By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 24, 2023.

OTTAWA—To do a makeover or not to do a makeover: that is the question.

‘Tis better to have tried and lost than never to have tried at all. At least that seems to be the approach taken by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

His decision to wait until the House of Commons adjourned for the summer to strut his new look was wise.

Summer is the best time to usher in a political makeover because politicians are heading to barbecues and picnics with a casual demeanour belying their obvious search for votes.

The first big event was the Calgary Stampede where just about every politico was photographed wearing a pair of jeans, boots, and a Stetson.

Some looked very natural in their attire, and others appeared somewhat uncomfortable. The verdict on Twitter was predictable.

Liberals thought the prime minister looked natural and the Conservative leader looked awkward: surprise, surprise. Conservatives thought the Liberal leader looked awkward and their leader was the natural.

Poilievre’s summer solstice is not just about a stampede getup. He has chosen this time to pursue a personal makeover, ditching his slicked-up haircut and nerdy glasses for some contact lenses and a softer do.

He has also decided to dress down, possibly taking a page from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s relaxed sunny disposition and clothing back in his first successful election.

In the case of Poilievre, the north of the Queensway beltway has been abuzz with comments about his image makeover.

Some purists think he should never have messed with his image because it simply reinforces the fact that he is a politician just like everybody else.

The reality is that he is a politician. And every politician needs to put their best face forward. If that means taking the pomade out of one’s hair, then that is a good thing.

Woe betide the politician who refuses to listen to advice on image.

Sometimes the advice is well-meaning, but difficult. When I was running for the Liberal leadership against Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, one of my supporters wrote a critique about my look, which was quite blunt. It involved changing my wardrobe—which I did—and losing 20 pounds, which I didn’t.

It’s not that I refused to lose the weight. It was just so difficult to put in the 16-hour days required on the campaign trail while eating healthy. It was not until I left politics that I shed excess weight, and even now it is an ongoing struggle.

My leadership opponents also made subtle changes that might have passed unnoticed but certainly enhanced their electability. In the case of future prime minister Jean Chrétien, he had his teeth capped, which offered up a much better smile when he was pictured in a jean shirt in the official campaign photographs.

At the time, the jean shirt attire was quite avant-garde. Like the Liberals’ policy package, the Red Book, no one had ever launched a campaign in anything less than the blue suit, white shirt and blue tie that was the go-to dress-wear for all successful leaders.

Nowadays, most politicians try to dress down so they don’t appear snooty to the voters.

But not every politician is open to advice on their appearance. When New Democratic Party leader Tom Mulcair was nipping at the heels of government, he was advised to shave his beard.

Millions of Canadians wear beards, but for Mulcair, his bushy appearance played into the unflattering narrative of “Angry Tom.”

Like it or not, beards make men look fierce, and his refusal to even consider a shave was a mistake. Politics is the art of the possible, and a good politician needs to be flexible enough to change their viewpoint—or appearance—as the situation warrants.

Mulcair’s refusal was probably one of the factors that ultimately contributed to his defeat.

When David Peterson was chosen Ontario Liberal leader, he wore glasses and perspired a lot.

He was given early advice to ditch the specs and powder up before he went on air in any television interview.

From a once-bespeckled opposition leader, Peterson used the changes as a springboard to victory.

He was followed as premier by New Democratic leader Bob Rae, who also ditched his glasses at some point in his political career.

The absence of eyewear didn’t deliver victory, but it did help to look people directly in their eyes.

Political willingness to soften an image can help a politician achieve their goals.

Poilievre has gotten that message. Going glassless won’t win over opponents.

But it could certainly help with voters.

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

But when supporters in the media start calling for your head, it is definitely worth taking a listen.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 17, 2023.

OTTAWA—Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

That aphorism is as true in politics as it is anywhere.

It is particularly relevant when it comes to elections, including when to call them and who should lead.

Back in 2000, almost everyone in the Liberal party was begging then-prime minister Jean Chrétien not to call an election.

Some in the caucus simply wanted him to leave and pave the way for heir-apparent Paul Martin.

Others were afraid the Liberals would be punished at the urn for calling an early election with just three years into the previous mandate.

Chrétien ignored the naysayers, pulled the plug, and managed to become the first prime minister since the Second World War to win three successive majority governments.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is, no doubt, being bombarded with the same kind of advice.

Some of it is in private, not to be shared with the world. He will get lots of that advice when the Liberal family gathers in Ottawa next month for the first in-person national convention since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Meanwhile, Trudeau is already getting lots of advice through the media.

It is fair to say that his promise of sunny days is long past, and most journalists seem to have decided that there is a dark cloud hanging over the prime minister’s head.

In some instances, that is not surprising. The National Post has had nothing but a hate-on for the Liberals ever since their founder Conrad Black was denied his British lordship by a Canadian government intervention based on the 1917 Nickle resolution.

The paper was founded in 1998 with a mandate to unite the right, and vowed to compete directly with The Globe and Mail.

That hasn’t worked so well, as only six years later Facebook was launched, with Twitter following shortly. Both platforms radically changed the way people received their news, especially millennials. They have never developed a daily newspaper-reading habit.

The National Post has been true to its mandate, but has also proved to be so far to the right that it does not hold much sway with the Canadian public.

That mistrust continues today, with columnist after columnist spewing vitriol at Trudeau and the governing Liberals.

Other newspapers are more balanced, but in recent months you can feel the pendulum swinging even there.

There is a definite anti-Trudeau shift in media coverage and that is affecting the party’s standing in public opinion polls.

Even The Globe’s Lawrence Martin, a thoughtful, liberal columnist, is suggesting the prime minister step down before the next election.

In a rather flattering article last week, Martin squibbed that Trudeau has already made a legacy worth defending, but in staying around, he runs the risk of tainting it.

Martin praised Trudeau’s political legacy, saying his progressive mission was accomplished, including national daycare, dental care, and a strengthened Canada Pension Plan. He also underscored Trudeau’s work on Indigenous issues, legalization of marijuana, women’s equality, and immigration.

Martin’s point was that Trudeau has done the heavy lifting on climate change, with a controversial carbon tax, and another term is not likely to achieve additional progressive legislation.

According to Martin, Trudeau runs the risk of “going down in flames” or leaving with a good liberal inheritance.

Martin’s advice was in the news, where the closest people to the prime minister will be offering their perspectives in private.

Trudeau also has to consider the sacrifices his family is making. As his children are getting older, it is tough to see their father’s foibles plastered all over the news.

Even the Trudeau Foundation is making front-page news, and not in a good way.

But the poll numbers still signal a difficult, but potential path to victory for the Trudeau Liberals.

The acerbic approach of Pierre Poilievre has not gone over well with Canadians, although he is still within reach of becoming prime minister.

Trudeau is a wonderful campaigner, and Poilievre constantly appears angry and disdainful, which does not increase his likeability factor.

But Trudeau also has a lengthening list of enemies, which is only natural after a decade in government.

Those enemies include multiple provincial leaders, who miss no opportunity to take a shot at the hated Liberals.

Let’s face it: politics is the only job where the more experience you get, the more people want to get rid of you.

When supporters in the media start calling for your head, it is definitely worth taking a listen.

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

All budget positioning will be the precursor to a likely election and who blinks first may well end up the loser.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 29, 2021.

Budget preparation is not just about the spending priorities of the government.

It is also about crafting a plan that would be election-ready should the opposition parties decide to defeat the government.

In the upcoming budget, the government will be working to try and trap the opposition, while the other parties will be trying to highlight their priorities.

In particular, attention will be paid to the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois, because if they both vote with the government, there will be no election.

Obviously, with the current polling numbers in their favour, the Liberals would love to trigger a spring election. But they also do not want to appear as though they are forcing people to the polls in the middle of a pandemic.

By throwing a couple of items in the budget that cannot be supported by the NDP or the Bloc, the Liberals could manoeuvre both parties into a corner.

For example, the government would really like to strengthen national cooperation on long-term care facilities, when operations are provincial jurisdiction.

During the pandemic, the number of people who died in long-term care facilities varied widely from province to province, begging the question why?

And the only way to answer that question is to have some sort of national facilities oversight.

The Bloc could never support such a move and might be forced to vote against the budget in principle.

Conversely, the New Democrats support national intervention in the homecare system. Not only do they support national intervention, but they are also opposed to any private-sector participation in the long-term care facilities management systems.

By reinforcing national standards and at the same time, guaranteeing a private sector role in chronic care facilities management, the government could corner the New Democrats on the budget.

On the political side, every minister and every Member of Parliament is lining up to secure their regional and ministerial budget priorities.

In a lengthy document like the budget, small items can be buried that mean a lot to a region.

I remember having a leadership discussion with a former Liberal MP, who told me that he had promised his support to Paul Martin if the finance minister delivered road infrastructure money to his riding. Those monies appeared in the next budget.

The finance minister has significant leeway to include line items that might not stir up a lot of attention but can yield political results.

In my time in cabinet, each minister would draw up a list of their priorities and that would be whittled down and submitted to a written vote in cabinet.

The votes were non-binding, but they did send a message to the minister and the prime minister about priorities around the table.

In one budget, my priority was funding for the Canadian War Museum, and I unleashed a team of popular veterans including former minister Barney Danson to lobby all my colleagues.

He was so effective, and so persistent, that the War Museum funding topped all other ministerial priorities in that budgetary process.

In the end, the official opposition Conservatives may have to swallow themselves whole and vote in favour of the budget, even if it reinforces the Supreme Court’s decision on March 25 affirming the odious carbon tax.

It wouldn’t be the first time a government falls over the question of taxation of gasoline.

Back in 1979, then finance minister John Crosbie introduced an 18-cent-a-gallon gas tax, figuring there was no way the Liberals would defeat him as they had just emerged form a huge election defeat.

Their leader Pierre Trudeau had already announced his plan to step down. However, when the budget was defeated and the Liberals were leaderless, Trudeau agreed to step back into the fray and ended up returning to majority government.

Crosbie’s budget gamble was based on the fact that the Liberals would not topple the government, and he wasn’t able to deliver the numbers for his government to survive. Instead, prime minister Joe Clark lost his job after only 10 months in office.

Budgets can make or break governments. And they can also do the same for all party leaders.

By supporting the budget, the NDP and the Bloc run the risk of throwing their lot in with the governing party.

That allows the Conservatives to position themselves as the only real opposition to the Liberals.

All budget positioning will be the precursor to a likely election.

Who blinks first may well end up the loser.

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

Without Alfonso Gagliano in Quebec and Ron Irwin in Ontario, Jean Chrétien’s almost unprecedented majority three-peat would never have happened.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 21, 2020.

Two Liberal warhorses passed away within days of each other recently.

Both served as ministers in the government of Jean Chrétien and were best known for their love of the political side of politics.

Ron Irwin had politics in his blood. He loved the Liberal Party almost as much as his beloved hometown of Sault Ste. Marie, where he served as mayor and minister.

Alfonso Gagliano was more of a backroom operator, working as Quebec lieutenant to ensure the inner workings of the Liberal Party political apparatus were not sclerotic.

Many politicians have little understanding of or involvement in the critical role played by the party in an election.

But in every cabinet, there are political ministers whose job it is to build a robust party organization which can make or break an election.

In 1988, the government of Brian Mulroney won a majority because 20 winning Tory seats, primarily in the Toronto area, were decided in their favour by margins of less than 1.000 votes.

In this scenario, the party workers, not policies, can claim credit for victory. That means having boots on the ground and money in the coffers.

Irwin and Gagliano were responsible for many of those mechanics even while they served as ministers in the government, Gagliano working in Quebec and Ron mostly in Ontario.

Irwin was appointed by Chrétien to make sure that after every election, (three majority wins), the next party convention would give the boss a resounding vote of support. In the Liberal Party, the constitution called for a post-election leadership review vote, even when the party won a majority in the previous election.

As Quebec lieutenant, Gagliano was responsible for making sure that party operations were well-oiled and well-funded. That meant heading up the tough job of political fundraising.

Both were politicians who loved the people, and the party side of politics. To campaign with Gagliano in Saint Leonard, Que., or Irwin in the “Soo” was to witness political people beloved by their constituents.

Without either of them, Jean Chrétien’s almost unprecedented majority three-peat would never have happened.

Supporters of Paul Martin were waiting in the wings during three successive elections, readying for a takeover.

To guarantee that outcome, they sought to control party machinations.

That is the back story to the findings of the Gomery Commission. Commission conclusions were subsequently discredited by a federal court judge in 2008 and that decision was upheld on appeal. The judge said neither Jean Chrétien nor Jean Pelletier was to blame for the mismanagement of the program designed to heighten federal presence in Quebec.

When Gagliano passed away last week, most of the headlines were devoted to his alleged role in the scandal that ultimately cost Paul Martin the government.

Liberal Party coffers in Quebec dried up because of the bitter internal war between Martin and Chrétien and it was Gagliano’s unlucky responsibility to head up fundraising.

Martin’s people, strategically placed in important positions across the country, put the word out that no supporter should be contributing a penny to the party until he took it over.

After Chrétien beat Martin in the leadership race of 1990, Martin retained a group of key political organizers, whose job it was to secure control of the party in every province.

Each organizer had a budget to entertain prospects and keep a close watch on federal and provincial party activities, making sure they elected “friendlies” in all available positions.

Their message was simple: to be friends of the next prime minister, do not support or donate to this one.

“Friendlies” were working to secure a change of leadership so Martin might finally achieve his goal of becoming prime minister.

In some provinces, ministers who were working for Martin insisted that government appointments should never go to Chrétien supporters.

As Chrétien’s political life was coming to an end, even former supporters were trying to make common cause with Martin to position themselves in a future government. That is the way of politics.

But neither Gagliano nor Irwin would join in that game. They were loyal to their leader and worked their hearts out in a climate where the biggest political challenge was the civil war roiling in the party.

Irwin managed to avoid fallout from that war but Gagliano was not so lucky.

Thankfully, in post-political life, this Italian immigrant found the peace that eluded him and became a prized vintner of wine that bears his name.

May two loyal warriors rest in peace.

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

Bill Morneau was never after Justin Trudeau’s job. From the beginning, Morneau seemed ill at ease with the thrust and parry of political life.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 24, 2020.

OTTAWA—Bill Morneau is a class act. In what must have been an excruciatingly painful press conference, he explained his departure without rancour or bitterness.

The lines may have sounded a little rehearsed, as they reinforced a notion that nobody really believed. But he came across as a person at peace with his decision and ready to move on to the next phase of his public life.

In the short term, the campaign to become secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development will be all-consuming. However, his chances of success are slim. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to campaign vigorously on Morneau’s behalf, but he will have his hands full managing the domestic agenda.

If prorogation results in a non-confidence motion defeat, the country will soon be plunged into a mid-pandemic election. Navigating the challenges of either an election or a continuing minority parliament will preclude the leader from international glad-handing. Given the experience of the Security Council defeat, it may not help.

International nominations are also guided by the mundane world of politics, factoring in regional representation and diversity. Canada has already held the OECD top job, during a ten-year stint by an affable ex-cabinet minister in the former Trudeau government, Donald Johnston. Since the creation of the organization in 1961, there have only been five secretaries-general. He was the fourth. Many other countries will be clamouring for their turn at the wheel, so the chance of second Canadian pick is slim.

Trudeau and Morneau must have known that when they tried to explain to the nation that international ambition was driving the departure of a finance minister in the midst of a worldwide pandemic. The OECD sideline was an elegant, though implausible, way of positioning Morneau’s departure. It gave the finance minister a reason to leave in haste with his head held high and it gave Trudeau a reason to say how much he supported his finance minister. Both knew neither to be true.

Pundits were comparing the Trudeau/Morneau split with the final years of acrimony between Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. But nothing could be further from the truth. CBC pundit David Herle, who is still carrying the torch for his former boss and mentor Martin, pronounced aggrievedly on television last week that his boss found out about his firing on the radio.

On the face of it, that sounds horribly unfair. But Herle neglected to mention the events leading to his boss’s radio shocker. Martin had been working for months to force Chretien’s hand and secure his retirement. He had a plan in place to announce his resignation from finance at a major International Monetary Fund conference meeting on Monday. The previous Friday he had publicly suggested that he was reviewing his options.

The intention was to throw the markets into turmoil and cause the dollar to plummet, leaving Chretien no choice but to step down. Shredders were already deployed at the finance department, with Martin staffers working overtime to destroy his personal papers. When Chretien found out, he called an emergency Sunday cabinet meeting, seeking support to pre-emptively remove Martin that evening, in favour of another financial stalwart, John Manley. The markets barely moved, and Martin’s Monday massacre was pre-emptively thwarted.

The difference between last week’s scenario and previous warring Liberal prime and finance ministers was that Morneau was never after Trudeau’s job. He had no interest in running for prime minister and was sincerely interested in politics to simply make a difference. Previous battles between Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, and their respective finance ministers, involved staring down adversaries who were trying to replace them. Morneau had no intention of running for prime minister.

As for public life, he certainly did not need the money, or the notoriety. Putting his business on hold meant financial sacrifice for the whole Morneau family. But from the beginning, Morneau seemed ill at ease with the thrust and parry of political life. His earnest attempt to tighten up tax loopholes backfired when he referred to certain tax incentives as “dead money.” That description would not have lifted an eyebrow on Bay Street, but it landed with a thud on Main Street.

At the end of the day, Morneau was a good man who had much to contribute to public life. His Bay Street background distanced him from the norms that govern the rest of us. That was ultimately his downfall.

As Morneau learned, Bay Street and Main Street are very different parts of town.

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