If the Liberal leader keeps his cool and avoids attack mode, he can reinforce the impression that he is calm, thoughtful, and fully prepared to deal with future White House bullies. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 21, 2025.

OTTAWA—Only in Canada would a hockey game trump a federal election debate.

The Montreal Canadiens had one last chance to make the playoffs last week, and their game was in conflict with the national leaders’ debate in French.

The simple solution was to move the debate forward to an earlier time. The move probably helped the front-runner more than anyone else.

Liberal Leader Mark Carney struggles more in French than the rest, but the move may have meant fewer Quebecers watched the debate in person. Some were likely still en route from work, and others were preparing dinner for their families. Six o’clock is probably the worst time for a political debate.

But there’s also a school of thought to say that debates really don’t change much.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had better hope that they are wrong because he needs a major boost to have any chance of beating the Liberals on April 28.

In reality, there are very few occasions when a knockout punch decides an election.

Most people remember Brian Mulroney’s response when then-prime minister John Turner was asked to defend a series of appointments forced upon him by predecessor Pierre Trudeau.

Turner’s response, “I had no option,” caused Progressive Conservative leader Mulroney to jab him with a pointed finger. “You, sir, had an option.” That knockout punch led the PCs to a historic victory of 211 seats in the September 1984 election.

Many have compared that debate scenario to this year’s campaign. Both campaigns saw unpopular Trudeaus leaving their positions as prime minister.

Both saw a new leader take over who had been outside the previous prime minister’s direct orbit. In Turner’s case, he left government after a disagreement with the prime minister, and returned when the leadership position opened up anew.

In Carney’s case, he is brand new to politics. But his previous work as an adviser to Justin Trudeau meant that he was not completely separated from the previous regime.

He, too, has experienced a post-leadership bump. That would likely have slumped in the rollout of a regular election campaign.

But United States President Donald Trump made sure that this was not an ordinary Canadian election.

He caused a pan-Canadian call to arms with his constant musings about annexing our country, and referring to our prime minister as “governor.”

Carney came out as the leader most likely to defend this country’s interests against American protectionism and against a president who seems to enjoy belittling allies and supporting former enemies.

It has been lost on no-one that the president exempted Russia and North Korea in the global tariff attacks that saw him turn his back on Europe, Canada, and other former allies recently.

The debates in French and English last week permitted Poilievre to exercise his acrid humour in a frontal attack on Carney. But he had to use caution because if he were to be seen as too nasty, that would simply reinforce the animus that Canadian women voters have already identified in him.

There is a reason that he is running 20 points behind when it comes to support from women. His nasty, three-word slogans get the anti-vaxxers motivated, but have the opposite effect on women who are concerned with issues like language and behaviour. They want to provide good examples to their children, and when it gets too nasty, politicians simply lose their support.

I was on the debate preparation team for Trudeau in his first election, and the whole group was encouraging him to hit hard. He refused to do so, saying he wanted to show that politics didn’t have to be dirty.

He was right. Running in third place, Trudeau took a nasty hit from then-NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, and in a calm voice, he reminded Mulcair that debate day was the anniversary of his father’s death. Mulcair melted and Trudeau vaulted to first place in an election victory that no one had seen coming.

All that to say that debates do count. But for the current Liberal momentum to be blunted, it would mean a direct hit from the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats. They are all fighting for their lives, so any onlooker can expect a full-frontal attack on the prime minister.

If he keeps his cool and doesn’t fall into attack mode, Carney can reinforce the impression that he is calm, thoughtful, and fully prepared to deal with future White House bullies.

That perception will be important since, if Carney is successful at the end of the month, his anti-bullying days may just be starting.

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 September 3, 2018.

OTTAWA—The New Democratic Party exodus continued last week, with two more veterans announcing they would not seek re-election.

Linda Duncan and Irene Mathyssen joined five others from three different provinces who have already announced they will not re-offer. One has already stepped down to run for mayor of Vancouver, which gives Jagmeet Singh a chance to finally get a seat in the House of Commons.

But what happens if Singh does not win the byelection? Could he be the first NDP leader to step down before he has even run in a single election?

The party is probably wondering why they dumped Thomas Mulcair after a single electoral loss. Mulcair would have made a much better foil for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in Parliament and on the hustings.

Singh has more than a year to go until the next election but the number of NDP members voting with their feet is growing exponentially. Sixteen per cent of the current caucus has announced retirement plans, with the number bound to swell in the next few months.

Singh’s star has not been shining very brightly. Most members base future political decisions on a combination of their personal ambition and their party’s potential for growth. Heading into the last election, Thomas Mulcair was running first. Polls were predicting he would be the next prime minister. But some major mid-campaign missteps put an end to that dream, and Mulcair ended up in third place.

Nonetheless, his party posted one of their strongest performances, and managed to solidify re-election in a number of Quebec seats based on his popularity and organizational skills. Had Mulcair stayed on, he would have been able to build on the natural erosion of second-term Liberal support to continue his party’s growth.

If the Conservatives do manage to bifurcate, with a new party launched under libertarian Maxime Bernier, the NDP could well benefit from an eroding base on the right. But with Mulcair gone, and his bench strength diminishing, it does not seem very likely that Singh is going to be able to achieve the kind of success that eluded his talented predecessor.

Singh’s caucus is shrinking and he currently boasts only one colleague with cabinet experience in any previous federal or provincial government. Party fundraising has been lagging behind the other two parties. The financial situation is so grim that Singh has generously refused to take a paycheque until the numbers improve. Working for nothing will not solve his party’s deep-seated problems.

Singh himself was elected in a party vote system that predetermined a leadership without support from more than a single province. The one-person, one-vote system adopted for the last NDP leadership race meant that signing up 50,000 people in a few Toronto-area ridings was more politically lucrative than building a national team. That works for a leadership. But in the end, Singh needs broad-based national support to be in the running for the prime minister’s job.

If Singh’s future is as cloudy as it currently appears, the party exodus is likely far from over. The loss of senior members like Hamilton’s David Christopherson and Montreal’s Hélène Laverdière creates problems for the party in its effort to build new strength from the party’s base.

Generally a Parliamentarian can improve their local electoral numbers by five to 10 per cent over the national average. In a tight election, successful incumbents are the ones who make the difference between government and opposition.

In the case of the NDP, the situation could be much more challenging. If Singh loses the seat he is currently contesting in British Columbia, the outcome will trigger a new retirement stampede for incumbent New Democrats.

It will also make the job of recruiting new candidates much more difficult, as potential candidates will be frightened off by the possibility of election defeat. However, if he wins, the bump will likely play out across the country. With these stakes, don’t expect the other parties to follow Elizabeth May’s lead and decline to put a candidate against Singh. No doubt, the New Democrats have taken all these byelection issues into consideration.

But politics is also a game where the only certainty is uncertainty. Singh may surprise everyone and capture the imagination of West Coast voters. That would set the stage for a national surge.

His loss would most help the federal Liberals. Trudeau needs left-wing support and erstwhile New Democrats to achieve a second majority. Bad news for Singh would definitely be good for the Grits.

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