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 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.

An internal Liberal fight in Ottawa Centre would sap the strength of party volunteers, and definitely cut into the enthusiasm of key election workers. It would also help the NDP.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 12, 2021.

OTTAWA—Inside party politics you find the toughest fight of all.

Last week, I wrote about some rumours flying around about the surprise departure of popular Liberal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna.

Turns out those rumours were wrong. The last time McKenna, Liberal guru Gerald Butts, and former bank governor Mark Carney were in the same room was at a European negotiating session on climate change.

They did not break bread in Ottawa recently, nor did they hatch a plan to have Carney replace McKenna and vice-versa.

The story came from other insiders in the Ottawa Centre political world.

McKenna left with the intention to spend more time with her family and to work on her passion for climate change, in whatever shape that might take.

She has previous experience in international negotiations so it is natural that she might consider something on the global stage. However, she did not, nor would she entertain, an offer to switch jobs with Carney.

So how did the rumour start?

The interest in taking a shot at the vacant seat is not surprising.

The Liberals are running high in the polls and the Ottawa Centre seat has been considered among the safer seats in the country. Former provincial attorney general Yasir Naqvi has already announced his intention to run for the Liberal nomination.

There was a tremendous amount of internal support for his decision, and he moved quickly to block the path of a potential chosen candidate like Carney.

Carney is certainly entitled to pursue the nomination if he chooses. But in a political city like Ottawa, many local executive members have already backed Naqvi against an outsider.

Carney actually lives in Ottawa, so the accusation of parachute would not actually stick.

And parenthetically, the NDP would be hard-pressed to claim interloper status because at one point, Ottawa’s mayor Marion Dewar, and mother of beloved Paul Dewar, actually became the NDP MP for Hamilton Mountain.

After McKenna’s unexpected announcement, the New Democratic Party has its eye on the prize as well. Within hours, the NDP made it clear that this is now a riding in their potential win column.

Historically, the riding has flipped between Liberals and New Democrats federally and provincially.

And with the possible exception of Ottawa-Vanier, there is no other Ottawa-area riding where the New Democrats even come in second.

So, they will be strategic and pour their considerable human resources into the open riding in the heart of the capital.

The other thing that separates the New Democrats from the Liberals is that party in-fighting on the left is less prevalent.

That is partly because they usually are not fighting to form government.

But their origins in the labour movement also promote a belief in solidarity, with all for one and one for all.

In the Liberal Party, there is a tendency for the insiders to take many sides.

In the last municipal election, even though there were no party labels on candidates, the New Democrats threw all their support behind one candidate in Capital Ward.

The Liberals split their votes in two, thus managing to ensure that New Democratic Shawn Menard emerged as a winner.

The NDP work as a combined team on education, municipal, provincial, and federal politics.

They will do their best to jump on the opportunity created by the McKenna vacuum.

Liberals must work hard to remain united.

An internal nomination division runs the risk of creating enmities with the party that could be costly.

In that scenario, a united New Democratic organization could close the huge gap that existed in the last election.

When McKenna defeated Dewar in 2015, it was by the slimmest of margins. He was a hugely effective local member, and she was a newbie.

Her margin was only five per cent in a Liberal majority sweep. But a testament to McKenna’s own work ethic and popularity was the 2019 result, where she led her NDP opponent by almost 20 points.

Her work in the environment and tireless commitment to the riding stood her in good stead, and she seemed unbeatable.

All that has changed, and it would behoove the Liberals to remember Julius Caesar’s motto regarding “divide and conquer.”

An internal fight would sap the strength of party volunteers, and definitely cut into the enthusiasm of key election workers.

On what appears to be the eve of an election, Ottawa Centre Liberals need to come together to carry the seat.

Without McKenna in Ottawa Centre, anything is possible.

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

Catherine McKenna may still get to Brookfield, but Mark Carney’s political future is much cloudier. In the absence of a clear nomination, Carney may simply accept the prime minister’s offer to act as an economic recovery adviser. Like hell, the path to politics is paved with good intentions.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 5, 2021.

OTTAWA—Catherine McKenna’s surprise retirement announcement last week sent shock waves through Liberal land.

First was the Sunday tweet which set the stage for her widely anticipated Monday morning announcement.

Then was the announcement, which clarified her reasons for stepping down and her avowed intention to keep working in the field where she made her mark as environment minister.

McKenna made it very clear she wants to pursue her passion for climate action outside the political sphere, potentially on the international scene.

And she certainly did not hide her support for a potential successor, giving a shout-out to former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney.

Carney was also referenced in newspaper articles surrounding McKenna’s retirement.

McKenna herself offered up an observation about her friendship with the current vice-chair of Brookfield Asset Management and United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance.

Carney recently published a book entitled, Value(s): Building a Better World for All, usually a portend of political interest.

He was also a keynote at the virtual Liberal national convention in April, fuelling rumours that his next foray would be into the federal election as a Liberal.

To most of us, his move into McKenna’s seat was a foregone conclusion.

But then political reality stepped in.

Local Ottawa Liberals were circulating a story that McKenna’s departure was part of a master plan conceived by Canada’s modern rainmaker Gerald Butts.

Political chess moves were allegedly discussed at weekend dinner amongst the three, where it was decided that McKenna and Carney would switch roles.

Carney would run in Ottawa Centre while McKenna would move to Brookfield focusing on green infrastructure investment.

On the face of it, the plan seemed brilliant. The party had already been polling to find out what riding would be a good fit for Carney.

One of the possibilities was the Carleton seat, which would pit Carney against Conservative Pierre Poilievre, a tough fight for a Liberal. The incumbent beat popular Liberal challenger Chris Rodgers by almost 6,000 votes in 2019.

Ottawa Centre is a much safer seat, where Liberals won the last election by more than 15,000 votes against a putative star New Democratic Party candidate.

The Carney coronation was lacking one critical element, support by local Liberals.

Not a single member of McKenna’s executive was aware of the minister’s pending departure. Neither did they know about the possible parachuting of Carney into the riding.

The majority of locals had other ideas.

Former Ontario attorney general and provincial MPP, Yasir Naqvi, had kept his political network intact after losing in the provincial massacre inflicted by Conservatives under the leadership of Doug Ford.

Naqvi has just completed a two-year term as CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, but his love of politics has not waned.

Nor have his close ties to the riding and to the Liberal Party.

But he is also a political realist. When Naqvi learned of McKenna’s departure, he said he would not be a candidate if it was the prime minister’s intention to anoint Carney.

Naqvi spent the hours following McKenna’s announcement seeking advice from every single person on the federal and provincial riding association executives.

To his surprise, not a single member of either inner circle had been apprised of McKenna’s prospective departure. There was zero groundswell of support for a transplant into Ottawa Centre.

Naqvi also made overtures to the leader’s office and was informed that there would be no coronation in the riding.

With the solid backing of local Liberals, two days after the McKenna announcement, Naqvi announced he was in.

And the response was raucous.

Naqvi has already started building a campaign team and made it clear he was not going to be stymied by the potential arrival of a star candidate.

Naqvi told the media he was just looking for a fair and equitable nomination process, which he could win in a heartbeat.

Against this backdrop it is highly unlikely that Carney will contest the nomination.

He may look elsewhere, including the greater Toronto area, but the window for an uncontested nomination with local riding support is getting smaller.

The Liberals have already formally entered election mode, which allows nominations to be called without the same rigour as a non-writ process.

McKenna may still get to Brookfield, but Carney’s political future is much cloudier.

In the absence of a clear nomination, Carney may simply accept the prime minister’s offer to act as an economic recovery adviser.

Like hell, the path to politics is paved with good intentions.

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