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.

Bob Bratina will probably go down in history as the first politician who quit because his own government put too much money into his riding, writes Sheila Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 24, 2021.

Hamilton-area Members of Parliament from all parties applauded a $1.4-billion infrastructure investment announced last week.

The investment into a light rapid transit project in the city was announced by the prime minister himself as part of a $15-billion rapid transit spending package designed to battle climate change. It didn’t hurt that Canada’s labour minister, Filomena Tassi, and Canada’s infrastructure and communities minister, Catherine McKenna, are both natives of Canada’s ninth city and vocal proponents of going green. There was only one outlier in the near unanimous chorus of support: that came from Hamilton East-Stoney Creek Member of Parliament Bob Bratina, who announced his future resignation, claiming he was not consulted on the project.

Bratina will be eligible for a partial pension in November, so it was not surprising that his protest exit did not take effect immediately. National commentators jumped on his retirement, reiterating the claim that the government in Ottawa is simply not listening. But those chroniclers failed to mention that the project is currently supported by all other local Members of Parliament from three different parties.

Bratina insisted the last straw was that he was not consulted on the route or the decision. In the past two elections, Bratina ran on the Liberal platform, which included a widely publicized promise to invest in public transit in all parts of the country.

Bratina will probably go down in history as the first politician who quit because his own government put too much money into his riding.

The other inexplicable element of Bratina’s position is that he says any light rail system should go north-south, not east-west. That route would ensure that his riding in the lower city is completely excluded from any light rail access.

Bratina claims that developers are promoting the east-west route but offers no evidence to back up his claim. In fact, developers lined up in the last municipal election to oppose the rapid transit plan, and their chosen candidate was handily defeated by incumbent mayor Fred Eisenberger. The city election turned into a referendum on the rapid transit option, and Eisenberger won by more than 22,000 votes.

Those who claim that Bratina is reflecting the will of the people obviously don’t follow Hamilton politics very closely. If they did, they would probably know that another reason looming large for Bratina was his repeated statement during the last election that he was running for the last time. Bratina is 77, and his wife Carol has been patiently hoping for a happy retirement.

In addition, a 2019 meltdown in his office where he reportedly told local steelworkers’ union representatives and pensioners to get out and cursed at them has not been lost on his New Democratic Party opposition. The next election would have been tough, as steelworkers planned to plaster the riding with social media tapes of the Bratina expletives. Given the area is home to the largest number of steelworkers in the country, that could have been problematic.

What is most unfortunate about Bob’s kamikaze mission is that this light rapid transit project will be the single most important investment in the east end of Hamilton by any government in the history of our country. It will guarantee urban revitalization, with a line starting at McMaster University in the west and wending its way to the former city limits at the old border of Hamilton and Stoney Creek. That means real estate values will surge, and many expat Torontonians, who are already moving to Hamilton to take advantage of robust housing stock and the arts-renaissance in the downtown core, will accelerate their migration.

Hamilton has become quite a magnet for film and television. The Oscar-winning film, Shape of Water, was filmed there as is The Handmaid’s Tale. Just last week a Disney movie began production. A multimillion-dollar waterfront redevelopment will simply add to the appeal of a city that has more Victorian architecture per capita than any place in Canada.

It would have made sense for Bratina to back the east end investment. That’s where he has spent his whole life. But for years, he has been opposed to rapid transit. He is already musing publicly about running again for mayor to fight the deal.

Bratina was a popular mayor before entering the federal arena. But he does not have the backing of Hamiltonians on this one. Instead, last week’s announcement is a winning issue for the Liberals.

Too bad Bob couldn’t see it that way.

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

But if Jean-Pierre Blais really wants to reflect Canadian broadcast history, he would well advised to listen to the words of esteemed Canadian television pioneer, Graham Spry.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 29, 2016.

OTTAWA—The conundrum of Canadian broadcast policy was never more evident than in a recent speech by chief regulator Jean-Pierre Blais.

The chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission started his remarks by quoting American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson and then vowing: “We’re staying the course we’ve mapped with Canadians and we’ll follow it to the end.”

It was curious to highlight an American writer in defence of Canadian broadcasting law.

Blais’ choice was an accurate reflection of his approach to the new world of broadcasting. The chair devoted much of his speech to lauding consumer choice and trashing broadcast executives as a bunch of money-grubbing capitalists who are change resistant because they have spent years benefitting from the status quo.

Blais had done his public opinion polling before the speech. Most Canadians love to hate the major telecommunications players. From Rogers, to Bell to Shaw, consumers believe they are all in a conspiracy to charge more for less.

On the telephone side, there is some truth to the criticisms. Canadians pay among the highest prices in the world for cellphone service and there are swaths of rural Canada that still do not have internet coverage. In the eyes of today’s CRTC chair, the consumer is king.

But if Blais really wants to reflect Canadian broadcast history, he would well advised to listen to the words of esteemed Canadian television pioneer, Graham Spry. Credited as the father of the modern Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Spry coined the phrase “The state or the United States” in support of the establishment of a made-in-Canada public broadcaster back in 1930.

From those humble beginnings, governments of different stripes have always been deeply involved in making sure that broadcast licence provisions include specific Canadian content commitments. Consumer pricing has been an integral part of the accessibility equation but it became the only relevant factor during Stephen Harper’s time in power.

Until then, government support for content creation was always crucial.

Blais made reference to the health of the radio sector in his speech. Back in the nineties, radio stations were bleeding red ink. Government was forced to intervene, with regulatory changes to increase Canadian content while permitting multiple licence ownership in single markets.

Those legal modifications were crucial to turning the industry around. Most stations survived and became profitable because of government help, not in spite of it.

Blais wrongly attributed the radio renaissance to sectoral creative forces, ignoring historical market realities.

In his speech, Blais even warned broadcasters not to go whining to governments if they are unhappy with CRTC decisions. “Others are just complaining. They’re forecasting doom and gloom: job cuts, revenue losses, and station closures. They run off to court, they run off to Cabinet to seek relief. It’s their right to do so, but it doesn’t make them right. … Their stock in trade these days seems to be divisive and self-interested polemics rather than forward-looking action.”

The last time I looked, the authority for broadcasting legislation actually rested with cabinet. Blais is not the head of a private company.

He is a there as the result of a governor in council appointment, with specific reporting requirements to Cabinet.

When it comes to fundamental changes to the Canadian broadcast system, government not only has a role to play. It is the key player.

The CBC, the Canadian Media fund, the CRTC, Telefilm, the National Film Board, and the Canada Council for the Arts all play their parts in Canadian content creation. Private broadcasters carrying local news and Canadian drama and documentary content also influence public access.

When Hamilton’s CHCH television laid off a massive number of workers only to rehire some of them immediately under a different corporate umbrella, Blais could have stepped in by yanking the company’s licence.

Instead, he referenced CHCH in his speech as one of the long list of victims of modern broadcast changes. Blais further confounded the discussion by deliberately mixing local licensed television newscasts with newspaper copy.

“I listened as Canadians spoke with intelligence and passion to many of the issues I just described, while corporate executives who own luxury yachts and private helicopters came looking for subsidies.”

There is no doubt that modern Internet transmission methods have changed the way Canadians access news and creative content.

There is also no doubt that our chief broadcast regulator should be looking to Canada for inspiration.

Past governments have promoted unique content streams in multiple sectors.

Today’s complex broadcast environment needs smart government more than ever.

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