Social housing should be national in scope, and part of a major income reform. Immigration and refugee support should be regionally based, and there should be incentives for moving to underpopulated regions.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 5, 2024.

OTTAWA—Immigration Minister Marc Miller made a $362-million refugee housing announcement last week.

Instead of garnering positive impact, the announcement opened the door for provincial governments and critics to claim that the amount in question is simply too little to deal with the problem.

Quebec is looking for a cheque for $470-million, as outlined in a letter from Premier François Legault last month.

Legault is also asking the federal government to stem the flow of refugees finding their way into the country by land, sea, and air.

Miller’s announcement seemed to reinforce Legault’s concerns.

“I think we owe it to Canadians to reform a system that has very much been a stopgap measure since 2017 to deal with large historic flows of migration.”

Miller is speaking frankly, but his admission simply sets the government up for further criticism.

If 2017 is the date when things went sidewise, the federal government has had seven years to come up with a solution.

Like the housing crisis, the Liberals are taking the full brunt of criticism for immigration spikes.

The link between the two is tenuous at best, but the government doesn’t seem able to convince the public about who is responsible for the housing crisis in the first place.

It is not refugee spikes.

It was bad public policy foisted on Canada when the federal government was convinced by the provinces to get out of the housing field back in 1986.

For 30 years, the provinces had full responsibility, including federal transfer funding, for housing construction in their jurisdictions.

For the most part, they did nothing to fill the gap in social or Indigenous housing, while city hall used housing payments for new builds as a way to finance municipal coffers.

The responsibility for housing was completely in provincial hands for three decades until Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the courageous step of getting back into housing in 2017.

The refugee housing problem would not exist if sufficient social housing had been built over 30 years for residents in need. Help should be available to anyone who cannot afford market solutions.

Meanwhile, the cost of market rental housing for those who can pay continues to rise as demand outstrips supply.

That is a completely different issue from the cost of immigration and refugee services.

For the federal government to defend itself against accusations that it caused the housing crisis, it needs a national strategy engaging cities and provinces in the solutions.

There are a few provinces that have continued to support social housing in the past three decades but, by and large, the availability of housing for the poor has not been increased.

The Liberals have worked to tackle child poverty, and some of those direct payments have definitely made a difference.

According to statistics, more than two million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty because of the Canada Child Benefit.

But as incomes grow, the cost of living grows along with it.

The Liberals need a big new idea that goes beyond simply ministers making announcements in their own bailiwicks.

At one point, the government was looking at the creation of a Guaranteed Annual Income for all Canadians.

That idea needs to be dusted off, and the feds need to invite provinces and municipalities to the table to see who can help in what manner with the creation of a guaranteed income.

Basic housing should be a human right for all Canadians, with the guaranteed income built on the cost of housing by region.

Social housing should be national in scope, and it should be part of a major income reform.

Immigration and refugee support should be regionally based, and there should be incentives for moving to underpopulated regions of the country.

A big vision on how to house the underhoused, feed the underfed, and finance the poor would get everyone to the table.

In the current system, everyone is blaming the federal government for a problem that has largely been caused by provincial indifference and municipal greed.

The country also needs to understand what constitutes a basic housing right.

What should be the average housing size for socially funded financing?

Many Canadians live alone these days, which changes the type and size of housing we should be building.

There are no magic bullets. But the federal government needs to think bigger than single housing announcements if it wants to spread the responsibility—and the blame—for the current crisis.

A guaranteed income is the answer.

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

Sure, it comes with some demographic challenges. With increased demand, the cost of housing in Canada’s major cities is under extreme stress. But that is something that smart government immigration policy can plan for.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 27, 2023.

OTTAWA—One million new Canadians is something to celebrate.

Statistics Canada’s announcement last week that the country’s population will shortly reach 40 million was something of a shocker.

I remember when we were only 15 million strong.

But what is so fantastic about this population jump is that the majority of Canadians are happy about it.

In most nation-wide surveys, by and large, Canadians believe the country’s immigration has led to economic prosperity.

Sure, it comes with some demographic challenges. With increased demand, the cost of housing in Canada’s major cities is under extreme stress.

But that is something that smart government immigration policy can plan for.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser announced last week that his department would be making some changes to the immigration policy. They include targeting specific subsets of workers for the immigration fast track, and incentivizing the immigration point system for people who are willing to move to underpopulated areas of the country.

Both moves make sense. We need skilled workers to cover off the job gap in certain sectors, and if they can come from abroad, the holes will be filled more quickly than waiting for apprenticeship and college graduates.

That doesn’t minimize the need for the government to aggressively promote apprenticeship and interprovincial migration of skilled labour. But it can supplement the shortages on a short-term basis.

As for the changes to where new immigrants live, that will be met with approval by big-city and small-town politicians.

Big-city mayors know that increasing populations put additional pressures on high-ticket items like local transit and infrastructure.

Municipalities are also grappling with the challenge that most downtown locations are becoming too expensive for the locals, pressuring developers into messy evictions and legal disputes with long-term tenants.

By moving immigrants into smaller communities, the changes plug the workforce gap that those communities are facing and simultaneously encourage local economic growth with the arrival of new families who need to purchase housing, appliances, furniture, and other big-ticket items.

With the exception of the People’s Party of Canada, most federal political parties seem to approve of the direction the government is taking in announcing an increase in the number of annual immigrants welcomed into the country.

Parties usually follow the wishes of the population. In most regions, the population is favourable to the hike in numbers.

However, Quebec is always tricky as the voters there do not want to see the French language undermined by immigrants who have a tendency to prefer raising their children in English.

Quebec has not exactly rolled out the red carpet to newcomers, with rules that prohibit religious headgear in public service positions, including teaching.

It is probably the only province where the majority of citizens would likely oppose a plan for mass migration.

As for the rest of the country, most provincial governments have experienced a direct economic boom related to immigration.

If the current population growth rate continues, the country will end up with almost 50 per cent immigrants within the next quarter century.

At the moment, immigrants comprise one-fifth of the country’s population.

But you only have to visit cities like Toronto and Vancouver to see the impact of migration on the new face of Canada.

And thus far, communities seem to be adapting and thriving.

Of course, there are problems. Triads and some gang elements well-established in their home countries have taken root in Canada.

But most studies show that Canadian-born residents are far more likely to commit crime than those who have come from other countries.

That doesn’t stop PPC Leader Maxime Bernier from railing against all forms of immigration.

But the Conservatives are playing it a lot smarter. For those who oppose immigration, they have been very active in demanding that the government close off leaky borders. In that respect, they are able to satisfy those who oppose immigration while at the same time wooing the communities who very much depend on family reunification and the chance to move to Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had to tackle that issue when the American president put migration front and centre on the bilateral agenda.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Ottawa has partly focused on amending the safe country agreement so that land borders cannot be used by those who want to transit illegally from the United States to Canada.

With a better safe country agreement, the boom is welcome.

It makes the country stronger.

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

Jean Chrétien needs to write another book. This time he should focus on political lessons for the future. It could be a great road map for a future Canadian prime minister.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 16, 2023.

OTTAWA—Happy 89th Birthday, Jean Chrétien.

You have some wisdom to impart to the youngsters who are currently running or hoping to run the country.

As you celebrated on Jan. 11, you must have been reflecting on the current political climate in Canada and how it might be improved.

Going forward, you could provide some great advice for all political leaders, not just in your Liberal Party of choice.

After all, you managed to navigate a political trajectory that was unlike any other.

A unilingual francophone from Shawinigan, Que., you grew into one of the most popular prime ministers in Canadian history. You combined wisdom, humour and political street smarts in a way that made people get the message without feeling alienated or betrayed.

Your No. 1 asset was always at your side, a wonderful, loving partner in the person of your childhood sweetheart, Aline.

She also gave you her best advice, and her graceful demeanour was a fabulous foil to your Shawinigan handshakes.

Life is much harder without her, but as you enjoy another birthday celebration, please spend a few moments reflecting on how to heal our country.

No. 1 is humour. You were probably the best prime minister at getting out a clear, direct message without alienating the opposition.

Who could forget your comment on the pepper spray used on protesters at the APEC gathering in British Columbia. Quizzically you said, “For me, pepper, I put it on my plate.” That got everyone laughing, taking the temperature down on a tough situation, while still making the point.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre could use a birthday nugget on how to take the temperature down.

He always seems to be so angry at everything and it is hard to elicit empathy, and support from voters when the main message they hear is negative.

Poilievre’s own party has been asking him to be a little more positive, and a class in humour would probably help put a smile on his face.

Just this month, former Senator and prime ministerial adviser Marjorie LeBreton stated publicly that Poilievre’s anger quotient was turning off women voters.

You might not get Poilievre laughing, but at least you could help him understand that a happy face gets more votes.

As for the prime minister, he might take a page from your time management book.

You made it a point to stay in the background on many ministerial announcements. That achieved two purposes: your ministers were happy that they got to bask in the glory of their own departmental work, and you avoided the political problem of overexposure.

By letting your caucus members absorb the spotlight, your own face wasn’t on television every night. That approach allowed you to lead three majority governments without being a victim of political overexposure.

It doesn’t matter how good a job a leader is doing. If he or she dwarfs the rest of the team, people get sick of seeing the leader.

The other advantage you incurred by staying in the background was that when you stepped in to manage a situation, it upped the gravitas of the moment.

You got involved in ministerial files only when there was a huge internal division. The war in Iraq was one example of such a split.

The denial of bank mergers was another. You had to fight the finance minister on that one.

Your embrace of the Kyoto Protocol was a third example of how decisions could be made when there was deep disagreement in cabinet.

Your third winning quality was understanding the street-fighting involved in realpolitik.

In that sense, you might give some advice to New Democratic leader Jagmeet Singh.

Don’t play footsie with the Liberals. It might even cost you your job.

At this point, the message may be too late. But you always understood that the job of the Opposition was to oppose.

By co-signing an agreement to work in tandem with the government, the New Democrats may risk being relegated to irrelevance.

As for a piece of advice regarding the co-managed Green Party: be nice to everyone, especially Elizabeth May. She presents no threat to the government and any attempt to attack her could simply cost the attacker more.

Mr. Chrétien, you have ably chronicled the many stories of your life.

But you need to write another book. This time focus on political lessons for the future. It could be a great road map for a future Canadian prime minister.

Happy Birthday, to “the little guy from Shawinigan.”

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

Carey Price learned that lesson last week when he weighed in on the current anti-gun debate roiling in the House of Commons.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 12, 2022.

OTTAWA—Hockey players should stay out of politics. Carey Price learned that lesson last week when he weighed in on the current anti-gun debate roiling in the House of Commons.

Poor Price should have stuck to hockey. He is definitely one of the best goalies in the business, but his depth of political knowledge is somewhat limited.

How else to explain the claim by the Montreal Canadiens that Price had never heard of the misogynistic massacre at École Polytechnique?

Their apologetic excuse, subsequently denied by Price, was that the event happened before he was born.

But that poorly-crafted lie inflamed the situation to the point where it even became a main topic for discussion in the Quebec National Assembly.

Price remembers who scored the winning goal in the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series, even though he wasn’t born when it happened. 

Price remembers the famous Montreal Canadiens record-breaking lineup of the Rocket Richard, Jacques Plante, Doug Harvey, and Jean Béliveau.

But for some reason, Canadian women’s history does not seem to have had the same historical resonance, according to the Canadiens’ management. 

There is nothing wrong with someone weighing in on the facts around gun possession.

As a gun owner, Price was speaking from a place of personal experience. 

But before he decided to become the chief spokesperson for the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, he should have done a little research into the details of the subject.

The ongoing gun violence in Canada’s major cities obviously needs action. But that urban desire for action runs smack into a rural desire to continue recreational hunting and fishing. 

Any political move must balance the wishes of both, unless the government has decided it does not want to elect any rural Members of Parliament. 

Price isn’t the only one who is opposing the current gun amendments.  

The Saskatchewan Party is using the legislation as a fundraising tool, having already launched a protest petition called “Stop the Trudeau gun ban”.

When it comes to gun laws, even some Liberals and New Democrats think the proposed legislation has gone too far.

New Democrat MP Charlie Angus has publicly attacked the government for amendments which include banning approximately half a million widely used hunting rifles that were approved for sale in the last batch of gun amendments. 

“I think they made some serious mistakes with this amendment and they have to fix it” was his blunt assessment of the gun ban extension to semi-automatic SKS rifles.  

Angus is right. Chances are the decision to extend the ban to SKS rifles was made by someone who had no idea of the political uproar it would cause.

The government has always argued that its gun legislation was meant to prevent mass murder, not to criminalize legal hunters. 

Many Canadians have actually purchased the SKS rifles in good faith as they were not on any previous ban list.

But the recommendation by Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino that the government should buy back the banned weapons is not going to cut it. 

Instead, the cabinet needs to incorporate some political smarts into its policy-making.

If a key opposition voice like Angus, a northerner with a long and successful political career, can’t stomach the amendments, chances are they need to go.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that the current list of banned guns is being reviewed to ensure that it does not target legitimate gun owners. 

But Price’s inflammatory comments could encourage the government to double down on its position. 

The issue was a public relations fiasco for the Montreal Canadiens, who wrongly issued the original statement that Price did not know of the Polytechnique massacre.

He subsequently reversed that position in a social media post when he said he knew about the massacre of 14 women on Dec. 6, 1989.

On the eve of the anniversary, further outrage was provoked when the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights used the promo code “POLY” for purchasers to secure a 10 per cent discount on arms’ items from its online store. 

Price’s posting gave oxygen to the PolySeSouvient movement, which is lobbying for more limits on guns. 

Gun laws in Canada have proven to be political quicksand for successive governments in the past half century. 

It is impossible to table a piece of legislation which will satisfy both sides of this highly polarized debate.

However, if politics is defined as the art of the possible, the government needs to find a middle ground.

The best new gun law will likely satisfy neither side completely.

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

If Danielle Smith doesn’t like a federal law, she and her cabinet will simply toss it out. Sovereignty in a united Canada—sounds just like the separatists. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 5, 2022.

OTTAWA—Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants sovereignty in a united Canada.

She claims it has nothing to do with a desire to separate, but the first bill she tabled as premier says otherwise. 

The crux of the bill is to give her cabinet the right to refuse to proceed with any federal legislation or action that it perceives as detrimental to Alberta. 

Notwithstanding her promises while running for the United Conservative Party leadership, she makes it very plain that her cabinet decisions take precedence over the Canadian Constitution.

Observers have underscored problems with the legislation, but they have more to do with internal Alberta politics than anything coming from Ottawa.

The decision to give cabinet the right to overturn all laws could actually cause problems for democracy in Alberta.

The move certainly seems to diminish the power of the legislature’s involvement in the approval, rejection, or amendment of any legislation.

In a majority government, the cabinet recommendation is usually carried by the legislature. But that is not a given. 

Minority governments are unlikely in Alberta, given the dominance of only two political parties. But the decision to simply override parliamentary opinion by way of a cabinet fiat is definitely a political mistake. 

At this point, the premier has to be a lot more concerned about her standing amongst Alberta voters than her popularity, or lack thereof, in the rest of the country.

She has to face the voters in less than six months, and even her immediate predecessor has made it very clear that he disagrees with her sovereignty pitch. 

In resigning on the same day that Smith tabled the sovereignty bill, outgoing premier Jason Kenney took an indirect hit at Smith’s first piece of legislation by way of his retirement statement: “I am concerned that our democratic life is veering away from ordinary prudential debate towards a polarization that undermines our bedrock institutions and principles.”

There has never been any love lost between Kenney and Smith, but this oblique reference underscores the divide that still exists inside the UCP.

While its name is “United,” in reality the party is badly split. That division is natural during a leadership period, but Smith doesn’t have much time to heal the deep wounds that can occur during internal party races. 

Some are already characterizing Smith’s legacy as that of the shortest-serving premier.  

The sovereignty legislation did little to reach out to those inside the party who share Kenney’s perspective.

As for Smith’s attempt to clarify that sovereignty and separation are not the same thing, she needs to take a deeper dive into Quebec’s peregrination.

While the rest of Canada considered them separatists, successive leaders of the Parti Québécois claimed the movement was about sovereignty, not separation. 

Sovereignty is a positive moniker. Separation represents division. But in the end, all Quebec sovereigntists want to leave Canada to start their own country. 

Smith claims otherwise, but that is about the only affirmation of Canadian unity that she is likely to make. 

Her main reason for running the province seems to be a plan to run down the country.

Smith probably thinks that an anti-Eastern sentiment will encourage a majority of Albertans to vote for her. 

But chances are their interest in personal prosperity outstrips that of her continuous assertions of public enmity. 

She will be running against Ottawa, while Alberta New Democratic Party Leader Rachel Notley will be running against the Alberta Tory record. 

The blame game actually works in two directions, and at this point in time, Notley appears to have the edge. 

By introducing her sovereignty bill as the first piece of legislation, Smith is signifying that fighting the federal government will be her top priority.

Notley says she wants to work with the feds on common issues of economic importance. 

That message of co-operation may resonate with Albertans who are looking for solutions, not brickbats.

At the end of the day, Smith’s sovereignty move does not look much different from the Parti Québécois’ offering during the last referendum.

They told Quebecers they would keep the dollar, the military, the trade agreements and all the benefits of belonging to Canada, while setting up their own sovereign country.

Smith is seeking a similar sort of autonomy.

All the reasons to endorse Canada remain intact, including access to currency, international treaty status, and military protection while none of the responsibilities will matter.

If Smith doesn’t like a federal law, she and her cabinet will simply toss it out.

Sovereignty in a united Canada—sounds just like the separatists. 

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

Most commentators ignored the paucity of diversity on his team. But for those of us who care about these issues, the photo was a stark visual reminder that in Poilievre’s party, it is still a man’s world.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 19, 2022.

OTTAWA—Will Rogers said you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Pierre Poilievre must not have been listening.

If so, his first week as leader could have been a winner.

On the evening of his coronation, even with regal funereal news competition from across the pond, Poilievre knocked it out of the park.

His spouse’s introduction placed the new leader exactly where he needs to be, a happy family man whose soft edges are inclusive.

His embrace of personal diversity, including his own family story, were certainly not aligned with the narrative he had used to steamroll his way into the win.

The party endorsement was overwhelming. Two-thirds of the vote went to him, while former premier Jean Charest was reduced to the teens.

Poilievre’s opening performance seemed to indicate that he was prepared to pivot. Having convinced the vast majority of fellow Conservatives that he was their man, his job is now to convince the country.

The acceptance speech got a lot of Liberals worried. Several former cabinet colleagues were gathered at a Toronto symposium on foreign policy the same weekend.

The group’s consensus was that the government would be foolish to assume that Poilievre could not win an election.

The good news for Liberals is that most people do not tune in to party conventions.

And the softer side of the new leader was immediately disposed of at his first post-leader press conference.

After opening the presser with a refusal to take questions, Poilievre was heckled by Global News reporter David Akin, who insistently raised his voice to ensure a question period.

Poilievre accused Akin of being a Liberal plant, set up to heckle him on his first day.

His tone was crisp and angry. That was the first impression he left with those who were seeing the Conservative leader for the first time.

Akin, hardly a Liberal troll, was immediately attacked by Tories heeding Poilievre’s call to “go around” the media.

Later that day, Akin posted a Twitter apology, characterizing his outburst as “rude and disrespectful.”

But that did not stop the Tories from using the incident as a fundraiser.

Within 48 hours, Poilievre’s team sent out a fundraising email, claiming the party could not count on the media to carry their message, saying, “we have to go around them and their biased coverage.”

He also reiterated his promise to defund the CBC.

Poilievre has obviously decided that his best path to victory is in bypassing the media, mobilizing followers to use social channels and attack the messenger.

In the Akin instance that worked, as the apology actually set up the narrative of an aggrieved party that cannot count on reporters to tell the truth.

But Poilievre tried the same tactic in French and he got his clock cleaned.

This mistake will prove a lot more damaging than Poilievre’s decision to bypass the mainstream media in English.

When former Quebec lieutenant Alain Rayes announced he was leaving the party because Poilievre’s leadership was incompatible with his values, Tory trollers were whipped into high gear.

Instead of adopting a conciliatory tone which could have downplayed the departure, the leader came out with fists swinging.

He accused Rayes of refusing to fight Justin Trudeau’s inflation and went on to claim that he had the support of the majority in Rayes’ riding as 53 per cent of the 663 Tory ballots cast there were for Poilievre.

That may be the only time Poilievre gets a majority in Quebec.

His thrashing of a native son did not play well, and his next move was career-shortening.

The leader sent a message to electors in Rayes’ riding, asking them to phone the office of their Member of Parliament to demand his resignation.

When that news became public, the backlash was so horrendous that Poilievre became the one doing the apologizing.

Two apologies in a week marked Poilievre’s public foray as leader.

The announcement of his leadership team, complete with a photo on the steps of the West Block, was also a step backward.

In a team of 10, Poilievre only managed to include two women and one racialized Canadian.

Compare that to the equity cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. It makes one wonder if the Tories are going back to the future.

Most commentators ignored the paucity of diversity on his team.

But for those of us who care about these issues, the photo was a stark visual reminder that in Poilievre’s party, it is still a man’s world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only certainty in Canadian politics this year is change.

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

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.

If the Conservatives would ever like to see another PM among their ranks, they need to understand the road to victory involves reaching out to 37 million people, not 73 caucus members.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 7, 2022.

OTTAWA—Seventy-three people were able to vote out a leader who was chosen by 100,000 Conservatives. This is democracy?

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole’s departure was as hasty as it was dramatic. And in a touch of irony, the author of the private member’s bill that prompted O’Toole’s demise was one of the few people fighting for the leader to stay.

Michael Chong introduced his private member’s bill, designed to give more power to individual parliamentarians, in 2013. Everyone lined up in favour of the legislation in the belief that empowering members would lead to better leadership.

But in a bizarre twist for this strange law, each party is allowed to opt in to the system, or not, at the beginning of each Parliament.

Not surprisingly, the Conservative party was the only one dumb enough to sign on to a piece of legislation which is guaranteed to create chaos for any opposition leader.

The Conservatives have cycled through six leaders in six years, and O’Toole took them closest to power. His popular vote victory didn’t help much because so much of the weight in numbers came from provinces that could never yield a majority.

And O’Toole failed to make a breakthrough in two key provinces that are crucial for election victory, Ontario and Quebec.

O’Toole, an Ontario member, understood that the failure to make sufficient gains in that province was based on the extreme viewpoints taken by many of his team on social issues like abortion.

After the election, he moved quickly to reposition the party by supporting legislation banning gender therapy conversion in the first session of Parliament.

As for the Quebec vote, his Conservative caucus in that province was verbally supporting the legislation on Broadcasting Act amendments at the same time that Tory fundraisers were out trashing the legislation to buck up their coffers.

The bifurcation in the party was not caused by O’Toole. It was prompted by a party schism that has only been exacerbated because of his departure.

Deputy leader Candice Bergen, who enjoyed coffee with the truckers while the occupation of Ottawa’s downtown core was underway, is a well-known opponent of a woman’s right to control her own body.

It was no accident that she was the only leader to neglect to thank O’Toole in the House of Commons for his work as a four-term parliamentarian, until reminded by the prime minister.

Bergen is part of the right wing of O’Toole’s party who will guarantee that they lose the next election because of their refusal to embrace political moderation.

In the hours following O’Toole’s departure, most blame was aimed at the leader’s inability to manage the caucus and to keep people happy.

Negative comparisons were made with previous leaders like prime minister Brian Mulroney who managed to keep his troops onside even when his own popularity numbers were dipping into the teens.

But that comparison is not a valid one. Mulroney was operating from the prime minister’s chair, first among equals. And with that job comes many opportunities to reward and punish internally.

Mulroney also did not face the crazy Chong legislation that could hit any leader on a bad day. The ousters were working for weeks to collect the requisite number of 35 signatures to trigger a caucus vote.

One of them, Pierre Poilievre, is already being touted as a front-runner to replace O’Toole. He is squarely in the camp of the “stinking albatrosses” that former leadership candidate Peter MacKay characterized as the reason for the party’s failure to launch.

Unlike O’Toole, who embraced diversity in supporting the LGBTQ community, Poilievre actually once introduced a private member’s bill to ban health-care funding for transgender individuals, even though the issue is not federal jurisdiction. Other putative candidates include another social conservative, Leslyn Lewis.

But both of them will push the party further to the right.

Those 73 members who booted O’Toole out may not like his message. But upon his departure, he gave a speech which was a potential road map to victory.

The party could win by embracing diversity. The secret of success for leaders like Brian Mulroney was to embrace the Progressives in his party as well as the Conservatives.

As long as there is no place for progressive politics within the party, the Conservatives have zero chance of forming the government.

Instead of dumping O’Toole, the caucus should have heeded his message. Because the road to victory involves reaching out to 37 million people, not 73 caucus members.

Conservatives who are not progressive just won’t cut it.

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

It sounds good to vaccinate all truckers, but hampering $1-billion of daily traffic between Canada and the United States may not help.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 17, 2022.

OTTAWA—To vax tax, or not to vax tax, that is the question.

Once again, the Government of Quebec appears to be at the head of the pack when it comes to new public health policies.

Whether the proposed vax tax is actually brought to fruition remains to be seen.

Reaction to the tax proposal ranges from tepid to negative. The prime minister refused to weigh in, seeking more information. Multiple premiers said they would not be following the lead of Quebec Premier François Legault in levying a health fee on those who refused to be vaccinated.

Premiers opposed to the move include Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe diagnosed with covid just after his public briefing on the issue where the premier was not wearing a mask.

Legault has promised to introduce a package on the health tax in February that will be debated in the Quebec National Assembly. It was no coincidence that the controversial tax was floated at the same time the province lost its second public health director since the beginning of the pandemic.

The departure of Dr. Horacio Arruda was expected to take some heat off the premier for criticism his government has faced following the Christmas implementation of a curfew that now ends Monday.

Throughout the pandemic, Legault’s personal popularity numbers have remained high, even when his province experienced the highest national death rates in long-term care facilities.

Perhaps the surprise tax proposal was designed to keep those numbers high. Most observers have been skeptical about the tax proposal. Some have argued the proposal violates medical ethics. Others call it an attack on universal health care.

If there is a public policy to tax anti-vaxxers, what about smokers or others who contribute to health problems by personal choices? One could argue that the smoker’s tax already exists because the high cost of a package of cigarettes in every province is largely based on taxes, which are ploughed back into provincial health-care expenditures. What is next, an obesity tax? Some see the benefit in a sugar tax for that very reason.

The other question that begs is what result will the tax have in encouraging the non-vaccinated to step up and get the vaccination?

Eighty-five per cent of the Quebec population is already vaccinated and early reports indicate that there has been an uptick in vaccination appointments since the premier’s announcement.

The Government of Quebec also recently announced that vaccination proof will be required to purchase liquor or cannabis in government stores.

That may also be responsible for the increase in vaccination bookings, but the bottom line is that Legault is banking on the fact that the vast majority of Quebecers are tired of being locked down because a small minority of citizens refuses to protect the rest of the population.

Legault has been playing tough with anti-vaxxers while Ontario Premier Doug Ford seems to be going in the opposite direction.

His reaction to the pandemic has been focused on encouraging people to vaccinate but with no mention of coercion.

If anything, the Ontario government has been criticized for worrying more about anti-vaxxers’ rights than those of ordinary citizens. School boards and parents were outraged when the government announced that, with schools reopening in a few days, the threshold for informing families on active school covid cases was being increased.

The announcement that parents would only be informed when 30 per cent of the school student or teacher population was infected caught educators and school boards by surprise.

It runs counter to previous reporting requirements that let parents know when a dozen or so cases were reported in any school.

Minister of Education Stephen Lecce defended the move, saying families could use at-home rapid tests provided by the province if they are concerned about potential infection.

However, critics are saying the lack of transparency is not justifiable.

Meanwhile, the federal government reversed its position again on the requirement of all truckers, Canadians and foreign nationals, to be vaccinated or face quarantine when they are crossing the border. All have to vaccinated as of Jan. 15.

The United States is planning on imposing its own vaccination requirement within the next week.

Some 20 per cent of Canadian truckers are currently unvaccinated and existing supply chain issues could be exacerbated if one of five truckers stopped working this month.

It sounds good to vaccinate all truckers, but hampering $1-billion of daily traffic between Canada and the United States may not help.

Like taxing anti-vaxxers, the cure may be worse than the disease.

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