Pablo Rodriquez has integrated beautifully into the Quebec political world, and is widely recognized as a great organizer in all regions. That would make his decision to leave even tougher for Prime Minister Trudeau as there is no lieutenant heir apparent waiting in the wings.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 12, 2024.

OTTAWA—Pablo Rodriguez is considering a run at the leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party.

When the news broke last week, he neither confirmed nor denied but his response made it fairly obvious that he will be going.

“As minister of transport and Quebec lieutenant in Justin Trudeau’s government, I am proud to work hard for the good of all Quebecers and all Canadians. I am sincerely touched by the many requests I have received to return to where it all began for me,” was the comment he offered up after Radio Canada ran a story saying he was considering the move.

The Quebec Liberal Party leadership will be held in Quebec City on June 14 of next year.

Denis Coderre, former federal Liberal cabinet minister and former Montreal mayor, is currently the only candidate in the race.

By the sounds of Rodriguez’ statement, he will be joining Coderre in the near future.

Rodriquez began his political career as a member of the Quebec Liberal Party’s youth commission in the 1990s.

As the son of an immigrant who studied in Sherbrooke, Que., Rodriquez has a reputation as a great political organizer. He is also seen as more of a team player than Coderre.

Rodriquez has maintained good relationships with members in both the provincial and federal parties, which is not always the case.

The last provincial Liberal premier was Jean Charest, who was obviously not a federal Liberal. In many instances, there has been huge antipathy between the two organizations.

Someone who could bring them together would be seen as an attractive political alternative.

Rodriguez has been struggling to establish his political footprint at Transport Canada, a department notorious for boring its ministers to death with operational minutiae and very little in the way of public profile.

Rodriguez has found some success in his attempt to stem the tide of Canadian car thefts, with stolen vehicles exiting through the port of Montreal. By spearheading a national anti-theft strategy, he has managed to command some media attention.

But he misses his former portfolio in Canadian Heritage, where the length and breadth of cultural issues were perfect for a minister whose mother tongue was neither English nor French.

Rodriquez has integrated beautifully into the Quebec political world, and is widely recognized as a great organizer in all regions.

That would make his decision to leave even tougher for Prime Minister Trudeau as there is no lieutenant heir apparent waiting in the wings.

Other current Quebec ministers are either short on experience or not very political.

And the one thing a lieutenant needs is political antennae, especially in the leadup to what is likely to be a very tough campaign for the federal Liberals next year.

It is the second time in as many weeks that Trudeau is receiving what could turn out to be bad news from his ministers.

The decision of Seamus O’Regan to retire from politics was announced on July 18.

O’Regan said he was stepping down for family reasons, but everyone knows re-election in his riding of St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, N.L., would be tough.

The relatively new riding includes about 95 per cent of the former St. John’s West, which has been largely dominated by Conservatives. The most notable Tory was John Crosbie who held the seat for 16 years.

O’Regan has been victorious in his riding since 2015, but that could change. If current polling continues, his riding is highly likely to go Tory.

As a personal friend of the prime minister, who even served in his wedding party, O’Regan’s decision to leave is pretty clearly based on a keen reading of the tea leaves.

O’Regan was a broadcaster before entering politics. He, more than most, understands that it is only a rising tide that lifts all boats. The current Liberal tide does not appear to be rising.

If the party’s polling numbers don’t improve, more Liberals can be expected to ponder on their own futures after spending time in their constituencies.

They are no doubt getting an earful from disgruntled voters.

Meanwhile, Rodriguez’s potential departure would leave a huge gap in the Liberal electoral machine in Quebec.

Quebec is the one region that has spurned the political advances of Pierre Poilievre and will likely continue to support a native son in the next election.

But races will be tight, and the party needs good on-the-ground support to recruit candidates and organizers.

Rodriguez was key to that structure. His leave taking could create an unfillable political hole.

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

Politics inevitably gets in the mix at the Olympics, and that’s a horror show for politicians asked to comment on their county’s performance and actions.

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

OTTAWA—Sport and politics don’t mix. Or maybe they do.

The Olympic Games are an example of how athletes go “sitius, altius, fortius communiter”: faster, higher, stronger together.

Until recently, the slogan was simply faster, higher, stronger.

In 2021, the International Olympic Committee added “together” to its motto saying it wanted to underscore the unifying power of sport, and the importance of solidarity.

But with all athletes competing for their country, politics inevitably gets involved in the mix.

That’s a horror show for politicians called upon to comment on their county’s performance and actions.

The fantastic effort of the Canadian women’s soccer team has been overshadowed by a coaching decision to spy on opponents with the use of a drone.

Federal Sport Minister Carla Qualtrough moved in quickly to stem the controversy by announcing that the federal government would be suspending the funding of coaching salaries.

But the players themselves felt the heat for a mistake they had nothing to do with.

Famed soccer icon Christine Sinclair felt compelled to speak up on social media where she wrote that it was “unfortunate that the players of our national team have had to play through condemnable actions by some of their staff as they attempt to defend our gold medal. Actions players have no control over. I want to be clear that having been a national team for 23 years, we were never shown or discussed drone footage in team or individual meetings I’ve been present for.”

Soccer Canada has launched an investigation as has the governing body for soccer, FIFA. The FIFA investigation could lead to a reversal of the gold medal that Canada received in the last Olympics when the team scored a victory on penalty kicks against Sweden.

All that to say that non-political games can obviously become very political.

Russia’s banishment from the Olympics occurred because of the country’s organized plan to cheat on urine testing so the players could get away with consuming illegal substances to get a performance boost.

The drone scandal will not see that kind of punishment, but it certainly ruined the experience for the athletes who had absolutely nothing to do with the cheating.

Leadership on the Canadian men’s side also admitted to using drones at the recent Copa America tournament.

At this point, Canada is the only country that has been tagged with drone use, but it is possible that following a more thorough investigation other countries have also been droning to win.

Just how far is a coach willing to go to secure a victory for their athletes?

And why should the athletes be punished for something over which they had no control?

As for the Canada women’s team, they were issued a six-point penalty which meant they had to score multiple wins just to stay in the hunt for a medal.

The team protested the size of the penalty, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Canadian team did beat Colombia and advanced to Saturday’s quarter-final, but the use of the drone has obviously affected every Canadian player and their experience at these games.

What should have been a glorious moment to celebrate a strong team with clear medal potential has become a Canadian cheating scandal.

In the Olympic family, they certainly would not expect Canada to be the outlier.

As for the rest of the Olympic effort, strength in new sporting ventures has been the story of these games.

A gold in women’s judo, bronze in women’s fencing, and a silver in women’s rugby sevens marked the first time in Canadian history that our country has medalled in any of these events.

This is the first Olympics with gender parity and the Canadian women have certainly done their part to get the country to the podium.

Halfway through the games, Canada was ninth in standing, incredible for a country that trains heavily in summer and winter sports.

Our country is expected to do well in winter sports, but the summer Olympics have never been Canada’s strong point.

Just as we have witnessed medalling in never-before events, the depth of Canada’s team development is obvious.

In tennis, the country is going deep in singles and could medal in doubles.

In swimming, Summer McIntosh is blazing new trails. At the halfway point, there is definitely more to come.

As for the opening ceremony what to say about Céline Dion but, wow!

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

Like the survivors of the Linda May, descendants of the ‘Lucky Seven’ will keep their story alive.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 29, 2024.

OTTAWA—The homecoming of the ‘Lucky Seven’ was something to behold.

A crowd gathered in New-Wes-Valley, N.L., to celebrate the impossible: their men had survived.

After three days lost at sea, hope was beginning to run out while a massive ocean search continued.

But the seven fishers of the Elite Navigator were sighted, and the message came back. “They are alive.”

Every fisher’s family dreads the possibility of them being lost at sea. Many don’t get the good news that the families of the ‘Lucky Seven’ received last week.

Stories of shipwrecks capture our collective imagination, but little is often recounted of those who survive.

My husband tells one such story.

He was a sickly babe in arms in 1948—barely a month old—when his father Philip Thorne and 13 others went out to the ice for sealing season.

They call it “out to the ice” because the North Atlantic is so frozen at that time of year that sealing boats wend their way through narrow open passages in search of the elusive herd of pups born on the front from St. Anthony to St. John’s.

Seals less than two weeks old are all white, and therefore most valuable.

After two weeks, the pups moult and become grey-spotted bedlamers, which are hunted on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland’s south coast.

Philip and the crew of the Linda May had already secured half a load of pups, and were on the Grand Banks hunting bedlamers when disaster struck.

Because sealing boats were surrounded by ice, the wooden-walled schooners were ill-suited for winter work. These wooden boats were primarily used to fish, but in March they were repurposed for sealing to feed families that lived on little else than what was caught in the ocean.

The schooner’s wooden walls could be crushed by shifting ice, so someone always stood watch when the vessel was navigating between two ice floes.

Philip was on watch that fateful night when the Linda May was literally cut in half by the forces of moving ice. The crew was aroused and had minutes to gather up food, water, and gear.

They escaped with just enough to fill a wooden dory with kerosene oil, charts, canvas for protection, wood, food and water. Lighting fire to the sinking ship, they hoped the smoke would be seen.

They then struck out toward Nova Scotia and the lighthouse at St. Paul’s Island, which they figured, by dead reckoning, would be the closest point of land.

By their charts and navigational knowledge, they figured it was a 100 mile walk. The march was slow because they were up and down rafted ice.

They dragged the dory by day and huddled under canvas at night while Atlantic winds howled around them. After more than a week, the dory’s wooden bottom gave out. They set it on fire in the hopes of a rescue signal.

No such luck.

Philip’s wife, Stella, and the other waiting wives were all told the men were lost at sea. Like the ‘Lucky Seven’ families, they hoped against hope, but the search was called off when authorities thought survival was impossible.

The men kept walking until the captain, the oldest of the lot, lost his mobility. He was carried on the backs of the others. After almost two weeks, they saw a light in the night sky.

Sure enough, their dead reckoning was right. They were in sight of the St. Paul’s Island lighthouse.

They finally arrived 100 metres from shore only to face the rush of freezing open water blocking passage. The youngest and strongest tied a rope around his waist and swam to shore, using the lead to ferry the others to safety.

When they finally landed on the rocks—hypothermic and desperate—they faced a 100-foot cliff, which could not be scaled. Exhausted, they literally laid down to die.

But the lighthouse keeper happened to see them and quickly organized a rescue party of his family. They lowered ropes over the cliff to pull the men up one by one.

The keeper sent a Morse code message to Halifax, ‘We got the crew of the Linda May. They are all alive.’

Imagine the joy of those families who had literally been told their men were lost at sea.

My husband’s mother had never given up hope.

The story of the Linda May is legendary in Dingwall Harbour and the communities nearby the lighthouse.

Like the survivors of the Linda May, descendants of the ‘Lucky Seven’ will keep their story alive.

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

The Republican convention scenario could not have been scripted better if it had been written in Hollywood. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 22, 2024.

OTTAWA—What a difference a day makes. Donald Trump now appears unbeatable.

Even senior Democrats are reported to have quietly conceded the election which has the younger congressional leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seeing red.

The Republican convention scenario could not have been scripted better if it had been written in Hollywood.

The week leading up to the four-day love-in in Milwaukee, Wisc., was awash with negative news about the mental acuity of U.S. President Joe Biden. Numerous Democrats, including at least 17 members of Congress, came out publicly calling for the president to step aside in time to secure a replacement for the November vote.

Then, there was an attempted assassination attempt on Trump on July 13.

Trump himself said the bullet would have struck, but at the last minute he turned his head to review details of a graph on immigration that had been exhibited as part of his presentation.

That subtle shift saved his life, and the bullet intended for him instead hit and killed a former fire chief. News reports said Corey Comperatore used his own body to shield his wife and family from the attack.

His last words were “Get down,” before Comperatore was struck dead by a bullet intended for the former president.

His wife, who described her husband as a hero, refused to take a call from President Biden after the attack. Instead she said her husband was a lifelong Republican, and he wouldn’t have wanted her to talk to Biden.

Even the previously absent Melania Trump was part of the narrative. Within hours of the attack, she penned a long letter suggesting that it was time for all Americans to rally around the theme of unity.

“A monster who recognized my husband as an inhuman political machine attempted to ring out Donald’s passion—his laughter, ingenuity, love of music and inspiration. … Donald, the generous and caring man I have been with through the best and the worst of times.”

Even Melania sensed this was a historical moment for Trump. Expect to see her at his side soon even though, notwithstanding her penmanship, she has been absent from all his recent trials, travails, and campaign trails.

But she obviously understood the import of the failed assassination attempt.

“The winds of change have arrived. For those of you who cry in support, I thank you. I commend those of you who have reached beyond the political divide—thank you for remembering that every single politician is a man or woman with a loving family.”

While Americans were rallying around Trump, Canadian premiers were gathered for their usual annual whine fest.

This year’s theme was “federal creep.”

According to premiers, they are unhappy with the fact the national government is bypassing them to get municipal housing agreements to kickstart construction in the midst of a housing crisis.

Why would the federal government waste time to partner with the provinces who are largely responsible for the current shortage of available, affordable housing?

They inherited the social housing file with plenty of cash from the federal government in a transfer of responsibility that happened almost 40 years ago.

Since the transfer, social housing momentum has stalled in many provinces. Ontario has received billions of dollars for housing with very little new construction to show for it.

At their annual meeting last week in Halifax, the provinces also attacked national dental care as another infringement on their authority.

They would not dare touch medicare because it is deeply entrenched and valued by Canadians.

But that didn’t stop premiers from also opposing the federal government’s promise to establish a national school food program.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford told a press conference that his province is feeding many more children with fewer dollars than the proposed federal program.

The Council of the Federation meeting was not surprising as every year provincial premiers get together to demand more money with less accountability.

The council was formed on Dec. 5, 2003. In its founding document, it acknowledges that Canada was created in 1867. But beyond that, they don’t even include a Canadian flag in its circular flag logo.

They complain about duplication, but there is no reason why a country with only 39 million people cannot have a school lunch program, dental care, medicare and childcare.

Maybe the premiers need to upload some responsibilities, and get out of the way.

Canadians need and want a national vision for Canada.

Now more than ever.

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

Trudeau’s tenure is brief but he needs to weigh his legacy against the risk of losing it all. Quite a balancing act.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 15, 2024.

Politics is a disease for which there is no vaccination.

How else to explain the reason why politicians have such a hard time retiring?

Most people count down the days until they can stop working. But U.S. President Joe Biden is 81 years old, and still refuses to entertain the idea of getting out.

Ditto for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau has accomplished extraordinary things during his decade in power, which have even his enemies damning him with faint praise.

Norman Spector recently tweeted that Trudeau had been “the most consequential prime minister in his lifetime.” He went on to say Trudeau was even more consequential than his father. That praise was tempered by adding “more decades than I have left will have to pass to know whether the massive changes he’s precipitated are making Canada a better country—or destroying it.”

Trudeau put Indigenous issues on the agenda with more investments and legislative change to support reconciliation than any prime minister in history.

He also introduced nationally accessible child care, dental care and pharmacare, permanently hiked seniors’ pensions, and launched a national school lunch program initiative during the quickest economic recovery in the G8.

Quite a record for a decade which included two years of focussed attention on a worldwide once-in-a-century pandemic.

So why don’t either of these accomplished men want to exit with their heads held high?

To paraphrase former Ontario premier Ernie Eves, the worst day in politics is better than the best day on Bay Street.

Outsiders may think it is hubris that keeps politicians going. But they would be wrong.

The capacity for societal change lands squarely in the lap of politicians, and they know how much their work can actually be the agent for change.

Trudeau understands that his vision will not likely be shared by any successor, whether it be from his own party or the Conservatives.

Biden has devoted his life to fighting for the workers, and he wants to continue that work.

It is up to those closest to these leaders to guide them in the right direction.

In Trudeau’s case, following his separation from Sophie Grégoire last summer, he won’t be getting any pillow-talk counsel. He may be hearing from his children, but their youthful wisdom may not parallel advice from close adults.

Biden is obviously getting an earful from his partner Jill Biden, and his adult children. They are pushing him to stay even though his public performances and aging issues have become the dominant theme on the eve of his presidential re-election fight.

Donald Trump is chomping at the bit, hoping to bait Biden into another encounter since the first debate was so damaging to the Democrats.

Senior Democrats are working on the Biden family to convince them that keeping Joe in the job will end up destroying his legacy, not enhancing it.

Senior Liberals are not able to work on family members who can exercise a considerable amount of influence. Instead, they are reaching out to the inner circle of Trudeau’s key advisers.

That group seems to believe that the prime minister’s campaign prowess will carry him through the current travails.

His chief of staff has been working the back rooms of leadership since she was at Queen’s Park with then-Premier Kathleen Wynne. Katie Telford was there in the 2014 election when Wynne was supposed to lose. Instead, she turned it around and Liberals served one more term in provincial government.

Telford’s job also depends on Trudeau staying, so it may be understandable that she sees possible redemption on the campaign trail.

But Wynne’s second try in 2018 was a disaster with the leader announcing her own retirement days before the campaign ended. The party ended up losing status with few seats, and the worst defeat in Ontario political history.

Telford was not responsible for that debacle, as the campaign was run by David Herle, former adviser to prime minister Paul Martin who led Martin back to the wilderness in 2006.

But Telford understands political history.

Every leader cares about the direction in which they take their country. But at some point, even consequential leadership loses its lustre.

The power of political change is inevitable especially in the post-information age.

In Biden’s case, he has admirably served his country for 52 years. He can leave with his head held high.

In comparison, Trudeau’s tenure is brief, but he needs to weigh his legacy against the risk of losing it all.

Quite a balancing act.

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

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.

Justin Trudeau has to do something dramatic to let Canadians know that he really is listening and the capital gains reversal could be it. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 1, 2024.

OTTAWA—Justin Trudeau should pull a Doug Ford.

Apologize and say his government got it wrong when it announced a hike in the capital gains inclusion rate from 50 per cent to 66.7 per cent for annual gains over $250,000.

Premier Ford reversed his controversial position on selling off greenbelt land by simply apologizing and changing his mind. The political fallout from that reversal was nil.

A flip on the capital gains hike could signal that Trudeau is willing to admit when he is wrong.

The budget announcement was one reason Liberals lost a key byelection in Toronto-St. Paul’s last week. According to a demographic analysis of the riding by Environics, the average household income there is $190,945.30.

That is more than double the average before taxes income of $92,764 for the rest of the country.

An apology would reinforce comments made by the prime minister the day after the shocking loss of a riding that had been held by the Liberals for three decades.

Commenting on the outcome, the prime minister said “I hear people’s concerns. And frustrations.”

Simply repeating that he is working to ameliorate the situation will not be enough.

Inside the caucus, members are quietly grumbling about their leader’s unpopularity, predicting a general election could be disastrous if the party’s numbers are not shored up.

Trudeau has to do something dramatic to let Canadians know that he really is listening and the capital gains reversal could be it.

The issue would not matter in most ridings as ordinary Canadians cannot hope to have an annual capital gain in excess of $250,000.

But for those who do, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back in last week’s vote.

That, and the prime minister’s personal unpopularity, were certainly factors in the surprising defeat. They both coupled with the government’s position on the Israel-Hamas war to create a perfect storm.

The war in the Middle East even had the mayor of a Montreal suburb calling on Toronto voters to repudiate Trudeau. Mayor Jeremy Levi of Hampstead used X (Twitter) to literally “implore” voters in Toronto to vote for Don Stewart and Pierre Poilievre.

The mayor accused Trudeau of lying to all Jewish Canadians about his promise to do something to combat antisemitism. “This is no longer about Jews, but a leader who consistently failed.”

Deputy Conservative leader Melissa Lantsman penned a similar message to constituents in the riding, asking them to send Trudeau “a message about his betrayal of our Jewish community” because of his silence on rise of “Jew hatred” since the beginning of the war.

According to the most recent census, approximately 15 per cent of the riding population is Jewish, but Lantsman refused to say whether the letter was sent selectively to Jewish households.

Couple that with the reality that the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church, well-known in political circles as chief of staff to Chrystia Freeland, was largely unknown in the constituency.

According to some Liberal sources, there were other, popular local candidates who were willing to step up when Carolyn Bennett vacated the seat, she had held for a quarter century.

But they were bypassed for Church, largely at the insistence of deputy prime minister Freeland.

Freeland holds an adjacent riding to that of Toronto-St. Paul’s. In University-Rosedale, the demographics are very similar, and with the shocking loss last week, Freeland must also be wondering about the vulnerability of her own seat.

She campaigned hard for Church, suggesting at a press conference on the day of the vote that the election was about “two visions of Canada, two sets of values.” Freeland said the alternative vision to the Liberal one was “cold, cruel and small” that would lead to cuts.

Freeland’s pitch did not appear to resonate with the local voters.

After the polls closed, Conservative organizer Jenni Byrne made an unusual appearance on CBC to say her candidate had lost the election, when a few hours later it turned out the opposite was true.

At 4:30 a.m., the final ballot put Conservative candidate Don Stewart ahead by almost 600 votes. Church had led the polls through most of the evening, but the numbers in the advance voting prompted the flip.

Liberal insiders knew it would be a tough fight, but they thought the tide was turning in their favour in the last few days.

Caucus successors to Trudeau are already quietly organizing, although most pledge public support for the beleaguered leader.

Something dramatic needs to happen to turn this ship around.

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

Liberals would be better off to focus on the good parts of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand and even fewer will be paying.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 24, 2024.

OTTAWA—The Liberals want to pick a fight on capital gains. And Pierre Poilievre is poised for battle.

He has characterized the tax changes announced in the budget as “economic vandalism,” and has taken the unusual step of appearing on mainstream media television to fight the changes.

For her part, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has been leading the charge for the Liberals.

The deputy prime minister repeated her message that richer Canadians would not want to see “the public sphere so degraded,” and that the “wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns hot.”

Not sure about the reference to compatriots? If Liberals want to occupy the political centre, they need to use ordinary language.

Freeland, and compatriot Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez have characterized the capital gains hike as tax fairness.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also publicly defended the changes are a matter of fairness.

He says it is simply not fair that a teacher pays tax on 100 per cent of their income, while a business owner pays taxes only 50 per cent of “passive’ income capital gains hikes.

The last budget proposed a hike to two-thirds of capital gains. In the 1990s, the capital gains tax—pegged at 75 per cent—was even higher.

If Poilievre wants to hike the temperature on taxes, he thinks there are some political points to be scored.

His party was the only one to vote against the proposed capital gains changes, but he has already promised to do a complete revision of the tax system without any specific details.

Depending on where you sit on the political spectrum, the question of fairness is a moving target.

The Fraser Institute—a bastion of conservatism—claimed in a 2023 report that the top 20 per cent of income-earning families in the country pay more than 60 per cent of the taxes.

On the other hand, the Broadbent Institute says those figures are skewed because top earners also account for two-thirds of the nation’s total net wealth, while the bottom 40 per cent of net earners comprise just three per cent.

So just where do Canadians land on what constitutes tax fairness?

This is where the question of who will win the tax fairness fight turns.

Most Canadians who don’t expect a personal tax bite on capital gains have already moved on to other issues in their lives.

Those who do expect to pay a capital gain are hopping mad, and they don’t plan to forget it any time soon.

The Canadian Medical Association says the tax changes will negatively impact on family doctor availability, already at a crisis level in many parts of the country.

They are lobbying, along with their provincial organizations, for an exemption for medical corporations or—at the very least—measures to allow individuals in the corporation to share the exemption threshold in an indexed tax amendment.

According to an Abacus survey commissioned by the CMA, 76 per cent of Canadians with an opinion on the issue felt changes should be reversed for doctors.

The CMA’s president has said that a special exemption should apply to doctors because “We are unique. …We need to be treated that way.”

But if doctors are exempted, then what about farmers, and small business operators in other sectors?

They, too, would like an exemption or a change in the proposed law. And that’s what Poilievre is banking on.

Most Canadians are fully in favour of taxing the rich, as long as it doesn’t include them.

But they have already forgotten about capital gains, and are moving on to other issues.

Affordability, inflation, food prices, and housing are high on their agenda. And they really don’t care about a capital gains change.

So Poilievre is planning to roll up a rather confusing tax change into his attack on the tax-and-spend Liberals.

In the end, the only people currently following the issue closely are those in the top bracket who could be affected by the changes.

As far as they are concerned, it is not fair for them to pay more taxes, and they are not going to be moved by concerns of their compatriots.

Liberals would be much better off to focus on the positive elements of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand, and even fewer will be paying.

The message on dental care, pharmacare, and daycare is positive news for millions of Canadians.

That’s the battle that Liberals should be fighting.

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

The fallout from the parliamentary foreign activity report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2024.

OTTAWA–The cloud of suspicion hanging over Members of Parliament was partly lifted by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week.

May spoke out at a lengthy press conference on June 11 after having read the classified document on parliamentary foreign activity produced by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP).

May said she was “relieved” to read that, in her opinion, none of the “few” Members of Parliament mentioned in the document are being disloyal to Canada.

There was one former MP who knowingly colluded with a foreign government, but their identity was not revealed. May stated that her reading of the report concluded that no current MPs were involved in any malfeasance.

May asked, “are there currently MPs sitting with us in the Chamber who would set out knowingly to sell Canada out for personal benefit? If there are, there’s no evidence of that in the full report.”

She urged other party leaders to read the report, and to draw their own conclusions.

Reports of the document state that “the committee has also seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.”

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh, who also read the report, said he was even more concerned after reading it, and urged Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to do the same. The current leader of the opposition refuses to seek the security clearance required to read the document.

Singh also questioned whether Poilievre was refusing to read the document because it included references to potential foreign influence in the Conservative leader’s own party leadership bid. The NSICOP report references interference by Indian and Chinese governments in the Conservative leadership race.

Singh said: “In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.” CBC News later reported that Singh’s office would not confirm if he was referring to current sitting MPs.

Meanwhile, with no specifics on which Members of Parliament have been named, the House of Commons agreed on June 11 to a Bloc Québécois motion to refer the parliamentary report to the public inquiry into foreign interference.

That inquiry, led by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, is already reviewing the issues surrounding foreign election-meddling allegations.

Hogue produced her interim report last month, which said there is evidence of foreign interference, but the integrity of Canada’s electoral system remains intact.

The commissioner also concluded that “vigorous measures” must be taken to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system after unveiling evidence that foreign governments did interfere in the elections of 2019 and 2021, leaving “a stain on our electoral process.”

The fallout from the NSICOP report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system. Instead, the report left the impression that there were multiple Members of Parliament knowingly sharing confidential information with foreign influencers.

Poilievre and his Alberta-based attack dog Michael Cooper both called on the prime minister to immediately release the names of all members cited in the document.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a parliamentary committee that it would be illegal to release names. “I am not going to violate the Security of Information Act, and risk prosecution for a political stunt,” he said.

He, too, encouraged Poilievre to get full security clearance so the Conservative leader could read the report, and decide for himself what level of foreign influence has affected our democracy and electoral process.

Poilievre refuses to read the report himself, claiming that to do so would prevent him from asking pertinent questions. The Conservative leader says clearance would limit his capacity to comment on issues, since top-secret material is usually only for the eyes of the security-cleared reader.

But his refusal to gather all the data begs the question: if Poilievre were to win the election, would he be able to become prime minister without a full security clearance? And if so, why would he want to make decisions without being in possession of all the facts?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for a leader to gather as much background as possible before deciding on what direction s/he would be taking on the foreign interference question?

Poilievre is simply demanding that the prime minister name names. He cares not for illegality, or due process.

His insouciance really makes you wonder what kind of prime minister he would be.

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

The themes of the Morena party mirror many of those promoted by the federal Liberal government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 10, 2024.

OTTAWA—Claudia Sheinbaum made history last week as the first woman president of Mexico.

Elected in a landslide with almost 60 per cent of the vote, Sheinbaum secured a super majority. Her party has full control in both houses of Parliament.

It was a stunning achievement for a party that did not exist 10 years ago. The Morena party was founded by her predecessor who served as president for six years.

During that time, the Morena party became known for supporting the poor, and investing in education for all.

Sheinbaum campaigned on those themes, and promised to increase access to universal education for all.

The themes of the Morena party mirror many of those promoted by the federal Liberal government.

During their time, Liberals have focused on reducing poverty.

And they have impressive results to show for it.

The Liberal focus on reconciliation has also included massive increases in the average budgets for Indigenous education funding on First Nations’ territories, and infrastructure investment to end boil-water advisories.

Like the Morena party, the Liberals have hiked the minimum wage. In the Mexican case, the wage doubled during Morena’s time in government.

The Liberals also plan to do more.

In the last budget they announced a $1-billion national food program designed to reach an additional 400,000 Canadian children. The program is destined to complement existing provincial and local programs.

That announcement was in addition to the government’s delivery on universally affordable daycare across the country, and dental care for those kids whose families cannot afford dental services.

So why is Sheinbaum basking in victory while Liberals are struggling?

In Mexico, a leader can only serve one term. Sheinbaum is a new face even though she is closely aligned with her predecessor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, also known as Amlo. Amlo will step down when Sheinbaum takes over in October, and he is still running at 60 per cent popularity after six years.

Back in 2018, Amlo promised to drastically reduce the millions of dollars the previous government was spending on media advertising. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to do the same.

However, the Mexican president’s first budget included an advertising allocation that was US$50-million more than his predecessor. Historically, Mexico’s governments have enjoyed long runs in power. Part of their success has been tied to advertising.

The Canadian government’s 2023 advertising budget was $86.1-million. Government total spending during the same period was projected as $456.8-billion. That represents .0188 of total spending.

In Mexico, during the same period, government advertising totalled almost $20-million of a budget slightly greater than $600-million. The Mexican government spent 3.3 per cent of its budget on advertising .

According to Business Development Canada, the average advertising spend for a Canadian small business should be between two to five per cent of their revenue. For business to customer companies, that number jumps to between five and 10 per cent.

BDC is a Crown corporation providing advice to the private sector. Governments certainly won’t match the private sector in advertising, but to spend less than .02 per cent of the budget on advertising is definitely one of the factors contributing to the disconnect Canadians feel from their federal government.

When Quebec came within a hair of leaving the country in the 1990s, the cabinet set up a committee designed to specifically review federal communications in that province. It’s budget was $25-million, and that was almost 30 years ago in one province.

Over the past nine years, Liberals have accomplished many things worth bragging about. From pharmacare to dentalcare, from universal daycare to future national school lunch programs, Liberals are making a tremendous effort to make life easier for Canadians who are struggling financially.

But even when it comes to the carbon rebate, most Canadians have no idea why their bank accounts are being topped up by hundreds of dollars. When an explanatory letter finally came out, it was signed by Bob Hamilton, Revenue Canada’s commissioner. Why didn’t the letter come from the prime minister?

If the federal Liberals want to reverse their lagging popularity, they need to take a page from the Mexican political playbook.

A hike to 3.3 per cent of federal spending would see Canada’s federal advertising budget jump to more than $15-billion.

Obviously, such a hike would be intolerable. But it gives you some idea how successive Mexican governments secured landslides, and Mexico appears to have little appetite to dump governing political parties.

Money talks, and Mexicans were listening.

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