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.

The debate moderator rebutted the pet-eating immigrants claim, but that didn’t faze Trump, who said he’d seen the carnivorous behaviour talked about on TV.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 16, 2024.

OTTAWA—I ate dawg to celebrate the debate-thrashing administered to former president Donald Trump by future president Kamala Harris.

My dawg wasn’t real. It was a hot dog confection created by the team at Tavern on the Falls on Sussex Drive in the nation’s capital.

Called da dawg, it includes corned beef and sauerkraut atop the large steamy that the restaurant is known for.

This dawg choice was perfectly timed because everyone was talking about Trump’s bizarre debate claim that dogs and cats were being eaten by immigrants who should not have been let into the United States. Trump literally screamed that illegal immigrants were eating people’s pets in Ohio.

ABC’s debate co-moderator David Muir immediately rebutted the claim saying that Springfield city manager Bryan Heck had already laid waste to that false accusation. That didn’t faze Trump. He said he had even seen the carnivorous behaviour being discussed on television.

Trump was referring to a discredited internet claim that Haitian immigrants were kidnapping people’s pets to cook them for dinner.

That internet nugget had been peddled by his running mate J.D. Vance who was reported to have clarified the pet-eating rumours might have been false.

Trump’s shouts about eating dogs prompted Harris to laugh out loud, which spiked Trump’s temperature even further.

Even when the debate’s subject matter was supposed to be delving into other issues like economic policy, Trump focused his pitch almost exclusively on Democratic immigration policies that he claims have let millions of criminals into the country.

He went on to say that the crime rate around the world is going down because Harris and U.S. President Joe Biden have created border policies that are letting all foreign lawbreakers to move to the United States. He said that was causing a spike in American crime.

When Muir pointed out that the American crime rate had gone down, Trump ignored that fact and simply pointed to his own experience, declaring he had taken a bullet in the head because of Harris’ policies.

Trump was referring to the assassination attempt on July 13 where his ear was allegedly grazed by a bullet that killed a rally supporter but he was saved because he moved his head at the last minute.

His ear appeared fully intact on debate night. Sporting a new haircut, the side of his head was visible. No tear or scarring is visible on the lobe.

Trump trumpeted his near-death experience, but didn’t seem too out of sorts until Harris mentioned how many people were leaving his rallies from boredom.

The former president kept his lips pursed throughout that line of attack, and went on to waste valuable airtime explaining how his crowds were bigger than hers, and how much he was loved by the people while she was hated, even by President Biden.

Harris was deftly able to bait her opponent on a number of issues, but also managed to engage in economic issues in support of small business and housing.

She repeated her positive claim that she would be running an “opportunity economy” while in government, expanding the child tax credit, and lowering prices for food and prescription drugs.

She also peppered Trump with questions about his inconsistent position on abortion. He recently said he would oppose a Florida referendum banning abortions after six weeks into a pregnancy, and then reversed his position the following day.

For her part, Harris agreed to reinstate a national policy to take the abortion decision out of the hands of government and give it back to the women whose bodies are affected.

She went on to accuse Trump of currying favour with dictators who could easily seduce him with flattery and favours.

Trump helped make her point by telling his audience that he has the support of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who is known as an autocratic strongman cosying up to the Russians.

Trump also dodged questions about whether he supported Ukrainians in their fight for survival following a Russian invasion of their sovereign territory.

When asked repeatedly whether he supported Ukraine, the former president simply ignored the question, and repeated that he would have the issue solved before the presidential swearing-in if he were elected president.

All the post-debate punditry seemed to say that Trump was badly beaten by a better-prepared, calmer Harris who was more presidential in demeanour.

The former president was more into personal attacks than in convincing Americans he was fit to govern.

If he is defeated, Trump’s political effigy should read “Let them eat dog.”

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 July 30, 2018.

OTTAWA—The lazy days of summer are always a good time to draw attention to a political issue. Except when they are not.

Last week’s “emergency session” on asylum seekers managed to secure major media exposure and testimony from three ministers. So the Conservative opposition succeeded in its goal of shining a light into a little-known corner of public policy.

Score one for the Tories. Or maybe not.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel’s abrasive questioning made for great television. But her vitriol actually detracted from any political message.

If anything, the anti-immigrant tone will do more to hurt her party’s brand than help.

Every parliamentary committee these days is a chance to sharpen up a narrative for party platforms in the next election.

By launching hyperbolic asylum-seeker attacks, Rempel has succeeded in aligning herself with the Kelly Leitch view on immigration.

Rempel keeps claiming that she is in favour of newcomers, but her words of support don’t ring true when coupled with exaggerated claims on the public safety front.

More important, as chief critic on immigration, Rempel is sending a message of support for a minority of Canadians who believe closing our borders is the appropriate response to the global call for refugee assistance.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would love nothing better than to run an election surrounded by successful Syrian transplants in contrast to Conservative messaging that Canada’s doors are closing.

Rempel will argue that her position is not anti-immigration. She always prefaces all attacks with statements about support for the role newcomers play in building Canada. But politics is as much about image as it is about substance.

The Conservatives need to soften their approach in order to derail the Trudeau love train in time for the next election.

Last week’s shenanigans had the opposite effect. The hardline questioning resurrected the ghost of anti-immigrant tirades that played so big in the recent Conservative leadership campaign. Kellie Leitch, campaigning for a “Canadian values test,” got support from party extremists but turned off the country.

In the same vein, Leitch, and candidate Chris Alexander damaged party fortunes last time with the infamous press conference promising a snitch line for Canadians to anonymously report on “barbaric cultural practices.”

The last thing the Tories need is to repeat the anti-immigrant messaging that cost them so dearly in the last election.

Former Conservative minister and political panellist James Moore lauded Rempel’s committee performance, congratulating her for bringing the urgency of the border crossing issue to the table. He specifically cited the concerns of Ontario and Quebec as provinces that are looking for federal resettlement support for the issue.

Quebec and Ontario also happen to be the keys to the Canadian political kingdom. Nationalist Quebec has tried to align itself with the Conservatives on the values debate, but the proposed charter of Quebec Values cost the Parti Québécois dearly in the last election.

And even though the election of Doug Ford would seem to signal a move to the right, on immigration issues, the Ontario Progressive Conservatives were noticeably silent.

Bluntly put, it is impossible to get elected in the most multicultural city in Canada on an anti-immigrant platform. So while Ford trumpeted his credentials as a fiscal conservative, he stayed away from exploiting the immigration question during his leadership race and the election.

That doesn’t mean he won’t ask for money to solve the resettlement challenges. But he won’t be setting up his party to run a campaign on it.

Rempel seems to be ramping up her rhetoric, in the dead of summer, to make sure the Tories are on the “right” side of the migration issue.

But she is on the wrong side of Canadian voters.

When it comes to lending a hand to migrants, Canada prides itself on being a welcoming country. That is not going to change any time soon.

Even the most remote communities in the country are happy to welcome newcomers who bring jobs and hope to economies in decline.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer needs to do a quick autopsy on the results of the emergency parliamentary committee before Rempel’s rhetoric does permanent damage to his brand.

Leaving this critic in her current position merely promotes the notion that a Tory Party, tough on crime, will stop all comers at the border.

Even American President Donald Trump could not withstand the public pressure against his administration’s decision to separate border-hopping parents from their children.

Scheer is doing his best to soften the Harperite sharp edges. Rempel is one of them.

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