Justin Trudeau believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Pierre Poilievre, but Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited. The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 4, 2024.

OTTAWA—The winds of political change are blowing everywhere.

Instead of interpreting that as a renaissance of the right, we have to assume that voter fatigue in multiple countries is fuelling this desire for change.

In the case of the United Kingdom, that wind led to a majority Labour government win on July 4.

British Conservatives have been in power for 14 years.

But unlike Canadian Liberals, the British Tories have motored through five leaders during the same period.

The revolving door on British leadership is prompted by a rule similar to that of Canadian Conservatives. If the majority of caucus votes against the leader, they are dismissed from power.

In the British Parliament, the dumping of leaders by caucus springs from rules written into party constitutions.

In Canada, only the Conservatives can trigger a leadership review. That process stems from a private member’s bill adopted unanimously in the House of Commons on condition that implementation is up to each caucus to be voted on privately at the beginning of a new Parliament.

Because of this rule, even if Pierre Poilievre were to secure a majority government in the next election, if his popularity flagged, he could be quickly replaced.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the revolving door leads to internal party divisions that are hard to heal.

In the dying dies of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s campaign, former prime minister Boris Johnson was brought in to rally the troops. He rallied hard, but did little to support his leader.

Instead, he used his time on stage in London’s Chelsea neighbourhood to praise his own initiatives, and trash the left.

He simply ignored Sunak, who was part of the group that dumped him. With such Tory in-fighting, the Labour Party has doubled its lead heading into a vote predicted to be a washout for the governing party.

From France to Canada, from the United Kingdom to the United States, multiple western leaders are suffering from voter fatigue.

Some may also be suffering from personal fatigue.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s performance in the June 27 debate against Donald Trump was palpably painful to watch. He struggled to keep his train of thought, and spoke in a gravelly, weakened voice. There were moments when he appeared to be confused about what the issue was. His wife, Jill, went up to the podium at the end to usher Biden away, as one would do for an elderly relative with balance problems.

All in all, it reinforced the narrative that Biden should not be the Democratic Party’s choice in the next election if they intend to defeat Trump.

Americans are also suffering from price fatigue and inflation, but there does not seem to be the obvious stampede to the right that one witnessed in the first round of the French elections last week.

Instead, the American race is a sparring match between relatively equal political movements, with the two-party system almost split down the middle.

But with the mental and physical feebleness Biden displayed on debate night, his party will be ceding the election to the Trump Republicans unless he is encouraged to step aside.

In the French coalition system with multiple parties, the group led by President Emmanuel Macron is running a poor third in the vote he himself triggered early.

Like the U.K’s Sunak, Macron called a surprise election. Both seem to be facing imminent defeat because of their own bad judgement.

In Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s case, he is hoping that time will heal all wounds. But it may also be that time is running out because the governance agreement with Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats will expire early next year.

The shocking Liberal loss in Toronto-St. Paul’s, Ont., left the party with a sense of foreboding that will fester when they hear negative feedback on the summer barbecue circuit.

Unlike Sunak, Trudeau cannot simply be dumped by a vote of his caucus.

Like Biden, Trudeau must reflect on whether his presence in the next election will be a plus or a minus.

The prime minister believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Poilievre.

But the prime minister also needs boots on the ground, though with many Liberals both privately and publicly expressing their reservations, the volunteer base of the party will be shrinking.

Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited.

The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

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

Many of the Brexiteers voted ‘Leave’ over immigration, but few in the U.K.—and Canada—seem to understand how vital immigration is for economic growth.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2019.

OTTAWA—Brexiteer Boris Johnson is taking his country to the brink.

Parliamentary chaos, left in his wake, is a reminder to all of us that governments matter.

British singer-songwriter Billy Bragg characterizes the current mess as “the most divisive years” in the history of his homeland. Bragg compared last week’s hasty prorogation to the work of the last proroguer, King Charles the First, who was ultimately beheaded.

“Consensus is further away than any time I can remember,” bemoaned Bragg in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview.

Brits are getting a bird’s eye view of the importance of government.

Johnson is pledging to leave the European Union on Halloween, whether or not his country has been able to negotiate an exit agreement. He may not succeed in prorogation, as senior members of his own inner circle have resigned in protest. But the self-imposed, drop-dead departure date of Oct. 31 is sure to throw the United Kingdom into deeper crisis.

The whole exercise is a glaring example of how not to operate in a democracy. The country is split right down the middle between Leavers and Remainers. The financial centre of London is overwhelmingly opposed to the decision, while most other parts of the country are slightly in favour.

The initial referendum was launched by former Prime Minister David Cameron as a way of shutting down internal Conservative opposition to the country’s increasing integration with the rest of Europe. Cameron made a foolish miscalculation on the matter, setting the benchmark for referendum victory at a simple majority. His country is now reaping the results of this ill-advised decision.

The younger the voter, the more likely they are to want to remain in the European Union. Conversely, older citizens, who remember the days before the United Kingdom joined the European Union back in 1973, are more likely to want to leave. Polling shows a strong correlation between age and a desire to exit the union. The majority of older people hold the view that European membership has deprived Britain of the power to control immigration. Younger pro-Europe voters believe immigration has made the country a more vibrant place and assisted economic growth, in complete contrast to their older counterparts.

Whatever happens in the next few weeks, one thing is certain: the importance of governments in planning for the long-term future has never been clearer.

Liberals took a beating in Canada when we asked the courts to establish a clear path forward in the event of another referendum on separation. The courts confirmed that separation approval would require a clear question supported by a clear majority. This principle was enshrined in the Clarity Act. A similar British law would have ensured that any decision to leave the European Union would have required a clear majority. The only thing clear today is that the country is split in half.

If the United Kingdom does exit with no deal, Scotland and Northern Ireland will quickly be knocking at Europe’s door to get back in. One country ends and another begins. The notion of a painless exit from the European Union is a pipe dream that not even Johnson will be able achieve.

Confusion belies a bigger question. Modern Canadian Conservatives claim that less government is better. They are positioning the upcoming federal election as a fight between over-governing Liberals and the party that wants to keep government out of your pocketbook and your life.

Libertarians like Maxime Bernier go even further. They believe the job of government is to get out of the way so the private sector can have free rein over the economy.

Most of us understand very little about how immigration policy and economic development go hand in hand. As Canadians have fewer children, the only way the country can meet workforce demand is by increasing immigration. Bernier’s plan to cut those numbers by more than a half is not only bad politics, it is bad economics, especially in struggling regions of the country. With an aging population, we need more young people to replenish the retiring workforce.

But the older we grow, the less we seem to understand or welcome the integration of immigrants and diverse populations into Canadian communities. Immigrants are key to revitalizing Canada’s flagging rural economies. They bring families, spending power, and entrepreneurial talent.

It is no surprise that British younger people welcome immigrant diversity as an economic asset. Their world has been turned upside-down by a generation that will not be around to bear the pain of Brexit madness.

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 November 19, 2018.

OTTAWA—Brexit boiling over should be no surprise to anyone.

The decision to leave the European Union was based on a simplistic, nostalgic notion that an exit vote would restore the greatness of Great Britain.

Brexiters enjoy many parallels with the “Make America Great Again” campaign of Donald Trump.

Candidate Trump himself travelled to his mother’s homeland of Scotland to urge citizens to vote in favour of Brexit.

He made common cause with chief exit architect and U.K. Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage, subsequently inviting Farage to join his presidential campaign.

Both Trump and Farage based their successful messages on the notion of taking their respective countries back to the future.

They harkened back to a time when good-paying jobs were plentiful and not too many foreigners were there to grab them up.

But neither country wants to abandon the benefits that global economic integration has conferred.

The United Kingdom expected to hold all the cards in the negotiation of their exit from the European Union.

Instead, the country has been forced to sign an agreement which appears to put most of the power back in the hands of Europe.

Prime Minister Theresa May is hanging by a thread. It looks highly unlikely that May will even muster the support of her own Parliament, which was highly skeptical about the benefits of her negotiated agreement. She is also facing a Conservative non-confidence motion which could cost her the prime minister’s position.

Some politicians are so dissatisfied with the Brexit agreement that they are calling for the prime minister’s head in a non-confidence motion.

Others want a new vote, claiming that the negative impact of leaving the European Union was not understood at the time of their national referendum.

Without a negotiated settlement, the United Kingdom would lose the right to sell goods freely into the European market. Movement of people, including Brits residing in Europe, and Europeans living in England, will also be blocked at the British border.

If the fragile deal fractures, which looks increasingly likely, the United Kingdom will face a European divorce next March with absolutely no backstops.

The same dream that Farage sold in the United Kingdom is the one that has Trump supporters rallying around the American president .

They believe Americans can withdraw from international agreements with absolutely no consequences.

Like the Brexiters, they believe that walls will return America to the standard of living and global glory it used to enjoy.

What neither country seems to realize is that neither the United States, nor the United Kingdom is the centre of their respective universes. Their empires have been displaced by powerful new economic and political forces.

The emergence of China as a world superpower is undeniable.

But China is not the only player changing the new world order. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) hosted a summit in Singapore last week that underscored the growing political muscle in that part of the world.

Trump sent his No. 2, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was there in person. His presence reflected an understanding that Canada’s future prosperity depends on diversifying our economic links.

What better place to start than in the ASEAN, with a rapidly-emerging middle class who could be great customers for Canadian goods and services.

The economic and political organization is a 10-country block comprising the third largest labour force in the world. In numbers, ASEAN is eclipsed by only China and India. Home to more than 600 million people, the association represents the seventh-largest economy in the world, with a combined GDP of $2.4-trillion in 2013. By 2050, it is expected to become the fourth largest world economy. Like the European Union, ASEAN has been working toward economic and political integration.

Unlike the United Kingdom and the United States, ASEAN sees the future in promoting multi-state partnerships, not ending them. The collective economy of these 10 member states is growing exponentially. Sixty per cent of internal growth has come through productivity gains.

The ASEAN block, combined with China and India, are eclipsing the United States and Europe as the economic powerhouses of the future. Those who expect the Asia-Pacific to revert to twentieth-century serfdom are simply wrong.

For Canada to invest time and political capital in our relationship with ASEAN partners makes sense. The result of those relationships will bring economic benefits and much-needed diversification.

ASEAN can use its political muscle to pressure the United States on international trade agreements.

With or without Trump and May, Asia is the way of the future.

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

The challenge is to change Canada’s image, at home and abroad. Modern hewers of Canadian wood are actually designing products for the world.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 25, 2016.

OTTAWA—Brands are us. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took a hit from the usual suspects for daring to suggest that Canada is more resourceful than resource-based.

But it is a song he should keep on singing if we are to staunch the bleeding from a slumping loonie and ongoing economic uncertainty.

To most of the world, we are but the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Member of Parliament Joseph Elijah Armstrong first articulated that image in a speech on Sept. 8, 1891.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper extended the resource metaphor to position Canada as an oil and gas superpower. In doing so, he reinforced Canada’s longstanding image as a primary provider of energy and raw materials, to be processed elsewhere.

As Saudi Arabia flexes its muscle and depresses international oil prices, Canada’s perceived dependence on primary resource extraction has crippled our dollar.

Part of the solution lies in speeding up the timetable on infrastructure investments promised in the last election.

But we have a bigger job to do.

The challenge is to change Canada’s image, at home and abroad.

Modern hewers of Canadian wood are actually designing products for the world.

Former British prime minister’s Tony Blair launched a Cool Britannia campaign to reshape the stolid image of the stuffy Brit.

The plan was spawned by a report of the Design Council, a quasi-governmental body, founded by Royal Charter. The council had commissioned a study entitled, “New Brand for a New Britain.” It focused on the growing importance of creative industries to the United Kingdom—citing design, advertising, media, marketing, and the arts as huge employment creators.

That report was reinforced by a Labour-affiliated think tank study entitled, “Britain ; renewing our identity.”

The idea of Britain as trademark was novel and timely.

The Labour government launched a domestic and international effort to reinforce the importance of design to the British economy. The British Foreign Office set up an advisory committee responsible for specific branding goals and a mandate to change Britain’s image around the world.

The committee was tasked to review the methods and tools available to do this; and to ensure that public and private sectors worked together on redesign efforts.

The committee also modernized how the Foreign Office communicated with the public.

Trudeau’s speech at Davos hit the right notes. He underscored the value of resourcefulness over resource extraction. He focused on the diversity of Canada’s workforce, citing immigration as a driver of innovation.

As an example, he referenced the demographic profile of University of Waterloo graduate engineering students. Half of them hail from other countries around the globe.

Trudeau also used the World Economic Forum to make a connection with some of the great innovators of this century, the creators of Microsoft, Google, and Facebook.

The Prime Minister will have a much tougher time aligning the machinery of government with this new vision for Canada.

British rebranding took more than a decade, with public and private sectors working together to reinforce the notion of a new economy based on innovation and design.

Canada does not even have a national equivalent of the Design Council. There are some promising local examples of how design and the economy can intersect.

Toronto’s Design Industry Advisory Committee has only been around for 15 years, but it already exerts significant influence on city policies and branding.

According to DIAC, there are 40,000 design professionals working in Ontario. That represents a huge pool of talent ready to rebrand a province with a reputation for stodginess.

According to Statistics Canada data (no longer collected), in 2007 the number of industrial design jobs had been growing at a rate of seven per cent a year for more than a decade.

Other design sectors have experienced similar growth, with little government recognition. Quebec is the only province with a design tax incentive.

An auto or oil bailout is a political imperative when thousands of high-paying jobs are at stake. But focusing public brainpower on fixing past mistakes is a recipe for failure.

If Mark Zuckerberg had relied on government to launch Facebook, he never would have gotten beyond the first page.

Trudeau’s view of the new Canada is a good start. Cool Britannia was more than a decade in the making. But reorienting government policy to support the creative economy is imperative.

The Prime Minister has his work cut out for him.

Canada is hot!

In these sub-zero days, that could be novel branding.

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