A lawsuit will not likely reverse the damage already done to Han Dong. A warm caucus welcome would be a good place to start.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 3, 2025.

OTTAWA—Han Dong should be quickly welcomed back into the Liberal caucus with open arms.

He was completely exonerated by the final report of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference headed by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue.

Dong posted a letter following the report release last week which said the following: “I am relieved that Justice Hogue ‘did not see evidence of parliamentarians conspiring with foreign states against Canada.’”

Dong also expressed that he was “heartened by Justice Hogue’s definitive conclusions about the very public allegations that have been made against me specifically. I have always maintained that I called for the release of the Two Michaels at every opportunity. I am grateful for Justice Hogue’s unequivocal confirmation that ‘the classified information corroborates Mr. Dong’s denial of the allegation that he suggested the PRC [People’s Republic of China] should hold off releasing Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor.’”

Dong is seeking an apology from Global, Corus and the Global newscaster who originally broke the allegations story.

In her report, Hogue made it clear that no foreign government posed a threat to elections in Canada. She found the bigger threat to democracy is the spread of disinformation and misinformation in media and on social networks. Ironically, it was spread of just such mis/disinformation that led to the establishment of the inquiry in the first place.

Hogue’s 16-month investigation involved testimony from more than 150 witnesses, resulting in seven volumes of recommendations. More than half of them should be implemented before the next election.

Some of the recommendations involved changes to party nomination processes, and the necessity for leaders to receive security briefings. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is the only current leader who refuses to get security clearance for those briefings, on the grounds that it might affect his ability to speak freely on issues.

Hogue also discredited the conclusions of a report prepared by the parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing foreign influence on parliamentarians.

Last June, in the middle of the Hogue Inquiry, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians published a report based on intelligence documents that accused unnamed parliamentarians of “semi-wittingly” or “wittingly” assisting foreign government attempts to interfere in the Canadian democratic process.

Hogue said the parliamentarians came to the wrong conclusion, and suggested “the frailties of intelligence make it dangerous to rely on.”

Hogue’s report, because it largely debunked the political hysteria surrounding the role of parliamentarians as traitors, received little coverage. Likewise, the exoneration of Dong was buried deep in the news cycle.

The initial allegations made front-page news across the country, and the crisis prompted his departure from the Liberal caucus while the investigation was ongoing.

Hogue identified shortcomings in the flow of information between federal government departments involved in the issue. But since when has bureaucracy not been accused of a laborious system to manage the flow of information? When dealing with classified information, the flow can be even more tedious.

Because the report largely discounts the role of foreign governments in Canadian elections, we can expect to hear very little on this issue in the near future.

But what the Hogue report does expose is an uneasy willingness to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to the dealings of non-white Members of Parliament.

No MP has ever been accused of cozying up to the United States, even though we have a friendship group pf parliamentarians that connects on a regular basis. MPs with good connections in Washington are considered an asset.

Why do we not say the same thing about MPs with good connections in other countries? Why is it considered perfectly normal to work in tandem with the United States, but positively traitorous to be well-connected in the People’s Republic of China?

Is racism a factor of bias in some of our intelligence-gathering? Are we as stringent with European connections as we are with those of the Asia-Pacific?

Given the definitive conclusions of the Hogue report, it is time to right a wrong.

It is one thing to amend party regulations to ensure tighter control on who gets to vote. But what are the consequences for false information that targets a hardworking Member of Parliament like Dong?

Dong is free to go the legal route, as he seems to have a solid case for a libel suit. I successfully sued members of the media twice in my political career.

But a lawsuit will not likely reverse the damage already done to Dong. A warm caucus welcome would be a good place to start.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 13, 2025.

OTTAWA—Enemy of the state: that is the only way to characterize the threat of Canadian “economic annexation” by American president-elect Donald Trump.

His so-called joke about Canada joining the United States is turning deadly serious.

It is a threat that one would expect from a dictator. It is not a threat that one could expect from the leader of our democratically-elected neighbour, the United States.

All bets are off with the Trump claim that Canada should join the U.S. in the formation of a single country.

He even has the nerve to post a map of Canada absorbed into the United States, with the stars and stripes flag covering all the way from Mexico to the Arctic.

Trump has ruled out military force as a method of annexation, speaking instead about economic annexation.

He continues to falsely claim that Canada receives hundreds of millions in subsidies in America.

He wants to end auto, milk, and lumber imports from Canada, claiming that his country doesn’t need any of our goods to survive.

However, Trump did not mention electricity or oil and gas, Canadian exports that America needs to keep its economy running.

Trump also reached out to support the candidacy of Pierre Poilievre as a future prime minister, saying the pair are on the same political wave length.

Poilievre moved quickly to distance himself from Trump, stating the obvious: Canada will never become the 51st state.

But Conservative allies like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith plan to attend the president’s inauguration on Jan. 20 in celebration of his victory.

The Alberta premier has also refused to join Ontario Premier Doug Ford in denying the export of energy to the U.S. Ford promised to retaliate on tariffs by refusing to export energy south of the border, but Smith quickly rebutted that Ford did not speak for her province.

However, that happened before Trump launched his campaign to annex Canada.

Smith would be hard-pressed to explain her presence at Trump’s inauguration when the leader she plans to celebrate is claiming publicly he will buy Greenland, annex Canada, and take over the Panama Canal.

While Trump’s threats are being widely covered here at home, they won’t make the news very long in the U.S.

Ford was supposed to be interviewed on the subject by CNN, but his presence was cancelled when the California wildfires replaced Canada’s annexation in the news cycle.

While Americans may gloss over Trumpian machinations, we cannot afford to do so.

We need to get tough on as many fronts as possible. One of those could be a refusal to allow the president to enter Canada for the G7 meeting in June because of his recent federal criminal conviction.

Diplomacy could override that refusal, but diplomacy is also a two-way street.

Unless Trump issues a clarification regarding his crazy annexation claims, he should be kept out of the country.

Words have consequences, and the words of a bully need to be met with consequences.

Some might argue that barring Trump from the country would simply poke the bear.

But stroking the bear has not gotten us anywhere.

Peter Donolo, former prime ministerial communications adviser to then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, recently wrote an opinion piece saying that we can’t treat the Trump threats as a joke.

Instead, we need to act with political muscle. That muscle should include testing Trump in international fora.

The Organization of American States is where the unilateral declaration of annexation theory could be tested. Last year, the OAS issued a condemnation of Venezuela’s move to annex the Essequibo region of Guyana.

Canada, and the rest of the Americas, has an interest in dampening down Trump’s rhetoric.

Annexation is not legal, which is why the world has been working to get Russian troops out of Ukraine.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should also be asked to take a stand on the American president-elect’s annexation ruminations.

The United Nations could also be an appropriate forum for condemnation of Trump’s hostile annexation rhetoric.

These claims need to be fought at the highest level of international diplomacy, including the potential for legal remedies.

The International Court of Justice should be asked for its opinion as to the legality of Trump’s annexation threats. It has a mandate to give advice on international legal issues. What could be more pressing than a claim that one democratic country will undertake ‘economic annexation’ of another?

Trump must be taken seriously. It is time to fight a bully by destroying his bully pulpit.

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

In last week’s palace revolt, there is no heir apparent standing in the wings. Although several candidates are already preparing, including some in cabinet, there is no single juggernaut organizationally.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 28, 2024.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dodged a bullet from his own party last week.

A document signed by 24 caucus members set out the reasons why they think he should resign. One surprise element in the document was the deadline for his decision.

He has been told in no uncertain terms that he must make his future known one way or the other by Monday, Oct. 28.

The number of caucus members who did not sign the document is just as noteworthy as the number who did.

In a caucus of 153 members, some 130 chose not to participate in this ultimatum.

That doesn’t mean that they are all happy with the leadership, no matter what cabinet members have been saying for the cameras.

With poll numbers stagnating and a 19-point gap to close with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, many ministers and MPs are repeating privately what the dissidents said at the Liberal caucus meeting on Oct. 23.

Some are voting with their feet, decided they are not seeking re-election for all kinds of good reasons. Most of them cite family and quality of life issues, but the cloud hanging over everyone’s head is winnability.

If they don’t make a move soon—and drastically—they are all risking defeat in an election expected next year.

Media reports said Trudeau listened attentively to the criticism and got emotional at times when he recounted the sacrifices his own family has made on his behalf.

In his own words, the prime minister has said that his decision to continue in politics was a factor in the end of his marriage.

That is an incredible sacrifice to make, and at some point, he has to evaluate whether it is really worth it.

The past year has been an unsuccessful effort to reboot the Liberal image.

The move to shake up cabinet and bring in younger, more diverse voices has not resulted in any upswing in Liberal support.

If anything, that shakeup actually accelerated Trudeau’s downward spiral as caucus grew more concerned when two relatively safe Liberal seats were lost in byelections in the key battlegrounds of Toronto and Montreal.

Trudeau has consistently refused to used paid advertising as a way to change the channel on his leadership. When he was elected in 2015, he promised to do away with government advertising that was deemed to be partisan.

But that promise is blowing up in his face as most Canadians have no idea that the federal government has introduced enhanced pharma care, national daycare, increased dental care and cross-Canada school food programs.

Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith underscored the decision by the Liberal Party not to spend a lot on advertising in a media interview after the caucus last week. He also called for an end to the “palace intrigue.”

His wish may be granted as most Liberal MPs don’t want to stab themselves in the back.

Back in the days of the fight between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, a similar letter circulated for weeks.

Martin supporters in the caucus had been working for years to smooth the way for their guy to take over, and this letter-writing campaign garnered more than 70 signatures.

The difference is that there was well-oiled machine behind the man who wanted to force Chrétien out.

Martin was widely viewed as a successful finance minister who could be a three-term prime minister himself.

In last week’s palace revolt, there is no single heir apparent standing in the wings. Although several candidates are already preparing—including some in the current cabinet—there is no single juggernaut organizationally.

The Oct. 28 deadline is a recognition that the time to replace Trudeau is running short if he were to decide that he wants to step down and prompt a leadership race.

With loss of the supply-and-confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party in September, the uncertainty of an early election also has Liberal members spooked.

They know that even if Trudeau goes, the time to put together a leadership scenario is a minimum of five months, and even that is cutting it short.

They may not have five months if all opposition parties decide they want to vote non-confidence.

Trudeau exited caucus last week pledging to reporters that “the Liberal Party is strong and united.”

That may be wishful thinking. They are certainly united in wanting some specific changes to how the government is getting its message out. And some simply want him out.

But don’t expect Trudeau to follow his father’s footsteps and take a walk in the snow this week.

Hill Times Editor’s note: Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith was referring to the Liberal Party of Canada’s lack of political advertising, not the Government of Canada’s. This column has been corrected and updated online.

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

The idea behind the Marshall Plan could be applied to a world approach to resettlement of refugees.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 14, 2024.

OTTAWA—Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre are cut from the same cloth.

Last week, the behaviour of both men made that clearer than ever.

While a Category 5 hurricane was bearing down on Florida and the Gulf Coast, Trump was doing everything in his power to blame the storm of the century on immigration.

While Canada and the world were mourning first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on innocent Israeli civilians, Poilievre used a memorial service to blame the catastrophe on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

According to Trump, immigrants—and by osmosis his opponent Kamala Harris—are responsible for all crimes, economic challenges, and inflationary woes in the United States.

He forgets that more than one of his wives is an immigrant herself who has contributed positively to American life.

Poilievre is not riding the anti-immigration wave at the moment. Like Trump, he is married to an immigrant, but unlike Trump, he cannot make hay over a political attack on refugees.

Canadians are still generally positive about the role immigrants play in building our economy, although that support has been waning in recent months.

Make no mistake, if Poilievre smells a change in the domestic political wind, he will follow his American counterpart into attack mode on immigration.

Quebec Premier François Legault has already opened the door to that possibility, as he has recently taken to blaming the federal government for refugees who have been coming across the American border on foot.

Legault knows the pur laine support that he depends on is not as positive toward immigration as it is in urban areas.

Herouxville, Que.,’s racist “code of conduct” for immigrants was not that long ago. The notion that immigrants could water down the vibrancy of the French language in Quebec appeals to voters in rural constituencies.

Quebec is one province where Poilievre has not made a breakthrough. If he needs to stoke fear of immigrants as an election wedge issue, he will not hesitate.

So how does the current Liberal government counter that possibility?

Taking a leadership role in designing solutions for the world refugee crisis would be a good place to start.

I attended a meeting last week where a former public servant approached me to suggest that Canada initiate a call for a world Marshall Plan for refugee resettlement.

The first Marshall Plan, launched by the Americans after the Second World War, sought to rebuild war-torn regions of Europe, and modernize industry by removing trade barriers and improving prosperity. Another goal was to prevent the spread of communism.

In a relatively short period of less than a decade, bombed-out infrastructure was remediated, and the Europeans were back in business.

Some credit the Marshall Plan with putting Germany in the position to become a dominant European industrial powerhouse.

But the idea behind the Marshall Plan could be applied to a world approach to resettlement of refugees.

The Canadian government could take the lead in the Americas, working with Caribbean and Latin American countries to develop an economic-funded resettlement plan that would not cannibalize borders, but rather would co-operate and share the challenge of resettling the millions of global citizens who have lost their homes to war, famine, economic collapse, or climate change.

By involving Latin American nations, the plan would develop a more rational collective approach to assist the influx of immigrants from failed states in that part of the world.

A refugee resettlement plan could be replicated in other parts of the globe with a similar work plan.

Obviously, participation by the United States would be key, and that cannot happen until the results of the November election are finalized.

If Trump wins, there will be no possibility of regional co-operation, especially with our Latin neighbours. He is busy blaming immigration for every problem facing his country.

But if Harris is victorious, there could be an appetite for co-operation, given her knowledge of Canada and her parents’ status as Indian and Caribbean immigrants.

Now is the time for the Trudeau government to take the lead in an area that Canada knows well.

Back in the last century, our country won the Nansen Medal, a United Nations recognition for outstanding service in the cause of refugees because of Canadian efforts to resettle Vietnamese immigrants.

We remain the only country in the world to have been so honoured. We were the first country to include private sponsorships in our resettlement strategy.

It is time to think big again. Head off an anti-immigrant tsunami with our own modern-day Marshall Plan.

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

Poilievre’s media hatred is well-known, but his disdain for fellow MPs has recently come into greater public focus. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 30, 2024.

Stephen Colbert belled the cat. Before Canadians get too triumphant about how we would never vote for Donald Trump, the host of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert underscored the obvious.

Pierre Poilievre is Canada’s Donald Trump.

As Canadians get closer to an election, Conservative pundits are explaining that Poilievre’s caustic campaign attitude would soften were he to become prime minister.

American pundits said the same thing when Trump was headed to the White House.

After the cliffhanger surprise victory in the November 2016 election, it was suggested that his toxic behaviour would change once he became the president.

But what we observed was the exact opposite. By empowering a bully, American Trump supporters managed to feed the ego of an even bigger bully.

Poilievre is certainly Trump-like in his attacks on everyone who opposes him, and even some of those who don’t.

The Conservative leader issued a prohibition last week against talking to any reporter with CTV news after it was revealed that his comment on dental care was edited.

But his fatwa did not stop there. He also insisted that all Conservative MPs refrain from holding any meetings with executives, lobbyists, or any other representative of Bell Media, even though CTV “unreservedly” apologized for the alleged misrepresentation.

CTV News issued a second statement on Sept. 26, saying two CTV News staff members were responsible for “altering a video clip, manipulating it for a particular story,” and are no longer members of the CTV News team. CTV News “sincerely and unreservedly” apologized, and said its duty is “to provide accurate, fair, and balanced coverage of the issues that matter to Canadians.”

Poilievre attacked the head of CTV’s parent company—and previous Conservative party donor—BCE president Mirko Bibic blaming him for a recent downgrading in the company’s valuation by Moody’s.

Poilievre also claimed that Bibic was pulling the editorial strings in the newsroom to make the Conservatives look bad, and prop up the government.

Forget about Bell’s leadership. What about the almost 45,000 people who work for the company that is struggling along with other conglomerates because of the changing media landscape?

Bibic has actually donated to the Conservative Party in the past. He even supported Jean Charest’s leadership bid, which perhaps accelerated Poilievre’s angry tone last week.

Poilievre has already trashed the CBC, claiming that as prime minister he would end its funding. He has also consistently attacked The Canadian Press for allegedly writing stories that are carried verbatim by dozens of news outlets across the country (which is their mandate).

Poilievre’s media hatred is well-known, but his disdain for fellow MPs has recently come into greater public focus.

After NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh ripped up the supply-and-confidence agreement with the government earlier this month, but then refused to join in Poilievre’s non-confidence motion last week, the Conservative leader called his NDP opponent “a fake, a phoney, a fraud, and a liar.”

The move follows the same example as Trump who loves burning his bridges with aggressive and over-the-top rhetoric.

This is strange behaviour for someone whose prime ministerial future could depend on his capacity to work with other parties.

If he is elected by a minority of voters, Poilievre would have to make common cause with other leaders in order to survive.

And having a workable relationship with Singh should be on his agenda, not increasing the temperature to the point where Singh was implying to “bro” that he step across the aisle and fix their differences with their fists.

Trump has amply proven that you can’t take the bully out of the man. Even when he was in a position of authority, as the president of the United States, Trump acted as though he still had to double down permanently on all his enemies, including—and especially—those who had formerly been his friends.

As for Poilievre, he has pretty much smoked everyone in the so-called “heritage media.”

But he won’t get his message out by simple social posts or Rebel regurgitations.

Last week, Rebel was denied the right to receive media support because, according to a recent Federal Court judgment, it doesn’t create enough original news.

According to Revenue Canada, less than one per cent of Rebel’s content is original, so it cannot claim the financial payment offered by the Liberal government to existing media outlets.

That decision will no doubt enhance Poilievre’s attacks on everyone in the media, but it is a stretch to assume that the president of CTV’s parent company would have any say on what goes on in the national news room.

The legal beagles at Bell are probably reviewing their slander options today. If Poilievre were as fulsome outside the House as he was inside, he will probably be served with a notice to apologize for his comments.

But, like any bully, that may only make him angrier.

As Colbert said: Poilievre is Canada’s Trump.

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

The result of last week’s byelection in Montreal proves there’s no such thing as a safe seat in politics. Liberal organizers also made a classic error: pushing aside viable local candidates for hand-picked head-office replacements.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 23, 2024.

OTTAWA—As prime minister Justin Trudeau struggles to defend his future plans, he should step back and reflect on one thing.

All the troubles the Liberals are currently facing are self-inflicted.

The first huge error was to believe that replacing two highly-respected senior cabinet ministers with newbies would enhance the party’s election chances.

When Trudeau chose to demote then-justice minister David Lametti and send Carolyn Bennett to the diplomatic corps, he was counting on the belief that both occupied so-called “safe” Liberal seats.

The result of last week’s byelection in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, Que., proves one thing.

There is no such thing as a safe seat in politics.

Liberal organizers also committed a classic error in both ridings, pushing aside viable local candidates for hand-picked head-office replacements.

In Toronto-St.Paul’s, Leslie Church—an Ottawa insider—was the chosen one. Several popular local candidates wanted to run for the nomination, but were not given the chance to compete fairly.

In Montreal, nominee Laura Palestini was a well-known local councillor. But there were others who wanted to seek the nomination when Lametti stepped down to return to the legal profession.

National campaign co-chair Soraya Martinez Ferrada told Radio Canada last summer that Palestini was hand-picked by the party, bypassing an open nomination process.

Privately, she explained to disgruntled Liberals that the party preferred directed democracy.

But that decision meant that several long-term riding activists sat out the election, and in a race as tight as the one we saw on the evening of Sept. 16, their absence was costly.

The best way to ensure a candidate has the support of the riding is to allow an open nomination where all prospective candidates prove their organizational prowess, as well as their ability to connect with the community.

In both byelections, head office chose the candidates, and that left a bad taste in people’s mouths.

The self-inflicted wound of trying to direct democracy was coupled with a political calculation that has cost the Liberals dearly.

In the July 2023 cabinet shuffle, three senior ministers were moved out, supposedly to reboot the party fortunes.

Not coincidentally, new cabinet choices depended on how the changes might help electorally.

In Ottawa, former minister Mona Fortier occupied what is supposed to be another safe seat.

The exits of Fortier, Lametti, and Bennett were all supposed to ensure a better political positioning for the Liberals.

Lametti’s departure set the stage for the ministerial appointments of Tourism Minister Martinez Ferrada, and Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Both hail from minority communities, and it was thought that their promotions—like that of Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez—would increase party chances in Latin-American, Muslim, and Filipino communities. Fortier’s replacement with Jenna Sudds was intended to solidify a tough seat in west Ottawa, the thinking being that ministers are more likely to be re-elected in a tight race.

Instead, the numbers have not moved up for the Liberals, and the losses in two previous strongholds have further damaged the prime minister’s staying power.

The notion that ministerial status improves electability is also debatable.

Back in 1984, when I was the only Liberal elected between Toronto and Windsor, the ministerial moniker hurt rather than helped.

At that time, the party had governed for so long that anyone associated with a ministry was actually in greater danger of defeat.

The only reason I was able to win my seat was that I had come from the provincial legislature, and as a new candidate, I had the benefit of saying that I represented change.

In a change election, people vote for change. And if you are too closely associated with the previous government that can hurt rather than help.

The Liberal cabinet reset, carried out more than a year ago, has not improved the party’s standing.

There is a mood in the country that people want change. For better or for worse, they are not focusing on Pierre Poilievre’s destructive policies.

Instead, they are telling the Liberals they want new faces. Trudeau is trying to warn Canadians: “be careful what you wish for.”

Meanwhile, some Liberal organizers are actively seeking to cherry-pick their candidates, and to slow the nomination process for others.

Long-time Members of Parliament like Judy Sgro have fulfilled all the requirements for renomination, but still haven’t been given the green light.

If the party takes one lesson from these byelections, it is this: There is no such thing as a safe seat. And the best way to win an election is for the party to stay out of it.

Let local Liberals decide.

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

The centre is where the majority of Canadians would like to be. But there’s a big question as to whether Dominic Cardy’s party can become more than just a one-man show.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 19, 2024.

OTTAWA—Dominic Cardy registered a new party with Elections Canada this month, planning to field candidates in all upcoming federal byelections.

In an interview with The Toronto Star, the interim leader of the Canadian Future Party says he considers the current federal Conservative leader “terrifying.”

He says he plans to offer a centrist option to voters tired of electoral polarization, telling The Star: “Our tag line is saying we’re not left, not right, (we’re) going forward.”

Ironically, that was the same tag line that led the Liberals to form a minority government in 2021, with their slogan being, “Forward, for everyone.”

The former minister in the New Brunswick’s Progressive Conservative government is no stranger to new parties.

He served as the leader of that province’s New Democratic Party from 2011 until 2017.

He ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the legislature as a New Democrat, but won the same seat as a Progressive Conservative in 2018.

He endorsed Maxime Bernier for the federal Conservative leadership, so if Cardy needs advice on how to make a new party work, he can always reach out to Mad Max.

Both men must realize that in the current political system, building and sustaining a new party is almost impossible.

Just ask the Green Party that has been in existence since 1983.

In the 2004 election, the Green Party, under the leadership of Jim Harris, secured candidates in all ridings and received 4.3 per cent of the popular vote.

When Elizabeth May took the helm in 2006, she again moved the dial for the Greens, taking them to 6.8 per cent of the national popular vote in the 2008 election.

That was the party’s apex, followed by multiple elections which eventually saw the election of three Members of Parliament. May has held her seat in Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C., since 2011, and is the longest serving woman leader of a political party in Canadian history.

But despite a national showing in multiple elections, the Green Party has never been able to make a real breakthrough.

So how does the Canadian Future Party think it can do things differently?

It is targeting the centre, and claims a membership of former Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats, although Cardy has been coy on who those supporters are.

The party hopes to appeal to former Tories who are not happy with the shift to the right that has happened since the party dropped its progressive wing in order to merge with the former Reform Party.

Canadian Future also hope to attract Liberals who think their party has moved too far to the left in its alliance with the New Democratic Party.

The centre is certainly where the majority of Canadians would like to be. But there is a big question as to whether the Cardy party can become more than simply a one-man show.

The party’s standing in the upcoming byelections in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, Que., and Winnipeg-Transcona, Man., will be a bellwether of its possibilities.

The party has not managed to secure well-known candidates in either riding, which may be some indication of how uphill the climb will be.

The Liberals are unlikely to give up the coveted centre as it has spelled success for them in the majority of elections since the beginning of Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has moved the party to the left with programs like pharma care, childcare, and dental care. During the pandemic, that move has worked well for Canadians, especially those who were thrown out of work through no fault of their own.

But the chance of another party making any headway when the Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats are fighting for votes is unlikely.

The bigger question is: if they get any traction, from whom will the Canadian Future Party skim votes?

Most progressives have already left the Conservative Party, and Poilievre appears to be shaping his campaign far from the centre.

His promise to shut down the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is sure to scare off centrists, especially those in Atlantic Canada who depend on the public broadcaster for their only local coverage.

Poilievre’s new campaign attacking NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is also not attracting the centre. Instead, he is going hard after the left in order to encourage NDP voters to vault over the Liberals and join the Conservatives.

It is ironic but true that some blue-collar voters are more likely to switch from NDP to Conservative than to ever vote Liberal.

But the centre is still where political victory lies.

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

Justin Trudeau believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Pierre Poilievre, but Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited. The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 4, 2024.

OTTAWA—The winds of political change are blowing everywhere.

Instead of interpreting that as a renaissance of the right, we have to assume that voter fatigue in multiple countries is fuelling this desire for change.

In the case of the United Kingdom, that wind led to a majority Labour government win on July 4.

British Conservatives have been in power for 14 years.

But unlike Canadian Liberals, the British Tories have motored through five leaders during the same period.

The revolving door on British leadership is prompted by a rule similar to that of Canadian Conservatives. If the majority of caucus votes against the leader, they are dismissed from power.

In the British Parliament, the dumping of leaders by caucus springs from rules written into party constitutions.

In Canada, only the Conservatives can trigger a leadership review. That process stems from a private member’s bill adopted unanimously in the House of Commons on condition that implementation is up to each caucus to be voted on privately at the beginning of a new Parliament.

Because of this rule, even if Pierre Poilievre were to secure a majority government in the next election, if his popularity flagged, he could be quickly replaced.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the revolving door leads to internal party divisions that are hard to heal.

In the dying dies of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s campaign, former prime minister Boris Johnson was brought in to rally the troops. He rallied hard, but did little to support his leader.

Instead, he used his time on stage in London’s Chelsea neighbourhood to praise his own initiatives, and trash the left.

He simply ignored Sunak, who was part of the group that dumped him. With such Tory in-fighting, the Labour Party has doubled its lead heading into a vote predicted to be a washout for the governing party.

From France to Canada, from the United Kingdom to the United States, multiple western leaders are suffering from voter fatigue.

Some may also be suffering from personal fatigue.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s performance in the June 27 debate against Donald Trump was palpably painful to watch. He struggled to keep his train of thought, and spoke in a gravelly, weakened voice. There were moments when he appeared to be confused about what the issue was. His wife, Jill, went up to the podium at the end to usher Biden away, as one would do for an elderly relative with balance problems.

All in all, it reinforced the narrative that Biden should not be the Democratic Party’s choice in the next election if they intend to defeat Trump.

Americans are also suffering from price fatigue and inflation, but there does not seem to be the obvious stampede to the right that one witnessed in the first round of the French elections last week.

Instead, the American race is a sparring match between relatively equal political movements, with the two-party system almost split down the middle.

But with the mental and physical feebleness Biden displayed on debate night, his party will be ceding the election to the Trump Republicans unless he is encouraged to step aside.

In the French coalition system with multiple parties, the group led by President Emmanuel Macron is running a poor third in the vote he himself triggered early.

Like the U.K’s Sunak, Macron called a surprise election. Both seem to be facing imminent defeat because of their own bad judgement.

In Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s case, he is hoping that time will heal all wounds. But it may also be that time is running out because the governance agreement with Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats will expire early next year.

The shocking Liberal loss in Toronto-St. Paul’s, Ont., left the party with a sense of foreboding that will fester when they hear negative feedback on the summer barbecue circuit.

Unlike Sunak, Trudeau cannot simply be dumped by a vote of his caucus.

Like Biden, Trudeau must reflect on whether his presence in the next election will be a plus or a minus.

The prime minister believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Poilievre.

But the prime minister also needs boots on the ground, though with many Liberals both privately and publicly expressing their reservations, the volunteer base of the party will be shrinking.

Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited.

The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

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

Liberals would be better off to focus on the good parts of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand and even fewer will be paying.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 24, 2024.

OTTAWA—The Liberals want to pick a fight on capital gains. And Pierre Poilievre is poised for battle.

He has characterized the tax changes announced in the budget as “economic vandalism,” and has taken the unusual step of appearing on mainstream media television to fight the changes.

For her part, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has been leading the charge for the Liberals.

The deputy prime minister repeated her message that richer Canadians would not want to see “the public sphere so degraded,” and that the “wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns hot.”

Not sure about the reference to compatriots? If Liberals want to occupy the political centre, they need to use ordinary language.

Freeland, and compatriot Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez have characterized the capital gains hike as tax fairness.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also publicly defended the changes are a matter of fairness.

He says it is simply not fair that a teacher pays tax on 100 per cent of their income, while a business owner pays taxes only 50 per cent of “passive’ income capital gains hikes.

The last budget proposed a hike to two-thirds of capital gains. In the 1990s, the capital gains tax—pegged at 75 per cent—was even higher.

If Poilievre wants to hike the temperature on taxes, he thinks there are some political points to be scored.

His party was the only one to vote against the proposed capital gains changes, but he has already promised to do a complete revision of the tax system without any specific details.

Depending on where you sit on the political spectrum, the question of fairness is a moving target.

The Fraser Institute—a bastion of conservatism—claimed in a 2023 report that the top 20 per cent of income-earning families in the country pay more than 60 per cent of the taxes.

On the other hand, the Broadbent Institute says those figures are skewed because top earners also account for two-thirds of the nation’s total net wealth, while the bottom 40 per cent of net earners comprise just three per cent.

So just where do Canadians land on what constitutes tax fairness?

This is where the question of who will win the tax fairness fight turns.

Most Canadians who don’t expect a personal tax bite on capital gains have already moved on to other issues in their lives.

Those who do expect to pay a capital gain are hopping mad, and they don’t plan to forget it any time soon.

The Canadian Medical Association says the tax changes will negatively impact on family doctor availability, already at a crisis level in many parts of the country.

They are lobbying, along with their provincial organizations, for an exemption for medical corporations or—at the very least—measures to allow individuals in the corporation to share the exemption threshold in an indexed tax amendment.

According to an Abacus survey commissioned by the CMA, 76 per cent of Canadians with an opinion on the issue felt changes should be reversed for doctors.

The CMA’s president has said that a special exemption should apply to doctors because “We are unique. …We need to be treated that way.”

But if doctors are exempted, then what about farmers, and small business operators in other sectors?

They, too, would like an exemption or a change in the proposed law. And that’s what Poilievre is banking on.

Most Canadians are fully in favour of taxing the rich, as long as it doesn’t include them.

But they have already forgotten about capital gains, and are moving on to other issues.

Affordability, inflation, food prices, and housing are high on their agenda. And they really don’t care about a capital gains change.

So Poilievre is planning to roll up a rather confusing tax change into his attack on the tax-and-spend Liberals.

In the end, the only people currently following the issue closely are those in the top bracket who could be affected by the changes.

As far as they are concerned, it is not fair for them to pay more taxes, and they are not going to be moved by concerns of their compatriots.

Liberals would be much better off to focus on the positive elements of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand, and even fewer will be paying.

The message on dental care, pharmacare, and daycare is positive news for millions of Canadians.

That’s the battle that Liberals should be fighting.

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

The fallout from the parliamentary foreign activity report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2024.

OTTAWA–The cloud of suspicion hanging over Members of Parliament was partly lifted by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week.

May spoke out at a lengthy press conference on June 11 after having read the classified document on parliamentary foreign activity produced by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP).

May said she was “relieved” to read that, in her opinion, none of the “few” Members of Parliament mentioned in the document are being disloyal to Canada.

There was one former MP who knowingly colluded with a foreign government, but their identity was not revealed. May stated that her reading of the report concluded that no current MPs were involved in any malfeasance.

May asked, “are there currently MPs sitting with us in the Chamber who would set out knowingly to sell Canada out for personal benefit? If there are, there’s no evidence of that in the full report.”

She urged other party leaders to read the report, and to draw their own conclusions.

Reports of the document state that “the committee has also seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.”

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh, who also read the report, said he was even more concerned after reading it, and urged Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to do the same. The current leader of the opposition refuses to seek the security clearance required to read the document.

Singh also questioned whether Poilievre was refusing to read the document because it included references to potential foreign influence in the Conservative leader’s own party leadership bid. The NSICOP report references interference by Indian and Chinese governments in the Conservative leadership race.

Singh said: “In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.” CBC News later reported that Singh’s office would not confirm if he was referring to current sitting MPs.

Meanwhile, with no specifics on which Members of Parliament have been named, the House of Commons agreed on June 11 to a Bloc Québécois motion to refer the parliamentary report to the public inquiry into foreign interference.

That inquiry, led by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, is already reviewing the issues surrounding foreign election-meddling allegations.

Hogue produced her interim report last month, which said there is evidence of foreign interference, but the integrity of Canada’s electoral system remains intact.

The commissioner also concluded that “vigorous measures” must be taken to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system after unveiling evidence that foreign governments did interfere in the elections of 2019 and 2021, leaving “a stain on our electoral process.”

The fallout from the NSICOP report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system. Instead, the report left the impression that there were multiple Members of Parliament knowingly sharing confidential information with foreign influencers.

Poilievre and his Alberta-based attack dog Michael Cooper both called on the prime minister to immediately release the names of all members cited in the document.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a parliamentary committee that it would be illegal to release names. “I am not going to violate the Security of Information Act, and risk prosecution for a political stunt,” he said.

He, too, encouraged Poilievre to get full security clearance so the Conservative leader could read the report, and decide for himself what level of foreign influence has affected our democracy and electoral process.

Poilievre refuses to read the report himself, claiming that to do so would prevent him from asking pertinent questions. The Conservative leader says clearance would limit his capacity to comment on issues, since top-secret material is usually only for the eyes of the security-cleared reader.

But his refusal to gather all the data begs the question: if Poilievre were to win the election, would he be able to become prime minister without a full security clearance? And if so, why would he want to make decisions without being in possession of all the facts?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for a leader to gather as much background as possible before deciding on what direction s/he would be taking on the foreign interference question?

Poilievre is simply demanding that the prime minister name names. He cares not for illegality, or due process.

His insouciance really makes you wonder what kind of prime minister he would be.

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