Karina Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Mark Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 15, 2025.

OTTAWA–Why Karina Gould? That’s the question friends posed when I gave a couple of television interviews promoting her as the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

At press time, Gould had not yet announced, but her team was putting together a campaign to create a fighting chance in this shortened race to name the next prime minister of Canada. Gould has already recruited more than a dozen caucus members.

Not overwhelming, but considering her campaign only started a week ago, it is a good start.

Mark Carney has been running for the job for years. Press reports say he has about 30 MPs on his team. That number should be twice as large if Carney’s support is as wide and deep as the media keep claiming.

On just about every network, including his American pre-campaign interview on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, Carney is constantly presented as the almost certain winner of the upcoming race.

Resisting that pull may be difficult, but many Liberals would like to support a leader who’s in it for the long haul.

Does anyone really think that Carney—who declined offers of more than one nomination in the last election—will stick around if the party ends up in third-party status? The answer is no.  

Liberals need a leader who will appeal to young people. Gould is the most appealing to that cohort because she reflects their values and energy. Gould has managed multiple cabinet portfolios with energy and savvy.  

A superb communicator in multiple languages, Gould negotiated Canada’s national childcare via multiple provincial agreements. While child care is seen as crucial for Canadians, Gould is being critiqued internally by those who say motherhood is a reason not to vote for her.

Before we dismiss misogyny’s role in leadership, we cannot forget what happened to the Kamala Harris vote in the United States. She lost the presidency because American men voted against her. Had the election been determined only by women, Harris would have won. 

No one asked Justin Trudeau if he could manage both politics and a young family when he ran for office at age 36 back in 2008. Instead, his youth and a campaign that included cannabis legalization managed to ignite the attention of a new generation.

Gould has been generating much interest with young people. She also has support from senior Liberals who have supported the party for decades.

Unlike some colleagues, Gould reaches out regularly to party elders, seeking their advice and wisdom while other leadership candidates have either ignored them or publicly denigrated them. 

Party faithful remember the very off-putting negative response of Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland when former prime minister Jean Chrétien offered to go to China to negotiate a solution to the extradition of Meng Wanzhou to the United States.  

Freeland scorned his offer, and ended up with a protracted fight with China that cost our country economically and politically. But Freeland’s high profile during the Trudeau years have set her up as an obvious runner-up to Carney’s stardom.

Neither Carney nor Freeland have Gould’s likability factor. Parties make decisions based on whom they think can win. Canadians make decisions on the emotional feel they get from a politician. Is that person someone you would like to have a beer with? Kim Campbell was elected Progressive Conservative leader and prime minister because she was seen to be the best choice to rebuild her party in the post-Brian Mulroney era.  

It turned out to be a terrible decision that left the Tories reduced to two seats in a Liberal majority government in 1993. Today, Liberals have little time to judge the emotional IQ of each of the candidates.  

But when it comes to support from young people, reaching out to party faithful, and a commitment to the long-term rebuilding process, Gould is our best bet. 

The first question at any leadership debate should be, “If the Liberals lose the next election, are you willing to remain as leader?” The second question should be, “How can we recapture the dynamic wave of support by young people that carried Trudeau to power in 2015?”

The answer to both questions is Gould studied Latin American and Caribbean studies at McGill and philosophy at Oxford and who worked for the Organization of American States on migration.

She learned Spanish while volunteering at a Latin American orphanage. Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

Correction: This column originally incorrectly reported that Karina Gould is a lawyer. She is not, and the column was updated at 8:09 a.m. on Jan. 16.

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

The Conservatives have already started their pre-election communications strategy and are well-funded to keep it going. If the government wants to remain in the game, it needs to get in the game.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 11, 2023.

OTTAWA—P.T. Barnum once said that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Oscar Wilde followed suit with this zinger: “There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre followed Barnum’s advice by vowing to bring in thousands of amendments to legislation until the Liberals change some elements of their pollution pricing strategy.

Poilievre didn’t call it “pollution pricing,” but rather “carbon tax,” which is how most Canadians seem to be viewing the issue.

Government House Leader Karina Gould was quick to repudiate Poilievre’s tactic, accusing him of being a bully, and “not a serious politician.”

She also pointed out that Canadians earning less than $50,000 are actually receiving more in their pockets because carbon pricing includes personal rebates.

Poilievre seems to be winning the ground war, and has not been damaged by his bully tactics on parliamentary bills.

Most Canadians are not watching the machinations of Parliament on a daily basis, but they are feeling the pinch of inflation, and a hike in cost for basics like food and housing.

On the housing front, Poilievre dominated the headlines again, for good or for bad.

He released a 15-minute docudrama on housing which was widely quoted by pundits in both positive and negative news columns.

Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason called the video “a dime-store analysis of our housing crisis.”

Globe columnist Andrew Coyne, on the contrary, called it, “extremely impressive. Simplistic, tendentious, conspiratorial in places, but by the standards of most political discourse, it is a PhD thesis.”

The video had legs. Within days of its posting, the docudrama had received more than three million views.

That compares with a prime ministerial upload the same day that received fewer than 100,000 views.

Liberal Housing Minister Sean Fraser joked that the Poilievre video got multiple views because of the opposition leader dialling in to watch himself perform.

Anyone can manipulate social media to inflate the number of views.

But the fact that the video occupied so much ink in mainstream media means that Poilievre was getting out his message.

The media and positive polling numbers have emboldened the Conservatives in the House of Commons.

Last week, one member was bounced out of the place for accusing the prime minister of lying on the carbon tax issue.

Alberta MP Damien Kurek ignored repeated invitations from the Speaker to withdraw his comments and was drummed out. Kurek almost immediately posted his exchange from the House on Twitter.

Meanwhile, a journalist for social media Insight has used the incident as a fundraising measure, inviting people who support Kurek to assist by sending money to a media PayPal account.

But this is no ordinary media strategy. Instead, Poilievre and the Conservatives plan to use every social media platform to promote their positions.

On these platforms there is no real rebuttal, so it doesn’t matter much that a number of statements in Poilievre’s housing video were simply false.

To follow the Barnum school of promotion, simply getting out the message on multiple platforms helps reinforce Poilievre’s status.

Screaming matches in the House of Commons are intended to reinforce the Conservative message that the carbon tax needs to be axed.

Liberals have some great talking points to deflate the video, but talking points will not carry this day.

Instead, they need to get serious on social media, attacking the falsehoods that are being perpetrated by Poilievre.

Fraser issued his own video in rebuttal to Poilievre’s housing claims.

But he is a single actor in the parliamentary story. Instead, the government needs to spend as much effort on rebuttals as it does on its own positive announcements.

As long as Canadians are talking about carbon tax and not a price on pollution, it is pretty simple to see who is winning this public relations battle.

But that doesn’t necessarily equate to winning the war.

A hard-hitting rebuttal to the “dime-store” housing analysis needs to come from the Liberals, and it needs to involve social media saturation and paid media messaging.

The Conservatives have already started their pre-election communications strategy, and by all accounts, are well-funded to keep it going.

If the government wants to remain in the game, it needs to get in the game.

Any winning team needs a defensive and an offensive strategy.

By leaving the offence to Poilievre, Liberals look defensive. Only by going into attack mode will they win.

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 October 2, 2023.

OTTAWA—Aestas horribilis. Horrible summer.

That is all that can be said about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attempt to reboot the agenda with a cabinet shuffle, new faces and a fresh parliamentary look.

Last week’s disastrous revelation of a former Nazi soldier getting a standing ovation in the House of Commons was simply the final nail in the coffin of a bad political season for the Liberal leader.

It is true that the prime minister was not responsible for the invitation to a former member of the Ukrainian 1st Galician division, a unit of the Nazi war machine.

That decision was the sole responsibility of the former speaker Anthony Rota.

Rota received a request from his constituency to have the war veteran at the parliamentary event welcoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenksy on Sept. 22.

The visit was supposed to showcase support for the Ukrainian effort to defend itself against the illegal invasion by Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Instead, it has become a tool for Putin’s false claim that his attack was really a defence against the Nazification of neighbouring Ukraine.

All Canadians were shocked to learn of veteran Yaroslav Hunka’s military record. The only person more shocked than the prime minister was Speaker Anthony Rota, who was forced to resign as pressure mounted following the revelation of the veteran’s Nazi status.

On Sept. 25, the New Democratic Party was the first to call for the speaker’s resignation. They were joined later in the day by the Bloc Québécois, and followed the next morning by several Liberal cabinet ministers, and ultimately by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

Poilievre expressed his views on Rota’s status via X (formerly Twitter).

But he spent the whole of Question Period blaming the debacle on the prime minister. Even though Rota told the House that it was his decision and his alone to invite and recognize his constituent, Poilievre laid the whole mess at the prime minister’s feet.

Poilievre repeated his false claim that it was up to the prime minister’s security people to vet all visitors to the parliamentary gallery.

In reality, all Members of Parliament are entitled to issue invitations to their own personal guest list, and that list is not vetted by the government.

Trudeau argued during Question Period that to follow Poilievre’s logic, the government would have to sign off on all parliamentary visitors, which would be a breach of the separation that exists between government and Parliament.

But the opposition leader has made it his personal mission to make Trudeau wear the mess that Poilievre has characterized as “the worst diplomatic embarrassment” in Canadian history.

All other leaders appear to have accepted Trudeau’s explanation that, as leader of the government, he has no authority over the visitors invited to Parliament.

It remains to be seen how the public will view the personalized nature of the attacks by the leader of the opposition.

Most are probably as confused as Members of Parliament who had no idea they were offering multiple standing ovations to a veteran who fought against the Allies in the Second World War.

It seems complicated but is likely the egregious mistake of an overzealous constituency assistant who responded to a community request to attend the session.

As House speaker, Rota was not involved in any aspects of the Liberal government activity. But he also runs for re-election, and as such, his role as the speaker offers an opportunity to invite constituents to Ottawa for major parliamentary events like the opening of the House and international visits by dignitaries.

The role of the Speaker in the House of Commons is sacrosanct. They are the leader of the place, and no one, including the prime minister, has the power to edit their speeches or guest list.

Poilievre’s approach is to lay the blame squarely on the prime minister’s shoulders.

In a proposal to the House operations committee, a Conservative committee member suggested a list of invitees to a proposed review committee that, curiously, excluded the speaker.

That approach may not be parliamentary, but the Tory intention is to damage Trudeau and his government, and facts do not matter in this mission statement.

Poilievre’s aggression may cause some backlash from the public. In the meantime, it is Trudeau who is feeling the pain from the commencement to a fall session that is as acrimonious as Poilievre.

Following her new appointment this summer, Government House Leader Karina Gould vowed to lower the temperature during Question Period by restoring a sense of civility to the institution.

But the first parliamentary week continued to be an aestas horribilis.

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

For the first time in the history of Canada, we have women in the majority of the top spots in government. From foreign affairs, to finance, from the deputy prime minister, to defence, the face of the government is decidedly feminist.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 15, 2021.

OTTAWA—If ever in doubt, Justin Trudeau proved his feminist credentials in the crafting of his new cabinet.

For the first time in the history of Canada, we have women in the majority of the top spots in government. From foreign affairs, to finance, from the deputy prime minister, to defence, the face of the government is decidedly feminist.

The minister of families, children, and social development has been assigned to pull off the biggest job of all—a national childcare system, is herself the first cabinet minister to have a child while in office.

In the back room, the prime minister’s chief of staff is a woman, perhaps one of the reasons for this phalanx of women in power, the likes of which this country has never witnessed before.

Not only do we have strong women.

They are also self-described feminists, who would not roll back the hard-fought gains that women have achieved in reproductive rights and gender equality.

The same cannot be said of the females at the forefront of the official opposition. The most prominent women in Erin O’Toole’s party right now are those who want to eliminate protection against the spread of the corona virus by refusing to make vaccinations mandatory.

Most post-cabinet commentary has been focused on Trudeau’s male picks, especially the oilpatch-driven campaign launched against Steven Guilbeault.

Guilbeault seems to be getting the same negative attention that was visited on another very successful environment minister, Catherine McKenna.

For some reason, vitriolic criticism of Guilbeault discounts the fact that the world is moving in a new direction and attacks targeting a single Canadian minister will not change that.

The outcome at Glasgow showed us that the world is moving away from fossil fuels and Canada cannot stand alone in ignoring the global challenges of climate change. That is one of Trudeau’s primary commitments, along with a national childcare plan.

Given that Trudeau is currently in his third term of government, he may decide to fulfill his promises and retire. That will put the Liberals into a leadership convention.

With so many qualified women in cabinet, Canada may finally elect a woman prime minister.

Obviously, the outcome of the next parliamentary session will be key in deciding which of the ministers will rise to the top.

At the moment, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is the definite front-runner. But by remaining in finance, she runs the risk of owning the bulk of criticism about the government’s COVID spending rollout.

And with critic Pierre Poilievre nipping at her heels, she has an effective, albeit annoying, opponent to underscore any tiny mistake.

Defence Minister Anita Anand must tackle the seemingly intractable challenge of sexism in the armed forces. If she proves capable of wrestling this problem to the ground, she too would be a potential candidate for leadership.

Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly is a telegenic communicator who could also prove just how much depth she has in her new post.

Karina Gould, tasked with the challenge of delivering the country’s national childcare plan, is also a potential future candidate.

With all of the foregoing, Trudeau deserves credit for the confidence he has placed in highly qualified women. Not only has he pledged and delivered on cabinet parity. He has made sure that women in cabinet are in highly visible and responsible positions, enhancing their status and underscoring their leadership capabilities.

In the end, the prime minister’s greatest legacy may actually be his commitment to pave the way for real equality in Canadian federal politics.

Right to the top.

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

This fall, Twitter and Facebook advertising influence will probably outstrip the combined effect of radio and television.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 1, 2019.

OTTAWA—Twitter received kudos last week for finally announcing the suspension of political advertising during the summer.

The social media feed was late to that party, having been publicly scolded by Democratic Reform Minister Karina Gould for its silence on recent government legislation limiting social media advertising.

Michele Austin, head of government and public policy for Twitter Canada, publicized the decision after initially refusing to comment on new legislation requiring companies to set up registries if they are selling political advertising. Foreign ad placement is also illegal.

Facebook, Google, and Microsoft had already announced their intention to comply.

Twitter only promised to ban advertising until the formal election call, which will happen in September. Surprisingly, Austin said issues-based political advertising would be exempt from the summer ban.

Google has decided not to run ads during the election, while Facebook plans to advertise, with the requisite registry.

Twitter followers will understand the weakness of the Twitter response. The federal election is an opportunity to log in lots of advertising in a confined media space that is particularly attractive to political junkies.

What better way to monetize a social feed that is probably the most direct way to reach so-called vote influencers in an attempt to shape the direction of the election.

Of all social media platforms, Twitter is the one that really draws in those influencers.

From #MAGA to @JustinTrudeau, friends and enemies alike can get political messaging directly from their respective leaders. They can also pollute opponents’ tweets, with retweets that add a negative twist to the original message.

The platform can be a perfect “gotcha” where leaders are exposed for saying one thing and doing another. After the Liberals announced an end to single-use plastic, the prime minister posted a staff meeting photo on Twitter where plastic forks were included in the pizza lunch.

Just last week @CanadaProud offered a $1,000 reward on Twitter to anyone who could snap a photo of the prime minister sipping from a plastic straw.

@CanadaProud was launched following the successful @OntarioProud attacking the Liberals and electing Doug Ford. The founder said the new arm of the organization was launched with the express purpose of defeating Justin Trudeau and electing Andrew Scheer.

Allegedly, the group has nothing to do with the Conservative Party. As a registered third party, it bills itself as a non-partisan, not-for-profit, grassroots organization.

When Jeff Ballingal, a former communications staffer in the Stephen Harper government, launched the organization, the purpose was very clear. “We want to defeat Liberals all over the country.”

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, much has been written about the participation of union Unifor spending on advertising to defeat Andrew Scheer. Another third-party group called @EngageCanada includes board members with close ties to the Liberals and New Democrats. They recently launched a campaign with the express purpose of defeating Andrew Scheer.

Both so-called third-party organizations are working overtime this summer to get their competing messages out.

They have a fine line to walk, as any direct link to a political party running in the campaign could result in the loss of their tax-deductible status.

The onslaught of advertising in traditional and social media is on the uptake because legislation covering political advertising only kicks in when the election is called.

The obvious abuse of third-party advertising needs to be curbed. The easiest way to fix the situation is to ensure that Elections Canada has the power to manage all political, and third-party advertising, whether an election is in the offing or not.

Recent advertising trashing Trudeau even went so far as to use the same actors as the Conservative campaign back in 2015.

Pre-writ advertising does not require naming of the party that paid for any ad. But the blurred lines between political parties and third-party advertisers really need to be re-examined.

What Twitter and Facebook offer are platforms for an easily transmittable message that any follower can flip to friends with little effort and maximum political trending impact.

So with a small investment, a third party can mobilize followers and grow their data base, simply with the flick of a finger on Facebook or Twitter.

Precisely because of the impact of third party players in Ontario, the provincial government has new laws limiting advertising spends even before an election is called.

This fall, Twitter and Facebook advertising influence will probably outstrip the combined effect of radio and television.

The time has come to legislate all political advertising 365 days a year.

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