But by associating with these extremists, Tory appeal to ordinary Canadians is diminished. Short-term gain for long-term pain.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 31, 2022.

OTTAWA—Hundreds of anti-vaxx truckers descended on Ottawa on Saturday and the longer the convoy actually goes on, the more the Conservatives seem to be tangled in the anti-vaccination web.

Now even the New Democrats have been embroiled in the drama after the brother–in-law of NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh donated $13,000 to support the convoy.

According to Singh’s office, his relative did not fully understand what the convoy was up to and has now applied to have his funds reimbursed through a GoFundMe process.

Meanwhile, the truckers are rolling in the dough with more than $6-million already collected in support of the convoy.

With the funding come questions as to exactly what the money will be used for. Tamara Lich, convoy organizer, is associated with the Maverick Party, a separatist movement in Alberta. She also launched the GoFundMe page which has been under review by the funding platform because of questions about the transparency of the flow of funds and the plan for disbursement.

However, the truckers have no support from any official provincial or national trucking organization. The international vaccine requirement for truckers was instituted both by Canada and the United States, effective mid-January. Almost 90 per cent of international truckers are already vaccinated so convoy protesters represent a very small number of commercial trucking operations.

Truckers are actually ahead of the rest of Canada when it comes to the numbers of fully vaccinated workers.

That hasn’t seemed to stop the Conservatives from throwing their support behind the movement, with vocal, high-profile approval from former leader Andrew Scheer and current deputy leader Candice Bergen.

Likewise, leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis has accused the vaccine mandate of promoting segregation. Outspoken critic Pierre Poilievre has called the federal requirement a “vaccine vendetta.”

As usual, leader Erin O’Toole is sending out a confusing vaccine message. On the one hand, he refused last week to say whether he planned to meet with truckers, but his caucus was collecting signatures for a petition seeking the reversal of the vaccine mandate for federal workers and international truckers.

If the GoFundMe response is any indication, the Tories could raise a lot of money by jumping on the anti-vaxx wagon. But they also risk alienating a huge percentage of the population that is simply fed up with the refusal of anti-vaxxers to consider science and society in defending their positions.

Just last week, Canadian musical icon Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify after the music streaming platform refused to drop anti-vaxxer and podcaster Joe Rogan. In another health twist, a Boston hospital patient was removed from the wait-list for a heart transplant after refusing to be vaccinated.

The hospital explained its decision by saying vaccination is a lifestyle behaviour “required for transplant candidates … in order to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation.”

The medical community is unanimous, and the public is not far behind, in Canada and globally.

Tennis whiz Novak Djokovic was literally run out from Down Under after failing to meet Australian Open tennis vaccination requirements. Djokovic said he was planning on studying the matter further after he was deported. He faces the same requirement for the upcoming French Open and apparently may take a pass there as well.

Bearing the new nickname NoVax, Djokovic has allied himself with the same group of vaccine deniers who came to Ottawa.

Some of the Canadian protesters have even gone so far as to suggest they wanted to replicate the Jan. 6 takedown of the American capital, which resulted in five deaths.

Two Canadian convoy participants were photographed—one wearing a Donald Trump MAGA hat and the other wearing a yellow star of David—mimicking the Nazi requirement for Jewish identification.

Convoy organizers have distanced themselves from racist supporters but that didn’t stop white supremacist Paul Fromm from tweeting “I pray this is Canada’s Budapest, 1956, when patriots and ordinary citizens rose up and overthrew tyranny.”

With so few anti-vaxxers, why would the Conservatives even bother to align themselves with the so-called “Canada Unity Convoy.”

Some of it is about building a power base, with petitioners getting embedded into future Conservative communications. Some is about raising money, because the angry folks attached to this convoy are ripe for campaign donation pitches.

But by associating with these extremists, Tory appeal to ordinary Canadians is diminished.

Short-term gain for long-term pain.

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

The plethora of warnings and onerous test results will keep all but the most intrepid traveller from venturing across to the United States anytime soon.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 18, 2021.

OTTAWA—The Canadian southern border is opening up, but don’t expect a flood of travel anytime soon.

The plethora of warnings and onerous test results will keep all but the most intrepid traveller from venturing across to the United States anytime soon.

Many border communities depend on travellers crossing the border for a day or two, investing a few dollars into the local economy and getting a break from the drudgery of daily chores.

But the Canadian government’s testing paranoia will make that possibility very nearly impossible.

To enter Canada, even as a fully vaccinated person, you need to have a PCR test that actually spins your DNA in a lab to guarantee your COVID-free status.

That test payment hovers around $200 U.S. on average, and at most American airports, it can be secured for between $250 and $350 U.S. per person.

At that price, the possibility of crossing the border for a night on the town is just about nil. No one in their right mind is willing to pay that kind of a travel premium just for the pleasure of breaking bread in another country.

The testing system for getting out of the country is less onerous. Right now, the Americans will accept an antigen test, which analyses your body’s protein to see whether you are COVID-free. That test is currently offered free to unvaccinated school teachers in Ontario for twice-weekly personal testing. But to Jane Q. public, the drug store charge is $40.

That is a lot more affordable than the outrageous cost of PCR testing, but consumers are still being gouged. Some European destinations are charging $1 for antigen tests while private clinics in Canada get up to $100 for administering the same test, which can be used within 72 hours as proof that you are travel ready.

Price-gouging and onerous test requirements will definitely discourage travellers from both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.

And that is just fine with the Canadian government, because it really does not want you to travel anyway.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland tried to discreetly rationalize the open border announcement with an ongoing government directive to avoid international travel.

She suggested Canadians follow the Toronto public health officer’s advice to “just try to do the things you need to do and maybe hold back on the things you just want to do.”

So even though the border opening was lauded by many, it is clearly not the wish of the government that Canadians start moving.

But those border communities that are starving for business might feel differently.

Canadian Chamber of Commerce president Perrin Beatty is urging the government to scrap generalized travel advisories in favour of individuated advice focused on the situation in specific countries or regions.

Beatty characterized the current blanket travel advisories as being in the category of “stay home or you will die” and asked the government to review it.

Freeland herself was in Washington when she was suggesting that Canadians do only what is necessary when it comes to travel.

In reality, the in-person appearances that are currently being made internationally by ministers could also be carried out digitally. So, Freeland could choose to stay home and make her point in the virtual bubble.

The fact that she is not doing so underscores the point made by Beatty that we are almost fully vaccinated and know a lot more about the spread of COVID than we did a year ago.

We know how to protect ourselves by getting vaccinated, practising social distancing, and wearing masks.

Pre-vaccination, global gatherings were virtual. And leaders from all countries were able to participate and get their point across in a virtual way.

With the shield of double vaccination, leaders are starting to meet internationally again. That is a healthy development. But it cannot be only applied for political leaders or travelling salespeople.

The Canadian government should have a plan to encourage the same safe movement for ordinary Canadians.

As leaders start cautiously fanning out to meetings across the world, citizens should be encouraged to start travelling with proper precautions.

Advising people to stay home while politicians travel is hypocritical.

The lockdown advice also runs counter to mounting evidence that risks from social isolation can quickly outstrip that of viral exposure.

Increasing depression and mental health problems have been a by-product of Covid lockdowns.

The government should stop stoking Canadians’ travel fears. It should be issuing sound advice on safe travels.

Open borders need to be matched by open minds.

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

Even if Donald Trump is defeated on Nov. 3, and that is by no means a certainty, the differences that mark our two countries will only continue to grow

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 19, 2020.

OTTAWA—Has Donald Trump damaged Canada-United States relations irreparably?

According to a Focus Canada poll published in The Globe and Mail last week, Canadians’ view of our southern neighbour has sunk to the lowest level since those statistics have been collected.

The polling consortium included the Environics Institute, the University of Ottawa and the Century Initiative.

The number of Canadians who consider the United States an enemy has jumped from one per cent to 11 per cent in the past seven years.

Roland Paris, a political science professor and former adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quoted as saying the worsening of Canada’s view was largely a result of attitudes toward American president Donald Trump. Paris said the number of Canadians who consider the United States an enemy “is more an expression of frustration and alienation than the actual belief that the United States represents an enemy.”

But I am not so sure.

The Senate hearings into the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett shine a light into what is really going on in the United States.

That a candidate for the Supreme Court could claim the president does not have to abide by Supreme Court decisions is outrageous. Her public claim that it was an “open question” as to whether the president could pardon himself is startling. Barrett said she would have to study the issue before rendering a decision on it.

She also refused to weigh in on a defeated Trump’s potential refusal to leave office and was silent on the constitutionality of voter intimidation and deliberate attempts to discredit the election process.

She also refused to affirm the legality of mail-in ballots, claiming that it was “a matter of policy that I can’t express a view.”

Even after Trump has left office, the chief constitutionalists of the country are likely to be Supreme Court judges who are not prepared to defend against potential fraud in the White House.

By all accounts, Barrett’s nomination will sail through the Senate hearing process, as there are more Senators who want to anoint her than oppose her.

What does that say about the state of democracy in a country with or without Donald Trump as its leader?

The majority of Senators are willing to support a Supreme Court nominee, not because of her constitutional knowledge, but rather because of her religious beliefs. It is well known that Barrett is opposed to abortion and has already spoken out against the legal decision of Roe versus Wade that provides the basis for legal abortions in the United States. Barrett refused to be pinned down on the matter during the Senate hearings, but she has previously joined groups and signed petitions opposing all abortions.

That runs counter to the view of the majority of Americans, but aligns with the core of religious zealots who have lined up to re-elect Trump.

The fact that Trump still garners 42 per cent support just two weeks before the vote is a reflection, not just of the president, but of the state of politics in the United States.

The fact that no moderate Republicans have crossed the floor to vote with the Democrats and block the Barrett nomination is a further signal of how powerful the religious right has become in the last number of years.

Senator Lindsay Graham, in a dead heat in his own bid for re-election, has flipped his opposition to the early nomination and is now leading the charge to see her confirmed before the November 3 election day.

All that to say that even after Trump is no longer the president, the cleavage between Canadian and American viewpoints is growing.

Only 22 per cent of Canadians surveyed believe that Canada is getting more like the United States. For the first time since the question has been asked, more Canadians felt our country is becoming less like America. Thirty-five per cent of those polled held that view this year, compared with only nine per cent back in 2001.

The trend lines are definitely continuing as Canada and the United States go in distinctly different directions.

In addition to the Trump effect, Canadians referenced American racial unrest and its inept response to COVID 19 as reasons why they believe the two countries are growing apart.

Canadians continue to view our American neighbour with growing indifference. Some are even openly hostile.

Even if Trump is defeated on Nov. 3, and that is by no means a certainty, the differences that mark our two countries will only continue to grow.

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

As long as Donald Trump is in office, he will continue to promote despots and dictators over democrats. He would rather befriend Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 30, 2020.

OTTAWA—Donald Trump’s border threat confirms what we already know.

The president of the United States is no friend of ours.

Of course, our prime minister cannot say that publicly. Deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland tied herself into a pretzel to avoid commenting on internal American border patrol decisions.

She wants to ensure that we have a working relationship with friends in the administration who believe in the friendship between the two countries.

But Trump obviously does not.

There is a significant amount of irony in the president’s threat to send the army to protect his northern borders.

The protection on the northern border is really needed on the Canadian side, because the confused, chaotic COVID-19 response in the United States has the potential to infect Canada.

Frankly the fewer American travellers crossing over into our country, the better.

Canada has done a decent job of trying to flatten the curve, and the federal/provincial cooperation on our side of the border is visible.

Daily press conferences from the federal government and various provincial leaders have been harmonized, both in messaging and delivery.

Compare that to the American tragicomedy unfolding between the president and the country’s top specialist in infectious diseases.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had provided advice to six successive presidents, and was called upon to join the president’s task force on the coronavirus.

The collaboration was fine until Trump decided that he would ignore the science and encourage people to stop self-isolating and socialize more.

To Fauci’s credit, he publicly contradicted the president, succinctly stating the government doesn’t decide the timeframe, the virus does.

But as soon as Fauci crossed the president, he suddenly disappeared from any joint announcements on the White House coronavirus strategy.

Fauci will obviously not support the president’s attempts to minimize the benefits of self-isolation. The notion that Americans should flock to public gatherings at Easter is akin to signing a death warrant for thousands of people who are vulnerable to the virus.

But the president’s crazy claims have lots of support. Just last week, the lieutenant-governor of Texas backed the president’s call to shorten the social distancing timeframe, even though he acknowledged that it could cost lives. Dan Patrick stepped in to back Trump’s call to end the social isolation in favour of the economy, stating that grandparents would be willing to sacrifice their lives for the economy.

Patrick claimed the United States would be finished if the coronavirus keeps people in their homes for another three months.

But the scientists tell us that if we refuse to keep our distance from others, the virus will simply rebound and gather more strength.

The last few weeks have provided a pretty good snapshot of the benefits of universal health care versus the American health hodgepodge.

In our country, federal and provincial health ministers are working together to provide the support for frontline workers fighting the spread of this disease.

The prime minister and premiers are collaborating to ensure the economic damage to workers and companies is backstopped with government support.

One only needs to switch between Canadian and American television networks to witness the difference in our approaches to COVID-19-virus fighting.

And if you don’t believe the anecdotal evidence, just review the numbers. The United States has now become the epicentre of the virus. As of last Thursday, more than 1,000 Americans had died from the virus, compared to 35 Canadians. One-third of the American deaths occurred in New York, which borders our country.

So, the one thing that soldiers at the border could accomplish is keeping Americans on their side of the fence.

It is a sad day when the world’s longest undefended border reverts to army protection. And it also is a testament to the fragility of our bilateral relationship.

But at the end of the day, anything that discourages traffic between Canada and the United States can only benefit us.

As long as Donald Trump is in office, he will continue to promote despots and dictators over democrats. He would rather befriend Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

The North Korean despot was reported on social media to have executed the first corona virus sufferer in his country, although that posting has not been confirmed.

If Trump proceeds with his plan to arm his northern border, we can return the favour by limiting American traffic.

Trump’s plan may actually help keep COVID-19 out of Canada.

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

OTTAWA—President Donald Trump’s free-range press conference last week simply confirmed the obvious.

He suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder that distorts reality and creates his own alternative truth.

The first sign of a potential disorder was his claim that world leaders were laughing with him when he told the United Nations that he was amongst the greatest presidents in the history of his country.

That claim prompted a collective guffaw from an astonished audience, to which the president sheepishly remarked that he did not expect that reaction.

But in a subsequent effort to explain away the embarrassment, he claimed that the group was actually laughing with him.

It was as though they were sharing a joke together, but instead they were laughing at him because the incredible pomposity of the president of the United States has made him a joke on the international stage.

He obviously believes his alternative truth. Trump has spent so much of his presidential energy preaching to the converted that he may have no idea of the negative world reaction to his bluster.

Politicians usually spend too much time in cocoons of their own making. The closer you get to the top, the less you are exposed to comments from those who disagree with you. Power has a way of shutting out genuine dissent, as people usually tell a leader what she or he wants to hear.

But a good politician will try and stay close to the people. In Trump’s case, that means the same people that got him into the White House.

Hillary Clinton referred to them as a “basket of deplorables.” That comment probably cost her the presidency but there is truth in the characterization of certain alt-right, neo-Nazis who support the president.

Trump’s press performance did not stop there. He moved on to personally attack key Canadian negotiators of the North American Free Trade Agreement. His focus zeroed in on Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. He reiterated his annoyance by deliberately snubbing the prime minister at the UN luncheon.

The awkward moment when Justin Trudeau tried to shake Trump’s hand, was caught on camera. Trudeau tried to make the best of a bad situation, explaining away the obvious slight as simply a preoccupation with the papers Trump was reading. But the president’s continued personal attacks on Canada belied Trudeau’s calm exterior.

Trump holds most of the cards in the NAFTA game. And while public bravado is the only tack the Canadian team can take, internally the team must be roiling about the possibility of economic fallout from the absence of a deal.

Trump made a vocal threat to impose heavy excise taxes Canadians autos. That move would definitely send the Canadian economy into a tailspin.

But to hear Trump publicly attack Canada, at the same time he is extolling his relationship with Kim Jung Un is simply too much.

Trump’s numerous late-night tweets are vicious but short, but the press conference last week laid bare the thinking of a president who really does like North Korea more than Canada.

During the press conference, Trump said he would continue to support the Kurdish people because they fought side by side with Americans in Iraq.

But Trump’s knowledge of history must be limited. Canada fought beside the United States in two world wars, and has been a greater friend to that country than any other partner.

In addition, our defence forces have worked side by side in Afghanistan and other hot spots around the world.

As far as Trump is concerned, that pales in comparison to cows.

Trump has made it very clear from the beginning that the farmers in Wisconsin are waiting for a return on their election investment.

The Americans have their own forms of agricultural protectionism but they see Canada’s system of supply management as a NAFTA hill to die on.

Trudeau and Freeland will be loathe to ignore the signals. Their commitment to the Canadian dairy industry stands firm, but they certainly cannot afford to throw the rest of Canada’s economy under the bus.

So while the public posture is firm, negotiators need to put something on the table that will allow Trump to boast about his alternative win.

That may not be too hard to do. He has consistently claimed victory with North Korea even though most observers see little progress on the denuclearization front.

It is frightening to see Trump’s alternative truth exposed on the world stage.

But that is the world he lives in.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, February 13, 2017 with The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Canada shares the longest open border in the world with the United States. Canadians would obviously like to keep it that way.

The Monday meeting between the prime minister and U.S. President Donald Trump will be key to that outcome.

At first blush, the two leaders are very different. Not only are they separated by age. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s political values are very different to Trump’s.

But Trudeau grew up with considerable family wealth and notoriety, in circumstances similar to Trump. Trudeau also spent much of his life in the public eye.

The Trudeau brand has been widely known around the world, rivalling that of the Trump brand.

Pierre Trudeau made a name for himself as a leader willing to break with tradition. He built new alliances, from early recognition of the People’s Republic of China to north-south political emphasis on Cuba and Latin America.

Political leaders still positively remember the influence of Pierre Trudeau on international public policy and will be watching this meeting closely.

As for Trump, his first weeks in office have not been well-received internationally. First came Trump’s fight with Mexico, then his disdain for China and two weeks ago was dominated by reports of a nasty telephone call with the prime minister of Australia.

To date, Trump’s strongest relationships appear to be with Russian president Vladimir Putin, and Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe.

Thus far, Canada has not been on Trump’s radar. Trudeau’s visit will be an exercise in keeping it that way.

There is considerable risk attached to the outcome of the meeting.

Most of the risk is on Canadian shoulders. With our small population and integrated economy, Canada stands to lose the most in a trade war with Trump. Much of our interconnection, from the beginnings of the auto pact, to bilateral steel and lumber agreements, is dependent on stable political relationships between the two leaders.

Prime ministers and presidents do not have to like each other, but they need to be able to work together for the benefit of both countries.

On the other hand, the political culture of both sides is so different that appeasement on religious discrimination is an absolute non-starter in Canada, while it appears to be relatively popular in the United States.

If Trudeau is too accommodating, he risks facing the ire of a considerable number of citizens back home who want the prime minister to fight back.

Trump’s controversial travel ban targeting specific Muslim countries requires push-back from the Canadian leader. The attempted revocation of Nexus privileges for Canadian residents born in specified Muslim countries is a clear violation of the anti-discrimination privileges in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It needs a clear response.

At the same time, the economic risk to our bilateral relationship cannot be overstated.

Ottawa needs good relations in Washington to proceed on multiple economic fronts, from pipelines to the automotive sector to fisheries to softwood lumber.

Even our travellers benefit from a smoothly integrated border relationship. Every time a Canadian plane lands in a major American airport, our travellers are quickly moved through a preferred line, side by side with Americans.

A seamless relationship is key to both economies.

When Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland met with Republican Congressional Speaker Paul Ryan last week, she was armed with statistics about the importance of those relationships for the economy in his district. In turn, Ryan countered with the perennial request that Canada open its borders for dairy farmers from Wisconsin.

Canadian ministers have been working hard in Washington to prepare for the prime minister’s meeting with President Trump.

They are reinforcing the message that any threatened imposition of tariffs would hurt both economies.

There are other important issues at stake in this first meeting. Trump’s targeted attack on Muslims has left most Canadians cold. The president neglected to tweet any reference to the Quebec City mosque attack, even though he did call the prime minister to offer help.

The controversy over the travel ban and Trump’s insistence on building a Mexican border wall have both provoked anger in Canada that should be reflected in Trudeau’s messaging.

If he is too passive, our prime minister runs the risk of international and domestic rancour. There have already been some Mexican rumblings that Canada is siding with the United States against the third amigo in the North American Free Trade agreement.

If Trudeau is too aggressive, he could become another high-profile target in Trump’s world tweet war.

The Monday meeting requires a delicate balance.

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

Published on Monday, January 16, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The new year cabinet changes in Canada and the United States are a keen study in just how different our two countries really are.

With the departure of Stéphane Dion and John McCallum, the face of the Liberal government is even younger and more diverse.

Dion and McCallum had decades of experience in government. Their departures deplete the experiential depth and breadth of the cabinet.

Most ministers don’t only manage their own departments and responsibilities. They may weigh in on major national issues, which impact on the government and the whole country.
 
Prime minister Jean Chrétien’s decision not to join the war on Iraq, was seen as seminal. Chrétien’s four decades in Parliament played a role in that decision, but he also consulted multiple cabinet members, especially those with lengthy political experience.

Youth has the benefit of energy and drive, but with age comes wisdom. History often repeats itself, which is why some wizened faces in cabinet are a good thing.

The deeper Trudeau goes into his mandate, the more he will need to count on colleagues with experience to weather difficult storms.

The youthfulness of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself has been key in attracting a whole new generation of engaged young people. His commitment on issues like marijuana managed to engage a new generation, one that previously had no interest in government.

That intergenerational change has served the Liberals well but it also has limitations.

Maryam Monsef came to cabinet with high expectations but had no political experience. She inherited a treacherous portfolio which could have used a veteran’s touch. Her successor is also a newbie. Karina Gould has impressive international organizational experience which could be a useful training ground for this tricky portfolio.

In his first wave of American appointments, the cabinet of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump is getting older and whiter.

Neither change should surprise us. Politicians promote those with whom they feel the closest connection.

Young leaders generally encourage younger faces, while older leaders can be more comfortable with those of their own age, gender, and race.

Women often support other women. Leaders hailing from minority communities work hard to recruit those from diverse cultures and races. U.S. President Barack Obama’s cabinet was a reflection of his own personal life experience.

Hillary Clinton surrounded herself with strong women and her team reflected a real gender change that, had she won, would have radically changed the face of the American administration.

Trump is a white, 70-year-old business man. It should surprise no one that most of those whom he has elevated to his cabinet are white businessmen.

For those Americans witnessing the changing face of Washington, it must be tough to see so few minority appointees at the table. It is as though the last 30 years of civil rights progress has been erased and Jim Crow is back to rule the roost.

The visible lack of diversity is one thing. Even more troubling is the fact that some cabinet viewpoints are a real throwback to America’s racist past.

Trump’s choice for attorney general is so polarizing that he is being publicly opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

Seventy-year-old Senator Jeff Sessions voted against hate crimes legislation, and publicly questioned whether women, gays, lesbians and transgendered even face discrimination.

Thirty years ago, an attempt by then president Ronald Reagan to make Sessions a district court judge was rejected by a Republican-dominated Senate committee.

Apparently, this brand of conservatism is more palatable today than it was in the eighties.

By most accounts, Senator Sessions has not changed.

But America has. The deep racial divide reinforced by this appointment is a glaring example of the growing differences between Canada and the United States.

It is easy to understand the frustration of civil rights activists and feminists confronted with a proposed cabinet appointment that is so controversial. How can the attorney general be trusted to promote human rights and protect the judicial gains for women and minorities if he does not believe in them himself?

New Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will, no doubt, make the case in Washington that Canada continues as the best friend and neighbour of the United States. She will be smart enough to avoid making a gratuitous enemy of President Trump.

Trudeau will make sure he is not caught in the crossfire in potential trade disputes.

Canadian jobs are too dependent on our interconnectedness. Trudeau has nothing to gain by accenting Yankee-Canuck differences.

But last week’s cabinet changes in both countries speak louder than words.

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