The government would like nothing more than a channel-changer on foreign interference investigations. Even if the Liberals succeed, with the appointment of a special rapporteur and multiple committees, all eyes are still on government foibles. 

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

OTTAWA—In one month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will celebrate 10 years as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

That celebration will be fêted in early May at the party’s national convention in Ottawa.

There will be much to celebrate. Back in 2013, pundits were writing off the Trudeau leadership.

He was leading a third party that was supposed to be on the verge of extinction.

Then came the blockbuster campaign of 2015, in which he was able to ignite the youth vote and encourage many non-Liberals to swing over to support the prime minister’s vision, including the legalization of marijuana and a commitment to end the current first-past-the-post voting system.

Back in 2015, Liberals moved ahead with their promise to legalize marijuana, but shelved their promise to change the voting system.

One out of two ain’t bad.

But in the lead-up to a potential election later this year, a 50 per cent success rate won’t help the government attract more swing voters.

Some say the Liberals promised to bring in proportional voting. But that is not accurate. In the prime minister’s mind, he was looking at the possibility of a weighted vote, with Canadians choosing to rank their choices in every local election.

Whatever Trudeau’s vision, the change was not accomplished and that failure is one of the issues that will affect the next election.

The promise to change the voting system appealed to those in smaller parties, like the New Democrats and the Green Party, as neither realistically hoped to form government.

Instead, they would be satisfied to have direct influence in shaping government policy.

Minority government has given them that opportunity. The New Democrats have been key to the introduction of dental care and potential pharmacare.

But whether the third party will be rewarded by the electorate for promoting these initiatives remains to be seen.

New Democrat supporters who switched to the Liberals in 2015, left in 2019 and did not return in 2021.

Green Party voters may make a switch as their party’s internal challenges have definitely damaged their credibility.

Looking forward, voters can be expected to make decisions on what parties will do in the future, not what they promised in the past.

Liberals will be particularly challenged since, as government, the party has been in power for eight years, and politics is the only job where the more experience you have, the more voters want to dump you.

Trudeau hopes to make history as only the second prime minister in Canada to be elected four times in a row.

He would follow in Liberal Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s footsteps by pulling off a four-peat.

But it is a daunting task.

The government is working hard to put some successes in the window. The recent health-care agreement is a great win.

It will help assuage Canadians’ fears about access to health care: from primary providers through to mental health and continuing care.

The next election will not be fought on political successes.

Public attention is focused on allegations of foreign interference in elections, in particular from the Chinese government.

Most Canadians don’t follow the allegations closely. They will be aware that the heated political temperature in Ottawa is putting pressure on the current government.

Trudeau stepped up earlier last week with a series of measures to respond to the allegations, but whether that is enough to cool things down remains to be seen.

If not, the Liberals may be positioning to move to an election sooner rather than later.

The official opposition has been searingly critical in recent exchanges in the House of Commons. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been clear and concise in his attacks, and is obviously trying to keep the issue front and centre in the public mind.

The Liberal hope is to dampen down the heat and move the issue to the back burner.

Conservative MP Michael Cooper may have inadvertently helped the Liberals when he made a clearly sexist attack at Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly while she appeared before committee.

Even New Democrats demanded an apology.

The government would like nothing more than a channel-changer on foreign interference investigations.

Even if they succeed, with the appointment of a special rapporteur and multiple committees, all eyes are still on government foibles.

With that in mind, a successful Liberal convention in May and a summer spent travelling and rolling out budget announcements may mean we are heading for a fall election.

That could be the only way to douse the parliamentary fires.

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.

Provincial governments need to show courage and co-operation as the solution to better health care actually lies in interprovincial cooperation and a focus on health, not just money.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 15, 2022.

OTTAWA—Is health care burning in Canada?

Professionals leaving in droves think so, and so do provincial premiers seeking a major cash infusion from the federal government.

The issue is front and centre in Ontario after the Doug Ford government promised to review all options in tackling health-care problems.

Privatization is on the table, along with all other “innovations and opportunities,” according to Ontario Health Minister Sylvia Jones.

Jones was in the hot seat after the Progressive Conservative government announced that it was looking at all options in an effort to fix the system.

Jones revealed that she has been in talks with hospital corporations across the province in an effort to solve the problem.

But that statement alone is a glaring example of how the system will not be fixed.

As long as the health-care system is strictly based on improving hospital care, it will not tackle the issue of wellness.

And the incorporation of multiple hospitals’ systems is actually part of the problem.

At the moment, Ontario has 141 public hospital corporations spread across 217 sites.

According to a 2021 report from the Economic Research Institute, the average salary of hospital CEOs in Ontario was $600,000.

That figure was up to six times higher than the average CEO salary in most not-for-profit industries and compares very well to a prime ministerial salary of $357,800.

In comparison, the average salary of a long-term care facility CEO was $106,000.

The problem is not just a money issue. It is an organizational issue.

In the world of informatics, every hospital corporation has its own authority to develop information collection with absolutely no requirement for interoperability.

For example, in the city of Ottawa, patients are saddled with two different applications depending upon which hospital they may have been treated at.

Neither hospital applications will cross-pollinate, leaving patients to log into two separate and complicated websites for follow-ups on test results or appointment information.

We have known for years that thousands of hospital beds are occupied by chronic-care patients who should be in retirement homes, but the shortage of those beds is so acute that the hospital has become a substitute chronic care facility.

Hospital corporations also do their own buying. The economies of scale that should apply in a public system do not exist.

Some hospitals form regional groups in order to benefit from more attractive purchasing power. That is another cost that could be reduced if there was an integrated informatics and buying system for the whole province.

More attention should be focused on community care supports to keep people out of hospital. That is not going to happen when the main leaders in the debate are hospital corporation presidents.

The second issue that needs to be tackled is the lack of portability in the Canadian health-care system.

Each province guards its authority aggressively, hence there is very little sharing of health information cross-provincially that could assist in tackling root issues of illnesses in Canada.

Provinces claim it is all about the Constitution, but they do not hesitate to blame the health-care problems on federal underfunding.

During the height of COVID, we saw what could happen when provinces work together with the federal government.

We had bulk-buying of vaccines and ancillary COVID-fighting equipment. That move alone kept the costs of vaccines, tests etc. down to a reasonable number.

Why not apply that same purchasing power to regular medical challenges?

Surely, innovation should involve all these hospital corporations banding together to cut costs and apply some of those savings to hospital worker salaries.

Worker retention should be a top issue, and that goes far deeper than simply in hospitals.

That is a solution that needs to include community health-care workers and those whom we have cited with great pride as the front-line crisis workers in retirement and long-term care facilities.

If the “innovation” discussion is strictly limited to the hospital care sector, we will fail once again to tackle the root of the problem.

And if each province is simply patching its own system without considering the value of informatic interoperability between jurisdictions, we will continue to offer 19th century solutions to 21st century problems.

In the new world of cyberspace, every single Canadian could have access to their own health care record from cradle to grave.

Provincial governments need to show courage and co-operation as the solution to better health care actually lies in interprovincial cooperation and a focus on health, not just money.

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 hard to understand how conservative values align with putting people’s health at risk in a global pandemic.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 16, 2021.

OTTAWA—Inoculate but keep it secret.

That seems to be the vaccination position of the premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.

It is hard to understand how conservative values align with putting people’s health at risk in a global pandemic.

But in the tug-of-war between collective and individual rights, for Doug Ford, Scott Moe, and Jason Kenney, it is pretty clear that the collective doesn’t count.

It is no surprise that Quebec was the first to mount an aggressive plan to protect the collective. The province moved quickly to announce a vaccination passport and it is developing strict rules covering any non-essential activity, requiring Quebecers to certify their vaccination status.

Quebecers have always supported collective engagement over individual rights. In language laws, that has caused pushback in other parts of the country.

But when it comes to health, the vast majority of Canadians are on their side.

A recent survey showed almost 80 per cent support for an international vaccination travel passport.

That number drops to a slight majority when it comes to proof of vaccination for admission to non-essential public places in Canada.

Next month, Quebec will implement a requirement for vaccination proof by any citizen attending non-essential public places like bars and restaurants.

But Alberta takes the opposite viewpoint. Premier Kenney has gone so far as to state that the province would not “facilitate or accept vaccine passports.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally made a move on the issue last week when the government announced it would be working with all provinces on the provision of an international travel passport.

Federal Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino said the passport would be available early in the fall. Canada is already lagging behind several jurisdictions on the passport question.

The European Union has a common vaccine passport. The United Kingdom uses a National Health Service verification.

Canada plans to work with provincial health ministries to verify the vaccination information of Canadians. But with three provinces offside, it seems dubious that the passport will come quickly.

A vaccination passport is the kind of wedge issue that Liberals would love to test in an election.

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole is encouraging all Canadians to get vaccinated, but some members of his caucus have muddied his message.

Former colleague Derek Sloan last year sponsored a petition questioning the safety of a coronavirus vaccine before he was tossed from caucus for other reasons.

Alberta Conservative MP David Yurdiga said it was “tyrannical” for the government to consider mandatory vaccines for employees under federal jurisdiction. Yurdiga said “Canadians deserve the right to liberty … mandating the vaccine … would be a slippery slope.”

That position is widely praised by hard-core libertarians in his party.

But that viewpoint is opposed by the vast majority of Canadians.

With more than 80 per cent of eligible Canadians already vaccinated at least once, their concerns for their own health override liberty.

As long as an unvaccinated Canadian can prevent herd immunity, the issue is broadly understood as one of collective health safety, not individual freedom.

Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna gave us a foretaste of what the campaign might look like when she reflected on the similarities between anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and misogynists in a tweet last Thursday. “Quite a club,” she said.

The Conservative Party is the only one being accused of climate change denial. It is also the only party where the majority of caucus members voted to restrict a woman’s right to abortion in a parliamentary vote on June 2.

The upcoming election narrative is becoming clearer, and the refusal by three Conservative premiers to embrace a COVID passport will give oxygen to the Liberal campaign.

Instead of a vote to simply secure a majority, the Liberals now have an issue to put to the people.

Do you believe that Canadians’ protection against the coronavirus is worth a national vaccine passport? Do you think the value of everyone’s health and safety is more important than individuals right to refuse vaccinations?

Within hours of the government’s announcement of a travel passport, business leaders from retail, restaurant and tourism sectors lauded the decision.

They expressed concern that a fourth wave would further damage an already-embattled economy and anything that can be done to prevent that is worth doing.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is even asking the premier to follow the lead of Quebec by developing a vaccine passport for those who want to attend public events and non-essential destinations like dining establishments and cinemas.

Ford will likely refuse. But voters won’t.

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

Armed with today’s knowledge and technology, it only makes sense to issue an international vaccine for anyone who plans to travel.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 26, 2021.

When does personal freedom blind us to professional responsibility?

When the health-care system permits unvaccinated workers in facilities housing vulnerable people.

It is the state’s job, first and foremost, to protect those who are under its care in public hospitals or long-term communal living arrangements.

The Quebec government understands that. Last April, it became the first jurisdiction in Canada to require health-care workers to either vaccinate or provide thrice-weekly COVID tests to their employers.

Alberta, on the other hand, is clinging to the notion that a vaccination requirement is a violation of civil liberties. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is even considering amending a 100-year-old Alberta law that gives the government the right to mandate vaccines in certain circumstances.

Why would any government assume it is okay to allow employees who have not been vaccinated to come to work?

Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters last week that he thinks it is a constitutional right that, “no one should be forced to do anything.” With that perspective, we should all stop paying taxes.

Someone should ask the premier what happened to the constitutional rights of the frail and elderly in long-term care facilities who depend on us to protect them. Many other countries have already decided it is not a personal freedom issue but a health responsibility for those who work in facilities that look after the vulnerable and hospitalized.

Several European countries have already mandated vaccinations for all health-care employees. France, a country which has some of the strongest worker protection laws in the world, has imposed a deadline of Sept. 15 for health-care workers to be vaccinated or lose their jobs.

Throughout the pandemic, politicians have repeatedly stated that it is their job to listen to the science.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal has been calling on provincial governments to make sure they bring in vaccination rules that cover all facilities, not just those in the public sector. The CMAJ also believes that mandatory vaccinations in those facilities would pass a Charter challenge even though a previous call for mandatory flu vaccines was disallowed.

In this case, the disease transmission and death rate from failing to vaccinate is much higher than for a flu vaccine, and there are already a number of vaccination requirements mandated for hospital employment that have passed Charter scrutiny.

Health-care associations in Canada have been calling on premiers to act quickly and save lives.

Voiceless patients in long-term care facilities, many of whom died during this pandemic, have every right to be fully protected.

On-site testing is not enough.

What is even more egregious is that the cost of refusing the vaccination is not even being borne by the anti-vaxer, but by the rest of us.

In many instances, health-care professionals are required to have tests to prove they are COVID-free. In New Brunswick, unvaccinated workers in long-term care facilities must be tested every second day. If the test is molecular, the cost is approximately $200 each, so in the course of a single week, $800 could be spent to guarantee the employment rights of anti-vaxxers.

A simpler solution would be to make the vaccine mandatory and deliver it quickly.

British Columbia’s chief medical officer of health stated last month that mandatory vaccination was one of the options being considered in their long-term care facilities.

According to the Ontario Medical Association and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, mandatory vaccines in the health care system could help prevent a third wave of infection caused by the delta variant of the Coronavirus.

On the science side, the verdict is unanimous: a health care vaccination program would have a significant impact in reducing the possibility or severity of a third wave of variant Covid infection.

There is zero reason for politicians to play the civil liberty card on this one.

I still carry a federal vaccination card that was co-issued by Health Canada and the World Health Organization as a requirement to comply with international health regulations when entering various countries. The vaccines were administered and signed off by Health Canada and you could not enter certain countries without this vaccination certificate.

In those days, we were not dealing with a virus that morphed into a pandemic.

Armed with today’s knowledge and technology, it only makes sense to issue an international vaccine for anyone who plans to travel.

And it is about time the Canadian government and the provinces got their act together and realized that saving lives trumps vaccine liberty.

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

By procuring almost one-quarter million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the government will be able to start distribution immediately so that frontline workers and the vulnerable elderly will get protection. And once the procurement deal was announced, Health Canada moved quickly to approve the vaccine.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 14, 2020.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled a huge rabbit out of his hat last week.

By procuring almost one-quarter million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the government will be able to start distribution immediately so that frontline workers and the vulnerable elderly will get protection.

And once the procurement deal was announced, Health Canada moved quickly to approve the vaccine.

By doing so, Canada joined the United Kingdom, and Bahrain, becoming just the third country in the world to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Four thousand people will be receiving the vaccine next week with priority given to frontline health-care workers.

It also gave Trudeau some much-needed good news in advance of last week’s first ministers’ meeting on health that was not going to be an easy ride.

The federal government has been the major contributor to funding during the COVID crisis. According to Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, the national government has been responsible for 80 per cent of the extraordinary costs associated with the pandemic.

And last week’s first ministers’ meeting gave the prime minister a chance to outline some of those successes, including funding for personal protective equipment and direct support for those who lost their jobs because of the virus.

But Trudeau is also under pressure to increase the federal financial share of provincial health funding, as the provinces were seeking an increase from 22 per cent to 35 per cent. That increase would represent additional funding of $28-billion annually, up from the current $42-billion yearly transfer.

Trudeau will not be able to meet their full demands, which some premiers have privately acknowledged as unrealistic. But any increase in ongoing funding will also be tied to the introduction of common standards into health-care delivery, while the provinces want to spend the money in their own jurisdiction with no strings attached.

In normal times, the federal involvement in provincial health matters is a no-go zone. There is simply too much jurisprudence that the matter falls under provincial authority.

More than two decades ago, BlackBerry co-founder Mike Lazaridis offered to develop a chip for health care that would record and retain health records for every single Canadian from cradle to grave.

That technology could have been critical in reducing duplication and overlap when patient records are often lost in transfer between hospitals or provinces, when people move.

The senior official involved in the offer, then heading up online initiatives for the government, shut the conversation down in five minutes. She said a single health information system would never happen because the federal government would not impinge on provincial jurisdiction.

That was long before this global pandemic infected the world and exposed gaping holes in provincial delivery of Canadian health care.

Our collective treatment of seniors living in long-term care facilities has been disgraceful. It was so bad that premiers actually called in the Canadian military to save patients. In the financial update, Freeland announced $1-billion to be spent in long-term care facilities on the condition that provinces and the federal government work together to devise national standards.

The provinces are resisting but the population is not impressed after what they have witnessed in filthy nursing homes across the country.

Seniors and single young people are probably those who have suffered most during this world crisis.

Isolation from family and friends is most difficult for those who live on their own, or who are in continuing care facilities where visits have been limited for almost a year.

The vaccine has finally given people hope that there is a light at the end of this tunnel.

The first person in the world to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was a 90-year-old British woman who pleaded with everyone to follow her example.

Her message to anti-vaxxers was that if she could take it, anyone could. She said the vaccine would finally allow her to reunite with her family, from whom she had to isolate because of the virus.

Her message was meant to encourage those who might have doubts about the test. According to the American Food and Drug Administration, only 61 per cent of Americans are likely to get the vaccine. Many vaccine opponents see their refusal as an anti-government political statement. The vaccine is supposed to be taken by at least 70 per cent of citizens for the best chance to achieve herd immunity.

The vast majority of Canadians will likely be lining up eagerly for a vaccine. Their annus horribilus is finally coming to an end.

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

As long as Donald Trump is in office, he will continue to promote despots and dictators over democrats. He would rather befriend Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 30, 2020.

OTTAWA—Donald Trump’s border threat confirms what we already know.

The president of the United States is no friend of ours.

Of course, our prime minister cannot say that publicly. Deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland tied herself into a pretzel to avoid commenting on internal American border patrol decisions.

She wants to ensure that we have a working relationship with friends in the administration who believe in the friendship between the two countries.

But Trump obviously does not.

There is a significant amount of irony in the president’s threat to send the army to protect his northern borders.

The protection on the northern border is really needed on the Canadian side, because the confused, chaotic COVID-19 response in the United States has the potential to infect Canada.

Frankly the fewer American travellers crossing over into our country, the better.

Canada has done a decent job of trying to flatten the curve, and the federal/provincial cooperation on our side of the border is visible.

Daily press conferences from the federal government and various provincial leaders have been harmonized, both in messaging and delivery.

Compare that to the American tragicomedy unfolding between the president and the country’s top specialist in infectious diseases.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had provided advice to six successive presidents, and was called upon to join the president’s task force on the coronavirus.

The collaboration was fine until Trump decided that he would ignore the science and encourage people to stop self-isolating and socialize more.

To Fauci’s credit, he publicly contradicted the president, succinctly stating the government doesn’t decide the timeframe, the virus does.

But as soon as Fauci crossed the president, he suddenly disappeared from any joint announcements on the White House coronavirus strategy.

Fauci will obviously not support the president’s attempts to minimize the benefits of self-isolation. The notion that Americans should flock to public gatherings at Easter is akin to signing a death warrant for thousands of people who are vulnerable to the virus.

But the president’s crazy claims have lots of support. Just last week, the lieutenant-governor of Texas backed the president’s call to shorten the social distancing timeframe, even though he acknowledged that it could cost lives. Dan Patrick stepped in to back Trump’s call to end the social isolation in favour of the economy, stating that grandparents would be willing to sacrifice their lives for the economy.

Patrick claimed the United States would be finished if the coronavirus keeps people in their homes for another three months.

But the scientists tell us that if we refuse to keep our distance from others, the virus will simply rebound and gather more strength.

The last few weeks have provided a pretty good snapshot of the benefits of universal health care versus the American health hodgepodge.

In our country, federal and provincial health ministers are working together to provide the support for frontline workers fighting the spread of this disease.

The prime minister and premiers are collaborating to ensure the economic damage to workers and companies is backstopped with government support.

One only needs to switch between Canadian and American television networks to witness the difference in our approaches to COVID-19-virus fighting.

And if you don’t believe the anecdotal evidence, just review the numbers. The United States has now become the epicentre of the virus. As of last Thursday, more than 1,000 Americans had died from the virus, compared to 35 Canadians. One-third of the American deaths occurred in New York, which borders our country.

So, the one thing that soldiers at the border could accomplish is keeping Americans on their side of the fence.

It is a sad day when the world’s longest undefended border reverts to army protection. And it also is a testament to the fragility of our bilateral relationship.

But at the end of the day, anything that discourages traffic between Canada and the United States can only benefit us.

As long as Donald Trump is in office, he will continue to promote despots and dictators over democrats. He would rather befriend Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

The North Korean despot was reported on social media to have executed the first corona virus sufferer in his country, although that posting has not been confirmed.

If Trump proceeds with his plan to arm his northern border, we can return the favour by limiting American traffic.

Trump’s plan may actually help keep COVID-19 out of Canada.

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 July 16, 2018.

OTTAWA—Politics is about making choices. Every country has a sovereign right to make choices in the best interest of its people.

Politicians in the United States of America do not support public health care. Even the watered-down version of so-called Obamacare got short shrift from the Trump administration.

Many Americans erroneously believe that government-funded universal access is a communist concept and that Medicare results in inferior treatment for all. Statistical evidence to the contrary does not matter.

Citizens in many other western countries, including Canada, might prefer investment in heath care to military spending. That is certainly not a viewpoint shared by the United States. Americans have historically and consistently made defence spending a top priority. That position also just happens to align with a domestic jobs agenda dependent on the arms race.

According to U.S. President Donald Trump, the United States just approved the largest defence budget in the country’s history at $716-billion. That is more than double Canada’s total federal budget.

Americans reap tremendous economic benefits from defence spending. At one point during his impromptu NATO press conference, Trump sounded more like a pitchman than a president. After stating he intended to help others meet defence targets by assisting indirectly in equipment purchases, he bragged “The United States makes the best everything. Our (military) equipment is so much better than anyone else’s equipment … everybody wants to buy our equipment.”

While Trump claimed victory, Canada and other countries diplomatically reiterated their existing commitments to additional defence financing.

The two per cent benchmark by 2024 was a target set four years ago. Only days ago, the American president was demanding that all NATO countries double that commitment to four per cent. He had no takers.

While Trump pussyfoots with Russia, he derides America’s best allies. After the G7 attack on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, last week Trump added Germany and the United Kingdom to the growing list of countries on the receiving end of a Trump dump. So why take his advice on where Canadian public expenditures must be made?

The two per cent defence target for NATO mirrors another two per cent promise made by many of the same countries.

That is the amount of money every country should devote to foreign aid.

Assistance to developing countries is one way of making the world a safer place, without the use of military might. But soft power also includes a vision that embraces the world.

Instead, Trump launched an anti-immigrant rant at his presser, crediting his own electoral victory and that of the Brexiters to an anti-immigration platform. Trump is the son of an immigrant and married to an immigrant. But that reality counted for nothing as he railed on about immigration “taking over Europe.” I assume he was referring to non-white migrants.

Trump’s rant was eerily Aryan. It was not surprising, given one of his most high-profile and controversial decisions was to snatch children from their parents’ arms as part of a border arrest strategy.

Trump is broadly supported by hate groups in his own country. He has also complained in an Oval Office meeting about receiving refugees from “shithole countries” and claimed that all Haitians have aids and Mexicans are criminals and rapists.

Stoking immigration fear and fomenting racial and religious tensions in the United States and around the world will simply encourage hate and division. Trump’s leadership has done more to damage global stability than the defence spending tallies of all other NATO partners.

Iran is erupting, America is currently in a trade war with the East and the West, and Trump’s position on the illegal annexation of Crimea is still a question mark. The rest of NATO is strong and united on Russia.

While the president decries Russian interference, he seems more than happy to cozy up to “competitor” President Vladimir Putin.

On the Canadian side, Trudeau underscored the increase in spending and characterized it as a result of the Wales Declaration, where all NATO partners agreed to move toward a two per cent of GDP defence investment by 2024.

Canada has committed to a 70 per cent defence spending hike over the next 10 years. Non-American NATO partners have already increased by $87-billion with more to come.

If Trump continues his slash and burn approach to geopolitics, the resulting chaos may stoke the need for more defence spending.

Maybe that is the plan of this self- proclaimed “stable genius.”

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