Justin Trudeau has to do something dramatic to let Canadians know that he really is listening and the capital gains reversal could be it. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 1, 2024.

OTTAWA—Justin Trudeau should pull a Doug Ford.

Apologize and say his government got it wrong when it announced a hike in the capital gains inclusion rate from 50 per cent to 66.7 per cent for annual gains over $250,000.

Premier Ford reversed his controversial position on selling off greenbelt land by simply apologizing and changing his mind. The political fallout from that reversal was nil.

A flip on the capital gains hike could signal that Trudeau is willing to admit when he is wrong.

The budget announcement was one reason Liberals lost a key byelection in Toronto-St. Paul’s last week. According to a demographic analysis of the riding by Environics, the average household income there is $190,945.30.

That is more than double the average before taxes income of $92,764 for the rest of the country.

An apology would reinforce comments made by the prime minister the day after the shocking loss of a riding that had been held by the Liberals for three decades.

Commenting on the outcome, the prime minister said “I hear people’s concerns. And frustrations.”

Simply repeating that he is working to ameliorate the situation will not be enough.

Inside the caucus, members are quietly grumbling about their leader’s unpopularity, predicting a general election could be disastrous if the party’s numbers are not shored up.

Trudeau has to do something dramatic to let Canadians know that he really is listening and the capital gains reversal could be it.

The issue would not matter in most ridings as ordinary Canadians cannot hope to have an annual capital gain in excess of $250,000.

But for those who do, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back in last week’s vote.

That, and the prime minister’s personal unpopularity, were certainly factors in the surprising defeat. They both coupled with the government’s position on the Israel-Hamas war to create a perfect storm.

The war in the Middle East even had the mayor of a Montreal suburb calling on Toronto voters to repudiate Trudeau. Mayor Jeremy Levi of Hampstead used X (Twitter) to literally “implore” voters in Toronto to vote for Don Stewart and Pierre Poilievre.

The mayor accused Trudeau of lying to all Jewish Canadians about his promise to do something to combat antisemitism. “This is no longer about Jews, but a leader who consistently failed.”

Deputy Conservative leader Melissa Lantsman penned a similar message to constituents in the riding, asking them to send Trudeau “a message about his betrayal of our Jewish community” because of his silence on rise of “Jew hatred” since the beginning of the war.

According to the most recent census, approximately 15 per cent of the riding population is Jewish, but Lantsman refused to say whether the letter was sent selectively to Jewish households.

Couple that with the reality that the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church, well-known in political circles as chief of staff to Chrystia Freeland, was largely unknown in the constituency.

According to some Liberal sources, there were other, popular local candidates who were willing to step up when Carolyn Bennett vacated the seat, she had held for a quarter century.

But they were bypassed for Church, largely at the insistence of deputy prime minister Freeland.

Freeland holds an adjacent riding to that of Toronto-St. Paul’s. In University-Rosedale, the demographics are very similar, and with the shocking loss last week, Freeland must also be wondering about the vulnerability of her own seat.

She campaigned hard for Church, suggesting at a press conference on the day of the vote that the election was about “two visions of Canada, two sets of values.” Freeland said the alternative vision to the Liberal one was “cold, cruel and small” that would lead to cuts.

Freeland’s pitch did not appear to resonate with the local voters.

After the polls closed, Conservative organizer Jenni Byrne made an unusual appearance on CBC to say her candidate had lost the election, when a few hours later it turned out the opposite was true.

At 4:30 a.m., the final ballot put Conservative candidate Don Stewart ahead by almost 600 votes. Church had led the polls through most of the evening, but the numbers in the advance voting prompted the flip.

Liberal insiders knew it would be a tough fight, but they thought the tide was turning in their favour in the last few days.

Caucus successors to Trudeau are already quietly organizing, although most pledge public support for the beleaguered leader.

Something dramatic needs to happen to turn this ship around.

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

Liberals would be better off to focus on the good parts of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand and even fewer will be paying.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 24, 2024.

OTTAWA—The Liberals want to pick a fight on capital gains. And Pierre Poilievre is poised for battle.

He has characterized the tax changes announced in the budget as “economic vandalism,” and has taken the unusual step of appearing on mainstream media television to fight the changes.

For her part, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has been leading the charge for the Liberals.

The deputy prime minister repeated her message that richer Canadians would not want to see “the public sphere so degraded,” and that the “wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns hot.”

Not sure about the reference to compatriots? If Liberals want to occupy the political centre, they need to use ordinary language.

Freeland, and compatriot Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez have characterized the capital gains hike as tax fairness.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also publicly defended the changes are a matter of fairness.

He says it is simply not fair that a teacher pays tax on 100 per cent of their income, while a business owner pays taxes only 50 per cent of “passive’ income capital gains hikes.

The last budget proposed a hike to two-thirds of capital gains. In the 1990s, the capital gains tax—pegged at 75 per cent—was even higher.

If Poilievre wants to hike the temperature on taxes, he thinks there are some political points to be scored.

His party was the only one to vote against the proposed capital gains changes, but he has already promised to do a complete revision of the tax system without any specific details.

Depending on where you sit on the political spectrum, the question of fairness is a moving target.

The Fraser Institute—a bastion of conservatism—claimed in a 2023 report that the top 20 per cent of income-earning families in the country pay more than 60 per cent of the taxes.

On the other hand, the Broadbent Institute says those figures are skewed because top earners also account for two-thirds of the nation’s total net wealth, while the bottom 40 per cent of net earners comprise just three per cent.

So just where do Canadians land on what constitutes tax fairness?

This is where the question of who will win the tax fairness fight turns.

Most Canadians who don’t expect a personal tax bite on capital gains have already moved on to other issues in their lives.

Those who do expect to pay a capital gain are hopping mad, and they don’t plan to forget it any time soon.

The Canadian Medical Association says the tax changes will negatively impact on family doctor availability, already at a crisis level in many parts of the country.

They are lobbying, along with their provincial organizations, for an exemption for medical corporations or—at the very least—measures to allow individuals in the corporation to share the exemption threshold in an indexed tax amendment.

According to an Abacus survey commissioned by the CMA, 76 per cent of Canadians with an opinion on the issue felt changes should be reversed for doctors.

The CMA’s president has said that a special exemption should apply to doctors because “We are unique. …We need to be treated that way.”

But if doctors are exempted, then what about farmers, and small business operators in other sectors?

They, too, would like an exemption or a change in the proposed law. And that’s what Poilievre is banking on.

Most Canadians are fully in favour of taxing the rich, as long as it doesn’t include them.

But they have already forgotten about capital gains, and are moving on to other issues.

Affordability, inflation, food prices, and housing are high on their agenda. And they really don’t care about a capital gains change.

So Poilievre is planning to roll up a rather confusing tax change into his attack on the tax-and-spend Liberals.

In the end, the only people currently following the issue closely are those in the top bracket who could be affected by the changes.

As far as they are concerned, it is not fair for them to pay more taxes, and they are not going to be moved by concerns of their compatriots.

Liberals would be much better off to focus on the positive elements of their spend list than pick a fight on a tax increase that few understand, and even fewer will be paying.

The message on dental care, pharmacare, and daycare is positive news for millions of Canadians.

That’s the battle that Liberals should be fighting.

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

The Public Order Emergency Commission may have been the biggest political yawn in commission history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 28, 2022.

OTTAWA—The Public Order Emergency Commission has come to a close. 

It may have been the biggest political yawn in commission history.

Most inquiries dig into the background of political decisions that reveal much to the ordinary public.

From the Krever Inquiry to the Gomery Commission, these proceedings usually provide riveting coverage and fodder for political opponents.

In the case of the Krever Inquiry, formally known as the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, the government was dealing with the thousands of victims of tainted blood from AIDS to hepatitis victims.

Justice John Gomery, through the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, gave us a look into the inner workings of the Liberal Party, and the public was shocked by the exposure of malfeasance.

Then-prime minister Paul Martin, who launched the commission, eventually lost his own job because of the negative fallout.

In the current context, the government will emerge from this inquiry unscathed. If anything, the testimony simply reinforced the need for the federal government to take drastic action to end the illegal blockade.

From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to the testimony of multiple federal ministers, the message was simple: the federal government needed to act because the blockade would have continued if Canada was depending on provincial police forces to remove the occupying truckers.

From testimony evidence, provincial police in Ontario were reluctant to utilize all the tools at their disposal, as their political masters—including Premier Doug Ford—viewed this as an “Ottawa” problem, which would be resolved by the federal government.

On an economic level, the shutdown of the auto industry actually cost the economy and grabbed the attention of the Americans, who were also losing jobs because of the Freed Convoy’s supply chain disruption.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland testified that questions remained long after the blockade ended about how the risk to Canada’s supply chain could inflict serious economic damage in multiple sectors, including the auto and mining sectors.

The testimony gave the public a deep dive into the operations of the federal government, including the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, and the interchange amongst responsible ministers included public safety, transport, security and the economy.

Insofar as the political blowback, certain provincial premiers appeared far more negative in their private communications with federal ministers.

Former premier Jason Kenney was acid in his repartees with some federal ministers. It was obviously clear that political gamesmanship was the key factor in Kenney’s refusal to use provincial powers to end the blockade in Coutts, Alta.

The mayor of Coutts made it clear that he informed the premier’s office early on in the blockade, and said some would characterize the Coutts trucker blockaders as “domestic terrorists.”

He said he personally would not say that because he was actually afraid for his personal safety and that of his family.

Clearly, a small-town mayor in southern Alberta could see the convoy for what it was: a threat to communities that some of his constituents believe warranted the label of terrorist.

He also said that 70 per cent of the citizens in Coutts were supportive of the blockade. However, that support waned after the discovery of a cache of illegal weapons. The arrest of four men charged with conspiracy to commit murder ruined the original non-violent flavour of the protest.

At the end of the commission’s work, the decision that the federal government made will likely be justified.

Canadians have a deeper understanding of the limitations facing the federal government when it comes to jurisdictional conflicts vis-a-vis the authority of local and provincial police.

The fact that no federal opposition parties have taken up the convoy’s cause, including that of convoy supporter Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, is proof positive that the commission’s findings have largely reinforced the government’s decision to implement the Emergency Measures Act.

The commission also made clear how the local Ottawa police leadership failed to recognize the seriousness of the occupation at the beginning of the process.

Former police chief Peter Sloly, who resigned amidst the occupation, appeared unable to manage even his own team. It was clear the municipal government would not be in a position to end the blockade.

However, Ford did express more interest in getting involved when the auto industry was shut down because of the Ambassador Bridge blockade.

In the end, most reasonable Canadians have already concluded that the actions to end the blockade were in keeping with the gravity of the situation.

Now, the Freedom Convoy is calling for a reunion next February.

No bouncy castles this time.

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

One thing they should not forget. A government that has been in power for three terms, even one that has done a terrific job on many files, is starting to look a little frayed around the edges.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 12, 2022.

OTTAWA—The end of summer brings winds of political change.

The Conservative Party of Canada has a new leader. There is no doubt the new leader will have some healing to do. Pierre Poilievre’s main rival, former Quebec premier Jean Charest, made it clear during the race that there was no place for extremism in his vision of the party.

Poilievre played to the extremes, and it worked very well for him.

Party habits may not accurately reflect the public’s perspective. According to a poll published on the eve of his victory, the vast majority of Canadians would not think well of a leader who aligned himself with the Ottawa trucker occupation.

But that hasn’t stopped Poilievre from running on the “freedom” ticket, the same clarion call that came from the “Freedom Convoy” organizers.

In the short term, that will not bode well for Poilievre. But that doesn’t really matter because the Conservatives will likely have more than a year to reposition themselves closer to the political centre.

The Liberals have lived up to their commitment to the New Democrats on the issue of dental care, promising a package that will go out to low-income families in the near term.

While that may not be ambitious enough for Jagmeet Singh, chances are it will be sufficient to ensure the Liberal-NDP agreement will live to see another year.

The Tories will want that time to pivot. And no one should underestimate Poilievre’s power to pivot.

Over the course of his career, he has shown astute political acumen and his communication skills are powerful.

Some may make fun of his recent sortie on plain language government, as it certainly does not seem to be the top-of-mind issue for the political class in Ottawa.

But for most Canadians, who do not follow the machinations of government, the notion that Ottawa would become less complicated is powerful.

That is especially true when it comes to the tax system.

Most people do not want to be bothered with the details of governance, but they like the idea that it is becoming simpler and more plainspoken. It won’t necessarily get Poilievre any votes, but it works to position him as a guy who understands the concerns of ordinary Canadians and is prepared to listen to them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also told cabinet last week that he intends to seek another term.

Party insiders think the election of Poilievre will assist the Liberals in achieving an almost unheard of fourth term in government.

Trudeau’s announcement is not necessarily etched in stone. In fact, it would be unlikely for him to signal anything else this early in his minority mandate.

A departing prime minister is weakened the moment they announce they have no intention of staying on. Most caucus members look to shift their alliance to the new leader as soon as the outgoing one signals their intention.

But cabinet members must be fairly certain he is staying because as soon as that admission was made, rumours were circulating that deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland is looking to leave government to take up a potential position heading up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Freeland is a quick learner. She has only been in politics for seven years, but already she is feeling the itch to move on. If so, she must be convinced that Trudeau is there to stay because otherwise, she was well-positioned to move in and replace him.

The reports that she is looking to jump ship may not be accurate, but once that message gets out, her political capital is spent.

A departing minister doesn’t have too many friends around the table. That leaves an open door for the positioning of other Liberals for the leadership.

One thing they should not forget. A government that has been in power for three terms, even one that has done a terrific job on many files, is starting to look a little frayed around the edges.

Trudeau has carved out a tremendous personal legacy in the areas of Indigenous reconciliation and the battle to lift kids out of poverty.

The dental program will be another step in that direction, along with the childcare agreements being negotiated by Karina Gould with every province.

Unfortunately, people don’t vote for what happened yesterday. They vote on what will happen tomorrow.

So don’t count out Poilievre.

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

There has to be a reasonable way for elected representatives to receive police protection when necessary.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 5, 2022.

OTTAWA—Former energy minister Marc Lalonde used to be accompanied by armed guards when he visited Alberta back in 1980.

As the minister responsible for the introduction of the National Energy Program, he and then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau were hated by many Albertans.

“Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark” was a popular Alberta bumper sticker in the seventies.

Stephen Harper, in his pre-prime ministerial days, advocated for a firewall around Alberta, including a withdrawal from Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan, and replacement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by a provincial force.

Today, a major candidate for the United Conservative Party leadership is calling for Alberta sovereignty.

All this animus is not the result of social media or a twisted citizen. It is a political strategy practiced by some politicians to gain favour with constituents.

Hate sells. Just ask Donald Trump. Divisive campaign slogans drive votes. And if you can convince citizens that a politician from another party is an interloper, that is a guaranteed vote in your corner.

It may be a little rich for politicians who specialize in division to disavow the traitorous and misogynistic claims of an Albertan couple attacking Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Dog whistle politics sends a message out to ordinary citizens. The message is simple: it is okay to attack a politician from another province or party because they are not one of us. They are enemies out to plunder our fields and steal our oil.

Ironically, Freeland was born in Alberta.

As for the misogynistic slur directed at the minister, that should come as no surprise.

The good news about social media is that people can now be filmed saying horrible things, and risk being exposed for the miscreants that they are.

But the content is nothing new.

I was called a slut in the House of Commons. And that didn’t come from a random passerby, the insult was from the mouth of another Member of Parliament in the middle of a heated debate.

I was stalked by a constituent who had already been arrested for attacking a journalist. He entered Hamilton City Hall with a magazine bearing the image of a soldier carrying an Uzi, and slammed it on my mother’s desk. She was an alderman at the time, and he swore at her, and said that was the gun he was going to use to kill me.

I called the RCMP, which was responsible for ministerial protective details. Its local detachment was closed for the weekend, so early the next week, an officer got in touch to discourage me from pressing charges, claiming this action was clearly only the work of one crazy person.

I insisted, and when charges were laid, it was discovered that the individual had already stabbed a journalist.

Regular death threats, and a brick through my office window were common. My provincial counterpart, New Democrat Bob Mackenzie, suffered the firebombing of his office. The perpetrator, an angry constituent, was never arrested.

Those incidents occurred in one riding in one city in Canada.

Threats to politicians are nothing new. It will only be a matter of time before someone’s verbal attacks go deadly.

The government has ordered a review of Freeland’s security. But it should actually undertake a review of security measures for all Members of Parliament, especially when they are outside of Ottawa. Round-the-clock security may not be the answer, but there has to be a reasonable way for elected representatives to receive police protection when necessary.

An angry constituent can quickly turn into a dangerous constituent.

And the level of respect that used to be afforded politicians of all political stripes has gone by the wayside.

People think nothing of parading a Fuck Trudeau poster in their truck window or on their property. That is not against the law, but violent language can lead to violence.

The number of Canadians embracing the rhetoric of the Ottawa anti-vaxx occupiers is truly disturbing. Those politicians who align themselves with anti-democracy movements are also contributing to the problem.

Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre characterized the Freeland attack as “unacceptable” and said he has hired a private security firm to protect his wife from social media attacks.

But Poilievre’s whole campaign has been based on the same dynamic of people versus elites.

With the advent of social media, everyone is a critic. Civil discourse is past history.

But politicians who use venom as their tool of choice must bear some of the responsibility.

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

When Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh announced their confidence and supply agreement, they were replicating a similar Liberal-New Democratic minority government move a half century ago.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 28, 2022.

OTTAWA—There is a reason we say history repeats itself.

Because it does. We only have to watch the unfolding despotic massacre in the Ukraine to see a repetition of the slow-moving Second World War commitment by the Allies.

Just last week, politicians finally acknowledged what the world has witnessed. Vladimir Putin is a war criminal. He is breaking all the rules by bombing innocent civilians in his attempt to carry out a human annihilation that breaks all the rules of international armed combat.

Even close Russian allies are starting to have doubts, with two senior advisers resigning and fleeing the country in the past few days.

At home, we see another example of history repeating itself. When Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh announced their confidence and supply agreement, they were replicating a similar Liberal-New Democratic minority government move a half century ago.

The 1972 election yielded a Liberal minority with Pierre Trudeau as prime minister and David Lewis as leader of the NDP. By working together, the pair introduced new initiatives such as the creation of Petrocan, a national Crown corporation designed to manage Canadian oil and gas supplies.

Their agreement was not a formalized one, as Lewis was worried that too much co-operation might assist the Liberals more, so his party withdrew its support after two years, prompting the 1974 election.

Lewis was right. The Liberals were rewarded for this cooperative period with a majority while the New Democrats were reduced to a rump with Lewis losing his own seat.

The same thing happened to Liberals in Ontario when leader David Paterson negotiated an agreement with then NDP leader Bob Rae to take over after the minority election of 1985.

Rae also initiated discussions with Progressive Conservative leader Frank Miller, whose party had four more seats than the Grits.

But in the end, the program negotiated with Peterson won the day and the formalized agreement resulted in a Liberal-NDP accord, in which the New Democrats agreed to support the Liberals for two years.

Once the two-year agreement lapsed, the Liberals called an election and ended up winning the second largest majority in the history of Ontario politics.

But Rae’s reduced party hung in there, and when Peterson called a premature election in 1990, to everyone’s surprise, the New Democrats formed a strong majority government.

The current federal Liberal-NDP agreement gives the government double the amount of breathing room that existed in the Peterson-Rae accord.

By introducing certainty, the Trudeau-Singh agreement takes the drama out of federal politics until 2025. That may be a good thing for them. But it certainly takes the guesswork out of politics.

And observers like guesswork.

In a minority, there is always an open question about when the government might fall, but this has been replaced by a road map of aggressive social programs that will dominate public discourse.

National pharmacare and dental care have been firmly vaulted to the front of the government’s agenda in Ottawa.

As Jagmeet Singh said last week, he didn’t know whether it would help his party win, but the programs would certainly help people.

All in all, there is a significant public appetite for parties wanting to work together.

And the vitriolic response to the agreement from the Conservatives may actually have been overstated.

Ordinary Canadians like it when political parties manage to co-operate instead of fight. It runs counter to the general view that politicians spend all their time bickering.

Pharmacare and dental care may end up being much more costly than has been predicted. And that could certainly give some credence to the Conservative cry that the Liberal government is running a reckless deficit.

Depending on what happens with inflation and the ballooning deficit, the agreement may also put some pressure on Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s ambitions. If she is going for the brass ring, she has to be able to keep the country’s finances in check as a first step to the prime minister’s chair.

The agreement also runs counter to the separatists’ view that Quebec should have ownership over all decisions in health care. That could open the door to a resurgence of the Bloc.

But on the principle of dental and drug coverage, most Quebecers probably don’t care who delivers but would simply embrace the new benefits.

In the end, Singh may become the father of dental care, following in the footsteps of another NDP leader, Saskatchewan’s Tommy Douglas.

If history repeats itself, the party rewarded for this agreement in the next election will be the Liberals.

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

The world sees that Russia is engaged in war crimes. U.S. President Joe Biden continues to insist that at this point in time, the accusation cannot be made.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 7, 2022.

OTTAWA—American President Joe Biden is a political survivor. But that comes with its own challenges.

As a member of Congress, he was able to work both sides of the aisle and build bi-partisan legislation.

But in the world of war there are no bi-partisans. And that is the problem he is facing as European leaders push the envelope while Biden keeps trying to find compromise.

The world sees that Russia is engaged in war crimes. Biden continues to insist that at this point in time, the accusation cannot be made.

Perhaps the deadliest political moment was the American offer to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to flee the Ukrainian capital. His retort will go down in history. “The fight is here; I need anti-tank ammo, not a ride.”

While British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is well-known for bombast, in this instance, bombast works.

A psychopathic bully like Vladimir Putin will only respond to force. The notion that soft words are a path to peace rings hollow.

While the Ukrainian people literally fight for their lives, the American president seems strangely detached.

He still has a chance to turn it around, but it better happen quickly. While Russian bombs are targeting childcare centres and hospitals, it is time for NATO to declare and enforce a no-fly zone over the Ukraine.

Of course, this will be viewed as an act of war by Putin, but he is banking on the fact that his opponents will be afraid to unleash his ire with a direct act inside Ukrainian borders.

But it will push him back and stem the bleeding that is currently happening inside the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

An opportunity to push Putin back will also allow time for international financial sanctions to bite deeper into his pocket and those of his friends and allies.

Only a week ago, the German government said no to offering more weapons and closing down SWIFT to Russian banks.

In a stunning reversal, the Germans are leading the charge in ways to frustrate Putin’s war.

That response was prompted by public horror at what was happening in the Ukraine. And as more pictures of maimed and murdered women and children emerge, the international horror will only mount.

So why doesn’t Biden lead the charge instead of appearing to play follow the European leader?

In the same way that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a peacemaker by nature, Biden’s first instinct is to find a diplomatic way out.

Putin keeps saying that he is ready for a diplomatic solution, but actions speak louder than words.

In Canada, the war cabinet is looking very strong. With the Ukrainian roots of the deputy prime minister, it is obvious to all that Chrystia Freeland is personally invested in saving her family’s homeland.

As finance minister, she also has the tools to cut off the money supply to the murderers. Freeland has been working incessantly to bring her European partners onside for deeper and stronger financial sanctions.

Defence Minister Anita Anand has also risen to the occasion, appearing composed and knowledgeable on the military deployment and arms procurement process for the effort.

With Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly rounding out the triumvirate, it is the first time in Canadian history that three women have led an international war effort on behalf of our country. These women are also potential successors to the prime minister. Despite that internal competition, they all appear to be working well in tandem.

The huge Ukrainian diaspora in Canada is also politically important for the government.

Canada boasts the largest community of Ukrainians outside the Ukraine. Their high level of political involvement makes them very important to any party that hopes to form government.

In the Greater Toronto Area, Ukrainians can make the difference in several ridings in west Toronto, Mississauga, and Hamilton.

Likewise, Winnipeg and Edmonton have strong Ukrainian ties and the community is not only working to promote government action but many are returning to Ukraine to join the battle for the homeland.

The world of sport is also stepping up to the plate, with international federations cancelling events in Russia and tossing their teams from global competition.

The world is definitely ahead of the NATO politicians.

But that gives Biden the chance to follow his finely honed political instincts and build back some political support.

The more Putin is isolated, the easier it will be for NATO to provide real support to the Ukrainian people.

The no-fly zone is the only way to stop this insanity.

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

In the end, the only party that really ended up ahead at year’s end is the Bloc. But this party also has the benefit of never having to be held accountable for what it might do in government as it vows never to form government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 20, 2021.

OTTAWA—As the year draws to a close, it is time to reflect on politics past and future.

In the past year, the governing Liberals limped out of an election, barely making any inroads into their dream of a governing majority.

In the past year, the newly-minted Conservative leader dreamed that this was his party’s time to form government. He opened with a slick campaign brochure that promised change, but everything cratered during the campaign.

In the past year, the New Democratic Party leader was crowned by young people as the king of TikTok. But in the end, his clock ran out as too many followers simply did not turn out to vote.

In the past year, the Green Party leader went from breaking through a glass ceiling only to be covered in shards as her party imploded in internal infighting.

In the past year, the Bloc leader went from being almost forgotten in the House of Commons to reinserting himself in the public domain with a strong election effort.

In the end, the only party that really ended up ahead at year’s end is the Bloc. But this party also has the benefit of never having to be held accountable for what it might do in government as it vows never to form government.

So the new year offers opportunity for all political parties. In the case of the government, being in command of a progressive agenda will heal a lot of the wounds caused by an aborted attempt at a majority.

The childcare agreements with almost every provincial and territorial government are a great place to start. In addition, the all-party decision to move ahead with a ban on conversion therapy, showed that parties can accomplish much when they work together.

Continued management of the COVID situation will dominate politics for everyone in the new year, but if the government manages the Omicron threat well, the Liberals will be the greatest beneficiary of public support.

As for the Conservatives, the first step in the right direction was the unanimous support for the anti- conversion bill. The new year will provide opportunities for Erin O’Toole to continue to make movement toward the moderate middle. The only thing holding him back is the right-wing pull in his own party. And with an 18-month review process roiling inside the party, his freedom as a leader is certainly curtailed.

His party also needs to moderate its image as a collection of angry, white men. The finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, while a wonderful wordsmith, simply creates the impression that his work is being done for Bay Street and not for Main Street. While Poilievre is anxious to tag Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland as the inflation minister, most Canadians still don’t think the moniker fits.

As there is inflationary pressure worldwide, it is pretty hard to hang that problem on a single minister in a single government. Poilievre is no doubt banking on the fact that growing inflationary pressures will become a potent political tool for the Tories. That remains to be seen, but in the meantime, his overheated rhetoric could not pass a reality test.

In the new year, the New Democrats need to flex their muscles in Parliament to ensure that any legislation gets their seal of approval. Otherwise they risk being eclipsed by the government in the field of progressive politics. They also need to start spreading the news about their team. The current messaging is so fixated on the leader that it is hard for anyone to recognize the bench strength in Jagmeet Singh’s party. He has some excellent performers who need to take centre stage in the battle for the hearts and minds of Canadians.

In the new year, the Green Party needs to go back to the future, with emphasis on its roots and why the party was created in the first place. Internecine warfare based on Middle East politics is not going to win the party any support. And with a swathe of doctorates around the political table, one has to wonder who is able to guide the party back to a winning path.

With an unexpected breakthrough in Ontario, when Kitchener Centre sent Mike Morrice to Parliament, there is an opportunity to rebuild the party from scratch. Their interim leader, nonbinary astrophysicist Amita Kuttner certainly has her work cut out for her.

As we sweep out the old to ring in the new, all parties have a chance to right their respective ships. Happy Holidays.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only do we have strong women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right to the top.

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

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.