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.

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.

In Canada’s case, the unanimous view of Parliament sends a message to the world that trying to educate someone into a change in their sexual preference just does not work.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 6, 2021.

Canada’s conversion therapy ban was a stellar political moment for Parliament.

As members from all sides of the House of Commons came together with hugs and handshakes, it showed how politics can actually provoke real change.

The unanimous consent made the decision even sweeter. It also sends an important message to the world that Canada will not brook homophobia or gay bashing.

In the same week, the Court of Appeal in Botswana, in a unanimous decision, outlawed the criminalization of consensual same-sex activities.

In a stern rebuke to political leaders who still want to criminalize gay sex, the court of appeal judge president said, “Those (criminal code) sections have outlived their usefulness and serve only to incentivize law enforcement agents to become keyhole peepers and intruders into the private space of citizens.”

Prior to the Court of Appeal ruling, same-sex intercourse could result in a seven-year prison term in Botswana.

Government officials have not yet decided on appeal but in its presentation to court, the state claimed that the penal code outlawing gay sex was still the prevailing choice in Botswana.

In Canada’s case, the unanimous view of Parliament sends a message to the world that trying to educate someone into a change in their sexual preference just does not work.

The unanimity of the vote was great news for Conservative leader Erin O’Toole who saw his recent electoral hopes dashed when his party was deemed too right wing to govern.

Unanimity took most observers by surprise since, in the last Parliament, 62 Conservatives had voted against a similar ban, claiming the language was too vague.

This time, Justice Minister David Lametti said he clarified the language, and the motion for unanimous consent was introduced by Conservative Rob Moore.

The Conservative leader’s spokesperson backed the support by saying O’Toole “has long been an ally to the LGBTQ community and will continue to support efforts to ban conversion therapy.”

Unanimous voting from the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois was expected but no one thought the Conservatives would band together en masse in favour of the legislation.

Because of unanimity, individual votes were not required. That may prove problematic for the Tories.

Leadership candidate Lesyln Lewis came third in the leadership that chose O’Toole. She ran in support of conversion therapy.

As a new Member of Parliament, Lewis was shunned by O’Toole in shadow cabinet because of her anti-vaccine views.

The leader must believe he can withstand internal forces against conversion therapy.

The vote marginalized social conservatives in the caucus, as O’Toole stood down any internal opposition.

And that puts pressure right back on the Liberal government of prime minister Justin Trudeau.

The Liberals have been very successful in differentiating themselves from the Conservatives in the last several elections.

The Tory leadership went to O’Toole largely on the strength of social conservatism.

Otherwise, Peter MacKay would have been the winner. But MacKay’s reference to the “stinking albatross” of social conservatism weighing the party down effectively cost him the leadership.

His observation was right, but his timing was all wrong as O’Toole was able to enlist the second ballot support of all those social conservatives, he is now trying to dissociate himself from.

Last week’s unanimous vote means that no individuals will have their votes recorded when it comes to the conversion ban status.

But that may not prevent internal Conservative infighting between the leader and the social conservatives in his caucus.

By laying out a strong case to support the conversion therapy ban and supporting it with real numbers in the House of Commons, O’Toole is definitely moving away from the stigma which has hurt his party in the last couple of elections.

But politics is a long game, and it may not be so simple for the Conservative leader when private members’ bills on issues like abortion come up for debate in the House.

With the anti-abortion movement gaining steam in the United States, their Canadian counterparts will be emboldened. And the only party that carries their brief, albeit briefly, is the Conservative Party.

Members who have been absent from last week’s conversion therapy voice vote will not stand down when it comes to restrictions on abortion.

O’Toole has managed to move his party closer to the centre with last week’s unanimous vote. But whether he can keep the rest of his caucus there is the larger question.

If he can, that spells trouble for Liberals. The one thing standing between O’Toole and government is the moderate middle.

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