The idea behind the Marshall Plan could be applied to a world approach to resettlement of refugees.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 14, 2024.

OTTAWA—Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre are cut from the same cloth.

Last week, the behaviour of both men made that clearer than ever.

While a Category 5 hurricane was bearing down on Florida and the Gulf Coast, Trump was doing everything in his power to blame the storm of the century on immigration.

While Canada and the world were mourning first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on innocent Israeli civilians, Poilievre used a memorial service to blame the catastrophe on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

According to Trump, immigrants—and by osmosis his opponent Kamala Harris—are responsible for all crimes, economic challenges, and inflationary woes in the United States.

He forgets that more than one of his wives is an immigrant herself who has contributed positively to American life.

Poilievre is not riding the anti-immigration wave at the moment. Like Trump, he is married to an immigrant, but unlike Trump, he cannot make hay over a political attack on refugees.

Canadians are still generally positive about the role immigrants play in building our economy, although that support has been waning in recent months.

Make no mistake, if Poilievre smells a change in the domestic political wind, he will follow his American counterpart into attack mode on immigration.

Quebec Premier François Legault has already opened the door to that possibility, as he has recently taken to blaming the federal government for refugees who have been coming across the American border on foot.

Legault knows the pur laine support that he depends on is not as positive toward immigration as it is in urban areas.

Herouxville, Que.,’s racist “code of conduct” for immigrants was not that long ago. The notion that immigrants could water down the vibrancy of the French language in Quebec appeals to voters in rural constituencies.

Quebec is one province where Poilievre has not made a breakthrough. If he needs to stoke fear of immigrants as an election wedge issue, he will not hesitate.

So how does the current Liberal government counter that possibility?

Taking a leadership role in designing solutions for the world refugee crisis would be a good place to start.

I attended a meeting last week where a former public servant approached me to suggest that Canada initiate a call for a world Marshall Plan for refugee resettlement.

The first Marshall Plan, launched by the Americans after the Second World War, sought to rebuild war-torn regions of Europe, and modernize industry by removing trade barriers and improving prosperity. Another goal was to prevent the spread of communism.

In a relatively short period of less than a decade, bombed-out infrastructure was remediated, and the Europeans were back in business.

Some credit the Marshall Plan with putting Germany in the position to become a dominant European industrial powerhouse.

But the idea behind the Marshall Plan could be applied to a world approach to resettlement of refugees.

The Canadian government could take the lead in the Americas, working with Caribbean and Latin American countries to develop an economic-funded resettlement plan that would not cannibalize borders, but rather would co-operate and share the challenge of resettling the millions of global citizens who have lost their homes to war, famine, economic collapse, or climate change.

By involving Latin American nations, the plan would develop a more rational collective approach to assist the influx of immigrants from failed states in that part of the world.

A refugee resettlement plan could be replicated in other parts of the globe with a similar work plan.

Obviously, participation by the United States would be key, and that cannot happen until the results of the November election are finalized.

If Trump wins, there will be no possibility of regional co-operation, especially with our Latin neighbours. He is busy blaming immigration for every problem facing his country.

But if Harris is victorious, there could be an appetite for co-operation, given her knowledge of Canada and her parents’ status as Indian and Caribbean immigrants.

Now is the time for the Trudeau government to take the lead in an area that Canada knows well.

Back in the last century, our country won the Nansen Medal, a United Nations recognition for outstanding service in the cause of refugees because of Canadian efforts to resettle Vietnamese immigrants.

We remain the only country in the world to have been so honoured. We were the first country to include private sponsorships in our resettlement strategy.

It is time to think big again. Head off an anti-immigrant tsunami with our own modern-day Marshall Plan.

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

Social housing should be national in scope, and part of a major income reform. Immigration and refugee support should be regionally based, and there should be incentives for moving to underpopulated regions.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 5, 2024.

OTTAWA—Immigration Minister Marc Miller made a $362-million refugee housing announcement last week.

Instead of garnering positive impact, the announcement opened the door for provincial governments and critics to claim that the amount in question is simply too little to deal with the problem.

Quebec is looking for a cheque for $470-million, as outlined in a letter from Premier François Legault last month.

Legault is also asking the federal government to stem the flow of refugees finding their way into the country by land, sea, and air.

Miller’s announcement seemed to reinforce Legault’s concerns.

“I think we owe it to Canadians to reform a system that has very much been a stopgap measure since 2017 to deal with large historic flows of migration.”

Miller is speaking frankly, but his admission simply sets the government up for further criticism.

If 2017 is the date when things went sidewise, the federal government has had seven years to come up with a solution.

Like the housing crisis, the Liberals are taking the full brunt of criticism for immigration spikes.

The link between the two is tenuous at best, but the government doesn’t seem able to convince the public about who is responsible for the housing crisis in the first place.

It is not refugee spikes.

It was bad public policy foisted on Canada when the federal government was convinced by the provinces to get out of the housing field back in 1986.

For 30 years, the provinces had full responsibility, including federal transfer funding, for housing construction in their jurisdictions.

For the most part, they did nothing to fill the gap in social or Indigenous housing, while city hall used housing payments for new builds as a way to finance municipal coffers.

The responsibility for housing was completely in provincial hands for three decades until Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the courageous step of getting back into housing in 2017.

The refugee housing problem would not exist if sufficient social housing had been built over 30 years for residents in need. Help should be available to anyone who cannot afford market solutions.

Meanwhile, the cost of market rental housing for those who can pay continues to rise as demand outstrips supply.

That is a completely different issue from the cost of immigration and refugee services.

For the federal government to defend itself against accusations that it caused the housing crisis, it needs a national strategy engaging cities and provinces in the solutions.

There are a few provinces that have continued to support social housing in the past three decades but, by and large, the availability of housing for the poor has not been increased.

The Liberals have worked to tackle child poverty, and some of those direct payments have definitely made a difference.

According to statistics, more than two million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty because of the Canada Child Benefit.

But as incomes grow, the cost of living grows along with it.

The Liberals need a big new idea that goes beyond simply ministers making announcements in their own bailiwicks.

At one point, the government was looking at the creation of a Guaranteed Annual Income for all Canadians.

That idea needs to be dusted off, and the feds need to invite provinces and municipalities to the table to see who can help in what manner with the creation of a guaranteed income.

Basic housing should be a human right for all Canadians, with the guaranteed income built on the cost of housing by region.

Social housing should be national in scope, and it should be part of a major income reform.

Immigration and refugee support should be regionally based, and there should be incentives for moving to underpopulated regions of the country.

A big vision on how to house the underhoused, feed the underfed, and finance the poor would get everyone to the table.

In the current system, everyone is blaming the federal government for a problem that has largely been caused by provincial indifference and municipal greed.

The country also needs to understand what constitutes a basic housing right.

What should be the average housing size for socially funded financing?

Many Canadians live alone these days, which changes the type and size of housing we should be building.

There are no magic bullets. But the federal government needs to think bigger than single housing announcements if it wants to spread the responsibility—and the blame—for the current crisis.

A guaranteed income is the answer.

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

Controversy inside the Conservative federal leadership race will have a spillover effect into the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 21, 2022.

OTTAWA—By summer’s end, the Canadian political landscape could change dramatically.

Ontario is into a provincial election in less than two months, smack in the middle of a national Conservative leadership race.

Quebec must have an election by Oct. 3, and next month Alberta’s controversial premier faces an internal review which could plunge his party into another fight.

Federal and provincial parties are separate, but the voting public sees them all as a single, homogenous mass.

So, controversy inside the Conservative federal leadership race will have a spillover effect into the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec.

In Ontario, the premier has already stated that he will remain neutral and none of his ministers will be involved in any campaign.

That is bad news for Jean Charest, as the leadership list of Caroline Mulroney, whose family has deep ties with the former Quebec premier, could be very valuable.

Charest’s only path to victory is to saturate Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada with enough votes to overcome his socially conservative deficit in the west.

But even though Mulroney herself cannot get involved, there is nothing stopping key organizers from enlisting volunteers and voters for Charest.

The organizing skills of former provincial Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown are well known. He could secure a base for a more centrist vote which would likely end up in Charest’s camp in a frontrunner’s fight.

Brown has no love for the premier, as Doug Ford actually came to office after Brown resigned following two allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied and for which CTV recently expressed “regrets” over some inaccurate details in its story. The Brown exit was ugly, and paved the way for Ford to beat Christine Elliott in a subsequent provincial leadership contest.

Any reference to the hate-hate relationship between Brown and Ford will not help the premier in the key ridings in Brampton. Mississauga and Scarborough where Brown has many supporters who would not likely support the premier in a general election.

As for Quebec, issues within the Tory federal leadership could definitely create some blowback in the provincial campaign. The bill that forced teachers to choose between religious headgear and their jobs has caused quite a stir across the country.

However, it is largely supported in Quebec, so attacks on Bill 21 by national Conservatives will simply reinforce the re-election chances of Premier François Legault.

Charest will have to tread carefully there because he needs to secure his Quebec base, but cannot afford to alienate the rest of the party on a divisive religious issue.

Alberta’s Jason Kenney, already hobbled by a popularity plunge in his home province, has historically tried to play a brokerage role in the federal campaign.

But given he has so many Alberta problems, the usual cadre of candidates lined up to seek his blessing will definitely decrease in this leadership campaign.

Ford is facing the voters on June 2, but 25 per cent of his current caucus has decided not to run again.

The most recent announcement by Christine Elliott, former leadership rival, that she is stepping down, does not augur well for the party’s election chances.

Most seasoned politicians can smell a change in the wind. When they decide not to reoffer, it is because they think their chances of losing are greater than winning.

Of course, they usually cite family or personal reasons for resigning, but in the end, a party on its way out loses more incumbent members than a party in the ascendancy.

Ford’s saving grace at the moment is that the New Democrats and Liberals are in a virtual tie as to who the replacement should be.

That being said, the Liberals have the edge as the NDP polls heavier in certain urban constituencies like Hamilton and Windsor, but it’s presence in rural Ontario is much weaker. That skews the numbers because an equal vote actually means more seats for the Liberals, in the same way that an equal federal Conservative/Liberal vote means more seats for the grits.

By October, we will likely have at least two new premiers in Alberta and Ontario, which also has federal repercussions.

In Ontario’s case, voters like to have political bookends at the federal and provincial scene. So, if the Liberals win the provincial election, it will open more doors for a Tory federal victory in the next election.

In Alberta, it is a Tory/NDP dance, and a provincial win for the New Democrats would provide energy and workers for the next federal election.

The only certainty in Canadian politics this year is change.

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

It sounds good to vaccinate all truckers, but hampering $1-billion of daily traffic between Canada and the United States may not help.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 17, 2022.

OTTAWA—To vax tax, or not to vax tax, that is the question.

Once again, the Government of Quebec appears to be at the head of the pack when it comes to new public health policies.

Whether the proposed vax tax is actually brought to fruition remains to be seen.

Reaction to the tax proposal ranges from tepid to negative. The prime minister refused to weigh in, seeking more information. Multiple premiers said they would not be following the lead of Quebec Premier François Legault in levying a health fee on those who refused to be vaccinated.

Premiers opposed to the move include Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe diagnosed with covid just after his public briefing on the issue where the premier was not wearing a mask.

Legault has promised to introduce a package on the health tax in February that will be debated in the Quebec National Assembly. It was no coincidence that the controversial tax was floated at the same time the province lost its second public health director since the beginning of the pandemic.

The departure of Dr. Horacio Arruda was expected to take some heat off the premier for criticism his government has faced following the Christmas implementation of a curfew that now ends Monday.

Throughout the pandemic, Legault’s personal popularity numbers have remained high, even when his province experienced the highest national death rates in long-term care facilities.

Perhaps the surprise tax proposal was designed to keep those numbers high. Most observers have been skeptical about the tax proposal. Some have argued the proposal violates medical ethics. Others call it an attack on universal health care.

If there is a public policy to tax anti-vaxxers, what about smokers or others who contribute to health problems by personal choices? One could argue that the smoker’s tax already exists because the high cost of a package of cigarettes in every province is largely based on taxes, which are ploughed back into provincial health-care expenditures. What is next, an obesity tax? Some see the benefit in a sugar tax for that very reason.

The other question that begs is what result will the tax have in encouraging the non-vaccinated to step up and get the vaccination?

Eighty-five per cent of the Quebec population is already vaccinated and early reports indicate that there has been an uptick in vaccination appointments since the premier’s announcement.

The Government of Quebec also recently announced that vaccination proof will be required to purchase liquor or cannabis in government stores.

That may also be responsible for the increase in vaccination bookings, but the bottom line is that Legault is banking on the fact that the vast majority of Quebecers are tired of being locked down because a small minority of citizens refuses to protect the rest of the population.

Legault has been playing tough with anti-vaxxers while Ontario Premier Doug Ford seems to be going in the opposite direction.

His reaction to the pandemic has been focused on encouraging people to vaccinate but with no mention of coercion.

If anything, the Ontario government has been criticized for worrying more about anti-vaxxers’ rights than those of ordinary citizens. School boards and parents were outraged when the government announced that, with schools reopening in a few days, the threshold for informing families on active school covid cases was being increased.

The announcement that parents would only be informed when 30 per cent of the school student or teacher population was infected caught educators and school boards by surprise.

It runs counter to previous reporting requirements that let parents know when a dozen or so cases were reported in any school.

Minister of Education Stephen Lecce defended the move, saying families could use at-home rapid tests provided by the province if they are concerned about potential infection.

However, critics are saying the lack of transparency is not justifiable.

Meanwhile, the federal government reversed its position again on the requirement of all truckers, Canadians and foreign nationals, to be vaccinated or face quarantine when they are crossing the border. All have to vaccinated as of Jan. 15.

The United States is planning on imposing its own vaccination requirement within the next week.

Some 20 per cent of Canadian truckers are currently unvaccinated and existing supply chain issues could be exacerbated if one of five truckers stopped working this month.

It sounds good to vaccinate all truckers, but hampering $1-billion of daily traffic between Canada and the United States may not help.

Like taxing anti-vaxxers, the cure may be worse than the disease.

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

Erin O’Toole may look back on the day following the first French debate as the turning point in his purposeful path to government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 13, 2021.

Quebec Premier François Legault’s “dangerous” claims may have just cost Erin O’Toole the election.

Angry warnings not to vote for Liberals, New Democrats, or Greens were supposed to help the Conservative leader. Early in the campaign, Legault made it very clear that his sympathies were with O’Toole.

But that was before O’Toole revealed that part of his costed platform, meant cancelling a $6-billion daycare transfer already inked in principle by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the premier.

Now Legault is hedging his bets, calling on Quebecers to support a nationalist party that will devolve more powers with no conditions to Quebec.

He is also suggesting that the best outcome would be a Conservative minority with a strong Bloc Québécois contingent.

That pitch from a self-described “nationalist” can only serve to help the Bloc Québécois, which is fighting to defeat Conservatives in multiple eastern Quebec ridings.

Legault’s intervention will serve to solidify the Liberal vote in the greater Montreal area, and drive wavering federalists back into the Liberal camp.

But it may be more costly for O’Toole in the rest of Canada as Legault is lauding the Tory leader for staying out of Quebec’s business.

The premier is particularly irate that Trudeau has expressed support for community groups wanting to fight the new Quebec law prohibiting public sector workers from wearing hijabs, kippahs, and turbans.

Trudeau is the only federal leader who has spoken out against this nationalist firing offence. Even turban wearing Jagmeet Singh vows he will not protect the right to religious headgear because to do so would interfere with provincial jurisdiction.

In another pitch for nationalist votes, during the French debate, Singh underscored his party’s commitment to the Sherbrooke declaration, where New Democrats vow that a simple majority in a provincial referendum is sufficient to break up Canada.

But his debate appeal to the ghost of Jack Layton has not moved many votes in Quebec as most observers expect the party to win only one or two of the 78 seats in the province.

The biggest boomerang effect of the Legault intervention may come from outside Quebec.

During the French TVA debate, a senior citizen from New Brunswick pleaded for federal involvement to develop national standards for long-term care.

Legault wants federal cash for care, but no conditions attached. O’Toole is promising just such help, even though more than 4,000 Quebecers died during the pandemic while in provincial long-term care.

As Trudeau pointed out during the French-language televised debate on Sept. 8, the premier didn’t mind calling in the Canadian Army when the bodies started piling up.

Quebec nationalists may want to give their premier more powers but if the pandemic has taught us something, it is that our health-care system needs more federal help.

At the moment, we are rolling out multiple vaccine systems and the confusion around the vaccine passport is a direct result of the federated health system.

Trudeau says it is his duty to protect the Canada Health Act. O’Toole says he supports some privatization and wants to transfer billions in unconditional cash transfers. The fine print of his promise shows financing is backloaded, with most monies not coming for another half-decade.

In a tight election, the statement by Legault may turn out to be the kiss of death.

As we near the finish line, this race is still too close to call. This is not where the O’Toole expected to be after a galloping campaign start.

His momentum stalled at the first debate as soon as Trudeau pointedly attacked O’Toole’s page 90 promise to end the ban on assault weapons.

O’Toole’s first mistake was including the issue in his lengthy playbook in the first place. But he added fuel to the fire by calling a press conference the following day to focus on his anti-crime strategy.

What was supposed to be a platform on how to stem the increase in urban gang violence during the Trudeau tenure ended up being damage control on why the guns that killed 14 women in École Polytechnique would be legalized under his watch.

O’Toole may look back on the day following the first French debate as the turning point in his purposeful path to government. Until that moment, O’Toole had been sticking to his knitting, referencing his famous plan; smiling and calmly projecting the image of a potential prime minister.

The first debate shattered that image and started his downward spiral.

O’Toole’s fall from grace, and potential victory, was further accelerated by Legault’s nationalist blessing.

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

It would be dangerous for Liberals to skew their campaign to millennial voters. That cohort was a winner in 2015, delivering a solid majority to the Liberals. But it is not likely to be as effective this time around.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 12, 2021.

Liberal Rainmaker Keith Davey led the party to multiple successful elections.

Such was the Senator’s electoral prowess that he is widely credited with the Liberals becoming the “natural governing party” in the last century.

Last weekend’s Liberal convention reflected Davey’s rule.

He always said that the key to Liberal success was campaigning from the left and governing from the right.

The party secured the best policies for a socially progressive country while remaining fiscally prudent, so as not to scare the business community.

But this century is turning politics on its head.

In an effort to guide Canada through the pandemic, the government is spending as widely and rapidly as possible.

So, when it comes to a pre-election message, the party will have to prove that it can also be fiscally prudent.

So do not expect a blanket endorsement of a guaranteed annual income, even though this has been on the agenda of many progressives for decades.

Instead, there will be a resolution to cost the plan, and incorporate the views of provincial and Indigenous governments before anything specific moves forward on the national level.

Such a resolution will give some comfort to Bay Street, which is already making noises about excessive Liberal spending. And main street will be reassured in knowing that national income support will be available at least through the pandemic.

The convention will also embrace near unanimity on a resolution calling for the implementation of national standards for long-term care residences across the country.

There was a time when such a resolution would have meant political death in Quebec.

And everyone knows that it is near impossible to secure a majority government without substantial support in La Belle province.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec Premier François Legault have been making multiple joint announcements in recent time, so they will probably organize an opt-out clause to handle the claim of federal interference in provincial health matters.

But at the end of the day, the death rate in Quebec cannot be ignored and simply assuming that more of the same will be a solution does not make sense.

The sturm and drang of a convention will allow all sides to air their perspectives but, in the end, the party will come out united behind a policy that will ensure a national strategy for long-term care and no national consensus on the Guaranteed Annual Income.

Party organizers have been very pleased with the participation level at the convention, with more than 4,000 registrants, of whom 60 per cent are new members.

New members are good news, but the party also has to be concerned about the ongoing support of long-time, loyal Liberals.

I was chatting last week with a former cabinet minister, who was a very active political organizer in the past, and he is sitting the next election out.

In his words, the party seems a lot more interested in recruitment than in involving those who have been around for a long time.

That could spell trouble, because in most elections where the Liberals lose, their loyal voters don’t necessarily change sides. They just don’t bother to vote.

Pollsters have recently identified that the party is either behind or in a toss-up in 13 ridings which they need to form a majority government.

Most of those ridings are rural, with a population that is not likely as mobile so long-term, loyal voters are important to the victory.

New political participants are important for energy and excitement. The young generation is most likely made up of urban participants who will not carry the day in the case of a tight election.

It would be dangerous for Liberals to skew their campaign to millennial voters.

That cohort was a winner in 2015, delivering a solid majority to the Liberals. But it is not likely to be as effective this time around.

The longer any party has been in government, the harder it is to keep everyone happy.

Marijuana legalization is a distant memory, and that policy will not persuade those new voters to support the Liberals again.

Instead, the party will depend on older people to carry tight ridings in rural areas.

Seniors are usually most likely to vote in large numbers, but the pandemic has altered everyone’s habits.

Trudeau’s Covid hotels have also cost support among snowbirds who represent up to 500,000 voters.

Hopes for majority could depend on whether the Trudeau glow is losing lustre with loyal Liberals.

The convention could kickstart that renewal—or not.

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

Hopefully, Quebecers will not fall for this blatant attempt to rewrite history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 2, 2020.

OTTAWA—October is a huge month in Quebec history.

It has been a half century since the October Crisis, which saw a deputy premier murdered and a diplomat kidnapped by the Front de libération du Québec.

It has been a quarter century since the referendum which took Quebec to the brink of a divorce from the rest of the country. Historians and filmmakers are busy interpreting both those events through today’s lens.

It is not surprising that the Bloc Québécois is also trying to influence the narrative 50 years after the fact tabling a resolution calling for the House to “demand an official apology from the prime minister on behalf of the government of Canada for the enactment, on Oct. 16, 1970, of the War Measures Act and the use of the army against Quebec’s civilian population to arbitrarily arrest, detain without charge and intimidate nearly 500 innocent (Quebecers).”

The resolution was handily defeated Thursday, but it served the Bloc’s purpose. The debate gave the party an opportunity to cast the separatists in the victim role, victimization at the hands of the bully Canada, the behemoth that is responsible for all harm to the Quebec nation.

What the resolution fails to mention, and what separatists would like everyone to simply forget, is that the request for the army to intervene actually came from the City of Montreal and the Quebec government of the day.

It also fails to capture the feeling of fear that gripped the province when FLQ cells were working to plant mail bombs that killed several people and culminated in an explosion at the Montreal stock exchange that injured 28 people.

Instead, “You cannot pretend to be deeply in love with Quebec without respecting this desire of Quebecers to receive some apologies from Her Majesty’s government,” was the explanation given by Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet in defence of the motion.

Two elements of his statement bear analysis. First, his claim that it was the “desire of Quebecers” to receive apologi(es) plural.

The Bloc is usually very successful in portraying its views as the gold standard for the thinking of all Quebecers. But in this day of pandemics, I doubt very much that revisionist history is the primary preoccupation of the people.

Second is the reference to “Her Majesty’s government.” Last time I looked the Canadian government was led by a Quebecer who lives in Quebec, not England. But the reference to the Queen is just one more attempt by separatists to convince Quebecers that their destiny is still in the hands of the bloody English.

The same time the Bloc was debating its motion in Parliament, the son of one of the terrorists got sympathetic full-page coverage in The Globe and Mail covering a documentary he made about his “gentle” father Paul Rose.

According to Rose’s son, his killer instinct sprung from living in acute poverty while English-speaking neighbours were all living high off the hog. The story of Rose’s upbringing could just as easily have been the story of prime minister Jean Chrétien, who grew up in a family of 15 on the wrong side of the hill in Shawinigan.

Yet Chrétien turned those early years into leadership and did not set up a terrorist cell with the intention to inflict mayhem on anglos. My own father grew up in abject poverty in northern Ontario, complete with rickets, a bone disease caused by malnutrition. As a child in Hamilton, on my way to Catholic school I was spit on, beat up and called “cat licker” on a daily basis. But that experience made me believe more strongly in the power of diversity.

The Rose documentary views the FLQ from the sympathetic eye of a son. But there is zero recognition of the pain of Pierre Laporte’s family. That does not fit the narrative.

Fifty years ago, Quebec was a very different place, francophones were treated as second-class citizens in their own homes. The same could be said for other minorities in many parts of the country. Witness the shameful treatment of gays and lesbians in that period and later.

Now the same spurned citizens have been premiers and prime ministers.

The country has changed, and we do a disservice to history by rehashing one-sided old grievances.

The wedge politics strategy in the Bloc strategy is self-evident. But, as we have witnessed south of the border, wedge politics can work.

Hopefully, Quebecers will not fall for this blatant attempt to rewrite history.

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

In a minority situation, an election can happen at any time if parties clash on spending priorities. But these are not ordinary times. In the middle of a pandemic, even getting to the polls is complicated.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 28, 2020.

OTTAWA—The election cat and mouse games begin.

In a minority situation, an election can happen at any time if parties clash on spending priorities.

But these are not ordinary times. In the middle of a pandemic, even getting to the polls is complicated.

The British Columbia government just called an Oct. 24 election. Hours after the call, it was revealed that voting results could take weeks to tabulate.

Because of the second wave of the pandemic, many people are limiting their movement amongst larger crowds.

Within hours of the election call, 20,000 requests for mail-in ballots had been sent to Elections BC.

According to officials, they expect a mail-in participation of up to 40 per cent, which means 800,000 ballots, compared to only 6,500 people in the 2017 campaign.

Election law says that absentee ballots cannot be tallied until the final results of the polls are counted, and that could be up to 13 days after the vote.

Given Canada Post’s COVID-based backlog as more people shop via the internet, the arrival of that many ballots could clog up the system for up to three weeks.

British Columbia Premier John Horgan called the snap election a year sooner than the end of his mandate, but his announcement came as no surprise. He and his team have been busy rolling out pre-election promises for weeks.

The early call is a gamble for Horgan, but he is also banking on the pandemic bounce that has been felt by leaders across the country.

New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs recently launched a similar quick COVID call two years into his minority mandate and was rewarded with a comfortable majority.

Popularity numbers for Ontario Premier Doug Ford and François Legault have also risen during the pandemic.

Even though both provinces are plagued by high levels of contagion and an increasing concern with the arrival of the second wave, the electorate has been happy with their work.

Voters are also witnessing unprecedented federal-provincial harmony which provides a peaceful backdrop in a world pandemic that could easily morph into panic.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not oblivious to the crisis bump.

When the Corona virus impact appeared to be waning, the summer was replete with scandal stories like the one that caused WE Canada to shutter its operations.

But with the return of kids to classrooms, and more people back at the workplace and larger social gatherings, the predicted second wave is upon us.

The prime minister’s televised national address was designed to promote calm but also encourage Canadians to stay the course with limited social contacts and self-distancing.

He has also set out a plan designed to put the Liberals on a collision course with all opposition parties.

On the left, New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh is doing his best to put his party’s stamp on promised items like national pharmacare and childcare.

But the Liberals are crowding their space with the intention of securing support from voters who might swing between both parties.

On the right, Erin O’Toole is going to have to refrain from coming away from the Throne Speech as Mr. No. His focus on the deficit and spending may sit well on Bay Street but it does not comfort Main Street Canadians who are losing jobs, homes and life savings because of the financial havoc wreaked by the pandemic.

Then there is the Bloc Québécois. Trudeau’s promise to introduce national standards for long-term care facilities, a direct result of the deaths of thousands of innocent seniors, has raised the hackles of the premier and the nationalists in the province.

They claim that Ottawa should merely increase health budgets and that will solve all the problems.

However, the image of the premier calling in Canadian soldiers to clean up the mess in multiple facilities was not lost on the ordinary Quebecer.

Long-term care is solely the provincial jurisdiction, but it is obvious that the basic rule of protecting the health of citizens and workers was sadly ignored in multiple institutions in more than one province.

Canadians are wise enough to know that it makes sense to work on a national plan in a pandemic that has already killed almost 10,000 people. There is a public interest argument that trumps federal-provincial fights.

Trudeau is itching to test his vision in a federal election, but he risks a backlash if the Liberals are seen to provoke it.

However, Liberals would be happy if an opposition party pulls the plug,

Meanwhile the political war games are on.

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

Lame duck leader Andrew Scheer continues to shoot from the lip in his criticisms of everything the government is doing to minimize impacts of the COVID-19 world pandemic.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 4, 2020.

OTTAWA—The biggest political victim of COVID has been the national Conservative Party.

Lame duck leader Andrew Scheer continues to shoot from the lip in his criticisms of everything the government is doing to minimize impacts of the COVID 19 world pandemic.

In the face of the pandemic, we have the unusual picture of provincial premiers and the prime minister working together on a daily basis to manage the health crisis and plan for a staged reopening of the economy.

Thus far, even Ontario premier Doug Ford is regularly praising the prime minister and all the premiers of other provinces across the country.

That air of camaraderie may be blown out of the water as Quebec moves to reopen its economy while the province still has the highest rate of infection and death in the country.

As Quebec Premier François Legault promises to free up roads leading into his province, Ford may be forced to close Ontario’s doors. On April 30, his province reported the largest number of COVID-19 deaths since the outbreak of the pandemic.

Given the curve has not fully flattened, the last thing the country needs is the spread of infection through unnecessary travel.

The decision to open child-care centres and elementary schools, but keep secondary schools closed does not seem to be based on the best science. If I were a Quebec parent, I am not sure I would want my children at school while the virus is still killing people in large numbers.

Quebec’s decision may cause a rebound of coronavirus cases, making the situation even worse for a province that has already suffered more than 26,500 COVID cases and almost 1,800 deaths. Their mortality rate is currently larger than the combined death rate for the rest of the country.

It is understandable that Quebec teachers, and workers have serious questions about the government’s move to be the first out of the gate when it comes to social reintegration.

Quebec is banking on herd immunity, with the belief that the large number of COVID carriers may provide a reduction in the spread of the disease.

But that is a huge gamble, because if it fails, the Quebec economy will sputter while the deaths will continue to rise.

But all provinces and the federal government have been careful in refusing to comment on the Quebec decision, not wanting to be drawn into an interprovincial fight at a moment when Canadians expect all provinces to be working together.

The only one who has not gotten that message is the outgoing leader of the Conservative Party.

Andrew Scheer’s ad hominem attacks on everything that has been done by the federal government ring very hollow to the population at large.

It may be playing well to his base, but it is certainly not helping his party position itself for an election that might come sooner rather than later.

The racist attack by leadership candidate Derek Sloan on Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam fuels the impression that the Conservative Party has lost its way.

While the Conservative’s own caucus in Ontario is trying to get Sloan to apologize or be turfed from caucus, not a single opponent in the leadership race stepped in to attack his claim that Tam is a pawn of the Chinese government.

Peter MacKay, the onetime frontrunner in the leadership race postponed because of COVID, missed an opportunity to cut ties with Sloan by a public disavowal of his claims.

Instead, MacKay and all other leadership candidates refrain from criticism in an effort to build bridges with Sloan, whose previous public outbursts include the claim that being gay is a choice.

Sadly, Sloan’s viewpoints appear to be fairly popular with the rank and file of the party, which is why other leadership candidates do not want to attack him.

They need the support of his followers.

And Scheer’s public attacks on the government’s COVID-fighting plans is equally out of step with the rest of the country.

It would be so much easier for the next Conservative leader to fight the Liberals on the economic front in the aftermath of the financial cost of COVID.

The Parliamentary Budget Office says the government could face an economic contraction of 12 per cent this year, which would result in a potential $252-billion deficit.

With those numbers, all the opposition leader has to do is wait for a recession to do the government in.

Instead, extreme Conservative views are serving to strengthen the government’s potential pre-election hand.

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

Instead of trying to go it alone, provinces are stronger when they work together.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 27, 2020.

OTTAWA—The death of separatism is an unintended outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the first time in my memory, provincial governments are looking to the federal government as more than just a cash machine.

They are actually working together, pooling resources and information in an effort to fight the spread of a pandemic that knows no borders.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been positively glowing in his exhortations for partners across the country to work together.

While announcing the redistribution of excess Alberta personal protective equipment, the premier was effusively collegial.

It was a far cry from only a few short months ago, when Kenney was lauding the Wexit movement for shining a light on Alberta’s oil troubles.

Premiers across the country have been working together with the prime minister to solve the common problem of access to COVID-fighting information, protective equipment and health care human resource shortages.

Without a scintilla of criticism, the Quebec government called in the Canadian military to supplement the shortage of personnel in the province’s long-term care facilities.

Pre-pandemic, a similar move would have prompted a howl from those separatists who think Quebec’s strength lies in going it alone.

The pandemic also gives us a better picture of the shared benefits of acting as a strong team. Compare the infection and death rates in our country to those in the United States, and it is abundantly clear that a national, public health-care system is a better weapon against an anonymous virus than the hodgepodge of medical supports available south of the border.

At press time the American death rate was 40 times higher than Canada’s, with only ten times the population.

So, one lesson has been learned from our time together in collective self-isolation. Canada works better as a country when we all work together.

On the domestic level, we have an oversight of just what is working and what is not.

The death rate in Quebec is almost double that of Ontario and the gold standard bearer for COVID containment is the province of British Columbia.

With a population of more than five million people, the province has suffered fewer than 100 COVID-related deaths. Quebec’s population is almost 8.5 million, but their death rate is 11 times greater than that of B.C.

Pandemic post-mortems will undoubtedly delve deeply into the reasons for the mortality discrepancies among different provinces.

Some of the provincial differences are self-evident.

The first, and probably most significant, was the difference in the date of spring break between Quebec and British Columbia.

Quebec’s break was in early March, at a time when the ferocity of the virus was not yet fully understood by politicians.

Self-distancing had not yet started, and Quebecers brought the virus back home with a vengeance.

In the case of British Columbia, it was the latest school recess in the country, and by the time break-week arrived, the province had already clamped down on travel, effectively limiting the viral path.

Provinces also have different regimes managing their long-term care facilities.

British Columbia did not allow personal service workers to operate in more than one nursing home.

That regulation is cited as one of the reasons that the rapid spread of COVID-19 in Ontario and Quebec homes was not replicated in British Columbia.

During the pandemic, Ontario and Quebec have modified their regulations, but the issue of health workers’ pay has not been addressed in kind.

Most health care aides would love to work in one facility only. But the companies that manage many of these facilities for government focus on hiring part-time workers to keep their costs down.

Discussion is ensuing about topping up the pay in these low-wage high-risk health environments, but that is only part of the problem.

The other part is the lack of government oversight into what is actually happening in nursing homes.

Quebec Premier François Legault is promising a fulsome investigation into the deplorable situation in some of the homes in his province. His effective communication skills managed to build public confidence early in the crisis, but the widespread number of deaths in long-term care homes has been eroding his credibility.

Ontario cut the number of inspections in its homes to only nine of 626 homes last year, with the lack of oversight partly responsible for inspection spread. Three years ago, all facilities were inspected annually.

The post-mortem will spawn serious changes to disparate long-term care regimes.

Instead of trying to go it alone, provinces are stronger when they work together.

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