Ed Broadbent, before his passing, agreed to join Liberals and Conservatives in an effort to save the structure and he was ready to co-sign a letter with Chrétien. So I approached Chrétien, who had an even better idea. He suggested that he would reach out to Harper so the pair could head up a fundraising effort which would be devoted to restoring the residence.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 18, 2024.

OTTAWA—As the country mourns the passing of two great former political leaders, much has been written about the time when politicians from all parties were able to work together.

A recent effort to rebuild the prime minister’s residence involved just such a collaborative effort.

But last week the Prime Minister’s Office said no to a proposition where former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper would work together on a fundraising campaign to rebuild 24 Sussex Dr. as the prime minister’s residence.

For the past several months, a group of Canadians has been trying to secure a future for the residence, which had become rat-infested after years of neglect.

I was approached to help with the project and reached out to former political leaders in an effort to build some political support.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, before his passing, agreed to join Liberals and Conservatives in an effort to save the structure. He was ready to co-sign a letter with Chrétien so I approached Chrétien, who had an even better idea.

He suggested that he would reach out to Harper so the pair could head up a fundraising effort which would be devoted to restoring the residence.

Harper agreed with the plan, and both planned to raise money for a restoration of the house with no additional wings added to the residence. They also proposed a scaled-down version of the security package which allegedly was responsible for ballooning restoration costs.

At the last count, the National Capital Commission set the cost of rebuilding at $37-million.

Chrétien met privately with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office in February to pitch the plan, and went away thinking it was a winner.

But last week the answer came back negative. The Prime Minister’s Office communicated that it was not interested in engaging the volunteer services of two former prime ministers in a fundraising effort for 24 Sussex Drive.

It is hard to understand how a such an offer would be rejected, particularly in view of the public climate on current government spending.

According to a recent Nanos poll for Bloomberg, 63 per cent of Canadians think the government should cut back on spending.

Respondents are not unanimous on what should be done with the savings. According to Nanos, 38 per cent of those who want less spending would like the savings to go to debt reduction, while 25 per cent would like tax cuts.

The prime minister probably thinks the renovation is one more political hot potato that he simply cannot handle at the moment.

But by turning down the co-operative support of three political leaders, he risks an even bigger problem.

As the cost of housing rises across the country, Canadian are naturally skeptical about spending public money on a prime ministerial mansion.

Private donations would certainly be a solution. But there would undoubtedly be criticism about who is donating and what do they expect to get from it.

When Trudeau’s father built an indoor swimming pool at the residence, via private donors, he spent months dodging questions on who donated and why.

Chrétien and Harper were prepared to handle the backlash, as was Broadbent.

With a trio of leaders of that stature, it is pretty hard to understand why the government would refuse an offer to fix a political problem that has been percolating for years.

The last time a similar offer was refused was when a group of political and business leaders were trying to mend fences with China after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou was arrested at the Vancouver airport because of an American extradition order.

In that instance, Mulroney was among those suggesting that Chrétien could head up a high-level visit to China to try and solve the diplomatic spat could be solved by face-to-face, diplomacy.

That suggestion was publicly labelled as “dangerous” by then foreign minister Chrystia Freeland, who stated a move to drop extradition proceedings in return for the prison release of two Canadians would set a precedent leaving all Canadians in danger.

The imprisoned Canadians spent two more years in jail before China bypassed Canada to negotiate a deal with the Americans for her release.

Just last week, it was reported that the Canadian government paid $7-million to compensate Michael Spavor for its role in the detentions.

The latest offer by former leaders pales in comparison to the international implications of the Two Michaels’ arrests.

But saving 24 Sussex is also in the public interest.

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.

Andrew Scheer is leaving, so he won’t have to answer in the next election to the claim that he considers Canadian workers lazy.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 11, 2020.

OTTAWA—Andrew Scheer is sounding more and more like Stephen Harper.

Who could forget former prime minister Harper’s claim that Atlantic Canadians were suffering from “a culture of defeat”?

Harper claimed his comments were misrepresented and what he was trying to say was that Atlantic Canadians were subject to Ottawa’s culture of defeat, “I’ve never ever suggested that the people of this region are responsible for the region’s have-not status.

“There is a policy culture of defeat at the federal level and that’s what we want to change,” he told a business group during a pre-election tour.

But Atlantic Canadians did not forget those comments, and for the last few elections, the party has been struggling to overcome that backlash.

During the Justin Trudeau sweep of 2015, Liberals managed to pick up all the seats in Atlantic Canada, including some that had never voted Liberal in the history of the country.

If the Conservatives have any hope of forming government, they need to attract voters in the region.

They also need to reach out to ordinary people. Andrew Scheer’s comment last week that the federal government’s programs were derailing provincial efforts to get people back to work will not help.

For most Canadians, federal benefits have been a lifeline in a worldwide crisis that has no precedent.

It is not as if Canadians quit their jobs of their own accord, and there certainly is no new job waiting for them to fill.

In most instances, when there is a reluctance to return to work, it is based on unsafe working conditions.

Canadian farmers have petitioned the government to approve temporary worker applications because the back-breaking work involved in planting and harvesting is not compensated commensurate to the workload.

A minimum wage farming job is attractive to a Mexican migrant who makes one-tenth of that in his home country. It is not attractive to a Canadian who can usually work at a much less physically demanding job for more money.

The same holds true for workers in meat factories. The person who died at the Cargill plant near High River, Alta., was a 67-year-old Vietnamese boat person. Her family came to Canada as refugees, and with little English, her work options were limited.

According to her husband, she enjoyed the work at Cargill, where she and more than 900 other employees contracted the COVID virus while on the assembly line.

More than half the plant employees were infected, forcing a plant closure which is choking off the country’s beef supply. That single factory is responsible for 40 per cent of Western Canada’s beef production.

Governments moved in quickly to investigate and secure the food supply, as even the Golden Arches were claiming they had to source their 100 per cent Canadian beef elsewhere.

Given the precarious situation of the Alberta economy, it is obvious that an indefinite shuttering would not work.

However, how would most Canadians react if they were asked to return to work within two weeks to a factory that had seen 949 employees infected with the COVID virus?

As a workplace, Cargill is a magnet for immigrant, unskilled labourers who don’t need to speak English or French to work on an assembly line.

It is also a place where union/management disputes and difficult working conditions make it a less than attractive proposition for many Canadian workers.

So, when Scheer says Canadians don’t want to go back to work because they are receiving federal government benefits that are too generous, he is simply feeding a stereotype that has no basis in fact and is politically untenable.

Scheer is leaving, so he won’t have to answer in the next election to the claim that he considers Canadian workers lazy.

That explanation will be left to his successor, whomever that might be. But the anti-worker stigma that he and his predecessor have inflicted on the party the party will be very hard to shake.

And when it comes to election time, workers make up a very important part of the population.

The so-called 905-belt soccer moms whose votes can swing an election are often working at low-paying jobs in the transportation industry, at the Toronto International Airport and in other low-paid hotel employment where fluency and literacy in English is not required.

They are also the ones who are employed as personal service workers, in the jobs that we all now recognize as life-saving and life-threatening.

These are the people who really need to work. And right now, they need help, not insults.

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

But by refusing to put a price on his plan, and by assuming that technology alone will bridge the carbon gap, Andrew Scheer’s plan runs counter to advice from environmentalists and economists.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 24, 2019.

OTTAWA—Global warming followers may be flummoxed by the differences in party positions on climate change action plans.

Andrew Scheer’s announcement last week was long on photos and short on specifics.

He characterized his plan as the most anticipated policy announcement of an opposition leader in the history of the country.

Scheer framed his work in the context of Conservative prime ministers who came before him, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Brian Mulroney.

Our first prime minister established Canada’s first national park back in 1885. Brian Mulroney was recognized as Canada’s greenest prime minister, launching the $3-billion Green Plan in 1990 in the lead-up to the Rio Earth Summit. This was the first-ever gathering of world leaders on environmental issues.

Since the 1992 United Nations summit, multiple international meetings have tackled climate questions.

Then environment minister Angela Merkel chaired the first United Nations Climate Conference in 1995. Berlin set the stage for the Kyoto Accord, which paved the way for the Paris targets.

Canadians can be forgiven for being confused. After almost 30 years, our carbon footprint is still growing.

Scheer says his plan will change that. He cited multiple Progressive Conservative leaders to buttress his claim that environmental protection was a core Conservative principle.

But one prime minister’s name was glaringly absent from the list, that of Stephen Harper.

Progressive Tory predecessors believed that governments could lead in climate solutions. But when Andrew Scheer and his boss split from progressives to create the Reform Party, environmental interests were also dismissed.

In his time Mulroney signed the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement with his American counterpart, George W. Bush.

That treaty committed both governments to legislating solutions for the reduction of acid rain. The agreement also annexed a chapter on ozone depletion, pricing ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons that were used as cheap coolants for refrigeration.

Both governments committed to costing pollution, because that is the best way to get companies and citizens to tackle the current climate crisis.

Scheer’s predecessor was not mentioned because in the legacy of green Conservative prime ministers, he is not one of them.

One of Harper’s moves was to eliminate many environmental initiatives, including government funding for homeowners and businesses to retrofit for energy efficiencies.

The cancelled retrofit program was recycled last week in Scheer’s announcement.

Scheer also promised to regulate heavy industrial polluters, forcing them to reinvest in environmental solutions when emissions exceed 40 kilotonnes per year, a threshold 10 kilotonnes lower than the Liberal plan.

But Scheer does not explain how his government would oversee reported company investments. What would stop a company from simply passing off normal capital acquisitions as new technology investments?

By refusing to price pollution, the Tory plan also ignores the origin of one-quarter of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation accounts for one-quarter of our country’s total emissions.

But the Scheer plan does not include any strategy directed to reducing carbon use in planes, trains and automobiles.

Instead, the leader of the opposition plans to follow in the footsteps of his cousin at Queen’s Park. Doug Ford’s first act was to cancel the pricing framework put in place by the previous Liberal provincial government. He also cancelled the planting of one million trees, designed to absorb carbon emissions.

Scheer says his solution will be based on technology, not taxes.

But economists agree that the single most effective way to change consumer behaviour is to properly include the price of pollution in any consumer purchasing decision.

From gasoline to automobile trends to housing footprints, people generally use price as a major factor in their spending decisions.

By putting a price on pollution, the Liberal plan would drive innovation and also encourage Canadians to change their habits.

At the end of the day, Canadians and companies will be moved by the key argument of their wallets.

If it costs them more to pollute, they will find ways to cut down on pollution. That means buying an electric vehicle, or using alternative methods of transportation like bus, rail and bicycle and ride sharing.

LED lighting pays for itself in reduced hydro bills and reduces carbon footprint.

By refusing to put a price on his plan, and by assuming that technology alone will bridge the carbon gap, Scheer’s plan runs counter to advice from environmentalists and economists.

The Liberal plan, while not perfect, will reduce our collective carbon footprint faster and more effectively.

The electoral choice is clear. Those Canadians who consider climate change the key campaign issue cannot vote Conservative.

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 Monday, October 9, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The death of Energy East is a direct legacy of the Stephen Harper decade in office. Not only did the prime minister systematically refuse to bring premiers together, he had no interest in a new national project.

Harper was Canada’s energy superhero, and oil companies didn’t even have to leave Calgary to get support for their mega-projects.

With an oil patch superstar in the prime minister’s chair, National Energy Board approvals were a sure thing. There was talk that the existing weakened process would be limited in order to secure pipeline approval.

But that approach overlooked that fact that the pipeline crossed six provinces in the 4,500-kilometre journey from Alberta to New Brunswick. Each of those provinces might have something to contribute to the debate.

Energy East should have been a great national project. But if TransCanada Corporation wants someone to blame for last week’s cancellation, it need only look in the mirror. With billions of investment dollars at stake, the company should have started building broad pan-Canadian public support years ago.

It is not rocket science. It is straight politics.

Instead of believing the Harperites’ spin, the company should have been working the country, gaining political, labour and business support that crossed party and provincial boundaries. Instead, the company largely sat on its hands and its wallet, waiting for the federal government to move.

Quebec Inc. has its own homegrown energy behemoth in the shape of Hydro Quebec. Quebecers consider themselves to be purveyors of green, non-polluting hydroelectric power, which dovetails nicely with a world agenda to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

So why did the folks at TransCanada invest so little in building partnerships in Quebec long before a change in national government meant more regulatory scrutiny.

TransCanada still has a great story to tell. After all, in the world of oil transportation, there is no safer mode to transport oil than pipelines. The Lac Mégantic disaster proved that rail travel is risky business. The same elements of risk are attached to truck transport.

The pipeline safety story can be easily proven. In addition, a little bit of creative mathematics could have ensured that every province through which the pipeline travelled, would share in economic benefits and have a say about environmental and safety considerations.

Quebec Environment Minister David Heurtel, in defending his position against Energy East last week, made a very compelling case that any government has the responsibility to assess the environmental standards of pipelines traversing their territory.

When Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre and Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi took to Twitter to debate the project months ago, it was already game over.

The time to build a national energy vision, was long before each side had become intractable.

When TransCanada suspended the project last month, Saint John mayor Don Darling interrupted his vacation to meet with Nenshi in an emergency strategy session. But the jig was already up.

The Federation of Quebec Municipalities was doing its own strategizing, and unanimously resolved to oppose the project.

Coderre was effusive in the wake of the cancellation last week. He credited local mayors and the communities with the move.

In the end, the death of Energy East will not mean the oil will stay in the ground. When markets improve, and prices rise, there will be a new and improved plan, tweaked geographically, to achieve the same goal of getting western oil to lucrative eastern markets.

Meanwhile, the bellicose bombast of Conservatives like Pierre Polievre and Jason Kenney is not credible. By blaming the project cancellation on red tape, the Tories are killing any hope they have of pretending to care about the environment.

Do they really think that Canadian energy projects should be subject to the same weak labour and environmental standards that exist in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Algeria?

Even the premier of Alberta supports the federal decision to include upstream assets and other factors when calculating the carbon footprint of a new energy project.

That is just what the National Energy Board did, and it didn’t sit well with TransCanada, which had already burnt precious political capital by misunderstanding the huge groundswell of opposition in Quebec.

Saint John Mayor Don Darling, whose city will lose $5-million in annual tax revenue as a result of the cancellation, pointed an accusatory finger at Quebec. He blamed his neighbour for sabotaging the opportunity for a pan-Canadian visionary project.

To be truly national, a dream must involve the support of more than two provinces.

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

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has three months to ponder his future before he goes before a scheduled confirmation vote in April. Chances are Mulcair will receive enough support from his party to fight another election.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 18, 2016.

OTTAWA—All is outwardly calm in the good ship New Democrat.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has three months to ponder his future before he goes before a scheduled confirmation vote in April. Chances are Mulcair will receive enough support from his party to fight another election.

If there were to be a movement against him, it would already have started getting organized and some dissident federal members would be going public.

That hasn’t happened. Even high-profile members who lost their seats are making the kinds of noises one makes in support of a leader who will live to fight another day.

Unlike the two other main parties, dissatisfied New Democrats have never run their leaders out of town. That may also have something to do with the historical reality that they have never actually won an election.

In past Parliaments, the third party was happy to increase its numbers in the House, hoping for enough influence to tilt the government agenda to the left.

Even during the heady years of Ed Broadbent’s time in power, there were never more than 43 NDP members in the House of Commons. They weren’t expected to form government. Their job was to be the conscience of Parliament.

But all that changed when Jack Layton launched the orange wave that vaulted the New Democrats to official opposition status. With le bon Jack at the helm, the party got a real toehold in Quebec, which was supposed to be its launch pad to government.

The New Democrats also got a boost from governing Conservatives, who understood full well that Tory wins depended on a divided opposition.

When Layton passed away, Prime Minister Stephen Harper abandoned precedent and approved a state funeral in Layton’s hometown of Toronto. That event, and the lingering Layton legacy, helped solidify the new official opposition status on the road to government.

When Mulcair won the hotly-contested nomination against party favourite Brian Topp the table was laid for an historic change in the Canadian political status quo.

Then Alberta New Democrats turned the country on its ear with the election of the first NDP premier in history. Thomas Mulcair’s team was so close they could almost taste it.

They designed and carried out a frontrunner campaign and positioned Mulcair as the prime minister in waiting.

New Democrats were putting together a transition team, consulting former Privy Council clerks on how to structure governments. They, and most of the country, believed they could finally form government.

But the front-running strategy turned out to be the ball and chain that took Mulcair down. The prime minster in waiting couldn’t afford to take any chances. He certainly did not dare tell the country that he was supportive of running deficits in government.

So Mulcair tied his fate to that of Stephen Harper, echoing economic statements that sounded eerily like the Conservatives. At one point, someone even trotted out an old video of Mulcair, when he was a Quebec Liberal minister, singing the praises of Margaret Thatcher.

Mulcair himself, in an effort to appear prime ministerial, instead seemed stiff and distant in debates, failing to connect with voters hungry for change.

Just because Mulcair lost one campaign, doesn’t mean he is destined to lose the next one. The same tenacity and brains that served him so well as official opposition leader will be key in giving the third party renewed vigour and influence.

But the fact that he came so close and failed will haunt his party.

If you are that close to the brass ring, can you afford to keep the leader whose election strategy failed so miserably?

On the other hand, if NDP faithful cherish their role as the conscience of the country, winning is always less important than staying true to principles.

Many New Democrats are privately muttering that the reason the campaign failed was that the party gave up on its socialist roots.

Ontario Provincial MPP Cheri DiNovo is the only one to have publicly called for Mulcair’s head, but there are many more who share her view. Mulcair is actively working to bring them onside.

He has already begun, rebranding the party as the progressive opposition.

But if socialists’ flirtation with power proves too bewitching, New Democrats will dump Mulcair for a fresh face.

That may not happen.

NDPers believe their party is different because of its ideology purity.

Principles are more important than power. If so, Mulcair will leave the party convention happy.

His political adversaries will be smiling too.

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 Friday, December 18, 2015.

OTTAWA—What a difference a year makes. At the beginning of 2015, who would have predicted that the also-ran third party in Parliament would form a solid majority government with a leader who is making international waves?

Even the most diehard Liberals were entertaining a two-stage victory process. The first move was to return to official opposition status before winning government.

Common parlance said that prime minister Stephen Harper’s grip on power was so tight, that his organizational skills and communications discipline could secure his re-election.

That race was supposed to be against Thomas Mulcair, the New Democratic Party leader who had ably mastered the art of Question Period. His questions were so good; it was assumed that his answers would be better.

And then there was Justin. Indeed, friends and foes alike branded him on a first-name basis.

Savvy political advisers called him thus to differentiate him from his father. Justin Trudeau was friendly, approachable and a very different leader from his Cartesian parent.

His foes branded him the same way to promote the notion that this kid just wasn’t ready. His age, his hair, his unconventional career path (as a teacher, not a lawyer) managed to sow the seeds of doubt about his capabilities. That, and a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign designed to reinforce all perceived weaknesses, did the trick. When the never-ending campaign actually started, voters at the doorstep repeated verbatim the exact lines crafted for the Tory ad campaign, without even realizing it.

Voters were questioning his age, and even asking whether he had the intelligence to be prime minister.

Through it all, Trudeau continued to surprise. First it was a knockout punch in the boxing ring. That was a risky move for any politician because if he had lost, his Rocky story could have ended there.

There is nothing the public likes better than to watch a politician flub a sporting challenge, and it can have devastating electoral consequences. Robert Stanfield never did learn how to play football.

But Trudeau did his homework. He trained quietly and effectively, and when the moment came, his opponent didn’t even see it coming.

To his credit, Stephen Harper actually saw  Trudeau coming. Throughout the long months when the polls were tracking the ascendance of Thomas Mulcair, he was virtually ignored in the Conservative air wars.

Even though all indications pointed to a battle between the Conservatives and the New Democrats, Harper focused single-mindedly on the Liberal leader. Mulcair was barely mentioned, either in advertising or in parliamentary jibes. It was all about discrediting the real threat to the throne.

Harper understood, as few others did, that the very characteristics highlighted to define Trudeau so negatively could also prove to be his greatest strength.

His youthful looks and his new approach meant he could legitimately signal a generational change. Harper’s stolid image was no match for a guy who could box, canoe and tweet all in the same day.

Conversely, Mulcair and Harper physically appeared to be two peas in a pod. They could both pass the test of membership in the Old Boys’ Club. That would have been great if people were looking to elect old boys.

But this was an election about change. Poll after poll consistently predicted that the vast majority of Canadians were seeking it.

Physically, Trudeau was the candidate that best personified change. But what about cerebrally? Being good looking with a well-honed physique certainly does not hurt.

But people want to know what is behind the hair before they will give you the keys to the kingdom.

Harper’s organizational and fundraising skills were the reason he launched one of the longest campaigns in modern history. But that one decision ultimately determined his demise.

Time gave Trudeau a chance to get out across the country unfiltered by the lens of a television ad, and they obviously liked what they saw.

His mastery of subject matter and delivery, in all the debates, ran counter to the negative campaign that had so effectively defined him.

Thanks to the Conservatives, Trudeau actually started the election with such low expectations that he had nowhere to go but up.

So 2015 turned out to be the year that changed Canada.

But the same uncertainty that muddied the political landscape this year could easily reemerge.

Success for the new Liberal government lies in taking a lesson from their unexpected trajectory.  

In politics, what happened last year seldom matters.  You are only as good as your next year.

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