By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 9, 2024.

OTTAWA—While governments are focusing on gender designation in sport, women are just making it happen.

Charge Ottawa opened the second season last week with a three-two victory over the Toronto Sceptres at TD Place.

The game started a new season with a new name.

The league launched last year without team names, and fans were thrilled with the Charge new look.

Season ticket holders were snapping up merchandise while fans in the thousands arrived to witness the season opener for the Professional Women’s Hockey League.

Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government passed three bills last week limiting transgender rights.

One bill is designed to prohibit transgender pronoun choices by minors, another restricts transgender access to human rights support.

The third is a sport bill. The Fairness and Safety in Sport Act is designed to require school boards, educational institutions and provincial sports organizations to develop policies to “protect the integrity of female athletic competitions by ensuring women and girls have the opportunity to compete in biological female-only divisions.”

The law will also require parents to opt in to education on transgender issues. Current law requires parents to opt out. The burdensome requirements for opting in include informing parents one month in advance and offering alternative education for children who do not get gender sex education.

The law will also limit educational material and lesson plans on sexual orientation and gender identity, potentially erasing same-sex families from the curriculum.

Opponents say the proposals go against research that proves sexual education reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, sexually-transmitted diseases and unchecked child abuse.

Puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy would be illegal for children under the age of 16. Youth aged 16 to 17 would require parental consent for such therapies.

Some bill opponents say the prohibition would be particularly challenging for adolescents trying to avoid puberty that is not aligned with their sexual identity.

Equality groups are vowing to fight the Alberta legislation as they have enjoined legal challenges against similar changes to law and policy in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick.

The Canadian Medical Association, the Alberta Medical Association, and the Canadian Paediatric Society oppose the medical limitations in the legislation.

The Alberta changes go beyond those introduced by New Brunswick and Saskatchewan.

The New Brunswick government that introduced a prohibitive transgender law was defeated recently while the Saskatchewan government faced a steep drop in its recent election support.

For years, governments have used their power to keep women out of sport, even when female athletic prowess would have meant they could participate equally in men’s sport.

Some say the sport changes are just another example of government weakening laws that protect athletes from harassment and bullying.

Meanwhile, girls and women are just doing it.

From the PWHL to the wildly popular American-based Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), professional sports has opened a new venue for girls who want to make a career of their sport of choice.

The WNBA, which has been operating for almost 30 years, has 13 teams and is the premier women’s pro team globally. Two more teams will join the league next year and their televised games are very popular.

The world of tennis is also changing as the issue of pay equality has been addressed between the genders. Last year, the Women’s Tennis Association approved a plan to achieve pay equity by 2033. Part of that proposal means that gender payments for non-Grand Slam 1,000 and 500-level tournaments will be equal in 2027.

Governments have ignored their potential role in pay equity although former federal sport minister Pascale St-Onge moved quickly to stem sexual harassment in sport, suspending world junior hockey financial support while the issue of sexual assault was addressed.

Smith could be focusing her government’s attention on equality for women and girls in sport. Instead, she is catering to a small minority that is interested in stamping out understanding or support for those who choose to change their gender.

By targeting her attention on reducing support for adolescents struggling with gender identity issues, Smith will shore up support with ultra-conservative members of her caucus.

But she opens the door to a revolt by ordinary Albertans who believe there are other health issues far more important than what pronoun is used to identify non-binary students in the classroom.

Naheed Nenshi and opposition New Democrats are hoping the legislation will provoke the same reaction from Albertans that New Brunswickers expressed at the polls when they dumped the Blaine Higgs Progressive Conservative government.

Only time will tell.

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 December 2, 2024.

OTTAWA—Doug Ford is talking tough against Donald Trump.

He knows it is good politics. Canadians are extremely upset about the possibility that our economy will be bludgeoned by a bully.

As premier, Ford is in a position to talk tough and face few of the repercussions that would rain upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if he were to say the same thing.

Ford also took a nasty shot at Mexico, demanding they be turfed from the North American Free Trade agreement for allowing Chinese auto production into their country.

Ford has a point, and the new Mexican government may have to rethink the trade policy.

Trudeau must proceed cautiously because the reported animus that Trump feels for him could cost our country dearly.

Canadians are in for a rough ride as Trump also knows that most Canadians do not like him. He is a man who needs to be loved.

Ever since the president-elect won a majority, news from south of the border is nothing short of cringe-worthy.

Putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of health policy, especially one as crazy as Robert Kennedy, is nothing short of deadly.

Kennedy has promised to ban fluoride in all American water systems. Democratic state governors are already lining up to block any federal edicts that infringe on their jurisdiction.

Hulk Hogan is publicly ruminating that he will be given a senior position on the Trump team. An alleged sex philanderer had to drop out as Trump’s pick for attorney general.

Ford attacked Trump for claiming illegal drugs and migrants were coming from Canada. Instead, according to Ford, Canada is the recipient of illegal guns and drugs coming north.

Trudeau is working with premiers on a joint approach to the Trump threat to impose an immediate 25 per cent tariff on all goods entering from Canada on the day he is sworn in.

While Trudeau and Ford may be working together on that issue, they are going to be at political odds in upcoming elections.

Ford has already made noises about moving to the polls early, and his advertising strategy seems to confirm that intention.

His government is running non-stop messaging on radio and television to explain the strength of the Ontario economy. One of the reasons is the move to electrification of vehicles.

At the same time as government ads are lauding the new investments (made in tandem with the federal government), Ford’s party ads are designed to trash Trudeau’s price on pollution.

Trudeau’s fight against global warming is one of the reasons the federal government has invested heavily in alternative energies, and public transit.

In Ford’s party ads, the premier takes all the credit for these investments, when in reality, the push came from the feds.

Ford is intending to run his campaign against Trudeau.

Meanwhile, Trudeau continues to make announcements about good public policy with zero supportive government advertising. It is almost as though Trudeau wants to lose the next election.

In the past week, Ontario became the third province to join the federal government’s plan for a national school food program.

Newfoundland was the first to sign on to the national initiative, followed by Manitoba and now Ontario.

But while the announcement was well-received in each province, there is been little change in the poll numbers for the federal Liberals.

That is partly because of the unpopularity of the prime minister, but it is also because the government has not spent any real money explaining why helping children’s nutrition in schools will lead to stronger communities.

The only federal ad I saw last week was a vague reference to how our banking investments are covered by a government agency known as the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation.

For some reason, some idiot in federal advertising thinks the inner workings of CDIC are more important than telling Canadians about the new school food program.

The other recent huge-ticket item was a GST pre-Christmas holiday on some items and a $250 bonus for workers with incomes under $150,000. The Liberals have since split the bill and separated the GST break from the $250 cheques which will be sent to most working Canadians in the spring.

How did that giveaway work for the government?

With zero advertising to support the initiative, what made the news was that those who did not work were upset about being left out. What was supposed to be a gateway to a positive story is now more bad Liberal news.

The New Democrats now say they won’t support the program unless it is expanded.

This multi-billion-dollar announcement should have been launched in tandem with a national advertising campaign.

Why not follow Doug Ford.

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

At the conclusion of the anti-Boissonnault attack, there’s only one question that matters: which political party has a plan to tackle the gross injustices Indigenous People have faced since colonization?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 25, 2024.

OTTAWA—Identity politics run amok. How else to explain the resignation of employment minister Randy Boissonnault on Nov. 20?

Boissonnault was forced to step down for claiming that he is a Métis except he has never done so.

By his own admission, he was adopted into a Métis family and raised by them although he has often mentioned the influence of a Cree grandmother.

A prime ministerial statement said Boissonnault “will focus on clearing the allegations made against him.”

Boissonnault was listed as Métis by the Liberal Party Indigenous Peoples’ Commission when they compiled a list of successful Indigenous candidates after the 2015 election.

According to a commission member, an adoption by a Métis family confers Métis status on the child, which is why Boissonnault was so identified.

The Conservative Party has made Boissonnault a clear target. Three members were ejected from the House of Commons last week because of the nature of their personal attacks.

Seven Tories peppered Boissonnault with a dozen questions while Government House Leader Karina Gould tried to set the record straight.

Gould said the company managed by Boissonnault while he was not in politics was never listed as an Indigenous company, and did not receive any contracts from the government.

NDP MP Blake Desjarlais joined the attack, suggesting that Boissonnault should resign as minister because he is making decisions about Indigenous lives without knowing about his own.

Allegedly, Boissonnault’s grandmother is listed as a person with German ancestry, although Boissonnault’s understanding was that she was full Cree.

The bottom line is that this so-called scandal was nothing more than a successful attempt to unseat a minister so popular that he got elected during a Conservative near-sweep of his home province, Alberta.

Boissonnault’s departure leaves the province without a federal minister at the table.

This opens the door to the ministerial elevation of Calgary Liberal MP George Chahal.

Boissonnault’s departure is a huge loss for Indigenous and minority supporters.

He was one of the most well-liked ministers in the government with a reputation for speaking out for the underdog. He is also a self-identified gay man.

Liberal First Nations MP Jaime Battiste defended Boissonnault as an advocate for Indigenous people who never self-identified as Métis.

Battiste characterized the attack as a witch-hunt, and said that the whole issue was blown up to score points. Boisssonnault was a member of the Liberal Indigenous caucus, but there are also supportive men who have been members of the women’s caucus.

Embittered former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould weighed in on the controversy, blaming it all on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and saying “we get to watch white people play ancestry wheel of fortune.”

The wheel of fortune has been anything but. Until Trudeau actually began tackling Indigenous issues with real financial support, the education of on-territory Indigenous children was funded at a level 40 per cent less than the rest of Canada’s children.

The wheel of fortune meant that if you lived in Indigenous territory, you were likely to suffer for years under a boil-water advisory. Trudeau and the Liberal Party fixed that.

As for Indigenous ministers, the Liberal Party actually set up a recruitment system to attract Indigenous candidates. That was how Wilson-Raybould was rewarded with an uncontested nomination in the coveted Vancouver-Granville, B.C., riding in 2014.

Conservatives who succeeded in ousting Boissonnault have zero strategy of their own on reconciliation and the recruitment of Indigenous Members of Parliament.

They are ready to use identity politics to destroy the reputation of someone as earnest and hardworking as Boissonnault.

When Andrew Scheer was leader of the Conservative Party, Indigenous voters in his own riding voted against him because he did not represent the views of Indigenous constituents.

Yet he was frontline in the attack on Boissonnault. According to everyone who follows the issue, Boissonnault’s departure means the loss of a vociferous supporter of reconciliation and minority political engagement.

At the conclusion of the anti-Boissonnault attack, there is only one question that really matters: which political party has a plan to tackle the gross injustices that have been faced by Indigenous People ever since Europeans settlers arrived to overtake their land?

Certainly not the Conservatives, whose slash-and-burn political strategy would turn back the clock on reconciliation, housing, and a huge array of other issues.

Pierre Poilievre’s carbon-tax election isn’t happening. Instead of focusing on character assassination, why doesn’t he work on specific positive issues to get things done?

That could actually make Indigenous lives better.

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

When a musician can invoke that much good in the world, it is worth a deeper dive into understanding why.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 18, 2024.

OTTAWA—Canada has gone “Swiftie” this week.

In anticipation of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in Toronto and Vancouver, the country is abuzz with excitement.

The Toronto Star is auctioning off tickets to raise money for the Santa Claus Fund. According to The Star, the fund has been donating gift boxes to vulnerable children since 1906. What could be more Canadian than that?

Swift herself donated $13,000 to the fund last year, and she wasn’t even visiting Toronto. This year, she is donating again. Two Nov. 22 concert tickets are being auctioned off by The Star, which is also encouraging concert-goers to donate to their own favourite charity.

Social media is calling on fans to follow Swift’s example by donating to something worthwhile as she has done.

Stories of charitable acts surrounding the Swift tour abound.

CTV reported that an Ottawa boy with a rare spastic paraplegia was gifted two tickets to the concert that his friends had auctioned off for $20,000.

The tickets were originally sold off to fund seven-year-old Jack Laidlaw’s experimental treatment in a Boston hospital.

Someone donated $20,000 for the seats, with an anonymous matching donation.

But the person who purchased the tickets was so moved by Laidlaw’s story that she donated the tickets to him, and he will attend the concert with his father.

Stories of similar goodness are popping up all across the country.

Taylor’s performances started on Nov. 14 with six concerts in Toronto, moving to Vancouver for three performances in early December.

Some 60,000 people will attend each sold-out concert with thousands more expected to attend the pre-concert Taylgate ’24 at the Metro Convention Centre.

Taylor Swift Way has been temporarily installed in Toronto with 22 street signs wending their way from Queen Street West to John Street, Front Street, and Blue Jays Way.

Official Swift merchandise is being sold in only one location, and hundreds of fans lined up to purchase posters, shirts, and other memorabilia when the shop opened.

Some clearly don’t understand the Swift mania that has gripped the nation.

Globe and Mail sports columnist Cathal Kelly wrote a scathing critique of Taylor’s music, writing: “On a scale of musical impact, she is somewhere north of Barry Manilow and south of Elton John. She is a less interesting Diana Ross, or a Madonna with better business instincts.”

Cathal goes on to say it is not Swift’s fault, but rather a reflection of “the enormous vacant space in cultural history that she represents. … Six nights in Toronto is another portent of mediocrity.”

He may be right, but I can’t help but wondering why thousands of people—including members of my own family—are struck with Swiftmania.

My niece won two tickets in a lottery at a cost of $500 apiece. As of last week, those tickets could be sold on the internet for up to $8,000 each.

But she prefers to go to the concert, and forego a possible $15,000 cash payout.

Like Kelly, I just don’t get it. Maybe it is just the older generation that is living in ignorance as the world moves to embrace Swift’s social media stardom.

When a musician can invoke that much good in the world, it is worth a deeper dive into understanding why.

Of course, the woman and her team are obviously marketing geniuses. That goes without saying.

But her judicious use of social media and the global response to her music is giving the world something to share in a time when, according to the young, everything else seems to be falling apart.

Perhaps Swift’s influence is overstated.

She came out courageously and loudly in favour of electing America’s first woman president. Swift was Kamala Harris’ biggest booster, much to the ire of Donald Trump.

While her fans may have been cheering, they did not all jump on board because if they had, Trump would have lost the election.

So perhaps her followers are thirsting for a brief moment, a three-hour escape from the reality of the world in which they live.

Surveys show many young people don’t even want to have children today because they are afraid of how climate change is destroying the globe. World wars and environmental disasters dominate the news.

There aren’t many moments when these disasters can be minimized.

Swift concerts, and the crazy prelude leading up to her arrival, are one way that troubles can be forgotten.

Perhaps her music won’t last for a half-century like that of the iconic Beatles.

But the Swiftie Moment is here to stay.

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

Once again, a woman for president was just too much for Americans to bear. Kamala Harris was soundly beaten by an angry white man. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 11, 2024.

OTTAWA—After his decisive victory against U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris last week, Donald Trump needs to get some new hats.

The stench of sexism and racism wafted from voting booths as those who wanted to turn back the clock cast their ballots for a convicted sex offender.

Trump’s numbers in most areas exceeded his previous election bids. In his first attempt, Trump made it to the White House with the electoral vote, but not the popular vote. On Nov. 5, he got it all. There is nothing stopping him now.

David Axelrod, a Democratic adviser to multiple presidents, said after the vote that racism and sexism both played a role in Harris’ loss. Given the United States has previously voted for a Black president in Barack Obama, one has to assume that gender was the deciding Harris negative.

An exit poll by Edison Research found that Harris received the majority of her support from women and minorities. As for women, she won 54 per cent of their votes, while Trump secured 44 per cent. However, the white vote generally gave Trump an edge of 12 per cent. As for Latinos, they moved toward Trump in numbers not seen in the 2020 race.

On the race front, post-election numbers show that Harris garnered 80 per cent of the Black vote, but Obama received 93 per cent. Why was there a 13 per cent drop? Was it because some Black men couldn’t vote for a woman?

Women all over the world are mourning the Harris loss because it felt that, once again, a chance to elect a woman president in American was shattered not by a glass ceiling, but a concrete one.

Harris ran a flawless campaign. She was positive, upbeat, and energetic compared to a waddling Trump who bored crowds with his incoherent, droning speeches.

A woman voter dressed as a handmaid at a Pennsylvania voting booth said it all. Without uttering a word, the anonymous woman sent a clear message of what was at stake in the election.

Margaret Atwood, renowned Canadian author of The Handmaid’s Tale, made her own plea to American voters to support Harris for president.

According to her publisher, Atwood’s novel explores “themes of powerless women in a patriarchal society, loss of female agency and individuality, suppression of women’s reproductive rights, and the various means by which women resist and try to gain individuality and independence.”

That was the narrative for women in this election.

Once again, a woman for president was just too much for Americans to bear. Harris, who took over the Democratic reins from an ailing President Joe Biden 100 days ago, was soundly beaten by an angry white man.

Trump’s multiple character flaws were on painful display in the campaign, including the fact that almost no one who served with him in the White House supported him. His last week of campaigning was a disaster.

The hope that former congresswoman Liz Cheney be put before a firing squad prefaced by a self-inflicted wound at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in New York. Multiple participants levelled insults at women, Blacks, and Jews.

Harris herself was alleged to be a sex worker working with her pimps. Then came the now infamous insult to Puerto Ricans when a comedian called their home a floating island of garbage.

Harris faced a double whammy. As a racialized woman, she fought prejudice against her gender and her race.

Despite her comfortable majority support with women, the men did her in. The more education they had, the more likely they were to support her. But opposition from young men and those with less than a high school education was ferocious.

Harris cannot be faulted on her campaign. Her message was solid, and she delivered it with an ease of confidence reminiscent of a real leader.

Now Democrats must reboot while MAGA Republicans are already discussing a successor to the aging president-elect. In a media interview, a young Trump voter said he thought the perfect successor was vice-president-elect J.D. Vance.

The man who thinks America is being run by a “bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too” is the next great white hope.

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

Pennsylvania is a pivotal state because of the electoral college system, and the majority of the state’s 580,000 eligible Latino voters are from Puerto Rico. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 4, 2024.

OTTAWA—Bromance may cost Donald Trump the election.

In a plea to Trump supporters, former Trump opponent Nikki Haley told Fox News that the male-only pitch and the use of the C-word in PAC ads attacking Kamala Harris were hurting the former president’s campaign.

She also underscored a huge mistake in the Trump campaign strategy.

While Haley was the last person standing in the nomination process against Trump, she quickly got on board and offered her help.

She revealed in the media last week that while she has been involved in fundraising mail and calls, she has not been asked to join in a single rally.

Instead, Trump’s major final event at Madison Square Gardens featured the kind of supporters who would appeal to the angry young men who are already in the former president’s camp.

The event was dominated by former wrestlers, comics, and other supporters, most of whom were unknown to the general public.

Instead of reaching out to women and minorities, the Trump-approved guest list at the New York event may actually cost him the election.

Former Trump supporter and well-known Latino broadcaster Geraldo Rivera called the insulting comments made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe a “seminal” moment which will cost the Trump team dearly in Puerto Rican support and amongst other Latinos.

Hinchcliffe is now a household name. He may go down in history as the man who took Trump down. During the six-hour long rally, Hinchcliffe got a roar from the audience when he referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage” and said Latinos “love making babies.”

Another presenter referred to Harris as a prostitute whose pimps are helping in her campaign.

The disastrous comments garnered immediate reaction in the Latino community with famous rapper Bad Bunny endorsing Harris immediately after the Hinchcliffe meltdown. The rapper’s official name is Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, and he was born in Puerto Rico. He has 45 million followers on Instagram.

His endorsement could go a long way in reversing the hike in Trump support amongst Latinos compared to 2016.

That increase has played very well for Trump in some states where the margin between the two candidates is less than two per cent.

Ricky Martin, another Puerto Rican, immediately sent out this message to his 18 million Instagram followers: “this is what they think of us. Vote for @kamalaharris.”

And the tight race between the two presidential candidates on the eve of the election means that a one- or two-point shift could actually change the election’s outcome.

Pennsylvania is a pivotal state because of the electoral college system, and the majority of the state’s 580,000 eligible Latino voters are from Puerto Rico.

The gaffe opened the door for Harris to remind voters how Trump pitched paper towels and little else in the aftermath of the worst natural disaster to hit Puerto Rico in 2017 when Hurricane Maria claimed 2,975 lives.

It was widely reported that federal funding to states that voted for Trump was quicker and more fulsome than relief received by Puerto Rico.

To make matters worse, Trump staff did not issue an immediate repudiation of the comedian.

Instead of responding to multiple requests for a retraction, Trump doubled down, telling the media “there’s never been an event so beautiful. … The love in that room. It was breathtaking. It was like a lovefest, an absolute lovefest.”

It took him 48 hours before he appeared on Trump-friendly Fox News to say that Hinchcliffe probably shouldn’t have been at the rally.

But the other question, unanswered by Trump, is why, in the major rally of his campaign, he refused to reach out to known Republicans like Haley in an effort to court the vote of women.

Haley told Fox News that the Trump team’s approach is alienating women voters. “Fifty-three per cent of the electorate are women. Women will vote. They care about how they’re being talked to, and they care about the issues.”

Harris moved quickly to post Haley’s comments on her social media outlets.

Trump’s attempt to “bromance” those whose support he has already solidly secured is a strategy alienating the very women he needs to secure his return to government.

Strategically, even Republican spokespeople have sought to distance themselves from the racist, misogynistic mess left in the wake of the final Trump rally in New York.

If Geraldo is right, and this seminal moment determines the election, it underscores the reality that campaigns count.

And women power is here to stay—even in the White House.

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

In last week’s palace revolt, there is no heir apparent standing in the wings. Although several candidates are already preparing, including some in cabinet, there is no single juggernaut organizationally.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 28, 2024.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dodged a bullet from his own party last week.

A document signed by 24 caucus members set out the reasons why they think he should resign. One surprise element in the document was the deadline for his decision.

He has been told in no uncertain terms that he must make his future known one way or the other by Monday, Oct. 28.

The number of caucus members who did not sign the document is just as noteworthy as the number who did.

In a caucus of 153 members, some 130 chose not to participate in this ultimatum.

That doesn’t mean that they are all happy with the leadership, no matter what cabinet members have been saying for the cameras.

With poll numbers stagnating and a 19-point gap to close with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, many ministers and MPs are repeating privately what the dissidents said at the Liberal caucus meeting on Oct. 23.

Some are voting with their feet, decided they are not seeking re-election for all kinds of good reasons. Most of them cite family and quality of life issues, but the cloud hanging over everyone’s head is winnability.

If they don’t make a move soon—and drastically—they are all risking defeat in an election expected next year.

Media reports said Trudeau listened attentively to the criticism and got emotional at times when he recounted the sacrifices his own family has made on his behalf.

In his own words, the prime minister has said that his decision to continue in politics was a factor in the end of his marriage.

That is an incredible sacrifice to make, and at some point, he has to evaluate whether it is really worth it.

The past year has been an unsuccessful effort to reboot the Liberal image.

The move to shake up cabinet and bring in younger, more diverse voices has not resulted in any upswing in Liberal support.

If anything, that shakeup actually accelerated Trudeau’s downward spiral as caucus grew more concerned when two relatively safe Liberal seats were lost in byelections in the key battlegrounds of Toronto and Montreal.

Trudeau has consistently refused to used paid advertising as a way to change the channel on his leadership. When he was elected in 2015, he promised to do away with government advertising that was deemed to be partisan.

But that promise is blowing up in his face as most Canadians have no idea that the federal government has introduced enhanced pharma care, national daycare, increased dental care and cross-Canada school food programs.

Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith underscored the decision by the Liberal Party not to spend a lot on advertising in a media interview after the caucus last week. He also called for an end to the “palace intrigue.”

His wish may be granted as most Liberal MPs don’t want to stab themselves in the back.

Back in the days of the fight between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, a similar letter circulated for weeks.

Martin supporters in the caucus had been working for years to smooth the way for their guy to take over, and this letter-writing campaign garnered more than 70 signatures.

The difference is that there was well-oiled machine behind the man who wanted to force Chrétien out.

Martin was widely viewed as a successful finance minister who could be a three-term prime minister himself.

In last week’s palace revolt, there is no single heir apparent standing in the wings. Although several candidates are already preparing—including some in the current cabinet—there is no single juggernaut organizationally.

The Oct. 28 deadline is a recognition that the time to replace Trudeau is running short if he were to decide that he wants to step down and prompt a leadership race.

With loss of the supply-and-confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party in September, the uncertainty of an early election also has Liberal members spooked.

They know that even if Trudeau goes, the time to put together a leadership scenario is a minimum of five months, and even that is cutting it short.

They may not have five months if all opposition parties decide they want to vote non-confidence.

Trudeau exited caucus last week pledging to reporters that “the Liberal Party is strong and united.”

That may be wishful thinking. They are certainly united in wanting some specific changes to how the government is getting its message out. And some simply want him out.

But don’t expect Trudeau to follow his father’s footsteps and take a walk in the snow this week.

Hill Times Editor’s note: Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith was referring to the Liberal Party of Canada’s lack of political advertising, not the Government of Canada’s. This column has been corrected and updated online.

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

It may also be a reflection of how young men feel they are the forgotten generation. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 21, 2024.

OTTAWA—It has been 95 years, on Oct. 18, since Canadian women were given the right to vote.

In recognition of that right, the Ottawa chapter of the Famous Five Foundation will celebrate a Pink Tea event at the Canadian Museum of Nature on Oct. 27.

At the ceremony, the foundation will unveil this year’s recipients of the Famous 5 award for their contribution to the fight for equality.

Dozens of other Famous 5 chapters across the country hosted similar events to commemorate Oct. 18, 1929.

That day, a landmark decision by the Privy Council of Great Britain recognized women as persons before the law, thus conferring upon them the right to vote.

The appeal to the British Privy Council followed an unsuccessful campaign in 1928 at the Canadian Senate for women’s right to vote. The effort was led by five Alberta suffragettes who became known as the Famous Five. Their names are Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, and Henrietta Moore Edwards.

The Famous Five is currently the most visited grouping of statues within the Parliamentary Precinct on Wellington Street in Ottawa. The Famous Five Foundation was formed to secure national recognition for those women, and then to fight for recognition of modern-day suffragettes.

At next Sunday’s Pink Tea, five women will be honoured for fighting for Indigenous rights, the rights of Afghan women and others involved in the battle for modern day racial and gender equality, and against misogyny.

The Famous 5 Ottawa will recognize the following award recipients: Mariam Abdel-Akher, Cindy Blackstock, Najia Haneefi, Marie-Noëlle Lanthier, and Christine Romulus for special recognition, each in their own area of expertise.

“These extraordinary women continue to doggedly push the envelope in the face of obstacles and challenges just as the original Famous Five had to do,” said Beatrice Raffoul, chair of Famous 5 Ottawa.

The modern Famous 5 know that much work still has to be done when women in some parts of the world are not even allowed to go to school, and Indigenous women are recovering from the trauma of residential school cultural annihilation.

Canadians think that the fight for equality is over, but one only has to look at the current political situation to understand that we still have much work ahead.

In the upcoming American presidential election, according to an Environics Institute poll published by The Globe and Mail last week, the majority of Canadians prefer the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over Republican Donald Trump.

But the younger a man is, the more likely he is to support Trump.

Notwithstanding his multiple criminal convictions and Trump’s vehement refusal to accept the 2020 election loss, the former president’s level of support has actually increased since the last election, Environics revealed.

At that time, Trump had the support of 15 per cent of Canadian respondents, and that figure has now increased to 21 per cent. Trump’s greatest level of support comes from young men, and in that cohort, young Conservatives are most likely to support the convicted felon. Conservatives were more likely to support Trump than Harris, with 44 per cent voicing support—an increase of 11 per cent from four years ago.

The vote split in other parties has remained relatively stagnant, with 89 per cent of Bloc Québécois supporters, 85 per cent of Liberals, and 82 per cent of New Democrats preferring Harris over Trump.

The rise in Conservative support for Trump makes one wonder whether the current Democratic candidate’s gender is at play.

Former president Barack Obama hit the campaign trail last week with exactly that message.

He specifically called out Black men for refusing to support Harris simply because she is a woman.

Obama told his audience that while they claimed other reasons for not supporting her, their refusal is based on misogyny because they will not vote for a woman.

Harris is currently working hard to try to bridge that gender divide, reaching out on podcasts and other non-traditional media platforms hosted by men for men.

But, just like in Canada, the gender gap in voting is quite stark in the United States.

Older people and women are supporting Harris, while the younger male generation has been more supportive of Trump.

That the level of misogyny is highest in young voters is troubling. It may also be a reflection of how young men feel they are the forgotten generation.

Some 95 years after Canadian women got the right to vote, we still have a long way to go.

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

The idea behind the Marshall Plan could be applied to a world approach to resettlement of refugees.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 14, 2024.

OTTAWA—Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre are cut from the same cloth.

Last week, the behaviour of both men made that clearer than ever.

While a Category 5 hurricane was bearing down on Florida and the Gulf Coast, Trump was doing everything in his power to blame the storm of the century on immigration.

While Canada and the world were mourning first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on innocent Israeli civilians, Poilievre used a memorial service to blame the catastrophe on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

According to Trump, immigrants—and by osmosis his opponent Kamala Harris—are responsible for all crimes, economic challenges, and inflationary woes in the United States.

He forgets that more than one of his wives is an immigrant herself who has contributed positively to American life.

Poilievre is not riding the anti-immigration wave at the moment. Like Trump, he is married to an immigrant, but unlike Trump, he cannot make hay over a political attack on refugees.

Canadians are still generally positive about the role immigrants play in building our economy, although that support has been waning in recent months.

Make no mistake, if Poilievre smells a change in the domestic political wind, he will follow his American counterpart into attack mode on immigration.

Quebec Premier François Legault has already opened the door to that possibility, as he has recently taken to blaming the federal government for refugees who have been coming across the American border on foot.

Legault knows the pur laine support that he depends on is not as positive toward immigration as it is in urban areas.

Herouxville, Que.,’s racist “code of conduct” for immigrants was not that long ago. The notion that immigrants could water down the vibrancy of the French language in Quebec appeals to voters in rural constituencies.

Quebec is one province where Poilievre has not made a breakthrough. If he needs to stoke fear of immigrants as an election wedge issue, he will not hesitate.

So how does the current Liberal government counter that possibility?

Taking a leadership role in designing solutions for the world refugee crisis would be a good place to start.

I attended a meeting last week where a former public servant approached me to suggest that Canada initiate a call for a world Marshall Plan for refugee resettlement.

The first Marshall Plan, launched by the Americans after the Second World War, sought to rebuild war-torn regions of Europe, and modernize industry by removing trade barriers and improving prosperity. Another goal was to prevent the spread of communism.

In a relatively short period of less than a decade, bombed-out infrastructure was remediated, and the Europeans were back in business.

Some credit the Marshall Plan with putting Germany in the position to become a dominant European industrial powerhouse.

But the idea behind the Marshall Plan could be applied to a world approach to resettlement of refugees.

The Canadian government could take the lead in the Americas, working with Caribbean and Latin American countries to develop an economic-funded resettlement plan that would not cannibalize borders, but rather would co-operate and share the challenge of resettling the millions of global citizens who have lost their homes to war, famine, economic collapse, or climate change.

By involving Latin American nations, the plan would develop a more rational collective approach to assist the influx of immigrants from failed states in that part of the world.

A refugee resettlement plan could be replicated in other parts of the globe with a similar work plan.

Obviously, participation by the United States would be key, and that cannot happen until the results of the November election are finalized.

If Trump wins, there will be no possibility of regional co-operation, especially with our Latin neighbours. He is busy blaming immigration for every problem facing his country.

But if Harris is victorious, there could be an appetite for co-operation, given her knowledge of Canada and her parents’ status as Indian and Caribbean immigrants.

Now is the time for the Trudeau government to take the lead in an area that Canada knows well.

Back in the last century, our country won the Nansen Medal, a United Nations recognition for outstanding service in the cause of refugees because of Canadian efforts to resettle Vietnamese immigrants.

We remain the only country in the world to have been so honoured. We were the first country to include private sponsorships in our resettlement strategy.

It is time to think big again. Head off an anti-immigrant tsunami with our own modern-day Marshall Plan.

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

Iran’s decision to rain missiles upon Tel Aviv last week will unleash a response that means trouble for the whole world. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 7, 2024.

OTTAWA—We are commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Hamas slaughter of innocent Israelis this week.

On Oct. 7 of last year, Hamas attacked young people attending a music festival and old people quietly living in their homes with a fury that seems impossible to understand.

But those of us who don’t understand why have only to take a page from the book of Iran’s supreme leader.

He can tell women what to do and what to wear, and what the penalties are for not following his advice.

If you don’t have your head covered in the right way, you can be subjected to physical attacks and imprisonment. In some cases, those attacks have led to death.

In 2022, Mahsa Amini was killed while in custody after being arrested for not properly wearing her head covering.

Penalties can also be levied for sexual relations outside of marriage, including stoning someone to death.

Likewise, if someone is not heterosexual, sexual relations with a same-sex partner is also punishable by death.

Death as punishment for homosexual relations is unique to Iran in the world, although Afghanistan is currently reviewing the application of a similar policy.

There is a reason that hundreds of ex-patriot Iranians around the world were celebrating the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Iran is the chief patron of Hezbollah, and has supported Nasrallah’s leadership for 32 years.

Ex-pats blame Nasrallah and the Iranian government for the oppression that has dampened the spirit of Iranian people for years.

A United Nations fact-finding mission concluded that the Iranian government was responsible for Amini’s death, and accused Iran of committing “crimes against humanity” as the result of a months-long security crackdown that killed more than 500 people, and detained more than 20,000.

The UN report said that Iranian security forces regularly used submachine guns and assault rifles against peaceful demonstrators, and noted a pattern of protesters being “branded” by shooting them in the eye, leading to permanent damage.

Iran’s Supreme Commander Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doesn’t see any problem with his country’s internal situation, although thousands of Iranians may think otherwise.

He has been in power since 1979, the year which marked the end of “westernizing” Iran with the departure of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

His government’s view of the Middle East is that all problems would be solved if only Israel would disappear. He blames all challenges there on the Israeli attacks in Gaza and Lebanon.

Thousands of Canadian supporters of Palestine have been lobbying non-stop for an end to the war in Gaza in an effort to save thousands of lives, and end the displacement of thousands more.

There are now more than one million Lebanese who are on the move to get away from the fighting, and to find safety for their families.

Most protesters would not want to strengthen Iran’s hand, but they have been silent on surrogates in the region like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hamas carried out an unprecedented civilian slaughter on Oct. 7, 2023.

Silence doubles as support for Hamas, and one result of the Iranian attack on Israel is that Iran is no longer silently fuelling Israel’s enemies.

Instead, it is leading the charge with its stated intent to eliminate Israel’s existence.

Israel is receiving international support for the right to defend itself against the Iranian incursion.

Its ground invasion of Lebanon has already led to military casualties.

But the incursion into Gaza and the wanton deaths of thousands of civilians have raised the global ire of millions.

To date, most of the pressure has been focused on Israelis to withdraw from Gaza as the only way to secure the release of the hostages who have now been held for a full year.

But now the pressure point will be on Iran. And those in the Arab world who do not support Iran will be called to engage in the fight.

Iran’s decision to rain missiles upon Tel Aviv last week will unleash a response that means trouble for the whole world.

Already one of the outcomes is a rapid hike in the price of oil, which puts the fragile economic recovery under threat.

The hike may help producers, but will put further stress on Canadian consumers.

Meanwhile, the world is waiting with bated breath as we teeter on the edge of a world war.

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