached their work with the notion that the subject of their interview was a person with family, friends, and a likability quotient. It meant that all stories were viewed through a human lens.

Nowadays, there is no time to humanize the Hill. Reporters have little time to pursue more than the basics of their stories.

And politicians certainly don’t have the opportunity to sit around a piano and share a holiday song.

In the interest of past history, I reworked an old classic with a political twist.

“On the first day of Christmas elections sent to me, a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the second day of Christmas elections sent to me, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in Parliament—yippee.

“On the third day of Christmas elections sent to me, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the fourth day of Christmas elections sent to me, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the fifth day of Christmas elections sent to me, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the sixth day of Christmas, elections sent to me, six members braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the seventh day of Christmas elections sent to me, seven scribes a scribbling, six members braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the eighth day of Christmas elections sent to me, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the ninth day of Christmas, elections sent to me, nine members mumbling, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the tenth day of Christmas elections sent to me, ten judges judging, nine members mumbling, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the eleventh day of Christmas, elections sent to me, eleven gripers griping, ten judges judging, nine members mumbling, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.

“On the twelfth day of Christmas, elections sent to me, twelve maces marching, eleven gripers griping, ten judges judging, nine members mumbling, eight lobbyists milking, seven scribes a scribbling, six critics braying, five golden handshakes, four votes completed, three legal challenges, two premiers whining and a Trudeau in government—yippee.”

Happy Holidays to all and hopefully the new year will bring peace and joy to Parliament!

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

Back in ’80s, we didn’t hate each other in the House. But the civility marking those years is gone today.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 9, 2019.

OTTAWA—Last week, former prime minister Brian Mulroney celebrated the 35th anniversary of his momentous 1984 victory against the governing Liberals.

With the election of 211 Progressive Conservative members to the 33rd Parliament, it resulted in the biggest majority government in the history of Canada.

His daughter, Caroline Mulroney, now a provincial cabinet minister in Ontario, sent out a touching tweet, reminding the rest of us about this milestone.

‘Today marks the 35th anniversary of my father’s electoral win, which would see him become the 18th prime minister of Canada. Thank you Mom and Dad for your tremendous support and service to our country.”

Mulroney’s tweet reminded me that the day was also a celebration of my first election to Parliament, as a 31-year-old Liberal survivor in a sea of Tories.

Seasoned veteran Herb Gray and I were the only Grits elected in a swathe of millions of voters between Toronto and Windsor.

It was a scary time for the official opposition. Most commentators were predicting our demise. The majority of the caucus had been bludgeoned into silence by the magnitude of the defeat.

Ten newbies had a different idea. But the reality of Parliament was daunting. We had 40 members to cover 26 parliamentary committees.

The Tories were dominant and revelling in their solid victory. At the first children’s Christmas Party post-writ, Santa wore a blue suit. But the unfamiliar colour caused some confused kids to start crying. That was the first and last colour change.

Caroline Mulroney was 10 at the time.

Over the years, we would often see the Mulroney family at many parliamentary functions. Their youngest son, Nicolas, was born on the first anniversary of the Tory win in 1985 and my daughter came along two years later.

After the thrust and parry of Parliament, we would join to celebrate Halloween and Christmas at parliamentary events.

We didn’t hate each other.

The civility marking those years is gone.

People in different parties mistrust each other viscerally. There is little chance that friendships will cross party lines.

Just look at the donnybrook that broke out last week between the New Democrats and the Green Party. The NDP is in trouble and there is no love lost with the Greens, who are fishing in the same pond.

Some is undoubtedly political competition. The New Democrats and the Greens are trying to attract the same voter base. The loss of one is a gain to the other.

But that is not the only change in Parliament in the past 35 years.

When, as new Liberal opposition members, a few of us formed the Rat Pack to organize our attacks on the government, some senior members of our own caucus were aghast.

They believed honourable colleagues should be nice to each other and that Question Period should be non-confrontational. They disapproved of our organized, systematic attack on cabinet ministers, knocking off five in one year.

At the end of the day, colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons were actually friends.

As a new member, I really didn’t understand their perspective. I was concerned with keeping the Liberals from being pulverized by the New Democrats, who had much more experience in opposition.

One attack on then-fisheries minister John Fraser for the so-called Tunagate scandal, illustrated the point. He was such a nice person that no one wanted to see him in political trouble. But the issue was too big to ignore, after the minister overruled inspectors, and approved the sale of StarKist tuna that had been deemed “unfit for human consumption.”

The scandal forced Fraser’s resignation but he eventually returned to prominence as House Speaker.

In that capacity, Fraser welcomed my infant daughter Danelle into the backrooms of Parliament by holding her in his arms while she barfed on his ceremonial garb about two minutes before he was to enter the Chamber.

Even though we clashed in the House, we were still friends.

Similarly, then foreign minister Barbara McDougall commandeered her driver, and towels and fresh water, when my pre-schooler accidentally threw up in the revolving door leading from Centre Block.

Former Reform Party interim leader Deborah Grey used to send me cards on my birthday, and former Reform and Alliance critic Jim Abbott worked successfully to convince colleagues that Parks Canada’s development freeze was good public policy.

Then-Bloc Québécois MP Suzanne Tremblay was so supportive of our House Heritage Committee initiatives that eventually her leader forced her to switch to a less collegial critic’s post.

Those cross-party friendships of the last century appear to be non-existent today.

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, November 6, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Monday marks the 150th anniversary of the first meeting of Canadian parliamentarians.

Celebrations include the usual fanfare, with a declaration in the House of Commons, and a commemorative plaque unveiling.

But the real story of these 150 years is best expressed in how we govern ourselves.

Americans live by the credo of exceptionalism. They (falsely) believe that the country of opportunity shaped by the American Revolution is unique in the world. Their Congressional Pledge of Allegiance is overarching, laying claim to one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In Canada, we would cringe at the notion of one nation. Our Parliament recognizes Quebec as a nation, stemming from the unique linguistic origins of one of our initial founding partners.

At last count, there are also 617 First Nations across the country, all party to the reconciliation discussions so high on agenda of the Liberal government.

The most common adverb in the Canadian vocabulary is ‘sorry’. It is an expression that defines us around the world. Along with our Scottish-purloined pronunciation of out and about (oot and aboot), the “sorry” status of Canadians is fodder for many late-night comedians.

This constant state of apologia is not accidental.

It stems from the origins of Parliament, when the founding fathers (and there were only fathers) created a Parliament based on the “Great Coalition” of two languages.

The stark difference between Canadians’ love for diversity and Americans’ belief in exceptionalism stems from very different political choices in the beginning.

Just last week, the Canadian government announced plans to increase its annual immigration level to one per cent.

Concurrently, in response to the New York cyclists’ terrorist attack, American President Donald Trump threatened to curb immigration. He blamed it for terrorism, as the terror suspect allegedly received his immigration papers in an American “diversity” lottery.

In recent weeks, Canadians have been debating the Quebec government’s decision to limit the face-covering niqab in provisioning of public services.

We have also been hearing more about the anti-150 anniversary movement, which led a Haligonian student leader to face a university disciplinary hearing because of her Facebook postings.

The hearing was eventually cancelled, but the controversy surrounding a Dalhousie Student Union cancellation of “colonial Canada 150 celebrations” continues.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau welcomed anti-colonial protesters to the lawn of Parliament during the Canada Day events. By so doing, he drew attention to their cause and dampened the vitriol that might have otherwise marred festivities.

Can you imagine American president Donald Trump even speaking to protesters at a Fourth of July anniversary event? He would be more likely to tweet that they should be deported to Guantanamo Bay.

While some would argue that the difference between the two leaders is one of personality or party affiliation, I believe it speaks to the larger differences in the founding tenets of both countries.

The United States of America was born out of bloodshed, both in its war of independence and bitterly fought civil war.

Canada was born out of compromise. In the spirit of inclusion, Parliament included a recognition of the inclusion of two languages.

That pivotal decision led to a Parliament that incorporated accommodation as a core value.

Some point the finger of differentiation at our specific decision to embrace a federal multiculturalism policy, back in 1971. But the roots for that decision began during the period of the Great Coalition that preceded the first Parliament, a linguistic and cultural coalition between English and French-speaking political leaders.

Our country was founded on the notion that two languages could thrive within a single state.

National cultural institutions, like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board, have never shied away from challenging the myth of monoculturalism.

The recent Quebec attempt to ban the niqab in certain public places may have been popular there and, surveys show, in other parts of the country. However, it mimics the American “exceptionalism” motto which requires that all others meld into a single, “exceptional” mold.

The Catalonian crisis is a jarring example of what happens when there is no space for two nations to coexist within a single state.

The Quebec niqab ban will be struck down by the courts. That is a good thing. Whenever the state promotes a view of national exclusivity, it dooms the nations within to assume the only way to survive is to leave.

Respect for diversity is the key to many 21st century challenges.

Back in the 19th century, the first Canadian Parliament got it right.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

Published first in The Hill Times on April 17, 2017.

OTTAWA—The power of one young woman’s voice rocked the world last week.

When Malala Yousafzai received her honorary citizenship, the diminutive speaker did not mince words. She even dared to use the “f” word, calling on all Canadians to become feminists.

Her delivery was gentle, but the content was carefully crafted to make the ultimate point. And it did.

She underscored that if all girls around the world went to school for 12 years, low and middle income countries could add $92-billion to their economies.

She also made the link between education and peace. “When a country gives all its children secondary education, they cut their risk of war in half.”

Yousafzai also had gentle digs for Canada and the United States. She emphasized that “the world needs leadership based on serving humanity, not based on how many weapons you have.” That contradicted the decision by American President Donald Trump to cut foreign aid and increase the military budget by 10 per cent increase.

Canada, while praised for the prime minister’s decision to invoke cabinet parity, did not escape comment for promises not kept.

The country has endorsed sustainable development goals which set our percentage of support for international aid at 0.7 per cent. But last year, funding contributions dropped as a percentage of our gross domestic product. Malala acknowledged that politicians make some promises that cannot be kept, but warned “this is one you must honour.”

She called on the prime minister to make 12-year education of girls a top priority during his 2018 tenure at the helm of the G7. She also linked education to the world security agenda, insisting that “extremism grows alongside inequality – in places where people feel they have no opportunity, no voice and no hope.”

Malala’s speech evoked an emotional response from parliamentarians on all sides of the chamber. Minister responsible for the Status of Women, Maryam Monsef, a refugee herself, said she had goose bumps during most of the presentation.

Justin Trudeau will, no doubt, build on the Malala message to put the issue of educational equality squarely on the G-7 agenda.

Malala also waded into domestic politics by inferring that the current imbalance in parliamentary parity between men and women needs to change.

She encouraged young women to raise their voices and suggested that “the next time I visit, I hope to see more of you filling these seats in Parliament.”

That wish was reminiscent of another meeting of Canadian women just one week before Malala’s visit.

A non-partisan group of New Brunswick women leaders organized a conference entitled “Women for 50 per cent,” engaging more than 400 delegates in an election planning process in Fredericton.

Every single leader of every party showed up as well, promising they would increase the number of women running under their banners in the next provincial election called for Sept. 24, 2018.

In the case of Premier Brian Gallant, he promised to go one step further. The Premier has personally taken on the responsibility for the status of women in the province, and has introduced specific measures to tackle the paucity of women in parliament.

At present, the New Brunswick legislature has only 16 per cent women, which is one of the worst records in the country.

The premier has vowed to change that, and is exploring all options, including the introduction of financial changes to elections legislation designed to encourage political parties to nominate more women.

Election expenses that are normally subsidized will be topped up by 50 per cent in the ridings where a woman candidate is running.

The top-up is a first in Canadian election law, and will no doubt be copied by other provinces. National non-partisan Equal Voice is currently reviewing all methods, including legislative, of pursuing equality in politics.

At the conference, the premier vowed to do everything in his power to increase women candidates for the Liberal party, and the leaders of all other parties vowed to do likewise.

The 12 women who launched “Women for 50 per cent,” headed by business woman Roxanne Fairweather and former deputy premier Aldea Landry, have been nicknamed the Mothers of Confederation.

Their impetus has prompted all political parties to unanimously support equality objectives. The legislature will vote soon on the financial roadmap to make that happen.

Malala thrilled Parliament and the country with her passionate message of inclusion.

Mothers of Confederation have already taken up the equality challenge in New Brunswick. Let’s hope the rest of the country follows suit.

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, March 6, 2017.

OTTAWA—This week, Parliament Hill will be overrun by women. Normally, that is not so unusual, as the majority of political and bureaucratic support staffers are women.

But this time, 338 young women will be taking seats in the House of Commons.

Daughters of the Vote, a major national gathering spearheaded by the multi-partisan Equal Voice, will be debating key issues facing Canada in the next 150 years.

Future leaders include 70 indigenous representatives, and women from as far away as the Arctic Circle. Twenty-five speakers will make 90-second statements in the Chamber, on issues ranging from equality for girls and women to humans rights, to immigrant, refugee and resettlement issues.
Daughters of the Vote is a celebration of Canada’s 150th birthday, and the 100th anniversary of women’s right to vote in Canada.

It took 50 years for Canadian women to actually secure the right to vote. One hundred years later, we are still far from achieving equality in the House of Commons.

The appointed Senate is much closer, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made it a point to seek equality while changing the way Senators are nominated.

In our highest elected Chamber, the country still has a long way to go.

This week, Canadians will get a chance to see exactly what a Chamber of women would look like.

Kicking off the parliamentary session will be Canada’s only female prime minister, Kim Campbell. She occupied the office in 1993 after being chosen by her party to replace Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney.

More than 50 current Members of Parliament have signalled their intention to participate in the four-day gathering. All opposition leaders plan to be there and the organizers are hopeful the prime minister will attend.

The meeting is a culmination of political gatherings that have taken place across the country, in 12 of 14 provincial and territorial legislatures, over the past number of months.

Every provincial legislature hosted Daughters of the Vote delegates in the lead-up to this national event. In many instances, Daughters of the Vote were received by premiers in their respective provinces.

What makes the initiative so amazing is that the majority of those attending had never set foot in a parliamentary setting until they applied in an open call to be part of the EV 100th anniversary celebration of suffragettes.
 
And the initiative almost did not happen.

Equal Voice executive director Nancy Peckford and her team started reflecting more than two years ago on the best way to honour the 100th anniversary of real democracy for Canadian women.

EV brainstormed with federal and provincial Members of Parliament, local chapters, and members of the EV advisory board including multiple former women parliamentarians.

The idea of a Hill gathering was attractive, but involved a huge financial commitment for a largely voluntary organization.

Provincial Progressive Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod wanted a big celebration, and she tipped Peckford off to a last-minute 150th birthday call for proposals launched by the Conservative government in June of 2015.

It was so quick that the application for government funding was completed just before a midnight deadline and Peckford conceived the name of the project, Daughters of the Vote, on the back of serviette at a local fast food restaurant in Kemptville, Ont.

The application was subsequently approved by the new Liberal government,
But the ambitious national gathering could not have been possible without major support from sources other than government. The main costs of transporting 338 delegates to Ottawa were absorbed by generous contributions from VIA Rail and Air Canada.

The Canadian Teachers Federation generously supported the initiative with 35 facilitators for the four-day round of meetings and events.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank, Unifor and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions provided additional funding for the events.

The good news is that this compelling four-day celebration of women’s right to vote is just a beginning.

Equal Voice is planning to work with these young leaders, to keep them engaged and encourage them to run for the real Parliament. EV plans to build upon their wide-ranging group of active local chapters across the country. The future will include the development of a series of regional policy networks designed to assist women in their quest for political equality.

That includes support and information on being a candidate and encouragement and advice for engagement behind the scenes as political organizers and fundraisers.

We can only hope it won’t be another 100 years before the celebration of the right to vote includes real gender equality in Parliament.

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