Foreign interference allegations are not limited to China. Recent reports of Russian interference have also surfaced. Politics is always a messy business. With identity politics, it will get even messier.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 20, 2023.

OTTAWA—Surprise, surprise: the first political casualty of the Chinese interference allegations was an Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP. Vincent Ke resigned last week from the PC caucus, despite characterizing the allegations as “false and defamatory.”

Ke tweeted his departure. “While the Global News allegations about me are false and defamatory, I do not want to be a distraction to the government and take away from the good work Premier Ford is doing for the province of Ontario.”

Global has been at the forefront of leaked stories about financial links between the Chinese government and Chinese-Canadian members of parliament.

Leaks are reported to be coming from inside the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The RCMP has been investigating the leak’s source, according to other news reports.

During last year’s provincial election, the Ontario Provincial Police was asked by the Liberal Party of Ontario to investigate the incorporation of 15 companies or associations associated with Ke.

Ke established the corporations after his election to the legislature in 2018.

At the time, Ontario Premier Doug Ford defended Ke, saying that several incorporations included non-profit cultural associations.

Ford defended his MPP’s exit last week in a statement. “Not proven, they [allegations] are serious and deserve his full and undivided attention as he works to clear his name.”

Identity politics will also take centre stage in upcoming federal investigations into electoral foreign interference.

By choosing former governor-general David Johnston to head a probe into foreign meddling, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has managed to secure an individual with impeccable credentials.

Appointed governor general by then-prime minister Stephen Harper, Johnston managed to secure broad public support during his seven-year tenure.

However, his nomination was criticized by the Conservatives because, after retirement, he volunteered for the Trudeau Foundation.

Johnston has his work cut out for him. Foreign interference allegations are not limited to China.

Recent reports of Russian interference have also surfaced.

Politics is always a messy business.

With identity politics, it will get even messier.

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

To suggest a Chinese-Canadian politician is a mouthpiece for Beijing displays a gross misunderstanding of our political system. Every politician in the country has to be aware of international politics.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 6, 2023.

OTTAWA—Foreign politics seems to be dominating the domestic agenda these days.

Whether it is questions about Chinese or German intervention in Canadian politics, the news of the week is focused on how other countries are trying to influence the Canadian agenda.

In the Liberals’ case, someone from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is convinced that Chinese-Canadian Members of Parliament are agents of the Chinese government.

Evidence is being leaked in drips and drabs to link the Chinese government to Canadian political influence. The latest reports including co-opting the Trudeau Foundation with donations designed to build stronger relationships between the two countries.

Years ago, CSIS was convinced that many Muslims in my Hamilton, Ont., riding were agents of foreign governments. Muslims got more visits from security agents and were automatically questioned because many had relationships with their home countries.

In a constituency with a large immigrant population, many expats retain ties with home.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress works very closely with the Ukrainian government, and even funds an internship program on Parliament Hill.

Their intention is to encourage the Canadian government to build strong links and friendships with their home country.

Multiple business associations in Canada have links with their homelands. In the case of Italians, they actually elect individuals from the North American diaspora to serve in the Italian Parliament.

Most Canadians MPs join international friendship associations with the express purpose of developing links with home countries or like-minded democracies.

The Canada-Israel Committee has a strong presence on Parliament Hill. Its intention is to influence Canadian public policy in support of the state of Israel.

Somehow, CSIS does not view these links as worthy of investigation.

Surprise, surprise: the Chinese government is trying to influence Canadian public policy.

Welcome to the world of diplomacy. Every ambassador in Ottawa is trying to make the Canadian government see the world through their lens.

And they could all be accused of taking a direct interest in Canadian domestic politics.

To suggest that a Chinese-Canadian politician is a mouthpiece for Beijing displays a gross misunderstanding of our political system.

Every politician in the country has to be aware of international politics.

When I was a Member of Parliament, I came out in favour of Croatia’s decision to leave Yugoslavia.

My boss was not very happy that I weighed into international separation politics. My southern Ontario constituency included almost equal numbers of Croatians and Serbians.

Of course, my decision cost me thousands of Serbian votes.

I was a Canadian politician who took a position. Would CSIS have investigated me if I had a Yugoslavian background? Probably.

As CSIS continues to point the finger at a Liberal relationship with the Chinese, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is being criticized for not kicking out three caucus members who consorted with a racist European parliamentarian.

The three claimed they did not know the origins of the person they were having dinner with.

That claim rings false because when European MP Christine Anderson called Trudeau a “disgrace” because of his pro-vaccine policy, she was quoted by Tory MPs in the House of Commons.

Members of Parliament do not spend their precious time going to dinner with people they do not know. They ration their agendas and assiduously review every invitation they receive.

So, the Tories knew full well that their comrade-in-arms espoused racist policies that no Canadian party could support.

Instead of kicking them out of the caucus, Poilievre issued a statement to a friendly journalist at the Toronto Sun, decrying the meeting and offering up a collective apology.

But there was absolutely no repercussion for any of the recalcitrants, and the leader did not even publish an apology in his party’s organ.

It was, at best, a nudge-nudge, wink-wink attempt to separate his party from Anderson, who was in Canada to meet with truckers and others in the F-Trudeau movement.

So neither main party did well this week when it came to foreign policy.

The Liberals are going to have to tread very carefully on their handling of the leaked CSIS allegations.

The Tories will need to do more to separate themselves from right-wing parties that can’t get any support in Europe.

The upcoming months will be focused on politics in Canada as we move toward a possible election.

But any vote in Canadian, especially in the country’s urban areas, involves a position on international politics.

To win, any Canadian politician worth their salt needs to understand multiple ethnicities in their ridings.

That includes Chinese-Canadians.

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.

But it certainly has not captured the public’s imagination.

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

OTTAWA—Not too many people seem to care about the current inquiry into the government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to end the trucker occupation.

Even the hero of most anti-trucker locals did not reap much benefit in the Ottawa municipal election held last week.

Most pundits were predicting a tight race between long-serving councillor Catherine McKenney and newcomer Mark Sutcliffe in the run to replace outgoing Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson.

Many believed that the appearance by McKenney in the opening days of the inquiry would give their campaign a boost. Their testimony coincided last week with the mayoral race and reminded voters of their very public stance against the occupation in the weeks when the city was under siege.

But that past did not seem to affect the city election outcome. Sutcliffe sauntered to victory, with media decision desks declaring his win within minutes of the polls closing.

McKenney is not the only one who did not reap benefits from anti-convoy visibility.

The opposition in the House of Commons has been silent on the inquiry with no questions directed at the government.

The inquiry has held a number of public hearings, but is currently entertaining secret testimony from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The judge leading the inquiry approved the secrecy provisions sought by the government last week, acceding to the request that the CSIS information is classified.

Police testimony on multiple sides has simply left people confused.

City police appeared to be experiencing crossed communication lines and infighting. As for other levels of policing, the testimony thus far has yet to get to the bottom of the story.

The Ontario Provincial Police were highly critical of city police performance, but it remains unclear how much help they were prepared to offer.

According to inquiry testimony, even provincial ministers were misinformed about the nature and strength of the provincial participation.

We may never get to the bottom of that story because Ontario Premier Doug Ford is declining to participate in the hearing, claiming it is a federal matter to assess federal involvement and therefore the provincial politicians have no business participating.

Ford also clings to the claim that the decisions made around the provincial policing participation were strictly limited to police authorities and had nothing to do with Queen’s Park.

It appears as though Ford had little interest in breaking up the Ottawa convoy. He only got involved when the borders were shut down and automotive jobs were suspended because of the supply chain problems caused by the blockade in Windsor, Ont.

The opposition’s original narrative that the legislation was simply a “just watch me” moment for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t seem to have gained much traction.

At the time, the prime minister and his team were criticized for not stepping in earlier to put an end to the local economic paralysis caused by the occupation.

Those who have a hate-on for Trudeau will find a way of blaming him for the occupation.

Some feel he overstepped his authority, but in the context of the occupation, it appears as though he tried hard to work with the relevant police authorities, to little avail.

What is surprising is the level of dysfunction that has been exposed during various police testimony.

For those who think that police are well-equipped to protect us, it is scary when they don’t even have the authority to compel private tow-truck operators to remove vehicles parked illegally for weeks.

It is also clear that an element of the police was sympathetic to the occupiers, determined to assist the occupation instead of breaking it up.

In the end, the inquiry has already exposed a major failure of local police leadership, and perhaps that is not surprising.

Police are constantly encouraged to work with protesters in an effort to de-escalate violence. Their hope to dialogue with the occupiers is not surprising.

They should have understood from the beginning that this was no normal occupation. The occupiers themselves were claiming they planned to take over the government.

A normal protest group arrives on Parliament Hill, spends a few hours hearing speakers and making points, and then moves on.

The Ottawa police ignored intelligence received very early on, anticipating an occupation that would last for several weeks, not several hours.

The occupation was like nothing the nation’s capital had ever witnessed. The local police force appeared woefully ill-equipped to deal with the protesters.

The post-mortem on the Emergencies Act continues apace.

But it certainly has not captured the public’s imagination.

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 on Monday, June 26, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The great thing about the first two years of a new government is that people are willing to cut the team a lot of slack.

The challenging thing about the last two years of the same mandate is that patience has worn thin and people want results.

The months leading up to the midpoint are crucial in sketching out a direction that can stand the test of time, and the next election.

The Liberal rollout last week of a new security package sets the stage for a positive midterm review.

The massive, 139-page legislative package, championed by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, was widely praised as striking a balance between the individual right to privacy and collective right to security.

C-59 was also seen as curbing the overarching unchecked powers that C-51 had awarded to police and spy agencies including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment.

Conservative critics attacked the new bill for tying the hands of police, and New Democrats said the proposed changes did not go far enough.

Legal experts on both sides of the security/freedom spectrum were cautiously positive. In particular, they praised the tone of ministers in support of the proposals.

Former Public Safety minister Steven Blaney was all bombast in defence of the police and security right to avoid scrutiny in pursuit of terrorists. Goodale, an old hand at the political balance game, was more circumspect in his position. He emphasized the right of citizens to be free from intrusive police powers, while affording police the law enforcement tools to keep the country safe.

By all accounts, the legislation will clean up serious anomalies in existing no-fly zone listing disclosures while continuing some secretive powers awarded in the previous legislation.

The creation of a super review agency to oversee all security measures infringing on citizen rights was widely lauded as an effective way to harness police powers.

As a backdrop for a midterm agenda, the legislation on safety and security is a potential start.

However, there were storm clouds gathering on the Liberal horizon last week, in relation to the showdown between the House of Commons and the Senate on who actually controls public spending powers.

Early in his mandate, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed to building a new relationship of trust with the Senate. His persective and subsequent appointment reforms, were sorely needed to re-establish public support for the Red Chamber. The previous government, pursuing a deliberate strategy to discredit the Senate and pave the way for Triple E constitutional reform, had succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

At the beginning of the Liberal mandate, most Canadians believed the Senate was a profligate, out-dated institution which sorely needed to be abolished.

By liberating Senators from the discipline of party lines, the prime minister promised a whole new way of governing.

That is welcome when Senate positions generally align with those of the government. But when a budget measure is reversed by an unelected body, there are serious constitutional implications which cannot be ignored or easily brushed aside.

At the end of the day, with all its warts, even party-based Senate committee work has, in some instances, evolved into intelligent challenge to conventional thinking on controversial issues.

In this term, senatorial improvements to end-of-life legislation ended up setting the stage for a better bill which was subsequently passed by the House of Commons. In that instance, the system worked effectively and provided a better outcome for all Canadians.

In the mid-course budget impasse, a group of unelected Senators is usurping the role of the House of Commons in the passage of spending measures.

By abolishing the escalator clause in liquor taxes, the Senate is amending tax law in a way that neither the constitution nor the prime minister envisioned.

The country has had escalator clauses on gas taxes for years, and such a measure currently kicks in every time any traveller fills up at the pump.

The choice of booze appears to be a curious commodity for which the Senate has decided to take a principle-based stand. But it did before the House rejected the amendments and the Senate in the end passed the bill.

But some Senators, including diehard Liberal Joe Day from New Brunswick, argue that amending a House money bill has been a longstanding practice. Liberals tried it unsuccessfully in the last century, attempting to block passage of the hated goods and services tax.

At that time, the Progressive Conservative government adopted the same response as todays’ Liberals. They both believe the right to tax belongs to government.

Mid-stream waters are proving to be rather murky.

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