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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 4, 2023.

OTTAWA—The trial balloon, floated last week about the demolition of 24 Sussex Drive, should be pricked.

Can you imagine a G7 country that does not have housing for its head of government? As former prime minister Jean Chrétien told the CBC earlier this year, the condition of 24 Sussex is an “embarrassment to the nation.”

Full disclosure: I am working with a not-for-profit heritage corporation that wants to save the prime minister’s residence by rebuilding it at a price tag substantially less than the $36.6-million quoted renovation cost.

The Heritage Ottawa Development Inc. (HODI) group is comprised of experts in conservation and restoration. Board members have all been involved in multiple projects to restore and retain built heritage in the nation’s capital. HODI’s board includes leaders in restoration adaptation like Sandy Smallwood, who saved Wallis House and many other heritage buildings from the wrecker’s ball.

HODI president Marc Denhez is challenging the price attached to the 24 Sussex restoration, comparing it to the grossly inflated cost attached to restoring the Aberdeen Pavilion in Lansdowne Park when developers were trying to justify demolition.

Affectionately known as the “Cow Palace,” Aberdeen was built in 1898 for the Central Canada Exhibition Association. Published cost estimates to restore the structure ballooned up to $82-million, prompting city council to approve demolition in 1991.

Community reaction to the destruction decision was swift. Heritage Ottawa led a massive community outcry, ultimately forcing a reversal of the demolition vote by a new council the following year. In the end, the city approved a restoration budget of $5.3-million, a far cry from the $82-million figure bandied about by those who supported demolition.

The same numerical bait and switch tactic appears to be happening in relation to the prime minister’s residence. The National Capital Commission, which has the lead in the project, said in a report last year that the price tag for restoration was almost $40-million.

That number has repeatedly been tossed around, but the NCC still refuses to release the financial documents backing up the inflated price.

Anonymous sources leak stories of the desperate condition of the building. It has mould and rats. Surprise, surprise, any building that has been unoccupied for almost a decade is going to be taken over by the rodent family.

The NCC’s refusal to release documents to verify the funding claim has been referred to the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, which has opened a file on the issue.

In the trial balloon floated in the media last week, security was the number one reason that anonymous sources claimed the official residence had to be moved. However, that claim also deserves further scrutiny. There is no security cost attached to an anonymous proposal to build a new residence on Rockcliffe parkland.

The NCC must also understand the environmental and legal implications of tearing down a classified federal heritage building. That classification means that any changes, including demolition, must be approved by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO), an office in Parks Canada designed to assist other federal departments in protecting heritage buildings. FHBRO must apply the Treasury Board policy on management of real property.

The demolition of a classified national building also runs counter to the sustainable development goals set out by the United Nations.

“Embodied carbon” was a hot topic at the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference in Glasgow in 2021, led by members of the Climate Heritage Network. Embodied carbon is the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in demolition compared to restoration. The network’s view is that “the greenest building is one that is already built”. Chris Wiebe, of the National Trust for Canada, is the North American vice-chair of the global network.

Following last week’s news on moving the official residence, community groups are already researching the additional greenhouse gas emissions involved in a plan to tear 24 Sussex down, along with the carbon sink loss of parkland involved in building a new residence, with a bigger footprint for entertaining and parking.

Naturally politicians are loathe to weigh in on a residence that houses politicians. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre missed an opportunity when he took himself out of the debate by saying the residence where the prime minister lives would be his last priority.

No one expects it to be his first, but respect for built heritage and the history behind 24 Sussex is something that should concern all Canadians, especially someone who wants to live there someday.

Demolition of our history is not sustainable.

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

Google leadership told a parliamentary committee that the government’s attempt to monetize internet news content for local support would not work. They said the same thing in Australia and, according to the government there, the move has provided almost $200-million in payments to news providers since the bill passed in 2021.

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

OTTAWA—Google’s Canadian muzzle may not work.

The company says it is cutting off service to four per cent of the population on a temporary basis.

But rest assured, the four per cent will be those who feel it most.

Canadian Heritage is on the hit list.

That direct line of fire suggest this is an attempt to convince Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez to drop legislation which will require internet giants like Google to compensate Canadian news outlets for populating their sites with stories by Canadian journalists. Google says it is limiting access to news content to assess possible responses to the bill.

Google says the legislation doesn’t work, and is obviously doing everything in its power to stop it.

That temporary blockage on Canadian Heritage information and other key providers coincides with second reading of Bill C-18 in the Senate.

It is the last stand for an internet behemoth that has no interest in paying for the news content consumed through its portals.

But similar legislation has been in place in Australia since 2021 and appears to be having the desired effect.

Our Bill C-18 is modelled on the Australian law, which has been effective in stemming the cash hemorrhage facing many Aussie news outlets.

In Canada, newspapers are dropping like flies. And it isn’t just the printed word that is suffering.

Just last week, Quebec television network TVA announced layoffs of more than 200 people. A couple of weeks earlier, The Vancouver Sun wielded a similar axe to its editorial staff.

Google leadership told a parliamentary committee that the government’s attempt to monetize internet news content for local support would not work.

But they said the same thing in Australia, threatening to pull Google out of the country altogether before the legislation was finalized.

In the end, Google complied with the requirement to sign commercial remuneration deals with the news outlets that populate their sites.

According to the Australian government, the move has provided almost $200-million in payments to news providers since the bill passed in 2021.

As the Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications undertakes second reading of the our version of the bill, the usual suspects are lining up in opposition. University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist is calling Bill C-18 an attack on freedom of expression for all Canadians in one column, published Nov. 1, 2022 and headlined “Why Bill C-18’s mandated payment for links is a threat to freedom of expression in Canada.” Geist claims that seeking payment for some news retransmission is the basis for this threat. His argument runs counter to the fact that for more than a century, Canadians have paid, in some form or another, for access to news.

Whether it’s included in the cost of a television cable package, or financed by an annual newspaper subscription, access to content created by journalists has been financed the consumers of that content.

Geist and other “freedom of expression” proponents know that the internet is not exactly free, either.

Providers like Facebook and Google are currently charging for advertising to monetize their information offerings. Their advertising totals $9.7-billion a year, representing more than 80 per cent of online ad revenues.

So, Geist’s free speech claim doesn’t really hold water. Every consumer of online news is subject to the influence of those paid advertisements. Hardly free at all.

The irony is that the news outlets whose stories are populating the internet are not paid a penny as a share of that whopping annual total of almost $10-billion in advertising revenue.

Conservatives are opposing the legislation, partly because they say the CBC will receive remuneration as an outcome.

But they are not speaking too loudly because they agree that local news outlets in Canada are in real trouble and need some help to survive.

Bill C-18 is not going to solve all the problems facing the Canadian news-gathering ecosystem.

Most internet-surfing young Canadians have never even bothered to subscribe to any made-in-Canada news service. Their news reach is global and much of what populates their feeds could loosely be called infotainment, not information.

The goings-on of Hollywood are much more interesting than the trajectory of a Canadian bill to save local newsgathering.

Government is also tackling the tricky issue of how to deal with fake news, and deliberate foreign interference in Canadian public policy decisions, including elections.

Last summer, Rodriguez and Justice Minister David Lametti set up an advisory roundtable on how to tackle internet disinformation and fraud.

Recent reports have alleged Chinese interference in the 2021 Canadian election.

Russian internet news influence in the last American election has been well-documented.

Internet information transmission is here to stay.

But it is time to pay the piper.

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

When Jean Chrétien had a physical kerfuffle with a protester, the first official Flag Day certainly made history. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 13, 2023.

OTTAWA—Canada’s national Flag Day will once again take place on Feb. 15.

But none will likely be as wild as the very first one.

That was the day when Canada’s prime minister made international headlines by taking down a protester with his bare hands.

The incident became famously known as the “Shawinigan Handshake.”

To this day, it is still infamous. In the birthplace of prime minister Jean Chrétien—Shawinigan, Que.—a local brewery makes a beer named after the takedown.

Apparently, it is a hot seller for tourists coming to visit.

Who would have thought the incident would be so famous?

The day it happened, a blustery cold one back in February 1996, the political temperature was quite different.

The government was just coming out of a referendum where the country teetered on the edge of dissolution.

The prime minister had deliberately played a low profile in the referendum because Quebec organizers for the side that supported a Non separation vote asked him to stay away.

His political instincts said otherwise but he heeded the advice until, within two weeks of the vote, internal polling numbers showed the Yes vote was positioned to win.

The national Liberal caucus swung into high gear and, ignoring pleas from Non organizers, Members of Parliament from across the country gathered in Montreal for the famous rally in Canada Square.

That event, and the prime minister’s speech in Verdun, Que., turned the tide, but the country was still in a state of shock.

With such a razor-thin victory, the prime minister decided it was about time someone stood up for Canada.

I was appointed Canada’s heritage minister on Jan. 26 with a mandate to announce a dramatic measure for Canada’s first official Flag Day on Feb. 15.

Thus was born the million-flag giveaway by the Canadian government. Free flags were distributed to anyone who wanted to fly one at their home.

On a percentage basis, the majority of flags actually went into Quebec.

For too many years, the government had taken the existence of Canada for granted, and it was generally considered gauche to fly a flag in front of your house.

The flag program enraged the separatists and caused a fair bit of anxiety within the bureaucracy at Canadian Heritage.

As part of a program review, the department had just suffered a 25 per cent cut in budgets across the board, so many were miffed that we would spend millions on what they considered a frivolous giveaway.

The designation of flag day was equally hasty.

For some reason, the location chosen to hoist the first national flag was on Quebec soil, and the event was to happen at Gatineau’s Jacques Cartier Park.

I had literally been in the job for less than three weeks, and for the departmental chief of protocol, the first Flag Day was her first day on the job.

In preparation, we gathered in a small onsite meeting room about an hour before the event to discuss the program.

At the time, there was a large number of men already gathered at the venue.

I had an uneasy feeling about their presence, and asked the departmental official if the security was well in place. She replied in the affirmative and said it was being handled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Meanwhile, we had children from Grades 1 and 2 in the local school gathered to wave little paper flags in honour of the event.

When the prime minister arrived, he jumped out of his chauffeur-driven limousine sporting a pair of back sunglasses. I ran up to him, planning to suggest he take the glasses off, but he was moving so fast I could not catch up in my high heels.

When we both landed on stage, I introduced him, but as soon as he started to speak, air horns went off from all the men in the audience intent on drowning out his message.

Chrétien jumped off the stage and ploughed through a crowd of protesters. One of them shoved his airhorn into Chrétien’s neck. The prime minister thought it was a gun, grabbed the protester by the throat and took him down.

That image flashed around the world. His worried spouse, Aline, called him after the event, suggesting he should tender his resignation because of the incident.

His communications director Peter Donolo was closely monitoring the fallout. The next day Donolo was happy to report that the leader had jumped 10 points in the polls.

No resignation required. But the first official Flag Day certainly made history.

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 August 20, 2018.

OTTAWA—Most Canadians know little and care less about the tools that support cultural investment in the country. They do know what they like.

Newfoundland artist Mary Pratt, who passed away last week, found beauty and depth in the simplest of objects. A bowl of fruit, a crate of eggs, grapes in a colander are just some of the subjects she immortalized during her career as one of Canada’s most prolific and renowned women artists. The subjects she chose to immortalize are drawn from daily life, and many are not unique to her province or country.

But she is distinctly Canadian. This summer, the National Gallery of Canada is featuring “Impressionist Treasures”, an exhibition from the Ordrupgaard Museum in Copenhagen and its exquisite collection of French impressionists. The appeal of the artists, from Monet to Manet, from Pissarro to Sisley, is universal, just like Mary Pratt’s inspirational interpretation of everyday life.

But according to new rules surrounding art donations, Pratt’s work may be worth supporting but Monet’s may not. Government financial rules governing art policy are complicated but hugely important. They are probably the most crucial tools in expanding Canadians’ access to public art.

Government-secured insurance underwrites travelling exhibitions across the country. Tax incentives ensure that world-renowned oeuvres d’art by famous artists can be experienced by ordinary citizens in galleries across the country. But after a recent Federal Court ruling clipped the wings of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, the scope of that financial toolkit has been drastically reduced. As a result of the ruling, Canadians who wish to donate valuable foreign paintings to Canadian galleries may no longer get tax credits for doing so.

According to a Globe and Mail report last week, several major Canadian galleries have suspended discussions with potential philanthropists as a direct result of the ruling’s impact. The board was forced into this new tax interpretation even though the federal government is appealing the decision.

Over the decades, the board has exercised an important role in keeping important Canadian treasures in the country and in encouraging private donors to give their art over to public institutions. The courts ruled the Export Review Board went too far when it attempted to block a Canadian from selling a privately-owned, foreign-made painting to someone outside of the country. The Federal Court’s ruling that only Canadian-made paintings could be barred from export had the knock-on effect of altering the board’s tax credit policy, limiting it to only donations of Canadian-made works.

While it is certainly valid to question the refusal of an export permit for a painting that has no Canadian connection, the collateral damage in donation denials will be huge.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in rare and important artworks have found their way into the public domain because of the little known work of the board. Back in 2003, the Toronto-based Tannenbaum family decided to honour their matriarch’s hometown with a multimillion donation of more than 200 European paintings to the Hamilton Art Gallery.

Hamilton beat out the Louvre in Paris and the Art Gallery of Ontario, which were also trying to acquire the collection. In 2010, the Tannebaums followed with the donation of their African collection, and the paintings provided the catalyst for a major reconstruction project at the gallery in their honour.

Neither collection would likely have been tax creditable under the recently-revised rules currently being applied to foreign art donations. The wide-ranging negative impact on the Canadian art scene is enormous if this decision is not reversed, and quickly.

New Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez should clarify the government’s intention on this issue. If necessary, the minister should update the 41-year-old legislation which governs the board and its operations. At the very least, a regulatory amendment should permit the board to support European, African, and Asian artworks that have intrinsic value as well. They, too, should be eligible for tax credits.

As we celebrate the prolific life’s work of Mary Pratt, we should also recognize that Pissarro, Monet and the impressionists also speak to our collective being. Images that capture truth in life are universal.

Canadians find inspiration and solace in creativity from around the world. The artist’s brush has no national boundary. Nor should we.

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, July 17, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Birthdays have a way of spawning new ideas. Whether it is a resolution to lose weight, a decision to do more good, or a plan to simply stop sweating the small stuff, milestone moments can be catalysts.

That holds true for a country as well as a person.

So many good ideas have been generated during Canada’s 150th that it is hard to know where to start. Whether it is a street party, a community festival or a cross-country relay, people reach out during our celebration in a way that makes all of us reconnect with community.

Some of the events will be ephemeral, fleeting opportunities to meet. Others will stand the test of time.

The Canada Games event is one of those birthday presents that has stood the test of time. The largest, multiple sporting event in the country, it was launched 50 years ago on Canada’s 100th birthday.

Next weekend, more than 20,000 Canadians are expected to converge at the centre of Canada as Winnipeg hosts the Games. The prime minister is planning to make an appearance along with many national politicians and provincial premiers.

The Canada Games are a must-attend event on the summer political barbecue circuit.

The organization is even stronger today than when it started as a centennial project.

Held in a different Canadian community every two years, with alternating winter and summer versions, the sporting theme replicates the Olympic Games model. It even features a Canada Games torch relay, named after an iconic supporter, New Brunswicker Roly McLenahan.

This year’s torch was lit from the Parliament Hill eternal flame on June 6 and has been wending its way through Manitoba for the past several weeks in preparation for the July 28 opening ceremony.

The Winnipeg gathering marks only the second time in history that two First Nations will co-host the event.

Featuring 16 sports, more than 250 events, and a major cultural festival, the 2017 Canada Games will welcome more than 4,000 athletes and coaches.

The Canada Games have also become a major cultural draw, offering the host city a chance to showcase musical talent, while welcoming artists from across Canada. This year’s opening ceremonies include Serena Ryder from Ontario, Quebec’s Coeur de Pirate and Winnipeg’s own Juno award-winning Brothers’ Landreth.

No cultural event would be complete without participation from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet.

The closing ceremony includes indigenous star Métis fiddler Sierra Dawn Sky Noble, and children’s favourite, Winnipegger Fred Penner. They share the stage with Brett Kissel, an Albertan county music sensation.

Every games site also involves a permanent legacy for athletic facilities to encourage the next generation of sporting excellence.

The opportunity can be a launchpad for athletes who go on to professional or Olympic greatness. A sprinkling of alumnae names include hockey great Sidney Crosby, basketball Hall of Famer Steve Nash, tennis pro Eugenie Bouchard, two-time Olympic gold speed-skater Catriona Le May Doan and Junior World Super Heavyweight boxing champion Lennox Lewis.

The combination of sport and culture is a powerful nation-builder. The original motto of the event, back in 1967, was ‘Unity through Sport’.

Today’s Canada Games’ website reinforces that claim with the bold statement that “The Canada Games are not only a unifying force in sport; they also promote diversity, multiculturalism, health and wellness, the use of both official languages, and community spirit.”

It is hard to believe that the event was almost killed by government budget cuts back in the last century.

In 1996, the Liberal government cost-cutting initiative involved reducing most departmental budgets by 25 per cent.

Canadian Heritage planned to eliminate all non-core expenditures to meet targets. Canada Games was considered just such an expenditure and a decision to eliminate their funding had been approved by my predecessor when I inherited the job.

Hamiltonian Jack Pelech, a Canada Games Council stalwart, was not about to give up on his dream so easily.

One of my first ministerial meetings was with Pelech and Canada Games Council president Lane MacAdam.

They pleaded for a reversal of the decision, arguing that the biannual event is an important avenue to link Canadians when so many things were splitting the country apart. In the aftermath of our cliff-hanger referendum, their vision was compelling and I agreed.

We were able to save the games, and preserve the energy that is created when young athletes and artists are linked in the most important ongoing multi-sporting event in our history.

Not only does the event shape athletes. It builds the country.

Happy 50th birthday to the Canada Games.

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