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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human rights organizations and feminists rose to support a movement that forced all the men involved in the Charter drafting to back down. At the time, federal ministers Monique Bégin and Judy Erola led the charge.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 25, 2022.

OTTAWA—As the 40th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was celebrated last week, much was written about the effect of the new law on Canada.

Some great ideas on Charter improvements, including multiple suggestions on how to tighten up the notwithstanding clause, open the door for a new constitutional debate.

But there were two elements of the Charter battle that got little attention.

The first was the role played by women politicians of all parties to save the equality clause in the Charter.

Back in 1982, I was the sole woman in the Opposition Ontario Liberal caucus. We were six women altogether representing three parties in the 125-seat assembly.

The fight for Charter equality was the first and only time that we all got together to strategize for a Charter change to fully protect women’s rights.

At the time of the initial Charter agreement, the rights of women, articulated in Sec. 28 of the agreement, were supposed to be subject to the Sec. 33 notwithstanding clause.

What that meant was that if any government wanted to ignore equality rights, all it had to do was invoke the charter to bypass women’s right to equal pay, right to access housing, healthcare, etc.

The charter of inequality had been signed by all first ministers except Quebec, so male politicians were loath to reopen with the document.

Women across the country were livid, and Canada witnessed a female political consensus the likes of which it has never experienced before or since.

Human rights organizations and feminists rose to support a movement that forced all the men involved in the Charter drafting to back down.

At the time, federal ministers Monique Bégin and Judy Erola led the charge. They reached out to female legislators across the country from all political parties, organizing a movement to force all parliaments to support a Charter amendment that would remove the notwithstanding clause from any oversight of women’s rights.

Bégin would later become beloved for her work in the creation of the Canada Health Act. Well-known as the mother of medicare, in 1984, Bégin implemented the legislative framework for hospital care across the country. That legislation secured universal access for all which has remained in place to this day.

Erola, the first female minister of mines, was equally capable, reaching out to legislators across party lines in an effort to secure women’s equality.

The pair organized a group of female politicians across the country, determined to amend the proposed Charter.

We were fighting an uphill battle.

Some premiers were adamant that there could be no changes to the initial document that had been agreed to by all provinces except Quebec.

Since any new change might prevent the Canadian Constitution from being repatriated from Westminster, the federal cabinet did not want to rock the boat.

The notwithstanding clause had already covered other groups, like francophone minorities outside Quebec, so there was a belief that any change, including full equality for women could cause the whole house of cards to collapse.

But the ferocity of women’s anger could not be ignored. Premiers across the country quickly backed down when they saw how women had united in favour of our equality.

The proposed Charter was amended and women’s rights were fully protected before the document was repatriated in April 1982.

The second element of the charter which received little attention but prompted huge social change was the section which proffered rights to all Canadians in both official languages.

Until the Charter was drawn up to protect minority linguistic rights, most francophones outside Quebec had little access to schooling in their language.

They were undereducated and poorly paid, making up the lowest earning group in the country.

As the Charter took hold, and provinces were forced by law to start offering minority language services, that situation turned around.

With robust French-language education available for francophones across the country, the level of education catapulted quickly.

Within twenty years, the poorly-paid, undereducated francophones became the best-educated, and most highly paid group in the country.

Unlike women’s rights, minority language rights were subject to the notwithstanding clause, causing Ottawa Liberal Member of Parliament Jean-Robert Gauthier to vote against the Charter repatriation.

Gauthier did not secure institutional bilingualism for all provinces, nor did the Charter enshrine French-language school boards and education. But the result of the Charter was that every province was eventually cajoled or sued into guaranteeing minority language rights in education.

Women and francophones were the real Charter winners.

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