The boost in polling that Democrats have enjoyed since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the race would not be shared by the Liberals if Justin Trudeau were to do the same.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2024.

OTTAWA–The post-Biden bump for the Democrats in the United States has not passed unnoticed in Canada.

One of the first questions asked of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the summer cabinet meeting in Halifax last week was just that: Could the Liberals get a similar bump if the prime minister were to step down, and the voters were presented with a different face at the head of the party?

Trudeau sidestepped the question, and continued to insist that his job was to “be there to invest in Canadians.” But his close friend and cabinet colleague Marc Miller did say that robust conversations were taking place within the confines of the caucus, without public disclosure.

Other ministers, including potential leadership candidates Mélanie Joly and Chrystia Freeland, were quick to support the prime minister’s leadership. But the party is roiling, as ministers and Members of Parliament seek their own Canadian bump.

It has been a year since the Conservative lead entered into double-digit territory, and nothing the government does seems to narrow that gap. But the notion of a parallel result if Trudeau were to resign is misdirected.

First of all, the hike for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has resulted in an increase of three to four per cent for her party.

Three to four per cent in Canada would not be enough to return to government, as the current polling differential between the Liberals and the Conservatives is much higher.

The United States is essentially a two-party system, so a small shift can make or break a victory. Even an independent with the name recognition of Robert Kennedy Jr. managed only six per cent support at the apex of his campaign. It is doubtful that six per cent would even follow him into an election. Now that he has thrown his support behind Republican candidate Donald Trump, his supporters will probably split between the two main parties.

Also, a two-party system lends itself to a smooth transition. In the U.S. case, the Democrats were able to replace U.S. President Joe Biden with Harris without a full leadership convention because opponents were edged out by the current vice-president.

The fact that she would have replaced Biden in the event of a presidential illness or incapacity made it simpler to rally around her at a national convention less than three months from the election.

In Trudeau’s case, his succession would trigger a full leadership process. Contrary to some media reports, Mark Carney is not a putative leader in waiting. There are several current cabinet ministers who have been quietly setting the stage for their own leadership ambitions.

Pundits would suggest that it is better to have someone from outside the current crop of politicians, and Carney certainly has a polished Canadian and international pedigree. But the Liberal Party’s previous experience with global pedigree has not been positive.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant scholar with a renowned global reputation who was supposed to be the party’s saviour. Instead, he was quickly rejected as someone who came back to Canada only to run for office. Carney has declined multiple offers to run for office, and that doesn’t sit well with those working in the trenches.

While the public may be tired of Trudeau, the party’s volunteer base is actively working to explain why his leadership and the current government are worth supporting.

The checklist is long for Liberals. National childcare, dental care, pharmacare and school lunch programs send a message that the party is working for all the people.

But the government has been telling that story for several months, and so far, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Party members are ready for a leadership change, but also realize that the decision is in the hands of the prime minister.

Meanwhile, from François-Philippe Champagne to Dominic LeBlanc, many are weighing their future chances. Former parliamentarian Frank Baylis, who sold his heart-device business for $1.75-billion in 2021, is also actively assessing a potential campaign for the top job.

Baylis, son of a Barbadian immigrant, served in Trudeau’s government for one term, from 2015 to 2019, as the member of parliament for multicultural Pierrefonds-Dollard in Montreal, Que. If successful, he would be the party’s first non-white leader.

All of the foregoing means Liberals will not follow the American example and force out their leader. Multiple candidates are already planning their own robust campaigns, so there would be no shoo-in for Carney.

No huge bump, and multiple candidates rule out a smooth post-Trudeau transition in Canada.

Vive le Canada.

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.

My point is that legal appointments in Canada are inherently political. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that in a province of 761,000 people, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has a personal connection to almost every legal appointment made during his time in government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 8, 2019.

OTTAWA—Canada’s long-serving former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, almost didn’t get that job. The first woman in Canadian history to hold the position faced some pretty stiff competition.

The Canadian Italian Advocates Organization (CIAO for short) was founded back in 1984 to unite men and women who share a common profession and a common heritage.

Their candidate of choice was Frank Iacobucci, a respected Canadian jurist of Italian heritage who had previously served as dean of the law faculty at the University of Toronto, provost and deputy minister of justice.

Both had stellar credentials and would have been unassailable as nominees. But the best lawyers’ lobby group was the one supporting Iacobucci.

I remember getting a call from a life bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, promoting the merits of Iacobucci, including the positive reaction of Italians in my Hamilton riding.

The Liberals had a women’s caucus, and a loosely knit Italian-Canadian caucus. A vocal woman of Italian origin was promoting Iacobucci, along with numerous male colleagues, while the majority of women were hoping for a historic gender-based appointment.

In the end, it was then-prime minister Jean Chrétien who made the call, and lived with the consequences, which turned out to be pretty good.

McLachlin was a star on the bench for 17 years. Upon her retirement in Canada, she has been enlisted to serve as a non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.

My point is that legal appointments in Canada are inherently political. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that in a province of 761,000 people, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has a personal connection to almost every legal appointment made during his time in government.

LeBlanc is a lawyer; his wife has been a judge for more than a decade. His link to judicial appointments last week made national headlines when it was revealed that four of six appointees had donated to his leadership campaign when he ran against Justin Trudeau for the top job.

Each of them gave LeBlanc $400 to pay down leadership debts almost a decade ago. According to The Globe, that appears partisan enough to deem them ineligible for appointment.

Buried in the fine print was an acknowledgement that one of judges was actually appointed by Stephen Harper and donated to the Conservatives. The same admission included a quote from deputy Conservative leader Lisa Raitt, who said the nominations smacked of old-school patronage.

Raitt, who is also a lawyer, knows that no candidate in Canada can actually be considered for a judicial appointment unless they have passed a rigorous, non-partisan screening process set up by a panel of legal peers.

So the mortal sin committed by LeBlanc is not that he has promoted the appointment of incompetent people but rather that he has appointed people he knows. In a small province, local leaders usually support a local candidate for a party leadership, sometimes when it isn’t even their party.

I participated in a fundraiser to pay Ontario New Democratic leader Andrea Horwath’s leadership debt. Horwath was a high-profile leader from my hometown, and I was happy to help in a roast to raise leadership money.

That’s what people in communities do. The Globe’s suggested solution is to eliminate all political input into judicial appointments. It would turn everything over to the legal system; so lawyers with zero political experience would make the final decisions.

Lawyers lobby for candidates of choice, and they do not hesitate to have their input when the time for nominations arises.

One only has to Google national legal organizations in Canada, and dozens of organized groups emerge, each with their own perspective and favourite causes.

Once a lawyer’s competence for the job has been established, the decision is political.

I recommended several judges during my time in politics and they are all still competently serving on the bench. I never nominated someone that I did not know. They were not all Liberals.

As regional minister responsible for all Hamilton area appointments, it was my job to ensure candidates were not just competent. They had to be exceptional. Before I recommended a nomination, I wanted to make sure that I knew everything possible about any candidate.

The Globe has criticized the government for consulting the party donor Liberalist in their pre-screening. On the contrary, the list helps them understand what controversies might accompany any appointment.

The bottom line is that a judicial appointment is a political decision. And it should be.

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