Ontario Premier Doug Ford, then-Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown attacked the decision to grant bail to Umar Zameer back in 2021. Three years later, he’s been found not guilty.

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

OTTAWA—Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw should be fired.

There is no way anyone can have confidence in his impartiality after he told the world last week that he had hoped for a different outcome when Umar Zameer was found not guilty of all charges in a high-profile case involving the death of a Toronto police officer in 2021.

In her instructions to the jury before the not-guilty decision, Justice Anne Molloy said “the defence theory of what happened is consistent with the testimony of Umar Zameer, Aaida Shaikh, the Crown’s reconstruction expert, the defence reconstruction expert and the video. There is no evidence that fully supports the Crown’s theory.”

With such overwhelming unanimity on the reconstruction of the incident, one wonders how the case ever made it to trial?

Some are asking whether there was political pressure brought to bear, as three key politicians—including Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and then-Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown—weighed in to attack the decision to grant bail to Zameer back in 2021.

Ford minced no words in his tweet: “This is beyond comprehension. It’s completely unacceptable that the person charged for this heinous crime is now out on bail. Our justice system needs to get its act together and start putting victims and their families ahead of criminals.”

Demkiw refused to condemn comments by his predecessor who placed the “cop killer” label on Zameer, claiming it was not his job to criticize a former chief. However, the chief quickly walked back his own attack on the verdict after it prompted a firestorm of criticism from members of the legal profession.

Daniel Brown, past president of the Criminal Lawyers Association, told The Toronto Star that “the one thing that a chief of police isn’t supposed to say is that you were hoping for a verdict that didn’t conform with the evidence.”

Demkiw told the media at a mid-week press conference on an unrelated matter that he respected the decision of the jury. But Brown challenged that assertion. “You can’t say that you respect that jury’s decision, but that they also got it wrong.”

The judge also said that the jury should consider whether there had been collusion in the matching testimony of three police officers, though also noted that the officers had denied it. She also offered her “deepest sympathies” to Zameer following his acquittal, an apology seldom seen from the bench.

As for Zameer, he stuck to his story that he and his family were returning from a Canada Day celebration when four people starting banging on his car doors, ordering him to disembark. Zameer thought they were criminals trying to rob him, and he tried to drive away, resulting in the death of one officer who was allegedly holding on to the vehicle.

The accountant spent almost three years waiting for the outcome, and racked up legal bills in excess of $200,000, forcing his family to sell properties to pay for his defence.

Such was the public support for the defendant that within a few days, a GoFundMe page set up for his legal expenses had received $267,347 from more than 3,400 donors.

The police have already announced an external review of their actions by the Ontario Provincial Police. That review is automatic when any judicial decision involves criticism of police sworn testimony. But no review of the Crown’s decision to take this case to court, based on what we now know was flimsy or non-existent evidence, has been initiated.

Thousands of police officers attended the funeral of Constable Jeffrey Northrup, who was tragically killed in the incident. And with the public comments by high-profile politicians attacking the bail decision, one wonders whether there was political pressure exerted on the Crown to prosecute.

Demkiw has clearly shown that his interest is in protecting the actions of his police officers. That may work with the police, but it certainly undermines public confidence in the force. His statements reinforce the viewpoint of opponents who have been regularly lobbying to defund the police.

Without an external review of the judicial process in this case, too many questions remain unanswered.

Why did this case ever go to trial in the first place? Was there political pressure to lay charges, and why was the first-degree murder charge introduced, based on what did not appear to be a premeditated incident?

When a police officer dies, a first-degree murder charge is automatic. Maybe that rule also needs to be revisited.

The good news—in spite of all the questions surrounding the validity of the charges—is that justice was done.

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

It would be a huge mistake to think that a right-wing Conservative is unelectable in Canada. In politics, anything is possible.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 8, 2022.

OTTAWA—Jean Charest was at his most eloquent during the recent Conservative debate last week.

The only problem, the lights were on, but there was no Tory home.

The debate did not attract major television attention and was held at 6 p.m. Eastern Time, pretty much the worst possible slot for widespread coverage.

But the whole purpose of the event was to avoid national attention.

After all, what political party has a debate where the front-runner refuses to attend and simply pays a $50,000 fine to absent himself from the proceedings?

Pierre Poilievre and Leslyn Lewis both coughed up the $50,000 so the party actually made money by allowing two candidates to duck out of a leadership debate.

That will probably not be the end of the story.

Elections Canada, which has some oversight of party nomination processes, will probably be asked to take a look at the payments, as the Tories might have benefited from a tax credit courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.

But the sad thing about the non-debate is that nobody beyond those actually voting in the leadership even care about this egregious abuse of process.

Too bad for the Conservatives. Had they actually watched Charest in action, they might have come to the conclusion that the rest of the country has already arrived at: Charest stands the best chance of all Tory candidates of defeating the current government.

He is seen as capable, moderate, and appeals to those in the centre who have kept the Tories out of power for years.

The debate was a bit of a moot point. According to official Conservative records, in excess of 100,000 ballots have already been mailed into headquarters, more than a month before the winner’s announcement on Sept. 10.

If the twitterverse is any indication, dozens of voters claimed that Charest’s performance could not change their minds, as they had already voted for Poilievre.

The eligible voters’ list is more than 600,000, but there is a chance many of them may not vote.

The decision of the party to turf candidate Patrick Brown because of alleged irregularities will undoubtedly cause some of his supporters to boycott the race.

Others will likely throw their support behind Charest, who is the most closely linked to Brown in political ideology.

But if history is any indication, the party will be hard-pressed to get a 50 per cent voter turnout in the dog days of summer.

The whole intent of the campaign was to keep it as low-key as possible, which plays in the favour of front-runner Poilievre.

The race is certainly as close to a coronation that any party could carry out. Sometimes, a healthy and robust leadership race can be good for the process.

Liberals had their experience with a coronation and it did not end well. When the party believed that finance minister Paul Martin was the obvious choice, the race became a coronation.

At the final Toronto celebration, in a standing-room-only Air Canada Centre event, even international celebrities like Bono attended to congratulate the future prime minister.

The biggest question facing Martin’s leadership at that moment was how many years he would stay. In the end, the coronation fractured the party.

In the current Conservative leadership, a similar front-runner phenomenon is unfolding.

Unlike Martin, who was already extremely popular with the public at large when he was chosen, Poilievre mainly appeals to the right-wing of his own party.

He will have a hard time convincing the moderate middle to support him.

That is what all other parties, especially Liberals, are counting on.

If Charest were to be successful in September, Liberals on the Hill would sit up and take notice.

They know he has the capacity to turn things around in Quebec, and whither Quebec goes, so goes the country.

Charest would also bring progressive Conservatives back into the fold. These are the Red Tories who the party must attract to win elections.

If Poilievre succeeds, as is most likely, Liberals will be counting on him to stay in the opposition benches.

However, there is a truism in politics.

When it comes to elections, opposition parties don’t win, governments lose.

When voters decide they have had enough, they will move to throw the government out. In most cases, they are prepared to give the opposition leader the benefit of the doubt.

A Poilievre win could be very feasible.

It would be a huge mistake to think that a right-wing Conservative is unelectable in Canada.

In politics, anything is possible.

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

By retreating into a cone of silence over the specific allegations that led to Patrick Brown’s disqualification, Conservative Party brass stand to delegitimize the whole leadership process.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 11, 2022.

OTTAWA—Patrick Brown has just suffered his second political assassination.

The first was at the hands of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, when he was dumped from his leader’s job based on allegations of sexual impropriety, which he denies.

In that first instance, Brown claimed he was the victim of a “fabricated political assassination.”

The story led to a late-night emergency meeting of the provincial party executive and a quick decision to dump Brown as leader.

The network stood by its story, but in the end, issued a correction saying that certain aspects of the story were “factually incorrect and required correction.”

The correction came four years after the career-ending story, just before Brown joined the current federal party leadership race.

History repeated itself last week as, right in the middle of a leadership race, the Conservative Party of Canada turfed Brown, alleging serious but secret breaches of Election Act financing rules by the Brown team.

After announcing the expulsion, the party went mum, explaining that as the matter is under further investigation, there will be no additional official comments on the specifics of the allegations.

Buried in the entrails of the allegations was a ruling by the party that Brown’s campaign had not and would not receive a copy of the interim membership list, as a result of the firing.

Why is that relevant?

Well, the only political game in town over the next two months is an opportunity to switch voters who have already registered.

The persuasion campaign will be undertaken by all the candidates, but it is believed the top two candidates in voter sales were frontrunner Pierre Poilievre followed by Brown.

I was told by a Tory insider that Poilievre outsold former Quebec premier Jean Charest 11 to one in Quebec.

But the difference between Brown and Poilievre sales is less evident.

So, if the party has airtight information on election breaches, why not publish it and let the voters decide?

By retreating into a cone of silence, the brass stands to delegitimize the whole process.

Brown thinks there is more to this than an alleged violation.

His lawyer fired off a letter to the party, requesting it safeguard all communications, including those with the Poilievre campaign, that are pertinent to the allegations.

“Please take immediate steps to ensure that all documents and records of any kind whatsoever including emails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and any other forms of electronic communication concerning the disqualification and the process leading to it are preserved …. advising all members of LEOC [Leadership Election Organizing Committee] to retain all of their communication with members of the Pierre Poilievre campaign and other stakeholders in relation to Patrick Brown,” the letter said.

Brown retained the firm of Henein Hutchison, which is no slouch when it comes to high-profile legal proceedings. Marie Henein was the lawyer who successfully defended Jian Ghomeshi against sexual assault charges.

Toronto Life magazine dubbed Henein “the fixer,” saying she was the most sought-after defence lawyer in Toronto.

In Brown’s case, there are no criminal charges as yet, but there is certainly a case pending, with huge political implications, that will garner the attention of the whole country.

This is one controversy the Conservative Party does not need. Just recently, long-term former senator and staunch Conservative Marjory LeBreton gave a candid television interview in which she feared that Conservative leadership candidates jumping on the “grievance brigade” would fracture the party irreparably.

LeBreton said she feared the union of the Progressive Conservatives and the Reformers, orchestrated by Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper in 2003, may not survive this leadership change.

Those ominous reflections occurred even before Brown’s expulsion from the race.

One can only assume that the cleavage between the former Progressive Conservatives and Reformers will only grow as a result of last week’s bizarre firing.

Multiple senior Conservatives came out publicly to demand more transparency regarding the decision

Strategist Tim Powers said the party could be damaged if it continues to withhold information from the public.

Ballots for the September vote were sent out before Brown was removed, which means his name will remain as a leadership choice.

That seems strange, because if the party was investigating allegations, it could have delayed striking the ballots until the investigation was concluded.

Instead, the ballot is going to include an ineligible candidate on the progressive side, instead of clearing the field for a fight between Poilievre and Charest. And that can only benefit Poilievre.

On the surface, it certainly looks as though the party fix is in.

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

If he doesn’t connect with the truckers who are promising weeks of disruption, he runs the risk of being outed as a non-supporter. If he does stand with the truckers, he runs the counter-risk of facing the ire of citizens in the Ottawa region, including those in his own Ottawa riding, Carleton.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 27, 2022.

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre’s Canada Day celebrations may blow up in his face.

If he doesn’t connect with the truckers who are promising weeks of disruption, he runs the risk of being outed as a non-supporter.

If he does stand with the truckers, he runs the counter-risk of facing the ire of citizens in the Ottawa region, including those in his own Ottawa-area riding, Carleton.

They handed him a healthy plurality in the last election but just last week, Mainstreet Research published some interesting data about how the trucker-Pierre tango was viewed by voters.

Amongst 555 constituents polled by Mainstreet between June 13-14, Poilievre enjoyed a healthy 10 per cent majority over his closest opponent in the last election.

If that same election were held today, Poilievre would still be in the lead, but his margin of victory would shrink by half.

According to respondents, the single biggest factor in their dissatisfaction was Poilievre’s support for the Ottawa convoy blockade.

Forty-nine per cent of those polled said they would be less likely to vote for the Conservatives if the riding representative was Poilievre.

It appears as though the trucker occupation played a huge rule in Poilievre’s fall from electoral grace.

The Mainstreet question was clear: “During the trucker occupation … Pierre Poilievre met with and encouraged the freedom protesters. How has this impacted your opinion of your Member of Parliament?”

Fifty-six per cent of those interviewed said they had a “much less favourable” opinion of Poilievre because of his blockade support. An additional 10 per cent said they had a “somewhat less favourable opinion.”

By contrast, only 15 per cent said they had a “much more favourable” opinion, while three per cent claimed a “somewhat more favourable” opinion.

In the next month, the truckers have vowed to return to Ottawa to disrupt Canada Day and remain in the capital throughout the month of July.

They may be pleased to return to the scene of the crime, but Poilievre and the Conservatives can’t be too thrilled.

So far, Poilievre’s support of the truckers has not made much news beyond the nation’s capital.

It really is an “inside the beltway story.” But inside the beltway is Poilievre’s own constituency, and he could vault to the top of the Tories, only to be spurned by local voters in the next election.

Most party leaders are supported by their constituents. It is only when the party faces dire straits that the leader is defeated. Witness the rejection of Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca in his own riding the recent Ontario election.

But being a representative in the nation’s capital is not the same as other ridings across the country.

There, people do expect you to stare down the Freedom Convoy and support the residents, not vice versa.

Last January and February were brutal times for the 30,000 people who live in Ottawa’s downtown core.

According to a friend who lives there, the only dialogue that happened between truckers and residents was a volley of epithets that started with “f” and ended with “u.”

The city is bracing for the same nastiness next week. And Poilievre has to make up his mind whether he represents his constituents or the freedom convoy, because, if the Mainstreet poll is accurate, it cannot be both.

It remains to be seen whether Poilievre can translate his obvious internal popularity into votes across the broad spectrum of Canadians.

But the early signal from his riding sounds a warning bell.

Swinging so far right may win support within Conservative party circles.

But that swing also alienates the majority of mainstream voters.

With the crash of crypto-currency and the pushback on his view of the governor of the Bank of Canada, Poilievre appears to be resonating within his own party.

His situation is so strong that, not only did Patrick Brown’s co-chair bolt, as referenced in last week’s column, but also Brown’s campaign manager quickly followed Michelle Rempel Garner, abruptly leaving Brown’s campaign to work for her potential Alberta leadership entry. Rempel Garner has since decided not run for the UCP leadership.

Jean Charest continues to insist publicly that “I will win this.” He is pumping up his supporters with audacious declarations of victory. But his own numbers do not appear to back up those words.

Poilievre and Brown membership sales allegedly amount to 75 per cent of the total, so it is tough to see how Charest will win.

Poilievre is definitely ahead.

How he handles the Canada Day convoy will signal much about his capacity to win an election.

Like Icarus, flying too close to the truckers might burn him badly.

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

After devoting 11 years to federal politics, the Calgary-Nose Hill Member of Parliament would be a shoo-in for a senior position if Brown were to win the leadership. Michelle Rempel Garner would likely have been in contention as well if Jean Charest were victorious, as he could win the leadership only with the support of the Brown team.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 20, 2022.

OTTAWA—Michelle Rempel Garner must be reading the tea leaves.

She was running the federal Conservative leadership campaign for Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown.

And mid-way through the campaign, the Twitter-verse has been filled with stories that she will likely be leaving federal politics to run for the top job of Alberta’s United Conservative Party.

Using Twitter as her preferred platform, Rempel Garner announced last week that she was stepping down as Brown campaign co-chair to give “serious consideration” to a provincial leadership bid.

“I owe it to Albertans to give this critical decision my full and complete attention,” she wrote on Twitter.

Rempel Garner went on to say that “I continue to be inspired by the optimism of Albertans, who have been through much but remain hopeful. We are—and always have been—worth fighting for. I’ll have more to say soon. Giddyup.”

In reality, Garner Rempel could pursue twin goals, a provincial leadership race along with the co-chairing responsibilities for her chosen leadership candidate.

There is more than a month separating the federal conclusion and the provincial vote, and much of the work on both fronts is carried out via internet and Zoom.

The sale of Conservative memberships is closed on the federal scene, so there is no need to travel extensively to recruit new members.

Instead, the campaign is entering the persuasion stage, where the candidates themselves need to keep travelling in order to attract undecided voters or switch those who have committed to an opponent.

Her decision to step aside comes as the final membership numbers place Pierre Poilievre in an unbeatable position. His campaign claims to have sold double the number of memberships of the Brown team.

Rempel Garner’s withdrawal is a blow to the Brampton mayor’s leadership bid, but not an unexpected turn of events.

The Alberta Member of Parliament is a proud, gun-toting Albertan and many observers feel her place in a provincial race would be as front-runner.

As for Brown, Jean Charest and other federal leadership candidates, the membership deadline confirmed the Poilievre front-runner status.

He is also extremely popular with current Conservative voters. Last week’s Léger poll claimed his support among Tory voters is almost triple that of his closest rival, Charest.

Poilievre was the choice of 44 per cent of Tory supporters while his nearest challenger, former Quebec premier Charest, polled at just 14 per cent. Brown was in the single digits at four per cent, clearly a signal that he has not resonated with the group he needs to win. Those numbers are almost reversed when it comes to polling opinions of Liberals and New Democrats. They believe Charest would be the best Tory leader. Charest polled 25 per cent support from Liberal and NDP supporters, while Brown polled at 11 per cent. Front-runner Poilievre garnered only six per cent support from those who vote Liberal or NDP.

But he doesn’t need those voters to win the leadership.

He only needs Tories. And Rempel Garner’s early departure is a clear signal that he is going to get them.

After devoting 11 years to federal politics, the Calgary-Nose Hill Member of Parliament would be a shoo-in for a senior position if Brown were to win the leadership. She would likely have been in contention as well if Charest were victorious, as he could win the leadership only with the support of the Brown team.

As for Poilievre, she has already burned that bridge. Two months ago, Rempel Garner took to the internet to call out Poilievre as a “fringe party on the right” leader and she went on to say “we can’t go through another leadership with the result being somebody who is unelectable.”

But it appears as though that is exactly what her party is going to do. Two Brown supporters in the caucus recently defected to Poilievre and the departure of Rempel Garner leaves Brown with only one Member of Parliament supporting his leadership.

Poilievre has 56 MPs supporting his candidacy, so the list of those seeking senior positions on his team is very long and there won’t be any room for Garner Rempel in the event the front-runner wins.

So, the timing for Garner Rempel to switch to provincial politics is perfect. She is well-known in Alberta and currently represents one of the most Conservative ridings in the country.

She will enter a crowded field of candidates, but her background and experience could reward her with an easy win. Her toughest job will then be building those Conservative bridges back.

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

That is what we can expect if Pierre Poilievre wins the Conservative leadership, according to chief rival Jean Charest.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 30, 2022.

OTTAWA—The Americanization of Canadian politics. That is what we can expect if Pierre Poilievre wins the Conservative leadership, according to chief rival Jean Charest.

Charest pulled no punches in an aggressive closing statement at the party’s French, and final, debate in Laval last Wednesday night.

“The question we face is a very serious one. Will we in the Conservative Party take the path of American-style politics, the politics of attack, the politics where we play one group against another, the politics where every answer is a dodge? Or are we going to do Canadian politics for Canadians. That is the option I offer, not to be a pseudo-American. That is not what we want as a country. We want a leader who is able to unite the party and who has judgment, who does not send signals about conspiracy theories, who spills over into theories about the Bank of Canada or Bitcoin.”

Fellow candidate Patrick Brown doubled down in tandem attacks on Poilievre. Both candidates appeared so closely aligned in their views of Poilievre that they were asked whether they had already crafted a political pact to defeat the putative front-runner.

Brown ventured even further in a presser following the debate. He went so far as to say Poilievre has no chance of becoming prime minister.

By contrast, Charest insisted that his character and experience included the qualities to become prime minister, not just the leader of the official opposition.

But Charest’s record also provided fodder for attacks from Poilievre, who accused the former Quebec premier of raising taxes, and supporting carbon pricing.

When Poilievre was attacked for supporting the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy, he blasted back that he had no lessons to learn from Charest, referencing the Charbonneau Commission as an example of Charest’s questionable record.

When Charest told the crowd it would be his job as Conservative leader to retire the 32 Bloc Québécois members currently sitting in the Canadian Parliament, Poilievre retorted that Charest was the one who was retired by separatists.

At the end of the fiery debate, the other three candidates for the Conservative leadership were literally left in the proverbial dust.

Their poor grasp of the French language left them all ill-equipped to spar with the ease of the three on top.

Leslyn Lewis struggled with her cue cards, and Roman Baber used his limited French to primarily decry his birthplace in the former Soviet Union.

Scott Aitchison managed to master the ask in multiple, comic attempts to direct viewers to his website.

That recruitment technique will not vault him to the top, but all candidates are pushing hard to sell as many memberships as possible before the cut-off date on Friday, June 3.

As of Friday, the second phase of the campaign moves from recruitment to conversion. Just because one campaign signed up a member, that new recruit can actually change their mind and vote for another candidate in the voting system on Sept. 10.

Whatever the outcome, it is awfully hard to see how the losers will actually line up behind the winner.

The bad blood amongst the party front-runners could end up killing their chances of forming the next government.

It is hard to see how Charest could align himself with a potential Poilievre prime minister if the former Quebec premier loses the race.

He is an experienced politician who knows what it means to burn political bridges. His attack last week sent the signal that if he does not win, it is unlikely that he will be running as part of the Conservative team.

And the charge of “pseudo-American populism” is one that will stick.

In addition to the Tory leadership last week, the whole country witnessed another mass murder in Texas carried out by an 18-year-old American who had no trouble securing two assault weapons after his 18th birthday.

But instead of tackling the gun availability issue, Senator Ted Cruz blamed the massacre on the fact that the school’s back door was left open.

It is painful to watch the mounting pile of bodies dying at the hands of crazed gunmen almost weekly in the United States. As the issue is so polarized, nothing is ever really done to limit access to weapons beyond the usual plethora of post-mortem platitudes from political leaders.

American president Joe Biden has again promised to fight the gun lobby, but his level of success remains to be seen. Regular mass murders without consequence are one reason that Canadians fear “pseudo-American populism.”

Tory populists may disagree.

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

Jason Kenney’s departure was unexpected as he had gathered together a group of key supporters for what was expected to be a victory celebration.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 23, 2022.

OTTAWA—Internal party warfare can be fatal.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney eked out a bare majority in a party vote on his leadership, only to be forced out by advisers’ pressure.

Kenney’s departure was unexpected as he had gathered together a group of key supporters for what was expected to be a victory celebration.

Days before the United Conservative Party mail-in vote was announced, Kenney claimed that he would stay on if he secured a single-vote majority.

A large gathering of supporters was expecting to see Kenney continue in the job, but instead, he dropped a bombshell last Wednesday night.

In the end, the pressure inside his own party was just too great, so Kenney decided to step down after 48.6 per cent of UCP review voters said they wanted him out.

Meanwhile, the internal fight in the federal Conservative party gets more bitter by the day. Last week, saw candidate slagging candidate, and supporters’ slagging each other.

The climate got so difficult that former finance minister Ed Fast felt compelled to quit his job as Conservative caucus finance critic in opposition to Pierre Poilievre’s promise to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada.

Claims of party-based racism and sleazy politics were traded as candidate Patrick Brown accused Poilievre of aligning with racists in his support of the trucker occupation on Parliament Hill.

Brown supporter, Michelle Rempel-Garner weighed in on the racism theme, accusing Poilievre of being too slow to condemn the race-based slaughter south of the border in Buffalo.

Brown also attacked Poilievre supporters for allegedly criticizing his campaign’s push to sell memberships to racialized minorities.

The past week in the Conservative party has seen the temperature increase as the end of the membership sale period looms.

The federal party Twitter feed was vitriolic, with candidates lining up to accuse each other of stoking the flames of racism. In a media interview, Poilievre promoted his use of “Anglo-Saxon” language, a lift from white supremacists’ vocabulary.

Compare federal Tory accusations to the civilized official Ontario election debate last week. Hosted by TVO’s Steve Paikin and Althia Raj of The Toronto Star, the debate was positively benign in comparison.

Candidates respected rules and time limits. They were careful to attack their opponents on policies, not personalities.

New Democratic Party Leader Andrea Horwath delivered a surprisingly listless performance, absent her usual excellent communication skills.

Later in the week, she joined Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner with a diagnosis of COVID. Both were forced into virtual campaigns in the final stretch of the election.

While the NDP leader flagged, the Green leader shone in the debate. Schreiner was personable, articulate and knowledgeable, particularly on climate change issues.

Premier Doug Ford carried out his usual, aw shucks schtick, claiming friendship with everyone on the podium and defending government policies.

The most controversial was the Conservative promise of a $10-billion investment to build a highway which is not supported by any other leader.

In the last campaign, Ford promised a buck a beer in an attempt to reach out to the blue-collar cohort that was key to his victory.

This time, Ontario Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca promised a buck a bus ticket, vowing to take thousands of cars off the road by making public transit more affordable.

The Grit leader also promised to divert Ford’s $10-billion proposed road investment into education, repairing and building schools and cutting class sizes.

Horwath pitched an increase in the minimum wage, in direct contrast to Ford’s decision to abolish planned increases early in his term in office.

The NDP leader primarily focused on her base. But she took a direct hit when the premier claimed that unions were moving away from their traditional support for her party in favour of his re-election.

Ford’s strategy worked, with NDP support slipping after the debate.

That was good news for the Liberals because many anti-Ford voters want to rally behind the party that has the best chance to defeat the current government.

The latest six-point difference keeps Ford in the lead with just two weeks to go before voting day. But the 10-point difference between the Liberals and the New Democrats really favours a potential momentum shift to Del Duca.

As for internal Conservative struggles, on the federal level it is difficult to see how the angry differences among leadership camps of Poilievre, Charest and Brown can be healed in a post-campaign show of unity.

Centrist Conservatives may not elect a party leader.

But they hold the key to 24 Sussex.

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

Controversy inside the Conservative federal leadership race will have a spillover effect into the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 21, 2022.

OTTAWA—By summer’s end, the Canadian political landscape could change dramatically.

Ontario is into a provincial election in less than two months, smack in the middle of a national Conservative leadership race.

Quebec must have an election by Oct. 3, and next month Alberta’s controversial premier faces an internal review which could plunge his party into another fight.

Federal and provincial parties are separate, but the voting public sees them all as a single, homogenous mass.

So, controversy inside the Conservative federal leadership race will have a spillover effect into the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec.

In Ontario, the premier has already stated that he will remain neutral and none of his ministers will be involved in any campaign.

That is bad news for Jean Charest, as the leadership list of Caroline Mulroney, whose family has deep ties with the former Quebec premier, could be very valuable.

Charest’s only path to victory is to saturate Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada with enough votes to overcome his socially conservative deficit in the west.

But even though Mulroney herself cannot get involved, there is nothing stopping key organizers from enlisting volunteers and voters for Charest.

The organizing skills of former provincial Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown are well known. He could secure a base for a more centrist vote which would likely end up in Charest’s camp in a frontrunner’s fight.

Brown has no love for the premier, as Doug Ford actually came to office after Brown resigned following two allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied and for which CTV recently expressed “regrets” over some inaccurate details in its story. The Brown exit was ugly, and paved the way for Ford to beat Christine Elliott in a subsequent provincial leadership contest.

Any reference to the hate-hate relationship between Brown and Ford will not help the premier in the key ridings in Brampton. Mississauga and Scarborough where Brown has many supporters who would not likely support the premier in a general election.

As for Quebec, issues within the Tory federal leadership could definitely create some blowback in the provincial campaign. The bill that forced teachers to choose between religious headgear and their jobs has caused quite a stir across the country.

However, it is largely supported in Quebec, so attacks on Bill 21 by national Conservatives will simply reinforce the re-election chances of Premier François Legault.

Charest will have to tread carefully there because he needs to secure his Quebec base, but cannot afford to alienate the rest of the party on a divisive religious issue.

Alberta’s Jason Kenney, already hobbled by a popularity plunge in his home province, has historically tried to play a brokerage role in the federal campaign.

But given he has so many Alberta problems, the usual cadre of candidates lined up to seek his blessing will definitely decrease in this leadership campaign.

Ford is facing the voters on June 2, but 25 per cent of his current caucus has decided not to run again.

The most recent announcement by Christine Elliott, former leadership rival, that she is stepping down, does not augur well for the party’s election chances.

Most seasoned politicians can smell a change in the wind. When they decide not to reoffer, it is because they think their chances of losing are greater than winning.

Of course, they usually cite family or personal reasons for resigning, but in the end, a party on its way out loses more incumbent members than a party in the ascendancy.

Ford’s saving grace at the moment is that the New Democrats and Liberals are in a virtual tie as to who the replacement should be.

That being said, the Liberals have the edge as the NDP polls heavier in certain urban constituencies like Hamilton and Windsor, but it’s presence in rural Ontario is much weaker. That skews the numbers because an equal vote actually means more seats for the Liberals, in the same way that an equal federal Conservative/Liberal vote means more seats for the grits.

By October, we will likely have at least two new premiers in Alberta and Ontario, which also has federal repercussions.

In Ontario’s case, voters like to have political bookends at the federal and provincial scene. So, if the Liberals win the provincial election, it will open more doors for a Tory federal victory in the next election.

In Alberta, it is a Tory/NDP dance, and a provincial win for the New Democrats would provide energy and workers for the next federal election.

The only certainty in Canadian politics this year is change.

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 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.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, November 27, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne may have just governed her way to victory last week.

With passage of a labour bill hiking the hourly minimum wage to $15, Wynne set the stage for an election showdown with the Conservatives.

The Tories, who voted against the bill, are banking on the fact that business owners oppose the hike. The government says the changes will affect more than one-quarter of the workforce, including part-time workers. The legislation also provides for long-term statutory cost-of-living increases.

But politics is a numbers game. And one-quarter of the workforce adds up to a lot of votes.

This minimum wage fight provides a platform for the Liberals to campaign from the left, effectively neutering the New Democratic Party.

For the Liberals to win, they need to attract left-leaning voters to ensure the race becomes a split between the left and the right.

In voting against the bill last week, Conservative leader Patrick Brown played right into Wynne’s plan. That was a surprise because right up until the vote, Brown had managed to eschew the right-wing mantra that destroyed his predecessor Tim Hudak.

Hudak, who was on the conservative wing of the Progressive Conservative Party, sunk his own election chances by announcing a crazy plan to revive the economy by firing 100,000 civil servants.

That promise killed him, and should have been a harbinger to Brown’s team that campaigning from the right will not work in Ontario.

Had Brown supported the minimum wage hike, it would have been a non-issue in the election. Instead, the Conservatives have just handed a giant wedge issue to the Grits. And they are going to run all-out with it.

Six months ago, the prevailing view was that the Wynne Liberals were dead in the water.

Brown and the Conservatives were positioned to win in an election slated early next June, with the Grits lagging behind.

The New Democrats, led by experienced and articulate Andrea Horwath, would hang onto their core vote and pick up some seats from the fading Liberals.

For the New Democrats to experience any kind of a bounce, they need a wedge issue that separates them from the government.

Wynne, who has moved aggressively on traditional “left-leaning” issues like support for the LGBT community and anti-harassment legislation, has not given Horwath much wiggle room.

Meanwhile Tory leader Brown has been travelling the province, quietly honing his French-language skills, and avoiding mistakes.

A few messy Tory nominations created ripples, but political insiders know that hotly-contested nomination fights are usually a portent of a winning election.

The first indication that a party’s electoral chances are waning is when it cannot attract multiple candidates to a nomination.

The recent spate of retirement announcements by senior Liberal ministers is another signal that experienced politicians sense a sea change in the offing.

All Brown had to do was to occupy the muddling middle of the political spectrum and the change theme would have carried him to victory.

Politics is the one profession where the more experience you get the more people want to get rid of you. And the Liberals have already accomplished the near impossible; by getting elected for four successive terms with two different leaders. They have been in power for 14 years. Under those circumstances, defeat should be preordained.

However, Ontario has a historical habit of voting for years for single parties as long as they occupy the centre ground.

The Progressive Conservative run in the province was uninterrupted for more than four decades. Red Tory rule included respected leaders like John Robarts and William Davis, both of whom cherished their reputation for civility and moderation.

Instead of exploiting Liberal mistakes, the Tories have now set the stage for a single-issue campaign.

It will be the third election in a row where the Tories have defined their campaign on the wrong side of a wedge issue.

The first was when leader John Tory offered full funding for all religious schools. That promise led to his defeat.

This time, the decision to oppose a minimum wage hike puts the party at odds with one quarter of the potential electorate even before the campaign starts.

At the end of the day, there are more workers than owners.

“I’d rather walk with the workers than ride with General Motors,” was a famous quote from a former Liberal labour minister who resigned when the government of Mitch Hepburn introduced anti-union legislation back in 1937.

It stands the test of time.

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