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.

Foreign interference allegations are not limited to China. Recent reports of Russian interference have also surfaced. Politics is always a messy business. With identity politics, it will get even messier.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 20, 2023.

OTTAWA—Surprise, surprise: the first political casualty of the Chinese interference allegations was an Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP. Vincent Ke resigned last week from the PC caucus, despite characterizing the allegations as “false and defamatory.”

Ke tweeted his departure. “While the Global News allegations about me are false and defamatory, I do not want to be a distraction to the government and take away from the good work Premier Ford is doing for the province of Ontario.”

Global has been at the forefront of leaked stories about financial links between the Chinese government and Chinese-Canadian members of parliament.

Leaks are reported to be coming from inside the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The RCMP has been investigating the leak’s source, according to other news reports.

During last year’s provincial election, the Ontario Provincial Police was asked by the Liberal Party of Ontario to investigate the incorporation of 15 companies or associations associated with Ke.

Ke established the corporations after his election to the legislature in 2018.

At the time, Ontario Premier Doug Ford defended Ke, saying that several incorporations included non-profit cultural associations.

Ford defended his MPP’s exit last week in a statement. “Not proven, they [allegations] are serious and deserve his full and undivided attention as he works to clear his name.”

Identity politics will also take centre stage in upcoming federal investigations into electoral foreign interference.

By choosing former governor-general David Johnston to head a probe into foreign meddling, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has managed to secure an individual with impeccable credentials.

Appointed governor general by then-prime minister Stephen Harper, Johnston managed to secure broad public support during his seven-year tenure.

However, his nomination was criticized by the Conservatives because, after retirement, he volunteered for the Trudeau Foundation.

Johnston has his work cut out for him. Foreign interference allegations are not limited to China.

Recent reports of Russian interference have also surfaced.

Politics is always a messy business.

With identity politics, it will get even messier.

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

Provincial governments need to show courage and co-operation as the solution to better health care actually lies in interprovincial cooperation and a focus on health, not just money.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 15, 2022.

OTTAWA—Is health care burning in Canada?

Professionals leaving in droves think so, and so do provincial premiers seeking a major cash infusion from the federal government.

The issue is front and centre in Ontario after the Doug Ford government promised to review all options in tackling health-care problems.

Privatization is on the table, along with all other “innovations and opportunities,” according to Ontario Health Minister Sylvia Jones.

Jones was in the hot seat after the Progressive Conservative government announced that it was looking at all options in an effort to fix the system.

Jones revealed that she has been in talks with hospital corporations across the province in an effort to solve the problem.

But that statement alone is a glaring example of how the system will not be fixed.

As long as the health-care system is strictly based on improving hospital care, it will not tackle the issue of wellness.

And the incorporation of multiple hospitals’ systems is actually part of the problem.

At the moment, Ontario has 141 public hospital corporations spread across 217 sites.

According to a 2021 report from the Economic Research Institute, the average salary of hospital CEOs in Ontario was $600,000.

That figure was up to six times higher than the average CEO salary in most not-for-profit industries and compares very well to a prime ministerial salary of $357,800.

In comparison, the average salary of a long-term care facility CEO was $106,000.

The problem is not just a money issue. It is an organizational issue.

In the world of informatics, every hospital corporation has its own authority to develop information collection with absolutely no requirement for interoperability.

For example, in the city of Ottawa, patients are saddled with two different applications depending upon which hospital they may have been treated at.

Neither hospital applications will cross-pollinate, leaving patients to log into two separate and complicated websites for follow-ups on test results or appointment information.

We have known for years that thousands of hospital beds are occupied by chronic-care patients who should be in retirement homes, but the shortage of those beds is so acute that the hospital has become a substitute chronic care facility.

Hospital corporations also do their own buying. The economies of scale that should apply in a public system do not exist.

Some hospitals form regional groups in order to benefit from more attractive purchasing power. That is another cost that could be reduced if there was an integrated informatics and buying system for the whole province.

More attention should be focused on community care supports to keep people out of hospital. That is not going to happen when the main leaders in the debate are hospital corporation presidents.

The second issue that needs to be tackled is the lack of portability in the Canadian health-care system.

Each province guards its authority aggressively, hence there is very little sharing of health information cross-provincially that could assist in tackling root issues of illnesses in Canada.

Provinces claim it is all about the Constitution, but they do not hesitate to blame the health-care problems on federal underfunding.

During the height of COVID, we saw what could happen when provinces work together with the federal government.

We had bulk-buying of vaccines and ancillary COVID-fighting equipment. That move alone kept the costs of vaccines, tests etc. down to a reasonable number.

Why not apply that same purchasing power to regular medical challenges?

Surely, innovation should involve all these hospital corporations banding together to cut costs and apply some of those savings to hospital worker salaries.

Worker retention should be a top issue, and that goes far deeper than simply in hospitals.

That is a solution that needs to include community health-care workers and those whom we have cited with great pride as the front-line crisis workers in retirement and long-term care facilities.

If the “innovation” discussion is strictly limited to the hospital care sector, we will fail once again to tackle the root of the problem.

And if each province is simply patching its own system without considering the value of informatic interoperability between jurisdictions, we will continue to offer 19th century solutions to 21st century problems.

In the new world of cyberspace, every single Canadian could have access to their own health care record from cradle to grave.

Provincial governments need to show courage and co-operation as the solution to better health care actually lies in interprovincial cooperation and a focus on health, not just money.

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

At the heart of the race for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada is the question of whether the Conservatives want to govern or if they want to sit in perennial Opposition.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 14, 2022.

At the heart of the race for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada is the question of whether the Conservatives want to govern or if they want to sit in perennial Opposition.

OTTAWA—It’s official. There really will be a race for the Conservative leadership.

For political watchers from all sides, that is a good thing.

We really will be able to witness the fight for the heart and soul of the Conservative Party.

Frontrunner Pierre Poilievre has already laid down the ground rules. He represents a “back to the future” approach for the party, where its membership will swim upstream against abortion, conversion therapy, carbon taxes, and gun registries.

On his side will be colleague and fellow right-winger Member of Parliament Leslyn Lewis, whose socially conservative bent managed to vault her to the top of the Conservative ballot box in Saskatchewan in the last party leadership race.

If Poilievre doesn’t make it on the first ballot, chances are a coalition with Lewis will take him over the top.

But it is also possible he may simply win the race on the first ballot.

Leadership contender Jean Charest obviously doesn’t think so. On Thursday, he made it official, leaving his decade-long political sabbatical to throw his hat into the ring for a party he once knew and loved.

The question is, does that party still exist? Will Charest’s political tentacles reach far enough beyond Quebec to sell the thousands of memberships required to be competitive in the race? Ironically, predecessor Erin O’Toole was elected by thousands of Tory voters, only to be dumped by a handful because of legislation that allows parliamentarians to toss leaders with the ease of a seasonal recess.

Charest obviously believes he will have the numbers and cachet to take over the party at the September convention vote.

And Poilievre has already signalled he intends to promote a scorched-earth policy to ensure that Charest never gets the brass ring.

Before Charest even announced, former prime minister Stephen Harper was making ominous noises about how he would use his influence to make sure that Charest stays down and out.

Poilievre was doing the dirty work that is usually done by other parties, pointing out how Charest’s ethical challenges and left of centre, Quebec-centric policies on the environment and social policy make him unfit to lead a party of the right.

On that account Poilievre is right. And more than right. His position on multiple issues is one that keeps the Conservatives out of government because, in appealing to religious zealots and anti-environmentalists, he manages to alienate the vast majority of the population.

Leader O’Toole got the message in the last election: either move to the centre or die. And in attempting to move his party to the centre, he died.

Charest will try to replicate the same move. And this time he has organizers and financial supporters who will send the message that the Tory grassroots needs to be fertilized with more green and socially progressive policies.

Zealots are more interested in righteousness than power. Because they answer to a higher power in heaven, election victory is not their first priority.

The Tory caucus is littered with bible school graduates who stand on principle and stay in the opposition.

But in the end, most politicians understand that little can be achieved in the opposition benches. They need to get to government to be able to accomplish any of the things that they believe in.

That will be Charest’s message. He knows how to win, and has proven electability on the federal and Quebec scene. His Quebecois roots are key for the party’s capacity to win, as without Quebec and Ontario, Poilievre has zero chance of becoming prime minister.

Charest will count on longstanding Ontario friends, including the likely involvement of provincial minister Carolyn Mulroney, daughter of Charest’s former national leader and prime minister, Brian Mulroney.

With a strong Ontario and Quebec team, Charest actually has a chance, but he may be receiving a poisoned chalice, as the next three months are guaranteed to bring bitter internal party divisions into the public domain.

Charest used to be a Progressive Conservative. The party split down the middle when he left, with many progressives moving over to the federal Liberals.

He may bring those progressives back. But in doing so, he will alienate the same Conservatives who now control the party apparatus.

Without the two coming together, Charest or Poilievre will end up leading a party so split that the Liberals could waltz back into another term.

The next three months will likely determine whether the Progressive Conservatives will be reunited or not.

A Conservative victory means perennial opposition.

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 May 28, 2018.

OTTAWA—Politics is the only profession where the more experience you get, the more people want to get rid of you.

People have great respect for journalists who practise their craft for decades, and business people who achieve gravitas with age.

Bay Street is sprinkled with eminences grises who are called on to offer the benefit of their wisdom on big issues facing the market and the country.

But on the campaign front, Premier Kathleen Wynne is bearing the brunt of the change theme that plagues all incumbent politicians.

Wynne’s unpopularity is palpable, whether deserved or not. In reality, she has done a pretty decent job as a leader. But her enemies have been very successful in casting her as the source of all that is evil in Ontario.

Voters are in a cranky mood. They are certainly not happy with the status quo but they are almost equally flummoxed about the alternatives.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario proved, once again, that it could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when it chose a leader who provokes more questions than answers.

A couple of weeks ago, the Conservative candidate in my riding knocked on my door to say hello, and I wished her well, commenting that Doug Ford did not make her job any easier.

She sighed in agreement, confiding that she had actually been backing his opponent Christine Elliott in the nomination battle. We both agreed that the choice of Jim Flaherty’s widow would likely have clinched a Tory victory in the province.

Instead, the party went with a strident, scary right-winger who has members of his own party refusing to vote for him.

He is a lot more like previous Conservative leader Tim Hudak, who appeared headed for victory in the last Ontario election until he happily announced his major campaign plank was to fire 100,000 people. Hudak’s mistake permitted Kathleen Wynne to change the channel on the change agenda.

But she has not been so successful this time. Her campaign strategy, to target Ford as the Trump of the North, has had some success.

Ford’s numbers, while initially stable, have been faltering, and the uncertainty around his leadership is as profound as that of Wynne’s.

The Trump-Ford comparison has stuck. And with good reason. But the Liberals have not been the beneficiary of anti-Ford sentiment.

Instead, New Democratic Party leader Andrea Horwath has surged in the last weeks of the campaign.

Horwath, who holds the seat that I occupied back in the eighties, is an able campaigner, and a solid, likeable person. She speaks well and gives the impression of a politician who really cares about the people. Kind of like a Kathleen Wynne without the warts.

As the leader of a third party, Horwath has not been subject to the same level of scrutiny that the premier and Ford have been subjected to.

That changed last week when multiple polls showed the New Democrats closing the gap with the Tories. Some even had her neck and neck with Ford in vying for the premier’s seat.

But that momentum comes with a lot more public attention.

Her editorial roundtable with The Globe and Mail last week led to some big questions about the New Democratic platform.

The most glaring hole was Horwath’s suggestion that all Ontario hospitals should admit patients without asking them to produce proof of health insurance.

She is tackling a real problem of non-coverage that affects some refugees. But her solution is to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.

A health-care system that does not ask patients to provide proof of residence would result in a flood of unintended consequences, including displacing other patients in an already crowded system.

What would prevent any border town from being inundated by American visitors who want to take advantage of our free hospital care without even providing proof of residence?

The health-care promise was designed to underpin an NDP pledge to turn Ontario into a sanctuary province, reminiscent of the role churches have played in providing a safe haven for the persecuted.

Given Ontario’s welcoming record for existing refugees, that NDP promise will generate more questions than answers.

It is one thing to support a third party leader with a conscience. It is another turn the reins of government over to New Democrats.

Bay Street will buck back. That is not necessarily fatal, as more people from Main Street will be voting.

It does mean that this volatile election is not over.

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.

At this point, there do not seem to be many voices siding with the Department of Finance. So Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s handling of the issue will be a make or break issue for the government.

During the GST fight, the finance minister’s viewpoint eventually carried the day. This time, Finance is strongly in favour of a position that has the potential to create an electoral problem for the government.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, September 11, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Summer caucuses are always hot. And when you combine heated politics with a sunny West Coast location, the temperature often rises.

After more than two months away from the Ottawa cocoon, Members of Parliament are eager to repeat the views they have heard in their ridings. Sad to say, most people don’t make appointments with Parliamentarians simply to tell them what a great job they are doing. On the contrary, riding office hours are usually a continuum of complaints about government policies, directions, and future plans.

The roughest critics tend to be party members. That may seem counterintuitive, as most political activists are usually committed to defending their party of choice. But inside the party, local supporters see themselves as a mirror of their community. They relish the role of the canary in the mine, warning their party if it appears to be taking a wrong turn that has raised the ire of the electorate.

No government can expect the support of all of the people all of the time. But a measure of success is achieved when there are complainants on both sides of any issue. Political equilibrium is in balance when no single issue takes precedence over all the others.

Both factors for a happy electorate were missing from the discussion of proposed tax changes that took centre stage at the recent Liberal caucus meeting in Kelowna.

The last time a tax measure was a key topic at a British Columbia Grit caucus meeting, was in the lead up to the 1993 election, when members revolted against a plan to keep the hated Tory goods and services tax.

At the time, it made tremendous political sense to fight the Progressive Conservatives unpopular tax. Brian Mulroney’s government had revoked an existing manufacturers sales tax, and replace it with a levy on all goods and services. But if Liberals formed government, some wanted to keep the revenue coming.

From an economic perspective that made sense, because it secured ever-increasing government revenues based on consumption, not production. Liberal supporters of the tax also argued that undoing the GST would be akin to unscrambling an egg. The Conservatives had already done all the heavy lifting, with the imposition of the despised measure. Why not simply shut up and reap the benefit?

That pre-election Vancouver caucus meeting proved to be the flashpoint for a heated debate. The majority of caucus members supported abolition of the GST. A smaller number, including the finance critic and supporters, urged the caucus to keep the tax. Liberal leader Jean Chrétien listened carefully to both sides.

At the end of the meeting, he told the media that the majority viewpoint to abolish the GST carried the day.

But he also expressed personal trepidation about whether the decision was the best long-term strategy for the financial health of the country.

Last week’s meeting in Kelowna highlighted eerily similar internal schisms. The broad-based coalition of small business and professional groups opposed to the incorporation tax changes, carried the day on the summer barbecue circuit.

A joint campaign by doctors and other small business owners appeared to have won the day in their public opinion battle. A delegation of women physicians even descended on Kelowna to make their case, claiming the income-sprinkling prohibition would force some female doctors to abandon their chosen profession.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau did his best to counter that, repeating his view that doctors should not get better tax breaks than nurses or police.

But nurses and police are not self-employed while doctors are.

Like other small business owners, they have no access to company pension plans, maternity benefits or sick leave. Many utilize tax avoidance to fill this financial gap.

The proposed changes would directly impact the small business sector in every community in the country.

The Finance Department can win any battle when there is a broad split in public opinion on a tax measure.

At this point, there do not seem to be many voices siding with the Department of Finance. So Morneau’s handling of the issue will be a make or break issue for the government.

During the GST fight, the finance minister’s viewpoint eventually carried the day.

This time, Finance is strongly in favour of a position that has the potential to create an electoral problem for the government.

The Kelowna message was clear. From a caucus perspective, constituents have spoken and they do not support the majority of the proposed changes.

It remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself.

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