The result of last week’s byelection in Montreal proves there’s no such thing as a safe seat in politics. Liberal organizers also made a classic error: pushing aside viable local candidates for hand-picked head-office replacements.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 23, 2024.

OTTAWA—As prime minister Justin Trudeau struggles to defend his future plans, he should step back and reflect on one thing.

All the troubles the Liberals are currently facing are self-inflicted.

The first huge error was to believe that replacing two highly-respected senior cabinet ministers with newbies would enhance the party’s election chances.

When Trudeau chose to demote then-justice minister David Lametti and send Carolyn Bennett to the diplomatic corps, he was counting on the belief that both occupied so-called “safe” Liberal seats.

The result of last week’s byelection in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, Que., proves one thing.

There is no such thing as a safe seat in politics.

Liberal organizers also committed a classic error in both ridings, pushing aside viable local candidates for hand-picked head-office replacements.

In Toronto-St.Paul’s, Leslie Church—an Ottawa insider—was the chosen one. Several popular local candidates wanted to run for the nomination, but were not given the chance to compete fairly.

In Montreal, nominee Laura Palestini was a well-known local councillor. But there were others who wanted to seek the nomination when Lametti stepped down to return to the legal profession.

National campaign co-chair Soraya Martinez Ferrada told Radio Canada last summer that Palestini was hand-picked by the party, bypassing an open nomination process.

Privately, she explained to disgruntled Liberals that the party preferred directed democracy.

But that decision meant that several long-term riding activists sat out the election, and in a race as tight as the one we saw on the evening of Sept. 16, their absence was costly.

The best way to ensure a candidate has the support of the riding is to allow an open nomination where all prospective candidates prove their organizational prowess, as well as their ability to connect with the community.

In both byelections, head office chose the candidates, and that left a bad taste in people’s mouths.

The self-inflicted wound of trying to direct democracy was coupled with a political calculation that has cost the Liberals dearly.

In the July 2023 cabinet shuffle, three senior ministers were moved out, supposedly to reboot the party fortunes.

Not coincidentally, new cabinet choices depended on how the changes might help electorally.

In Ottawa, former minister Mona Fortier occupied what is supposed to be another safe seat.

The exits of Fortier, Lametti, and Bennett were all supposed to ensure a better political positioning for the Liberals.

Lametti’s departure set the stage for the ministerial appointments of Tourism Minister Martinez Ferrada, and Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Both hail from minority communities, and it was thought that their promotions—like that of Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez—would increase party chances in Latin-American, Muslim, and Filipino communities. Fortier’s replacement with Jenna Sudds was intended to solidify a tough seat in west Ottawa, the thinking being that ministers are more likely to be re-elected in a tight race.

Instead, the numbers have not moved up for the Liberals, and the losses in two previous strongholds have further damaged the prime minister’s staying power.

The notion that ministerial status improves electability is also debatable.

Back in 1984, when I was the only Liberal elected between Toronto and Windsor, the ministerial moniker hurt rather than helped.

At that time, the party had governed for so long that anyone associated with a ministry was actually in greater danger of defeat.

The only reason I was able to win my seat was that I had come from the provincial legislature, and as a new candidate, I had the benefit of saying that I represented change.

In a change election, people vote for change. And if you are too closely associated with the previous government that can hurt rather than help.

The Liberal cabinet reset, carried out more than a year ago, has not improved the party’s standing.

There is a mood in the country that people want change. For better or for worse, they are not focusing on Pierre Poilievre’s destructive policies.

Instead, they are telling the Liberals they want new faces. Trudeau is trying to warn Canadians: “be careful what you wish for.”

Meanwhile, some Liberal organizers are actively seeking to cherry-pick their candidates, and to slow the nomination process for others.

Long-time Members of Parliament like Judy Sgro have fulfilled all the requirements for renomination, but still haven’t been given the green light.

If the party takes one lesson from these byelections, it is this: There is no such thing as a safe seat. And the best way to win an election is for the party to stay out of it.

Let local Liberals decide.

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.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, September 4, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Last week’s cabinet remake will prompt a much-needed reboot of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

By splitting it in two, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is legally acknowledging what many have realized for years.

The promised delivery of territorial services in remote Indigenous communities is a huge undertaking that will take more than an election promise to deliver.

Trudeau has announced a five-year timeline to abolish all boil-water advisories on territorial lands.

For most of us, comfortably ensconced in homes with ample access to running water, a day’s shutoff is a catastrophe.

But for hundreds of Aboriginal communities, the idea of daily access to clean drinking water is literally a pipe dream.

At the end of 2016, more than 150 communities across the country had to boil their tap water before use.

In some cases, like Shoal Lake in northwestern Ontario, and Kitigan Zibi in Quebec, the local population has not accessed safe drinking water for up to two decades.

By splitting Indigenous Affairs into two separate departments, the prime minister is fleshing out the specifics of his promise to reconcile historic divisions with First Nations, Metis, and Inuit.

As he said in support of the shuffle, “There’s a sense that we’ve pushed the creaky old structures at INAC as far as they can go”.

Minister Carolyn Bennett will continue to take responsibility for legal and treaty rights, as minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs responsible for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit relations with the government.

Former Health minister Jane Philpott has taken over responsibility for delivering services like education, health, and housing in her role as head of the Department of Indigenous Services. The switch from her former Health portfolio to Indigenous Services is not as much of a leap as it might seem at first blush.

The federal government is actually the seventh largest provider of health care services in Canada. When provincial health ministers gather to discuss issues, they often insist the sole federal role is financial. But in reality, with responsibility for Indigenous and military health delivery, the government of Canada has more responsibility for service delivery than many provinces and territories.

Philpott’s success in the Health portfolio, and her professional background, will stand her in good stead with these new responsibilities. She is also going to discover that Health ministry challenges were a walk in the park compared to the enormity of Indigenous service shortcomings and requirements.

Modern interpretation of the decades-old Indian Act implies that this paternalistic legislation was totally designed by white people who were determined to reinforce an imbalanced relationship. In some measure, that interpretation is correct. But the elephant in the room is that when it comes to legislative changes, there is no unanimity amongst different Indigenous communities.

When the Indian Act was amended back in 1985 to conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the biggest opponents of abolishing institutionalized sexism were Aboriginal chiefs.

At that time, if an Aboriginal woman married a white man, she lost all rights and could be kicked off her ancestral home. If an Aboriginal man married a white woman, the marriage contract would confer his rights upon the wife and all her descendants.

The greatest opposition to post-matrimony equality came from the chiefs. The Assembly of First Nations categorically refused to endorse a legislative amendment to confer equal marital rights on women and men. National native womens’ associations lobbied Parliamentarians for equality, and many of us, especially women politicians, were on their side.

Canada’s first Aboriginal minister, Len Marchand, an Indigenous leader from British Columbia, lead the charge for full equality. In the end, he lost the battle, when the act was amended to confer equal marriage status for Aboriginal women and their children but exclude descendants. To this day, vestiges of gender discrimination exist in the legislation, largely because Aboriginal leadership has blocked full equality.

Philpott will be dealing with multiple challenges in her new job, not the least of which will be working with remote communities to secure the kind of access to services that the rest of us take for granted.

Last week’s cabinet changes will ensure that service delivery will merit undivided ministerial attention.

Philpott immediately dampened down expectations, explaining that “we’re undoing generations of dysfunctional and discriminatory structures. We don’t want to pretend that this is going to be done overnight.”

The minister is right about the dysfunction. But the sad reality is that those discriminatory structures are not just a white man’s legacy.

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