The fallout from the parliamentary foreign activity report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2024.

OTTAWA–The cloud of suspicion hanging over Members of Parliament was partly lifted by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week.

May spoke out at a lengthy press conference on June 11 after having read the classified document on parliamentary foreign activity produced by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP).

May said she was “relieved” to read that, in her opinion, none of the “few” Members of Parliament mentioned in the document are being disloyal to Canada.

There was one former MP who knowingly colluded with a foreign government, but their identity was not revealed. May stated that her reading of the report concluded that no current MPs were involved in any malfeasance.

May asked, “are there currently MPs sitting with us in the Chamber who would set out knowingly to sell Canada out for personal benefit? If there are, there’s no evidence of that in the full report.”

She urged other party leaders to read the report, and to draw their own conclusions.

Reports of the document state that “the committee has also seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.”

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh, who also read the report, said he was even more concerned after reading it, and urged Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to do the same. The current leader of the opposition refuses to seek the security clearance required to read the document.

Singh also questioned whether Poilievre was refusing to read the document because it included references to potential foreign influence in the Conservative leader’s own party leadership bid. The NSICOP report references interference by Indian and Chinese governments in the Conservative leadership race.

Singh said: “In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.” CBC News later reported that Singh’s office would not confirm if he was referring to current sitting MPs.

Meanwhile, with no specifics on which Members of Parliament have been named, the House of Commons agreed on June 11 to a Bloc Québécois motion to refer the parliamentary report to the public inquiry into foreign interference.

That inquiry, led by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, is already reviewing the issues surrounding foreign election-meddling allegations.

Hogue produced her interim report last month, which said there is evidence of foreign interference, but the integrity of Canada’s electoral system remains intact.

The commissioner also concluded that “vigorous measures” must be taken to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system after unveiling evidence that foreign governments did interfere in the elections of 2019 and 2021, leaving “a stain on our electoral process.”

The fallout from the NSICOP report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system. Instead, the report left the impression that there were multiple Members of Parliament knowingly sharing confidential information with foreign influencers.

Poilievre and his Alberta-based attack dog Michael Cooper both called on the prime minister to immediately release the names of all members cited in the document.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a parliamentary committee that it would be illegal to release names. “I am not going to violate the Security of Information Act, and risk prosecution for a political stunt,” he said.

He, too, encouraged Poilievre to get full security clearance so the Conservative leader could read the report, and decide for himself what level of foreign influence has affected our democracy and electoral process.

Poilievre refuses to read the report himself, claiming that to do so would prevent him from asking pertinent questions. The Conservative leader says clearance would limit his capacity to comment on issues, since top-secret material is usually only for the eyes of the security-cleared reader.

But his refusal to gather all the data begs the question: if Poilievre were to win the election, would he be able to become prime minister without a full security clearance? And if so, why would he want to make decisions without being in possession of all the facts?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for a leader to gather as much background as possible before deciding on what direction s/he would be taking on the foreign interference question?

Poilievre is simply demanding that the prime minister name names. He cares not for illegality, or due process.

His insouciance really makes you wonder what kind of prime minister he would be.

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

Amid infighting and challenges to Annamie Paul’s leadership, Green MP Elizabeth May has been mostly silent. May’s return as leader would allow the party to limp through the next election with a known quantity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 19, 2021.

OTTAWA—In the Green Party mashup, the voice of reason that guided the party for years is steeped in silence.

This week the party executive will be seized with a non-confidence vote on leader Annamie Paul, which needs 75 per cent support to carry.

May’s partner John Kidder quietly resigned from the executive in June before the internal feuding broke into the open following the June 10 floor-crossing of Green MP Jenica Atwin to the Liberals.

Paul publicly defended May’s silence at a press conference last month, claiming family issues prevented the former leader from tweeting a statement of support.

The same code of silence appears to hold true for fellow British Columbian Green MP Paul Manly.

However, news reports also suggested that Paul threatened May to defend the leader publicly, or else there would be consequences.

The infighting has been described by some in the media as akin to the petty politics of a condo board or a book club.

One thing is certain. The damage being done to the Greens on the eve of a potential election is incalculable.

How can Paul run a campaign when her own executive has already made moves to limit party funding for the leader’s local riding race, in downtown Toronto?

Meanwhile, May herself has encouraged Paul to invite recalcitrant Atwin back into the fold and to make a public apology for a staffer’s attack on the New Brunswick MP.

No apology has been forthcoming, and the temperature rose again last week when the party executive began a move to strip the leader of her membership.

The proposed membership revocation only requires a simple majority vote of the executive committee, a much less onerous bar than the three-quarters vote required to oust a leader mid-stream.

The executive has also been reduced in the number because of departures, so it appears as though Paul’s status as leader will not be overturned.

So, the Green team has resorted to the extreme measure of actually kicking her out of the party.

In the midst of pre-election planning, the party could be leaderless and rudderless, leading to the question as to who might replace Paul in the short term.

May is the logical choice.

She spent years as the only recognizable face of the Green Party, in Parliament and across the country.

She has already participated in multiple campaigns, with decent showings at the leadership debates where she was allowed to join.

But the Green Party under Elizabeth May was a nascent party with hope and idealism. Many Canadians wished them well, sharing their passion for grappling with the global issue of climate change.

They would also consider supporting the party in the hopes that it might prod the established parties to move on climate change.

In the past few weeks, climate change has taken a back seat to the politics of Green power, in a way that is very reminiscent of traditional parties.

Back during her tenure, May once posited that her success was largely due to the fact that she was not a politician. Rather, she was a dedicated environmentalist who saw politics as a way of making the changes required to tackle issues.

Back in 1977, May was instrumental in getting Nova Scotia to ban aerial spraying for the spruce budworm.

And she has been working on environmental issues ever since.

But during her 13 years as leader of the Green Party, she was unable to add more than two other members to the House of Commons cohort.

And now one of them has joined the Liberals.

The promise of the Green movement has stalled.

Not only is the current leader facing party expulsion, but the environment has not even played a role in disagreements that, instead, revolve around party members’ contradictory positions on the Middle East.

The return of May would allow the party to limp through the next election with a known quantity.

But there is no way she will be able to convince Canadians that hers is the party to make real environmental change.

The implosion of the Greens has, instead, opened the door for other parties to woo environmental voters.

A May-led party will not prevent an exodus of support. The past two months have sealed the Greens’ fate, with or without a leader.

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, January 8, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The new year comes with new resolve. The most important resolve for political parties is to win the next election.

More than halfway through the current Liberal mandate, now is the time to consider a new year’s victory resolution for each party.

Let’s start with the Liberals.

In my New Year’s list, resolution number one should be to keep Prime Minister Justin Trudeau out of the limelight. This may seem counter-intuitive, as their charismatic leader is still the Liberals’ best weapon. Trudeau is a sought-after international draw, stalked for selfies at every turn. He has the ‘it’ factor, that combination of charisma and mystique that casts him in the unique role of a non-politician.

But the longer he stays in politics, the more Trudeau runs the risk of becoming just another boring politico.

Less exposure would position Trudeau to preserve his wow factor for the election circuit. By Canada Day this year, the prime minister will have followed up on his all-important promise to legalize marijuana. He will also be basking in the afterglow of a successful G-7 summit in the heart of Quebec.

Facing an election on Oct. 21, 2019, Trudeau should spend the last year of his mandate promoting his team. Nobody would expect any Trudeau to hide his light under the bushel, but to remain fresh, that should be his New Year’s resolution.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer has the opposite problem. He needs to keep his mug front and centre, in an effort to build more personal visibility and positive feedback in the run-up to the election.

To achieve the kind of popularity that could eclipse Trudeau, Scheer needs to play down his ‘aw shucks’ family man image and focus on appealing to more urbane voters.

That also means toning down the hard-core Conservatism that marginalizes his potential voter appeal. His decision to name an anti-choice member to chair the parliamentary status of women committee was a huge mistake. During his leadership bid, Scheer said he would not reopen the question but his pick for status chair casts doubt on that claim.

Thus far, Scheer has not made many mistakes and he comes across as personable and approachable. His personal warmth is a far cry from the unappealing, frigid demeanour of his predecessor, prime minister Stephen Harper.

But there is concern that under that teddy bear exterior is another right-winger who wants to determine what a woman can do with her own body.

Scheer needs to dampen down that perception, if he stands any chance of upending the governing Liberals come October, 2019.

As for Canada’s third place party, the New Democrats, their challenge is to get their leader into the House of Commons. Jagmeet Singh’s most crucial new year’s resolution should be to get a seat in Parliament as quickly as possible.

One of his deputies needs to step aside in order to give their leader a fighting chance in a must-win by-election effort.

A Toronto area seat would be his best bet, preferably one with a strong NDP history. That will be hard to find as the party was swamped in the Liberal sweep, losing every GTA seat. Perhaps one of the two New Democrats in neighbouring Hamilton could step aside. The most senior and well-established David Christopherson represents a riding with a long New Democratic history.

The longer he remains outside the House, the more Singh fades into oblivion. He is a bystander in the two-way parliamentary duel between Trudeau and Scheer.

Singh’s own charisma cannot shine through as long as he is travelling the country while the other main protagonists are battling it out on the floor of the House of Commons.

Last but not least, Green Party leader, and long-time veteran in the House, Elizabeth May, should resolve to turn her party over to a new leader before the next election. She made departure noises last summer after her party passed an Israel sanctions resolution that she opposed. But in the end, the lure of the political arena was too strong.

May has made a fantastic contribution to the country and to her party. But national Green momentum has stalled, and she might be happier in provincial politics, working in the coalition government in British Columbia. Her skills would certainly be put to good use and she could thrive in government.

Of course, May could simply ignore my advice and stay on to fight another day.

After all, free political advice is usually worth what you pay for it.

Happy New Year.

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