By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 13, 2025.

OTTAWA—Enemy of the state: that is the only way to characterize the threat of Canadian “economic annexation” by American president-elect Donald Trump.

His so-called joke about Canada joining the United States is turning deadly serious.

It is a threat that one would expect from a dictator. It is not a threat that one could expect from the leader of our democratically-elected neighbour, the United States.

All bets are off with the Trump claim that Canada should join the U.S. in the formation of a single country.

He even has the nerve to post a map of Canada absorbed into the United States, with the stars and stripes flag covering all the way from Mexico to the Arctic.

Trump has ruled out military force as a method of annexation, speaking instead about economic annexation.

He continues to falsely claim that Canada receives hundreds of millions in subsidies in America.

He wants to end auto, milk, and lumber imports from Canada, claiming that his country doesn’t need any of our goods to survive.

However, Trump did not mention electricity or oil and gas, Canadian exports that America needs to keep its economy running.

Trump also reached out to support the candidacy of Pierre Poilievre as a future prime minister, saying the pair are on the same political wave length.

Poilievre moved quickly to distance himself from Trump, stating the obvious: Canada will never become the 51st state.

But Conservative allies like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith plan to attend the president’s inauguration on Jan. 20 in celebration of his victory.

The Alberta premier has also refused to join Ontario Premier Doug Ford in denying the export of energy to the U.S. Ford promised to retaliate on tariffs by refusing to export energy south of the border, but Smith quickly rebutted that Ford did not speak for her province.

However, that happened before Trump launched his campaign to annex Canada.

Smith would be hard-pressed to explain her presence at Trump’s inauguration when the leader she plans to celebrate is claiming publicly he will buy Greenland, annex Canada, and take over the Panama Canal.

While Trump’s threats are being widely covered here at home, they won’t make the news very long in the U.S.

Ford was supposed to be interviewed on the subject by CNN, but his presence was cancelled when the California wildfires replaced Canada’s annexation in the news cycle.

While Americans may gloss over Trumpian machinations, we cannot afford to do so.

We need to get tough on as many fronts as possible. One of those could be a refusal to allow the president to enter Canada for the G7 meeting in June because of his recent federal criminal conviction.

Diplomacy could override that refusal, but diplomacy is also a two-way street.

Unless Trump issues a clarification regarding his crazy annexation claims, he should be kept out of the country.

Words have consequences, and the words of a bully need to be met with consequences.

Some might argue that barring Trump from the country would simply poke the bear.

But stroking the bear has not gotten us anywhere.

Peter Donolo, former prime ministerial communications adviser to then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, recently wrote an opinion piece saying that we can’t treat the Trump threats as a joke.

Instead, we need to act with political muscle. That muscle should include testing Trump in international fora.

The Organization of American States is where the unilateral declaration of annexation theory could be tested. Last year, the OAS issued a condemnation of Venezuela’s move to annex the Essequibo region of Guyana.

Canada, and the rest of the Americas, has an interest in dampening down Trump’s rhetoric.

Annexation is not legal, which is why the world has been working to get Russian troops out of Ukraine.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should also be asked to take a stand on the American president-elect’s annexation ruminations.

The United Nations could also be an appropriate forum for condemnation of Trump’s hostile annexation rhetoric.

These claims need to be fought at the highest level of international diplomacy, including the potential for legal remedies.

The International Court of Justice should be asked for its opinion as to the legality of Trump’s annexation threats. It has a mandate to give advice on international legal issues. What could be more pressing than a claim that one democratic country will undertake ‘economic annexation’ of another?

Trump must be taken seriously. It is time to fight a bully by destroying his bully pulpit.

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

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

OTTAWA—The most popular guessing game in Ottawa these days is how to stare down a bully.

U.S. president-elect Donald Trump lost no time in poking fun at his favourite punching bag, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, by posting a social media message suggesting it was great having dinner with “Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada. I look forward to seeing the Governor again soon so that we continue our in depth talks on tariffs and trade, the results of which will be truly spectacular for all.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford had a soft response: “I am sure not thinking of Justin Trudeau at midnight so if he is thinking of Justin at midnight, it’s probably a good relationship.”

It wasn’t the first crack that Trump has taken at Canada recently. After the prime minister met him at Mar-a-Lago, Trump said in an interview on Meet the Press that Canada could become the 51st state.

“We’re subsidizing Canada to the tune of over $100-billion a year … if we are going to subsidize them, why not become a state?”

Trump’s comments on subsidies are incorrect. He is referring to a trade imbalance between Canada and the United States, largely driven by the sale of Canadian electricity and gas to the U.S. If those sales are cancelled—which is the rationale behind imposing a tariff on incoming goods—much of America’s manufacturing production would be stalled due to lack of energy.

The U.S. needs Canada’s energy, and it also needs our water. We are sitting on 20 per cent of the world’s supply of fresh water while several states in the U.S. are suffering from a water shortage.

So Canada has some cards to play in this tit-for-tat verbal slugfest. Trudeau is getting lots of advice on how to deal with it.

Peter Donolo, former communications advisor to then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, told the CBC last week Trudeau should stand tough.

“It isn’t the first time in Canadian history that the possibility of a union with the United States has been on the table. It’s a mistake to laugh it off … this is an insult to Canada. This is the guy’s [Trump] MO …. we have had 150 years as an independent country … what starts off as a joke is a seed planted … our leaders should push back and not make light of it. … given Donald Trump’s own history of lawlessness … when we let Trump get away with stuff … all he does is do it again harder.”

Donolo also referred to past Canada-U.S. relations, from the charm offensive then-prime minister Brian Mulroney used on then-president George Bush, to Chrétien’s decision to refuse the American invitation to join the invasion of Iraq.

He characterized the two as the suck-up versus the stand-up approach.

Donolo also decried provincial premiers for “sucking up” to Trump, specifically citing the premiers of Quebec and Alberta: “history proves that when you cave to a strongman all it does is whet his appetite for more.”

Provincial premiers are supposed to be working with the prime minister on a united strategy to dampen Trump’s appetite for tariffs. But Donolo’s point is that if the country looks like it is running scared, Trump is the kind of bully who will simply increase tariffs and put more pressure on the Canadian economy.

The U.S. president-elect’s instability is something Canadians will have to learn to live with. But we certainly cannot allow ourselves to be bullied into submission by denying our status as an independent country.

Statistics came out last week showing that the U.S. has the highest health care costs in the world. Meanwhile, our nation has been able to shape a system where every Canadian who is sick can go to the hospital with no fear of being turned away because of money.

Canada’s level of gun violence is seven times lower than that of America’s. And while the Canadian government has just introduced legislation to further reduce assault rifle access, the U.S. cannot seem to get past its obsession with second amendment gun-toting rights adopted almost 250 years ago.

The gun-toting path chosen by Americans for their own country is definitely not one that Canadians would follow.

We will not be bullied into denying our identity, nor should our leaders be trying to assuage the ignorant comments of the American president.

Trump’s backhanded denial of Canada’s existence as a country is no joke.

And we need to push back—hard.

That is the only language that a bully will understand.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 2, 2024.

OTTAWA—Doug Ford is talking tough against Donald Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ford is intending to run his campaign against Trudeau.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did that giveaway work for the government?

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

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

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

Why not follow Doug Ford.

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

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, then-Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown attacked the decision to grant bail to Umar Zameer back in 2021. Three years later, he’s been found not guilty.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 29, 2024.

OTTAWA—Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw should be fired.

There is no way anyone can have confidence in his impartiality after he told the world last week that he had hoped for a different outcome when Umar Zameer was found not guilty of all charges in a high-profile case involving the death of a Toronto police officer in 2021.

In her instructions to the jury before the not-guilty decision, Justice Anne Molloy said “the defence theory of what happened is consistent with the testimony of Umar Zameer, Aaida Shaikh, the Crown’s reconstruction expert, the defence reconstruction expert and the video. There is no evidence that fully supports the Crown’s theory.”

With such overwhelming unanimity on the reconstruction of the incident, one wonders how the case ever made it to trial?

Some are asking whether there was political pressure brought to bear, as three key politicians—including Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and then-Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown—weighed in to attack the decision to grant bail to Zameer back in 2021.

Ford minced no words in his tweet: “This is beyond comprehension. It’s completely unacceptable that the person charged for this heinous crime is now out on bail. Our justice system needs to get its act together and start putting victims and their families ahead of criminals.”

Demkiw refused to condemn comments by his predecessor who placed the “cop killer” label on Zameer, claiming it was not his job to criticize a former chief. However, the chief quickly walked back his own attack on the verdict after it prompted a firestorm of criticism from members of the legal profession.

Daniel Brown, past president of the Criminal Lawyers Association, told The Toronto Star that “the one thing that a chief of police isn’t supposed to say is that you were hoping for a verdict that didn’t conform with the evidence.”

Demkiw told the media at a mid-week press conference on an unrelated matter that he respected the decision of the jury. But Brown challenged that assertion. “You can’t say that you respect that jury’s decision, but that they also got it wrong.”

The judge also said that the jury should consider whether there had been collusion in the matching testimony of three police officers, though also noted that the officers had denied it. She also offered her “deepest sympathies” to Zameer following his acquittal, an apology seldom seen from the bench.

As for Zameer, he stuck to his story that he and his family were returning from a Canada Day celebration when four people starting banging on his car doors, ordering him to disembark. Zameer thought they were criminals trying to rob him, and he tried to drive away, resulting in the death of one officer who was allegedly holding on to the vehicle.

The accountant spent almost three years waiting for the outcome, and racked up legal bills in excess of $200,000, forcing his family to sell properties to pay for his defence.

Such was the public support for the defendant that within a few days, a GoFundMe page set up for his legal expenses had received $267,347 from more than 3,400 donors.

The police have already announced an external review of their actions by the Ontario Provincial Police. That review is automatic when any judicial decision involves criticism of police sworn testimony. But no review of the Crown’s decision to take this case to court, based on what we now know was flimsy or non-existent evidence, has been initiated.

Thousands of police officers attended the funeral of Constable Jeffrey Northrup, who was tragically killed in the incident. And with the public comments by high-profile politicians attacking the bail decision, one wonders whether there was political pressure exerted on the Crown to prosecute.

Demkiw has clearly shown that his interest is in protecting the actions of his police officers. That may work with the police, but it certainly undermines public confidence in the force. His statements reinforce the viewpoint of opponents who have been regularly lobbying to defund the police.

Without an external review of the judicial process in this case, too many questions remain unanswered.

Why did this case ever go to trial in the first place? Was there political pressure to lay charges, and why was the first-degree murder charge introduced, based on what did not appear to be a premeditated incident?

When a police officer dies, a first-degree murder charge is automatic. Maybe that rule also needs to be revisited.

The good news—in spite of all the questions surrounding the validity of the charges—is that justice was done.

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

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 8, 2024.

OTTAWA–I woke up to a news item last week that said Liberals had experienced a big spike in national popularity while the Greens and the Bloc were on the uptick.

Hardly believable, but in the world of politics, you are on a roller coaster. And six months is about the time-frame for either a dip or rise in popularity.

Then I had a coffee and realized it was April Fool’s Day. I was the fool. Because for a brief second, I thought Liberals’ flagging fortunes had turned around.

Both the Liberal and Conservative leaders seem to be in campaign mode.

Whether it’s an orthodox synagogue in Montréal, or a rally in Newfoundland or British Columbia, Pierre Poilievre is everywhere. And on his ‘Axe the Tax’ campaign, he really seems to be enjoying himself.

Finally, it looks as though the prime minister is also moving into campaign mode.

In a series of pre-budget announcement, Justin Trudeau and some of his key ministers have peppered the country with funding and programs.

From children’s school lunch funding, to a renters’ bill of rights, to carbon pricing, the governing party has finally realized that in government, you can control the agenda.

And they are definitely shaping a narrative that could play in their favour in the next election.

Poilievre is focusing on individual pocketbook issues. By pushing his anti-tax view, he is sending the message that under a Poilievre government, there would be cuts in government spending that would end up in your wallet.

He may be on to something. As altruistic as we would like to think ourselves to be, Canadians usually vote for what is in their personal self-interest.

Up until last week, not too many Canadians actually knew that 80 per cent of the population will receive a carbon rebate which exceeds the additional cost of the pricing program.

The frenetic pace Poilievre was keeping climaxed on April 1 when the new pricing regime went into effect.

He pulled out all the stops, including engaging oil-producing provincial premiers in a fight to roll back the carbon price increase.

But by associating so closely with leaders like Danielle Smith and Doug Ford, who are not universally admired across the country, he may be digging himself a petroleum hole from which he cannot get out.

Smith was hard-pressed to explain why, on the same day she was trashing carbon pricing, her government was hiking Alberta’s gas tax by a total of 13 cents a litre. Her supporters defended the hike, saying the money would be used to build roads and infrastructure, not to reduce carbon emissions.

When you compare the building of roads to the fight against global warming, which is more critical to our survival?

The younger generation—or NexGen as they are euphemistically known—consider global warming the challenge of our times.

Poilievre has been successful in attracting young voters on the basis that his policies will make housing and daily essentials more affordable.

Just like Trudeau rode the marijuana wave to victory in his first election in 2015, Poilievre hopes to ride the affordability train.

But on global warming, he has been strangely silent. His communications people say that the Conservative plan to fight climate change will come out when an election is called. That will be too late. By then, his image as a petro-politician will have solidified.

That will help in Alberta, but he certainly won’t become prime minister on the basis of that province alone.

His anti-environmental positions do not play well in Quebec or British Columbia, both provinces which were critical in getting the Liberals over the line in the last election.

Because Poilievre’s political message has been so tightly identified with carbon pricing, it will be hard for him to build any credibility on global warming.

His axe will also be used to cut government spending. But where will he start? Will he cancel dental benefits, pharmacare, or $10-a-day childcare? Something has to go.

The Axe-the-Tax campaign has finally created an opening for Liberals to start talking about what they have achieved, and asking the pertinent question: what will Poilievre axe?

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax.

With April 1 come and gone, if the sky doesn’t fall, Poilievre could be left looking like Chicken Little.

A campaign that promotes dental care, pharmacare, rental rights, and daycare sound a lot more interesting than one involving an axe.

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

It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change. 

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

OTTAWA–The World Meteorological Organization had grim news for the globe last week.

In every climate indicator, temperatures were the highest on record in 2023.

And for the past nine years in a row, the planet has been getting hotter.

For the first time ever, Canada’s air quality was worse than the United States, largely because of the effect of massive wildfires across the country.

Evidence is mounting for all but the most obtuse that action needs to be taken to reverse the climate crisis. Zombie fires that started last year are still continuing in parts of British Columbia. New wildfires are starting at an unbelievably early time of the year with 90 fires burning there last week.

But the man who would be prime minister, Pierre Poilievre, is running advertisements attacking British Columbia Premier David Eby because he refuses to pile in with other premiers who are attacking the April increase in the price on carbon established by the federal government.

Instead of focusing on climate solutions, Poilievre is trying to bully provinces into reversing the federal action plan to reduce our carbon footprint.

Politicians should be focused on climate solutions instead of reversing our work on climate action.

Eby was not one to be bullied. British Columbia, arguably Canada’s greenest province, was the first to adopt a price on carbon. That happened a decade before the federal government introduced its 2018 plan.

The B.C. experience has been used as a model for other jurisdictions. Their carbon pricing has had a beneficial impact on the environment with little impact on the economy.

Eby characterized Poilievre’s “axe the tax” as a “baloney office” campaign. Poilievre responded by accusing Eby of forcing British Columbians to eat baloney because of carbon pricing.

What nobody seems to be including in the discussion is how the country will fight forest fires and floods by abolishing the national climate action strategy.

Poilievre has put nothing in the window in his axe campaign, and is deliberately conflating a world inflationary trend with a made-in-Canada carbon plan.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made it very clear that the government has no intention to reverse its climate plan, even after Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Premier Andrew Furey joined six Conservative premiers in his request to cancel the proposed carbon price hike.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has vowed not to collect the carbon price, which could prove rather costly to his residents.

In the national plan, carbon rebates actually go out to approximately 80 per cent of the population based on their reduced carbon footprint.

If Moe refuses to collect, the average family of four in his province will miss out on an annual rebate of $1,800 according to the federal Department of Finance.

Trudeau is committed to the federal action plan, and vows to keep fighting for pollution pricing, despite the claim by Ontario Premier Doug Ford that the federal Liberals could be “annihilated” in the next election because of the pricing policy.

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie last week distanced herself from her federal counterparts by saying if she were elected, her party would not impose a provincial tax.

The party could fall back on the federal program, but has not committed to doing so as an internal committee studies the issue.

Suffice to say, across the board, the country is gripped with the issue of climate pricing and nobody is particularly engaged in the challenge of doing nothing.

Poilievre is framing the issue as another Liberal gas tax, and spending millions of dollars to get Canadians on his side.

Meanwhile, the federal government has spent nothing in explaining to Canadians what is actually involved in carbon pricing, and why it is so necessary to help the country fight climate change.

At a heated press conference in Calgary recently, Trudeau said it was not his job to be popular when pressed on whether he should ditch the carbon tax.

But to win elections, and carry out his climate plans, he does need to secure the popular vote.

His climate plan is worth fighting for. It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change.

If the country wants to hang on to the progress we have made on climate change, we need to increase the price on carbon so consumption patterns will change.

We are experiencing the hottest decade in history and we owe it to our grandchildren to push ahead on carbon pricing.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 13, 2023.

OTTAWA—In politics, timing is everything. Members of the New Democratic Party are finding that out as they meet in Hamilton, Ont., this weekend for their first in-person national convention in five years.

One hot-button resolution presented for consideration was a motion by the “Socialist Caucus” calling on the party to “strengthen its defence of Palestinian human rights by actively campaigning for boycott, divestment and sanctions against the Israeli State until Israel ends its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories.”

According to party officials, that resolution did not make the cut allocated to those deemed a priority in a party ranking system. However, given the nature of unfolding events in Gaza and Israel, it is expected that someone will table an emergency resolution crafted for convention support.

The convention happens to be in the riding of newly-elected Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama who was already in hot water before her election to the provincial legislature because of anti-Jewish comments.

In a 2021 video, Jama spouted conspiracy theories about the local police, claiming they were protecting Naziism and Jews. She accused successive Israeli leaders of funding the killing of people locally and globally.

On the eve of the March 16, 2023, byelection to replace outgoing NDP leader Andrea Horwath as MPP in Queen’s Park, Jama’s video was widely circulated, prompting new leader Marit Stiles to distance her party from the comments.

“We’ve all ended up at rallies and stuff, where maybe she didn’t use the right choice of words.”

Last week, Stiles was again apologizing for Jama, but resisting calls for the Hamilton Centre MPP’s expulsion from caucus. Jama also apologized for a tweet she sent out immediately following the horrific Hamas attack on innocent Jewish civilians in their homes or attending a music festival.

In the tweet, Jama called for “an end to all occupation of Palestinian land,” claiming the attacks were prompted by “violence and retaliation rooted in settler colonialism that has taken the lives of far too many innocent people.”

She failed to mention the more than 1,000 Jews killed in the attacks, and the taking of more than 150 hostages by Hamas.

Stiles immediately distanced herself from Jama’s viewpoint, saying it didn’t align with party policy. It did, however, align with multiple statements Jama made before she ran for political office.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford and interim Liberal Leader John Fraser have both called for Jama’s ejection from the NDP provincial caucus, a demand that Stiles has rebuffed. She said Jama’s statement stemmed from a “personal impact … as someone with Palestinian family members.”

Stiles may withstand calls for Jama’s ouster, but with the national convention taking place in Jama’s Hamilton riding this weekend, the controversy shines a bright light into crevices of the party that remain divided.

Middle Eastern politics always plays a global role. New Democrats are not the first Canadian politicians splintering on the issue.

The beginning of the end of Annamie Paul as the short-lived leader of the federal Green Party was largely predicated on internal struggles over Israeli-Palestinian politics.

She lost a caucus member to the Liberals because of internal party differences on the Middle East.

The NDP has long been seen on one side of the issue, with multiple resolutions supporting the Palestinians. Under normal circumstances, a resolution to strengthen support for Palestine could be a giant convention yawn, not unexpected but not too newsworthy, either.

But the timing of this convention, on the heels of horrific massacre of hundreds of innocent civilians by a group of terrorists, means whatever happens will make international headlines.

With barbaric images of beheaded children, and brutalized elderly victims, Hamas has managed to forfeit any semblance of a legitimate political movement.

Instead, it has reinforced its reputation as a terrorist organization that has no intention of supporting the existence of the state of Israel.

Multiple observers have focused on the toxic leadership of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Paradoxically, the events of the past week may result in his ouster as the obvious breach of vaunted Israeli security efforts is still unexplained.

How could Hamas carry out such a well-financed and orchestrated attack without anyone in Israeli intelligence getting wind of what was being planned?

It is a security faux pas equivalent to the horrific wakeup call sent to the world on Sept. 11, 2001, with the downing of the twin towers in New York.

No finger-pointing can explain away the utter atrocities that were visited upon innocent civilians while they went about enjoying their normal daily lives.

Supporting Hamas in this disaster would be a huge mistake for Jama and the New Democrats.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 25, 2023.

OTTAWA—Protests and counter-protests on the rights of children to use their chosen pronouns were held across the country last week.

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh led a counter-protest in Ottawa, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took to X (formerly Twitter) to condemn “hate and its manifestations,” and reiterate his support for the 2SLGBTQ+ community across Canada.

Not surprisingly, Conservative Members of Parliament were silent on the issue, with the Canadian Press reporting that the leader’s office had told them not to discuss the protests with the media or on social media outlets.

A memo, shared with CP, was sent from the leader’s office claiming that protesters against LGBTQ education in the schools have a legitimate point to make about “parental rights.”

Heated clashes in cities across the country led to arrests in Halifax, Vancouver, Victoria, and Ottawa. The issue is heating up as governments in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have introduced legislation requiring students to get their parents’ permission before teachers can address them in their preferred he/she/they pronoun.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s office may not be able to stop Members of Parliament from weighing in when so many of them were elected thanks to support they received from social conservatives who do not support LGBTQ education in schools. The fact that the opposition leader is trying to keep a lid on comments shows that he understands the issue is a political hot potato that will win his party no new supporters.

As his party’s numbers climb, Poilievre has to be very careful to appeal to voters who are leery of social conservatism. Chances are the solidarity of potential power will not be enough to silence those in the caucus who got their political feet wet on recruiting social conservatives.

It is no coincidence that when Leslyn Lewis first ran for her party’s leadership in 2020, she was the first choice of Saskatchewan Tories. She swept the province where the premier and his government have recently enacted legislation to prevent minors from changing their pronouns without their parents’ permission.

Anti-trans rallies were organized across Canada last week by a group identifying itself as the “One Million March For Children,” which said it stood against gender ideology. But the marches were countered by groups defending the rights of 2SLGBTQ+ youth. Some are concerned that adolescents should not be outed to parents, and others wanted to support those teenagers who have self-identified as trans or gay.

Hate crimes against the gay community are on the rise, according to a report by Statistics Canada released last December. The report stated that police-reported hate crimes increased by 60 per cent between 2019 and 2021, reaching their highest level in five years.

Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford promised to change the sex education curriculum when he was courting socially conservative voters during his leadership campaign. However, while in government, he was accused of re-introducing a sex education curriculum that was virtually identical to the one he had criticized during his campaign. Ford learned quickly that modifying sex education is probably not a top-of-mind priority for most Ontarians.

Poilievre is likely discovering the same challenge at the federal level. But how is he going to be able to stop his right-wing caucus members from aligning themselves with the thousands who rallied across the country against sex education involving the 2SLGBTQ+ community? The temperature is rising on both sides, so it is difficult to see how the Conservatives are going to be able to stay out of the fray.

And when the leader of the New Democrats makes it his business to lead the counter-demonstration, he obviously understands the political issues at stake.

Most Canadians don’t really involve themselves in the adolescent pronoun debate. However, they do support rights for the LGBTQ community. With the advent of same-sex marriage and support for choice in sexual orientation, most people appreciate the wave of equality that has evolved in the past two decades.

But the small percentage of people who oppose transgender teaching in schools has unleashed the wrath of the silent minority. The number of parents and grandparents who showed up last week to support their transgender progeny could translate into a significant voting bloc in the next election.

If the issue provokes enough interest, it will actually move votes in the next election. Therein the reason why the Tories don’t want to be on the record with any comment when it comes to transgender policies in local school sectors.

Their political silence is golden. But it may not be sustainable.

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

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.

The provinces want an increase from 22 per cent to 35 per cent of health-care costs. The feds are not likely to match the demand, but will certainly come close. But the most important element of the agreement is the fine print on the five priorities that the federal government has established.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 30, 2023.

OTTAWA—The first ministers’ upcoming health-care meeting will be trumpeted as the solution for Canada’s broken health-care system.

While it is certainly a start, the patient benefits may not be felt for years.

The first part of the agreement involves money. The provinces will get more, but it won’t be as much as they asked for.

All premiers are making positive noises.

Even Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe, who can usually be called on to trash the prime minister on command, has been publicly promoting the potential agreement.

New monies will start flowing immediately. But the heavy lifting on this agreement is likely going to take years to accomplish.

Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos has made it very clear that the increase in transfers will come with conditions.

The provinces want an increase from 22 per cent to 35 per cent of health-care costs, for a whopping transfer hike of $28-billion.

The feds are not likely to match the demand, but will certainly come close. A 10 per cent hike had already been planned in the previous transfer agreement with the provinces.

The parties will probably split the difference.

But the most important element of the agreement is the fine print on the five priorities that the federal government has established.

Those priorities include reduction of surgery waiting times, enhancement of access to primary care, national data-sharing and virtual care, long-term care improvements and more mental health services.

The list is not lengthy, but it certainly is meaty.

Millions of Canadians do not even currently have a family doctor, so when mention is made of enhancing access, that includes tackling the issue of getting foreign-educated immigrant health-care workers’ credentials officially recognized.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been running a campaign to poach health-care workers from other provinces with bonuses and quick accreditation.

But simply shifting health-care professionals from one province to another does not remedy the problem.

That is why we need a national approach. One of the critical pieces is recruiting nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from other countries as quickly as possible.

That means the country needs to get serious about fixing foreign accreditation issues.

When I was a provincial member of parliament in Ontario, I was promoting the issue of officially recognizing the credentials of foreign-educated immigrants back in 1982. That was more than 40 years ago and the problem still has not been adequately addressed.

At the time, the head of the Ontario Medical Association told me in a private meeting that his organization could not support foreign credential improvements because that would allow “too many brown doctors” into the country.

No one would dare say that today, but the organizations that can stand in the way of credentialling are numerous and only a national push could finally break the logjam.

As for strengthening mental health resources, that also requires recognizing psychologists as key to universal health, by including them in public health-care funding mechanisms.

Reduction of wait-times is also a key issue and it, too, is dependent on better information sharing.

The circuitous referral service where family doctors triage patients also needs an overhaul. At the moment, a patient with potential for skin cancer who has already had pre-cancerous lesions removed, often has to go back to the family doctor for referral when new lesions appear.

How redundant is that?

A properly integrated data-sharing system should allow patients to bypass the interminable delays that cost time and money to the system.

The federal government plans to sign individual bilateral agreements with provinces focusing on their priorities. But it is also laser-focused on a national agreement to strengthen the five priority areas.

That agreement will not likely kick in until the latter years of the proposed 10-year agreement. Is that too little too late?

The work on long-term care improvements has already begun. That is one area where provinces and the federal government are in agreement.

The fact that the prime minister has scheduled a first ministers’ meeting means that the parties are very close to an agreement on shared national priorities.

That agreement could turn out to be the saving grace of Canada’s universal health-care system.

The last time the federal government rolled out a real national plan was the introduction of the Canada Health Act by Monique Begin when Justin Trudeau’s father was the prime minister.

This agreement could become one of the great legacies of Justin Trudeau’s time in office.

But the results will likely take a decade to determine.

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