Whatever the Liberals do these days—even if it is groundbreaking, and puts $100-million into the creation of domestic news stories—they cannot win.

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

OTTAWA—The government’s Google announcement last week should have been met with applause all the way around.

Canada has always been a leader in new ideas and instruments to protect culture, and obviously the survival of local news is a key to spawning more Canadian content.

But whatever the Liberals do these days—even if it is groundbreaking, and puts $100-million into the creation of domestic news stories—they cannot win.

Pundits variously described the agreement with Google as “dodging a bullet,” a self-inflicted wound, and another cock-up by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Talk about kicking a guy while he is down.

We know the numbers for the Liberals look grim. According to the latest polls, they are running neck and neck with the New Democratic Party. But how that unpopularity can be expanded to include the government’s Google agreement is pretty hard to swallow.

The Canadian government has followed the lead of Australia, which was the first country in the world to regulate the social media landscape in an attempt to secure funding for domestic content.

This is one area where Canadians have a fair bit of experience, and the decision to take on Google, Meta, and the other social media behemoths was a courageous one. Some said the Liberals should just wait to take their lead from the G7 or the OECD. That advice would have meant no action, as the Americans are usually opposed to public intrusion into what they consider their media space.

The European Union has been making its own inroads into taking on big tech. The EU fought Apple in a decision last year as it moved to standardize chargers for smartphones and tablets sold in Europe. Canada announced a similar decision in the last budget, and the European market of 450 million people will receive a standard USB Type-C charging port by the end of next year.

As Europe takes on Apple, Canada goes for Google. One jaded journalist went so far as to claim the Canadian government was involved in a “shakedown.”

Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne tweeted that there was “no actual legal, logical or moral case for forcing Google to underwrite the Canadian media.” He called the agreement “strictly opportunistic: 1) Google has a lot of money. 2) We want some. 3) Make them give it to us.”

In fact, there is plenty of precedent for content transmitters to chip in on Canadian story development. That model has been used in the television world since the private cable industry was required to establish a fund to support Canadian content.

Their fund morphed into partnership with the government via the Canadian Television Fund, and then into the Canada Media Fund, which currently invests $366-million annually into media production. That investment triggers $1.7-billion in industry activity in Canada, providing employment for more than 244,000 people.

As television and streaming collided through the introduction of internet media content creation, it made sense for the Canadian government to require new media players to do their part in the creation of content. As Google traffics in the news, it can also help to pay for local news creation, using a tried-and-true model that will now likely be copied by dozens of other jurisdictions around the world.

The Liberal government should be congratulated as a leader in public policy on the issue of social media transmission. Instead, even though last week’s announcement will assist in the survival of local media outlets, there were no kudos for Trudeau.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has already promised to trash the Google deal with the same vision he uses to promise defunding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The Google story was not big news across the country as it was an inside-the-beltway negotiation, but the outcome of this new investment could be critical for the survival of local media in the next decade.

Most people may not care about the intricacies of public policy when it comes to the creation of Canadian content. But without government leadership, the chance to grow a dying news industry is slim to none.

Last week’s announcement should have been met with at least one day of positive coverage. But when the media decides that it is time for a change at the top, nothing—not even a trailblazing move to save media—will kill the main story.

The appetite for political change is fuelled by negative Trudeau stories on a daily basis.

That is not going to change.

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

Many of the Brexiteers voted ‘Leave’ over immigration, but few in the U.K.—and Canada—seem to understand how vital immigration is for economic growth.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2019.

OTTAWA—Brexiteer Boris Johnson is taking his country to the brink.

Parliamentary chaos, left in his wake, is a reminder to all of us that governments matter.

British singer-songwriter Billy Bragg characterizes the current mess as “the most divisive years” in the history of his homeland. Bragg compared last week’s hasty prorogation to the work of the last proroguer, King Charles the First, who was ultimately beheaded.

“Consensus is further away than any time I can remember,” bemoaned Bragg in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview.

Brits are getting a bird’s eye view of the importance of government.

Johnson is pledging to leave the European Union on Halloween, whether or not his country has been able to negotiate an exit agreement. He may not succeed in prorogation, as senior members of his own inner circle have resigned in protest. But the self-imposed, drop-dead departure date of Oct. 31 is sure to throw the United Kingdom into deeper crisis.

The whole exercise is a glaring example of how not to operate in a democracy. The country is split right down the middle between Leavers and Remainers. The financial centre of London is overwhelmingly opposed to the decision, while most other parts of the country are slightly in favour.

The initial referendum was launched by former Prime Minister David Cameron as a way of shutting down internal Conservative opposition to the country’s increasing integration with the rest of Europe. Cameron made a foolish miscalculation on the matter, setting the benchmark for referendum victory at a simple majority. His country is now reaping the results of this ill-advised decision.

The younger the voter, the more likely they are to want to remain in the European Union. Conversely, older citizens, who remember the days before the United Kingdom joined the European Union back in 1973, are more likely to want to leave. Polling shows a strong correlation between age and a desire to exit the union. The majority of older people hold the view that European membership has deprived Britain of the power to control immigration. Younger pro-Europe voters believe immigration has made the country a more vibrant place and assisted economic growth, in complete contrast to their older counterparts.

Whatever happens in the next few weeks, one thing is certain: the importance of governments in planning for the long-term future has never been clearer.

Liberals took a beating in Canada when we asked the courts to establish a clear path forward in the event of another referendum on separation. The courts confirmed that separation approval would require a clear question supported by a clear majority. This principle was enshrined in the Clarity Act. A similar British law would have ensured that any decision to leave the European Union would have required a clear majority. The only thing clear today is that the country is split in half.

If the United Kingdom does exit with no deal, Scotland and Northern Ireland will quickly be knocking at Europe’s door to get back in. One country ends and another begins. The notion of a painless exit from the European Union is a pipe dream that not even Johnson will be able achieve.

Confusion belies a bigger question. Modern Canadian Conservatives claim that less government is better. They are positioning the upcoming federal election as a fight between over-governing Liberals and the party that wants to keep government out of your pocketbook and your life.

Libertarians like Maxime Bernier go even further. They believe the job of government is to get out of the way so the private sector can have free rein over the economy.

Most of us understand very little about how immigration policy and economic development go hand in hand. As Canadians have fewer children, the only way the country can meet workforce demand is by increasing immigration. Bernier’s plan to cut those numbers by more than a half is not only bad politics, it is bad economics, especially in struggling regions of the country. With an aging population, we need more young people to replenish the retiring workforce.

But the older we grow, the less we seem to understand or welcome the integration of immigrants and diverse populations into Canadian communities. Immigrants are key to revitalizing Canada’s flagging rural economies. They bring families, spending power, and entrepreneurial talent.

It is no surprise that British younger people welcome immigrant diversity as an economic asset. Their world has been turned upside-down by a generation that will not be around to bear the pain of Brexit madness.

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, June 5, 2017 in The Hill Times.

U.S. President Donald Trump just hammered another nail in the American coffin.

In his petulant conversations about pulling out of the global climate change consensus, he is labouring under the misimpression that his withdrawal would influence the agreement.

Instead, he is reinforcing the impression that his leadership is leading the United States down the wrong road.

At a time when other potential global players are emerging to challenge American hegemony, the president seems bound on taking his country backwards.

It all started with his slogan, “Make America great again.”

In reality, old America may have welcomed a certain demographic, but not everyone. Equality for women and minorities, still more myth than reality, is much closer today than it was in the last century.

Income inequality and racial tension prompted the civil rights and women’s liberation movements.

Times were pretty good for white men who headed traditional families with no pesky questions about who ruled the roost.

Ask a gay or transgender person how happy things were in the good old days and their response will be different. Today’s equality, with all the ensuing challenges of integration, is far preferable to going back to the good old days.

And the same is true for climate change.

The world has collectively come to the conclusion that Mother Nature needs help.

From floods to fires, from extreme weather to desertification, the environment around us in changing in a way that needs a global response.

That means changing the way we live, including weaning ourselves off our dependence on non-renewable fuels.

That train has left the station, and while it is possible for the United States to bolt, it will be that country, not the world, that is left behind.

China, battling a pollution problem of epic proportions in its’ own major cities, is tackling national environmental challenges with gusto. It has rolled out a 10-year green plan and is currently in the process of electrifying its complete transportation system.

Its government’s edicts have also spawned a thriving alternative-energy industry, with almost every neighbourhood in the country sporting solar panels on the rooftops of most households.

China is also working actively in countries around the world promoting sustainable infrastructure with its Silk Road investment fund.

Meanwhile, Trump is closing off his country and making the United States a less attractive destination for innovation and investment.

The European Union is embracing green solutions, driven by a combination of necessity and invention. The emergence of the Green Party movement as a force in politics accelerated the European appetite for embracing climate-change solutions.

The new coalition government in British Columbia will also promote the appetite for alternative energy solutions.

And with those solutions come business opportunities.

As Environment Minister Catherine McKenna tweeted last week, “No matter what the U.S. decides today, the world is going to keep marching on. The momentum is irreversible. And we have only one planet.” She went on to tweet that the climate-change movement makes good business sense.

By exiting, Trump may claim that he is working to save jobs in the rust belt and elsewhere. But instead, he is simply setting up an exodus for the jobs of the future.

If China gets it, and America doesn’t, the axis of influence that has been gently shifting for years will be accelerated.

When president Bill Clinton pushed hard for international climate-change progress during his time in government, American influence was a key factor in getting the world on board.

At this point, an American withdrawal will have little influence on the rest of the world. Instead, the decision will be perceived as what it really is: a ham-handed climate denial by a president who daily grows more out of touch with reality.

Given Trump’s close relationship with Russia, he may be able to enlist President Vladimir Putin in his back-to-future vision.

But the rest of the world is already moving. Canada is starting to invest heavily in rapid-transit infrastructure, provinces are committed to real political action to reduce carbon dependence, and the world is rapidly waking up to the real cost of doing nothing.

In the end, the future of areas like the American rust belt depend on attracting innovative companies, including those who are developing sustainable energy alternatives.

There is a huge market opening up for renewable design and the new economy, a market that will not be attracted to a country that refuses to even recognize the problem.

Trump’s decision could hurt America. But the world isn’t listening.

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 Monday, March 13, 2017.

OTTAWA—The Trump effect is sweeping across Europe, with all eyes on the first round of the French elections next month.

National polls have the anti-immigration party of Marine Le Pen hovering around 30 per cent, with some even suggesting her numbers might climb as high as 40.

Few are predicting a Le Pen win, with opponents working in tandem to undermine her momentum.

But no one is taking anything for granted.
 
Travelling in Paris last week, I got an earful about how the American phenom was moving east.

Everywhere I went, people were talking about Le Pen’s anti-globalization message and platform planks mirroring those of U.S. President Donald Trump.

It is not the first time the Le Pen family has caught the attention of the French political class.

Marine’s father led the National Front for almost 40 years, before Marine assumed his mantle six years ago, becoming only the second president of the party her family founded. In 2012, she placed third, behind François Hollande and Nicholas Sarkozy, in the presidential election.

Her second presidential bid for the election culminating on May 7 was launched in February.

The Le Pen brand has been around for almost a half-century, but never managed to garner support from more than one in five French voters.

But the winds of change that carried Brexit and Trump seem to be leaving their mark in France too.

Le Pen herself has campaigned to soften the image of the National Front. She went so far as to expel her father-founder from the party almost two years ago for characterizing the Holocaust as a “mere detail” of history.

Le Pen’s political manifesto is eerily similar to Trump’s. Much of her political fire has been reserved for immigrants and Islam. She has also promised to put an end to a financial system that she says is wreaking havoc with blue-collar workers.

Le Pen, a member of the European Parliament since 2004, is promising to put France first by exiting the Union. She also vows to end the twin tyrannies of Islamic fundamentalism and globalization, with a vow to replace the euro with the franc.

If that sounds familiar, there is another surprising similarity shared by the two campaigns.

Washington is abuzz about multiple Trump insiders who, having previously denied it, are now admitting to multiple meetings with Russians during the campaign.

Congress is vowing to get to the bottom of potential Russian election interference, and the investigation may uncover other Muscovite meddling beyond the United States.

Le Pen has publicly sought loans from banks close to Russian President Vladimir Putin to fund her campaign, complaining that traditional French financiers are lukewarm to her efforts.

Le Pen’s initial adversary, Francois Fillon, dropped like a stone in January following allegations of financial impropriety involving political payments to family members for work that was never done.

Last week, new information surfaced involving a secret 50,000-euro loan from a French billionaire, that Fillon “forgot” to report, in violation of French law. Fillon, considered unbeatable last fall, is now in third place behind LePen and independent candidate Emmanuel Macron.

Le Pen was in top spot until late last week, when for the first time, Macron edged ahead by one point.

The first round vote in the French election does not occur until April 23, so there is plenty of time for the see-saw to start.

But with the dramatic descent of Fillon, it appears as though Macron will the beneficiary of the anybody-but-LePen movement.

Just last Wednesday, Macron won the backing of Socialist and former Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoë who called him “a reformist, a European, and a realist.”

Macron, former economy minister under outgoing French President François Hollande, quit the Socialist Party last year, hoping to cash in on anti-politician sentiment by running as an independent.

Macron refused to participate in the party primary but benefitted from reports that he would have been the Socialist president’s choice. On International Women’s Day, Macron suggested he would like to name a woman prime minister as part of his team. In France, the presidents selects the PM.

If the current numbers hold, the first-round winner is a toss-up. But in a runoff, Macron is expected to win handily.

Macron has been called politically naive by some because, despite sitting in cabinet, he has never held elected office.

However, that didn’t stop Donald Trump from getting the American nod.

Whatever the outcome, it is certainly not business as usual in France.

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 Monday, February 20, 2017.

OTTAWA—It was Canada’s hour in the European Parliament last week.

Even those parties who voted against the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement were compelled to proclaim their affection for our country with hand-held signs that said, “Yes to Canada. No to CETA.”

In the end, the vote was not even close, even though parties on the left and the right were opposed.

Some 58 per cent of European parliamentarians endorsed the deal, which sets the stage for speedy implementation.

In one sense, Prime Minster Justin Trudeau has U.S. President Donald Trump to thank for the solid show of support.

Since the new American president’s inauguration a month ago, the United States administration has been systemically threatening to close borders, round up refugees and cancel international commercial agreements.

Even though American courts have slowed down some of the initiatives, the obvious message of closed America borders has not been lost on the rest of the world.

Contrary to the core group of Trump supporters, most other jurisdictions feel alienated and confused by the administration’s early direction.

European support for the free trade deal with Canada actually grew because the agreement became synonymous with an anti-Trump approach. One European parliamentarian, Artis Pabriks from the European People’s Party made an oblique reference to the plan to wall off Mexico. “Together we can build bridges, instead of a wall, for the prosperity of our citizens. CETA will be a lighthouse for future trade deals all over the world.”

While Trump vows to close borders and keep foreigners out, the Canadian prime minister is welcoming refugees and signing trade deals with Europe and beyond.

Perhaps the ongoing chaos in Washington could actually work in Canada’s favour.

Justin Trudeau’s meeting with the president appeared to establish a good working relationship, while underscoring different perspectives on the Syrian refugee crisis. Trudeau was able to make his point, without making an enemy, and by all accounts last week’s White House visit was a success.

It should have been the launch of what could have been a very good week for Trump.

In less than seven days, he welcomed three world leaders and reinforced his close personal friendship with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Trump addressed with the familiar nickname, Bibi.

Instead, the president was dodging questions about the alleged ongoing relationship between several members of his campaign team and senior officials in the Russian government.

By mid-week, one cabinet member had been fired, and another nominee, facing a rough confirmation ride, decided to voluntarily withdraw himself from contention as the secretary of labor.

Trump’s press secretary repeatedly made it clear that the boss had lost confidence in National Security adviser Michael Flynn after Flynn misled vice-president Mike Pence as to the nature of his pre-inauguration discussions with the Russian ambassador.

After cutting Flynn loose, Trump then blamed the whole mess on the media and leaks from the intelligence community. “I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media—as I call it, the fake media, in many cases,” Trump proclaimed, the day after he dumped his friend.

It is normal for a new administration in any country to experience a few hiccups in the early days.

But the almost daily circus in Washington is beyond anything most reporters and political watchers have ever observed.

That is tough for Trump. But it also means that neighbouring countries like Canada could benefit from the renewed world interest in our similarities and differences.

An open border policy makes Canada a welcoming place for refugees. It also means international businesses can consider investing and locating in Canada, while keeping close to the American market.

We are within driving distance of the 325 million consumers who are fuelling America’s prosperity and we still benefit from relatively open borders with the Untied States.

Our links of geography and history make us fast friends and good neighbours. At a time when the United States seems likely to build more walls, Canada could position itself as the ideal way-station into North America.

Last week’s CETA deal certainly sounded an optimistic note for more trade between Canada and roughly 500 million Europeans.

It also tempered negative fallout from the decision by the United Kingdom to exit the European Union.

The agreement sent a resounding message that not all countries around the world are closing their borders.

And while the Israeli prime minister was in Washington praising up Trump on the art of the deal, Trudeau was actually getting a bigger deal done.

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