The message from the Newfoundland and Labrador election is loud and clear: Rural voices will not be silenced. The Canadian government needs to listen.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 20, 2025.

OTTAWA—The result of the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election on Oct. 14 should serve as a wake-up call for the federal Liberals.

Of course, the appetite for change is always present when a government has been in power for a decade. But it would be a mistake to think the majority government delivered to the Progressive Conservatives was simply a result of voter fatigue.

Instead, there was an urban/rural split that went undetected in the multiple polls that predicted another Liberal majority.

The polls were wrong. It was quite obvious that the Liberal messaging resonated in the greater St. John’s area, but fell pretty flat in the rest of the province.

The Liberals held their own in the provincial capital, which is the heart of Newfoundland media coverage. That strength led pollsters to misread the appetite for change that was rolling across the rest of the province.

Liberal Health and Community Services Krista Lynn Howell was defeated by Andrea Barbour, even though Progressive Conservatives were joking that there were more road-paving announcements than icebergs in her Great Northern Peninsula district before the vote.

Howell lost by 595 votes, which does not seem like a lot. But considering the district included only 4,703 voters, that is more than a 10 per cent margin.

Her job as health and community services minister did not help because one of the main issues promoted by the Progressive Conservatives was major new investment in health care.

The Tory party platform called for an improved patient-nurse ratio, and promised the addition of 50 more nursing education spaces at Memorial University. The party also pledged to tackle government spending, all the while reducing taxes.

On the affordability front, the Progressive Conservatives offered the highest personal-tax exemption in Atlantic Canada, raising the threshold to $15,000 below which no taxes would be paid.

It also promised to increase seniors’ benefits by 20 per cent, all the while claiming to reduce government spending.

The Tory platform was only released a few days before the election which meant there was little to attack, but its general focus on health, affordability, and safety appeared to resonate across the province.

Compare that platform to the proposals of the Liberals, who promised hundreds more child care spaces. Child-care spaces are much more popular in urban areas, where an extended family is often not as available to pitch in. The Tories promised to increase the Child Tax Benefit, which goes to every child, not just those whose parents both work outside the home.

Outgoing premier John Hogan tied most of his promised spending increases to the revenue that would be generated from Newfoundland and Labrador’s agreement to sell hydroelectric energy to Quebec.

Hogan claimed that most of his promises would be funded by the cash coming from the 2024 memorandum of understanding penned with Quebec by then-Liberal premier Andrew Furey.

The PCs are advocating changes to the MOU, but premier-elect Tony Wakeham insisted throughout the campaign that the MOU was not the biggest issue. Obviously, voters agreed.

In his victory speech, Wakeham suggested he would launch an independent review of the deal, while Quebec Premier François Legault confirmed his government is open to renegotiation.

At the end of the day, the PC’s platform dealt with pocketbook and health issues for all parts of the province. The Liberals are the urban party, which wasn’t enough to carry them over the finish line.

That same challenge faces the federal Liberals when the lifespan of this minority government is cut short in the next couple of years.

This past spring, Prime Minister Mark Carney was able to present himself as a new face in Parliament, with plenty of experience in the business and international communities.

His triumph was driven, in part, because of the wedge that United States President Donald Trump generated from his incessant calls to annex Canada, and his rude treatment of then-prime minister Justin Trudeau.

But as Carney’s own newness wears off, and the bitter effects of Trump’s anti-Canada campaign wear the country down, the prime minister will have to put something new on the table.

More attention definitely needs to be paid to rural regions that have been painted a deep swath of blue for the past two decades.

They do not represent the majority, but in a tight election, the votes of rural Canadians could well decide who forms government.

The message from the Newfoundland and Labrador election is loud and clear: Rural voices will not be silenced.

The Canadian government needs to listen.

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

Brian Mulroney was a people person. Even when his party had plummeted in popularity, he was able to keep the caucus united thanks to his awesome interpersonal skills. Though we were political adversaries, we remained friends long after he left politics.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 7, 2024.

OTTAWA—This year is the 40th anniversary of the election of Brian Mulroney.

The right honourable prime minister would have loved to celebrate the largest victory in Canadian history, but time robbed him of that opportunity.

Instead, a state funeral will be held to honour his life, and Canadians will revisit the accomplishments of a remarkable leader.

The prime minister and I were elected on the same day: Sept. 4, 1984.

But we sat on opposite sides of the House. Mulroney was leading 211 Conservatives, most of whom were elected in that sweep, while I was one of only 10 new Liberals.

Our party had been decimated, and political pundits were predicting the Liberals would disappear to be replaced by the New Democrats. It was widely predicted that Canada would follow an international trend of the political right and left in constant battle with nobody in the centre.

Mulroney was the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. He was a centrist prime minister who believed in the power of government for positive change.

Current Conservatives say it is the job of government to get out of the way, and let people run their affairs with no collective responsibility.

But Mulroney understood that government could be an instrument of positive change. He was born in Baie Comeau, a small mining town in northern Quebec, and he understood the need for government.

He was also the first Conservative leader to really understand Quebec, and its need for distinctiveness.

It was that understanding that paved the way for a massive Progressive Conservative majority back in 1984.

But it was also his wish to get Quebec’s signature on the Canadian constitution that eventually fractured the party in favour of a western-based equivalent of the Bloc Québécois.

In 1987, the Reform Party was formed under the leadership of Preston Manning. Fatigued by the Meech Lake debate, Reformers believed Progressive Conservatives were too focused on the East, especially Quebec.

Their platform called for a Triple-E Senate: equal, elected and effective. An elected Senate was supposed to counterbalance the influence of the House of Commons, dominated by Members of Parliament from Eastern Canada.

Some Reformers also held negative views towards women, minorities, and homosexuals. Built on a strong Christian base, the party blurred the separation between church and state that had been the foundation of Canadian politics.

But in the 1988 election, Reformers only managed to garner two per cent of the vote while the Progressive Conservatives sustained a second majority with their promise of a free trade agreement.

Mulroney believed in an activist government. He negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement in the face of considerable opposition from the manufacturing heartland of Ontario.

He also introduced the goods and services tax, another initiative that opposition Liberals opposed.

That tax replaced a 13.5 per cent manufacturers’ sales tax, but—unlike the former—it was not embedded in the price of goods, but was added at the cash register.

While it was wildly unpopular, the tax set the stage for fiscal stability as it has generated billions of dollars annually for federal coffers. Last year, it produced more than $16-billion in revenue and, in 2022, government collected $21.5-billion in GST.

Mulroney also loomed large on the international scene, setting the stage for an end to apartheid in South Africa by working within the Commonwealth to impose sanctions.

Mulroney had to fight Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and American president Ronald Reagan on that move, as both opposed the sanctions that ultimately broke the back of the South African government.

Above all, Mulroney was a people person. Even when his party had plummeted in popularity, he was able to keep the caucus united and motivated, largely because of his awesome interpersonal skills.

Even though we were political adversaries, we remained friends long after Mulroney left politics.

Whenever I would call him, his first question would be about my family.

Mulroney had every reason to despise a former Liberal rat-packer, but he never made politics personal. He understood we all had a job to do. While we were adversaries, we were never enemies.

The centrist party Mulroney led no longer exists.

Instead, anti-government former Reformers have taken centre stage in the Conservative movement.

Perhaps it is a reflection of the direction of the country. The notion of collective responsibility has largely been replaced by rabid individualism with an emphasis on the word “rabid.”

Mulroney understood that there was no place in politics for hate.

His prime ministerial legacy changed Canada. May he 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.

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.