Karina Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Mark Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 15, 2025.

OTTAWA–Why Karina Gould? That’s the question friends posed when I gave a couple of television interviews promoting her as the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

At press time, Gould had not yet announced, but her team was putting together a campaign to create a fighting chance in this shortened race to name the next prime minister of Canada. Gould has already recruited more than a dozen caucus members.

Not overwhelming, but considering her campaign only started a week ago, it is a good start.

Mark Carney has been running for the job for years. Press reports say he has about 30 MPs on his team. That number should be twice as large if Carney’s support is as wide and deep as the media keep claiming.

On just about every network, including his American pre-campaign interview on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, Carney is constantly presented as the almost certain winner of the upcoming race.

Resisting that pull may be difficult, but many Liberals would like to support a leader who’s in it for the long haul.

Does anyone really think that Carney—who declined offers of more than one nomination in the last election—will stick around if the party ends up in third-party status? The answer is no.  

Liberals need a leader who will appeal to young people. Gould is the most appealing to that cohort because she reflects their values and energy. Gould has managed multiple cabinet portfolios with energy and savvy.  

A superb communicator in multiple languages, Gould negotiated Canada’s national childcare via multiple provincial agreements. While child care is seen as crucial for Canadians, Gould is being critiqued internally by those who say motherhood is a reason not to vote for her.

Before we dismiss misogyny’s role in leadership, we cannot forget what happened to the Kamala Harris vote in the United States. She lost the presidency because American men voted against her. Had the election been determined only by women, Harris would have won. 

No one asked Justin Trudeau if he could manage both politics and a young family when he ran for office at age 36 back in 2008. Instead, his youth and a campaign that included cannabis legalization managed to ignite the attention of a new generation.

Gould has been generating much interest with young people. She also has support from senior Liberals who have supported the party for decades.

Unlike some colleagues, Gould reaches out regularly to party elders, seeking their advice and wisdom while other leadership candidates have either ignored them or publicly denigrated them. 

Party faithful remember the very off-putting negative response of Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland when former prime minister Jean Chrétien offered to go to China to negotiate a solution to the extradition of Meng Wanzhou to the United States.  

Freeland scorned his offer, and ended up with a protracted fight with China that cost our country economically and politically. But Freeland’s high profile during the Trudeau years have set her up as an obvious runner-up to Carney’s stardom.

Neither Carney nor Freeland have Gould’s likability factor. Parties make decisions based on whom they think can win. Canadians make decisions on the emotional feel they get from a politician. Is that person someone you would like to have a beer with? Kim Campbell was elected Progressive Conservative leader and prime minister because she was seen to be the best choice to rebuild her party in the post-Brian Mulroney era.  

It turned out to be a terrible decision that left the Tories reduced to two seats in a Liberal majority government in 1993. Today, Liberals have little time to judge the emotional IQ of each of the candidates.  

But when it comes to support from young people, reaching out to party faithful, and a commitment to the long-term rebuilding process, Gould is our best bet. 

The first question at any leadership debate should be, “If the Liberals lose the next election, are you willing to remain as leader?” The second question should be, “How can we recapture the dynamic wave of support by young people that carried Trudeau to power in 2015?”

The answer to both questions is Gould studied Latin American and Caribbean studies at McGill and philosophy at Oxford and who worked for the Organization of American States on migration.

She learned Spanish while volunteering at a Latin American orphanage. Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

Correction: This column originally incorrectly reported that Karina Gould is a lawyer. She is not, and the column was updated at 8:09 a.m. on Jan. 16.

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

When a musician can invoke that much good in the world, it is worth a deeper dive into understanding why.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 18, 2024.

OTTAWA—Canada has gone “Swiftie” this week.

In anticipation of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in Toronto and Vancouver, the country is abuzz with excitement.

The Toronto Star is auctioning off tickets to raise money for the Santa Claus Fund. According to The Star, the fund has been donating gift boxes to vulnerable children since 1906. What could be more Canadian than that?

Swift herself donated $13,000 to the fund last year, and she wasn’t even visiting Toronto. This year, she is donating again. Two Nov. 22 concert tickets are being auctioned off by The Star, which is also encouraging concert-goers to donate to their own favourite charity.

Social media is calling on fans to follow Swift’s example by donating to something worthwhile as she has done.

Stories of charitable acts surrounding the Swift tour abound.

CTV reported that an Ottawa boy with a rare spastic paraplegia was gifted two tickets to the concert that his friends had auctioned off for $20,000.

The tickets were originally sold off to fund seven-year-old Jack Laidlaw’s experimental treatment in a Boston hospital.

Someone donated $20,000 for the seats, with an anonymous matching donation.

But the person who purchased the tickets was so moved by Laidlaw’s story that she donated the tickets to him, and he will attend the concert with his father.

Stories of similar goodness are popping up all across the country.

Taylor’s performances started on Nov. 14 with six concerts in Toronto, moving to Vancouver for three performances in early December.

Some 60,000 people will attend each sold-out concert with thousands more expected to attend the pre-concert Taylgate ’24 at the Metro Convention Centre.

Taylor Swift Way has been temporarily installed in Toronto with 22 street signs wending their way from Queen Street West to John Street, Front Street, and Blue Jays Way.

Official Swift merchandise is being sold in only one location, and hundreds of fans lined up to purchase posters, shirts, and other memorabilia when the shop opened.

Some clearly don’t understand the Swift mania that has gripped the nation.

Globe and Mail sports columnist Cathal Kelly wrote a scathing critique of Taylor’s music, writing: “On a scale of musical impact, she is somewhere north of Barry Manilow and south of Elton John. She is a less interesting Diana Ross, or a Madonna with better business instincts.”

Cathal goes on to say it is not Swift’s fault, but rather a reflection of “the enormous vacant space in cultural history that she represents. … Six nights in Toronto is another portent of mediocrity.”

He may be right, but I can’t help but wondering why thousands of people—including members of my own family—are struck with Swiftmania.

My niece won two tickets in a lottery at a cost of $500 apiece. As of last week, those tickets could be sold on the internet for up to $8,000 each.

But she prefers to go to the concert, and forego a possible $15,000 cash payout.

Like Kelly, I just don’t get it. Maybe it is just the older generation that is living in ignorance as the world moves to embrace Swift’s social media stardom.

When a musician can invoke that much good in the world, it is worth a deeper dive into understanding why.

Of course, the woman and her team are obviously marketing geniuses. That goes without saying.

But her judicious use of social media and the global response to her music is giving the world something to share in a time when, according to the young, everything else seems to be falling apart.

Perhaps Swift’s influence is overstated.

She came out courageously and loudly in favour of electing America’s first woman president. Swift was Kamala Harris’ biggest booster, much to the ire of Donald Trump.

While her fans may have been cheering, they did not all jump on board because if they had, Trump would have lost the election.

So perhaps her followers are thirsting for a brief moment, a three-hour escape from the reality of the world in which they live.

Surveys show many young people don’t even want to have children today because they are afraid of how climate change is destroying the globe. World wars and environmental disasters dominate the news.

There aren’t many moments when these disasters can be minimized.

Swift concerts, and the crazy prelude leading up to her arrival, are one way that troubles can be forgotten.

Perhaps her music won’t last for a half-century like that of the iconic Beatles.

But the Swiftie Moment is here to stay.

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

Once again, a woman for president was just too much for Americans to bear. Kamala Harris was soundly beaten by an angry white man. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 11, 2024.

OTTAWA—After his decisive victory against U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris last week, Donald Trump needs to get some new hats.

The stench of sexism and racism wafted from voting booths as those who wanted to turn back the clock cast their ballots for a convicted sex offender.

Trump’s numbers in most areas exceeded his previous election bids. In his first attempt, Trump made it to the White House with the electoral vote, but not the popular vote. On Nov. 5, he got it all. There is nothing stopping him now.

David Axelrod, a Democratic adviser to multiple presidents, said after the vote that racism and sexism both played a role in Harris’ loss. Given the United States has previously voted for a Black president in Barack Obama, one has to assume that gender was the deciding Harris negative.

An exit poll by Edison Research found that Harris received the majority of her support from women and minorities. As for women, she won 54 per cent of their votes, while Trump secured 44 per cent. However, the white vote generally gave Trump an edge of 12 per cent. As for Latinos, they moved toward Trump in numbers not seen in the 2020 race.

On the race front, post-election numbers show that Harris garnered 80 per cent of the Black vote, but Obama received 93 per cent. Why was there a 13 per cent drop? Was it because some Black men couldn’t vote for a woman?

Women all over the world are mourning the Harris loss because it felt that, once again, a chance to elect a woman president in American was shattered not by a glass ceiling, but a concrete one.

Harris ran a flawless campaign. She was positive, upbeat, and energetic compared to a waddling Trump who bored crowds with his incoherent, droning speeches.

A woman voter dressed as a handmaid at a Pennsylvania voting booth said it all. Without uttering a word, the anonymous woman sent a clear message of what was at stake in the election.

Margaret Atwood, renowned Canadian author of The Handmaid’s Tale, made her own plea to American voters to support Harris for president.

According to her publisher, Atwood’s novel explores “themes of powerless women in a patriarchal society, loss of female agency and individuality, suppression of women’s reproductive rights, and the various means by which women resist and try to gain individuality and independence.”

That was the narrative for women in this election.

Once again, a woman for president was just too much for Americans to bear. Harris, who took over the Democratic reins from an ailing President Joe Biden 100 days ago, was soundly beaten by an angry white man.

Trump’s multiple character flaws were on painful display in the campaign, including the fact that almost no one who served with him in the White House supported him. His last week of campaigning was a disaster.

The hope that former congresswoman Liz Cheney be put before a firing squad prefaced by a self-inflicted wound at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in New York. Multiple participants levelled insults at women, Blacks, and Jews.

Harris herself was alleged to be a sex worker working with her pimps. Then came the now infamous insult to Puerto Ricans when a comedian called their home a floating island of garbage.

Harris faced a double whammy. As a racialized woman, she fought prejudice against her gender and her race.

Despite her comfortable majority support with women, the men did her in. The more education they had, the more likely they were to support her. But opposition from young men and those with less than a high school education was ferocious.

Harris cannot be faulted on her campaign. Her message was solid, and she delivered it with an ease of confidence reminiscent of a real leader.

Now Democrats must reboot while MAGA Republicans are already discussing a successor to the aging president-elect. In a media interview, a young Trump voter said he thought the perfect successor was vice-president-elect J.D. Vance.

The man who thinks America is being run by a “bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too” is the next great white hope.

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

Pennsylvania is a pivotal state because of the electoral college system, and the majority of the state’s 580,000 eligible Latino voters are from Puerto Rico. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 4, 2024.

OTTAWA—Bromance may cost Donald Trump the election.

In a plea to Trump supporters, former Trump opponent Nikki Haley told Fox News that the male-only pitch and the use of the C-word in PAC ads attacking Kamala Harris were hurting the former president’s campaign.

She also underscored a huge mistake in the Trump campaign strategy.

While Haley was the last person standing in the nomination process against Trump, she quickly got on board and offered her help.

She revealed in the media last week that while she has been involved in fundraising mail and calls, she has not been asked to join in a single rally.

Instead, Trump’s major final event at Madison Square Gardens featured the kind of supporters who would appeal to the angry young men who are already in the former president’s camp.

The event was dominated by former wrestlers, comics, and other supporters, most of whom were unknown to the general public.

Instead of reaching out to women and minorities, the Trump-approved guest list at the New York event may actually cost him the election.

Former Trump supporter and well-known Latino broadcaster Geraldo Rivera called the insulting comments made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe a “seminal” moment which will cost the Trump team dearly in Puerto Rican support and amongst other Latinos.

Hinchcliffe is now a household name. He may go down in history as the man who took Trump down. During the six-hour long rally, Hinchcliffe got a roar from the audience when he referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage” and said Latinos “love making babies.”

Another presenter referred to Harris as a prostitute whose pimps are helping in her campaign.

The disastrous comments garnered immediate reaction in the Latino community with famous rapper Bad Bunny endorsing Harris immediately after the Hinchcliffe meltdown. The rapper’s official name is Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, and he was born in Puerto Rico. He has 45 million followers on Instagram.

His endorsement could go a long way in reversing the hike in Trump support amongst Latinos compared to 2016.

That increase has played very well for Trump in some states where the margin between the two candidates is less than two per cent.

Ricky Martin, another Puerto Rican, immediately sent out this message to his 18 million Instagram followers: “this is what they think of us. Vote for @kamalaharris.”

And the tight race between the two presidential candidates on the eve of the election means that a one- or two-point shift could actually change the election’s outcome.

Pennsylvania is a pivotal state because of the electoral college system, and the majority of the state’s 580,000 eligible Latino voters are from Puerto Rico.

The gaffe opened the door for Harris to remind voters how Trump pitched paper towels and little else in the aftermath of the worst natural disaster to hit Puerto Rico in 2017 when Hurricane Maria claimed 2,975 lives.

It was widely reported that federal funding to states that voted for Trump was quicker and more fulsome than relief received by Puerto Rico.

To make matters worse, Trump staff did not issue an immediate repudiation of the comedian.

Instead of responding to multiple requests for a retraction, Trump doubled down, telling the media “there’s never been an event so beautiful. … The love in that room. It was breathtaking. It was like a lovefest, an absolute lovefest.”

It took him 48 hours before he appeared on Trump-friendly Fox News to say that Hinchcliffe probably shouldn’t have been at the rally.

But the other question, unanswered by Trump, is why, in the major rally of his campaign, he refused to reach out to known Republicans like Haley in an effort to court the vote of women.

Haley told Fox News that the Trump team’s approach is alienating women voters. “Fifty-three per cent of the electorate are women. Women will vote. They care about how they’re being talked to, and they care about the issues.”

Harris moved quickly to post Haley’s comments on her social media outlets.

Trump’s attempt to “bromance” those whose support he has already solidly secured is a strategy alienating the very women he needs to secure his return to government.

Strategically, even Republican spokespeople have sought to distance themselves from the racist, misogynistic mess left in the wake of the final Trump rally in New York.

If Geraldo is right, and this seminal moment determines the election, it underscores the reality that campaigns count.

And women power is here to stay—even in the White House.

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

It may also be a reflection of how young men feel they are the forgotten generation. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 21, 2024.

OTTAWA—It has been 95 years, on Oct. 18, since Canadian women were given the right to vote.

In recognition of that right, the Ottawa chapter of the Famous Five Foundation will celebrate a Pink Tea event at the Canadian Museum of Nature on Oct. 27.

At the ceremony, the foundation will unveil this year’s recipients of the Famous 5 award for their contribution to the fight for equality.

Dozens of other Famous 5 chapters across the country hosted similar events to commemorate Oct. 18, 1929.

That day, a landmark decision by the Privy Council of Great Britain recognized women as persons before the law, thus conferring upon them the right to vote.

The appeal to the British Privy Council followed an unsuccessful campaign in 1928 at the Canadian Senate for women’s right to vote. The effort was led by five Alberta suffragettes who became known as the Famous Five. Their names are Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, and Henrietta Moore Edwards.

The Famous Five is currently the most visited grouping of statues within the Parliamentary Precinct on Wellington Street in Ottawa. The Famous Five Foundation was formed to secure national recognition for those women, and then to fight for recognition of modern-day suffragettes.

At next Sunday’s Pink Tea, five women will be honoured for fighting for Indigenous rights, the rights of Afghan women and others involved in the battle for modern day racial and gender equality, and against misogyny.

The Famous 5 Ottawa will recognize the following award recipients: Mariam Abdel-Akher, Cindy Blackstock, Najia Haneefi, Marie-Noëlle Lanthier, and Christine Romulus for special recognition, each in their own area of expertise.

“These extraordinary women continue to doggedly push the envelope in the face of obstacles and challenges just as the original Famous Five had to do,” said Beatrice Raffoul, chair of Famous 5 Ottawa.

The modern Famous 5 know that much work still has to be done when women in some parts of the world are not even allowed to go to school, and Indigenous women are recovering from the trauma of residential school cultural annihilation.

Canadians think that the fight for equality is over, but one only has to look at the current political situation to understand that we still have much work ahead.

In the upcoming American presidential election, according to an Environics Institute poll published by The Globe and Mail last week, the majority of Canadians prefer the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over Republican Donald Trump.

But the younger a man is, the more likely he is to support Trump.

Notwithstanding his multiple criminal convictions and Trump’s vehement refusal to accept the 2020 election loss, the former president’s level of support has actually increased since the last election, Environics revealed.

At that time, Trump had the support of 15 per cent of Canadian respondents, and that figure has now increased to 21 per cent. Trump’s greatest level of support comes from young men, and in that cohort, young Conservatives are most likely to support the convicted felon. Conservatives were more likely to support Trump than Harris, with 44 per cent voicing support—an increase of 11 per cent from four years ago.

The vote split in other parties has remained relatively stagnant, with 89 per cent of Bloc Québécois supporters, 85 per cent of Liberals, and 82 per cent of New Democrats preferring Harris over Trump.

The rise in Conservative support for Trump makes one wonder whether the current Democratic candidate’s gender is at play.

Former president Barack Obama hit the campaign trail last week with exactly that message.

He specifically called out Black men for refusing to support Harris simply because she is a woman.

Obama told his audience that while they claimed other reasons for not supporting her, their refusal is based on misogyny because they will not vote for a woman.

Harris is currently working hard to try to bridge that gender divide, reaching out on podcasts and other non-traditional media platforms hosted by men for men.

But, just like in Canada, the gender gap in voting is quite stark in the United States.

Older people and women are supporting Harris, while the younger male generation has been more supportive of Trump.

That the level of misogyny is highest in young voters is troubling. It may also be a reflection of how young men feel they are the forgotten generation.

Some 95 years after Canadian women got the right to vote, we still have a long way to go.

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

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.

The debate moderator rebutted the pet-eating immigrants claim, but that didn’t faze Trump, who said he’d seen the carnivorous behaviour talked about on TV.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 16, 2024.

OTTAWA—I ate dawg to celebrate the debate-thrashing administered to former president Donald Trump by future president Kamala Harris.

My dawg wasn’t real. It was a hot dog confection created by the team at Tavern on the Falls on Sussex Drive in the nation’s capital.

Called da dawg, it includes corned beef and sauerkraut atop the large steamy that the restaurant is known for.

This dawg choice was perfectly timed because everyone was talking about Trump’s bizarre debate claim that dogs and cats were being eaten by immigrants who should not have been let into the United States. Trump literally screamed that illegal immigrants were eating people’s pets in Ohio.

ABC’s debate co-moderator David Muir immediately rebutted the claim saying that Springfield city manager Bryan Heck had already laid waste to that false accusation. That didn’t faze Trump. He said he had even seen the carnivorous behaviour being discussed on television.

Trump was referring to a discredited internet claim that Haitian immigrants were kidnapping people’s pets to cook them for dinner.

That internet nugget had been peddled by his running mate J.D. Vance who was reported to have clarified the pet-eating rumours might have been false.

Trump’s shouts about eating dogs prompted Harris to laugh out loud, which spiked Trump’s temperature even further.

Even when the debate’s subject matter was supposed to be delving into other issues like economic policy, Trump focused his pitch almost exclusively on Democratic immigration policies that he claims have let millions of criminals into the country.

He went on to say that the crime rate around the world is going down because Harris and U.S. President Joe Biden have created border policies that are letting all foreign lawbreakers to move to the United States. He said that was causing a spike in American crime.

When Muir pointed out that the American crime rate had gone down, Trump ignored that fact and simply pointed to his own experience, declaring he had taken a bullet in the head because of Harris’ policies.

Trump was referring to the assassination attempt on July 13 where his ear was allegedly grazed by a bullet that killed a rally supporter but he was saved because he moved his head at the last minute.

His ear appeared fully intact on debate night. Sporting a new haircut, the side of his head was visible. No tear or scarring is visible on the lobe.

Trump trumpeted his near-death experience, but didn’t seem too out of sorts until Harris mentioned how many people were leaving his rallies from boredom.

The former president kept his lips pursed throughout that line of attack, and went on to waste valuable airtime explaining how his crowds were bigger than hers, and how much he was loved by the people while she was hated, even by President Biden.

Harris was deftly able to bait her opponent on a number of issues, but also managed to engage in economic issues in support of small business and housing.

She repeated her positive claim that she would be running an “opportunity economy” while in government, expanding the child tax credit, and lowering prices for food and prescription drugs.

She also peppered Trump with questions about his inconsistent position on abortion. He recently said he would oppose a Florida referendum banning abortions after six weeks into a pregnancy, and then reversed his position the following day.

For her part, Harris agreed to reinstate a national policy to take the abortion decision out of the hands of government and give it back to the women whose bodies are affected.

She went on to accuse Trump of currying favour with dictators who could easily seduce him with flattery and favours.

Trump helped make her point by telling his audience that he has the support of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who is known as an autocratic strongman cosying up to the Russians.

Trump also dodged questions about whether he supported Ukrainians in their fight for survival following a Russian invasion of their sovereign territory.

When asked repeatedly whether he supported Ukraine, the former president simply ignored the question, and repeated that he would have the issue solved before the presidential swearing-in if he were elected president.

All the post-debate punditry seemed to say that Trump was badly beaten by a better-prepared, calmer Harris who was more presidential in demeanour.

The former president was more into personal attacks than in convincing Americans he was fit to govern.

If he is defeated, Trump’s political effigy should read “Let them eat dog.”

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

If Kamala Harris can make the case for her economic plan, and if Donald Trump’s insults are caught on tape, she might continue her positive trajectory.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 9, 2024.

OTTAWA–All eyes are on Philadelphia, Penn., as this week’s U.S. presidential campaign debate pits former president Donald Trump against Vice-President Kamala Harris.

Harris’ background as a prosecutor should stand her in good stead in terms of clarity and focus. Trump’s tendency to ramble on with snippets of thought on multiple issues will not shine in a debate format where there is a two-way conversation.

But it is difficult to predict the outcome as the majority of media pressure seems to be focused on Harris as a first-time candidate.

Much attention has been paid to Harris’ first interview on CNN with her vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz. That interview, by Dana Bash, was not very hard-hitting, as the questions appeared designed to support the Harris candidacy, not challenge it.

As far as Canadians are concerned, the vast majority think Harris already has the election in the bag, and they support her. An Abacus survey last month showed that Harris has made a favourable impression on Canadians, with 48 per cent having a positive impression, while 21 per cent holding a negative viewpoint.

Trump is in the opposite situation, as 61 per cent of Canadians hold a negative impression of him—50 per cent hold a very negative impression. Only 24 per cent have a positive impression.

But the Canadian perspective is not what counts here, as we don’t have a horse in that race. Canucks have a hard time understanding why Trump is popular south of the border because, if the vote were being held in Canada, there would be no question that Harris would clobber him.

Not surprisingly, the only province reflective of the American trend is Alberta, where 33 per cent hold a negative impression of the current vice-president. The Harris negatives and positives in Alberta are statistically equal.

That parallels the finding that the majority of Liberal and New Democratic Party supporters in Alberta have a positive viewpoint of Harris.

Tories’ negative and positive numbers in that province are equal, while 68 per cent of Liberals and 65 per cent of New Democrats feel positively about Harris.

Abacus findings are similar to those of other polling organizations that have consistently found more Canadians support the American vice-president than the former president.

Polling by Angus Reid reflected a gender trend that appears to be mirrored south of the border, as well.

According to a mid-August poll, two-thirds of Canadians have a favourable view of Harris, with women being her strongest supporters.

Older women were most numerous in their support for the vice-president with almost 80 per cent claiming a positive impression of the Democratic candidate. Older men were positive, too.

But, as in the United States, Harris’ biggest obstacle is winning over men under the age of 55. Some 40 per cent of this Canadian cohort described Harris unfavourably, calling her dishonest, arrogant, or corrupt.

Despite those naysayers, most Canadians believe that Harris will win the American presidential campaign, according to another recent poll by Nik Nanos.

Last March, Nanos polling showed the majority thought Trump would beat President Joe Biden. A swing of 24 per cent in the Democrats favour has propelled those numbers away from a Republican prediction of victory

But Canadians’ support of Harris does not translate south of the border.

The unique role of the electoral college means the popular vote counts less than where the vote is cast. Somewhat similar to a Canadian system where a candidate could win the popular vote and lose the election, a presidential candidate must exceed 270 electoral college votes in order to win the election.

Even with Harris’ increase in the popular vote compared to incumbent U.S. President Biden, the electoral college splits put the election decision on a knife’s edge.

The tight race increases the importance of this week’s debate. If Harris can make the case for her economic plan and Trump’s insults are caught on tape, she might continue her positive trajectory.

If she makes mistakes that can be magnified by the Trump campaign, her post-convention momentum could be stopped in its tracks.

My money is on Harris. I am in that group of older Canadian women—four in five of us—who have great hope for the election of the first Black woman as president of the United States.

Harris has constantly been underestimated, including during her work behind the scenes as Biden’s vice-president.

She also has plenty of experience in taking on bullies, including California prosecutorial experience and the fight against America’s big banks.

A debate victory could be her ticket to the White House.

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

The boost in polling that Democrats have enjoyed since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the race would not be shared by the Liberals if Justin Trudeau were to do the same.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2024.

OTTAWA–The post-Biden bump for the Democrats in the United States has not passed unnoticed in Canada.

One of the first questions asked of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the summer cabinet meeting in Halifax last week was just that: Could the Liberals get a similar bump if the prime minister were to step down, and the voters were presented with a different face at the head of the party?

Trudeau sidestepped the question, and continued to insist that his job was to “be there to invest in Canadians.” But his close friend and cabinet colleague Marc Miller did say that robust conversations were taking place within the confines of the caucus, without public disclosure.

Other ministers, including potential leadership candidates Mélanie Joly and Chrystia Freeland, were quick to support the prime minister’s leadership. But the party is roiling, as ministers and Members of Parliament seek their own Canadian bump.

It has been a year since the Conservative lead entered into double-digit territory, and nothing the government does seems to narrow that gap. But the notion of a parallel result if Trudeau were to resign is misdirected.

First of all, the hike for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has resulted in an increase of three to four per cent for her party.

Three to four per cent in Canada would not be enough to return to government, as the current polling differential between the Liberals and the Conservatives is much higher.

The United States is essentially a two-party system, so a small shift can make or break a victory. Even an independent with the name recognition of Robert Kennedy Jr. managed only six per cent support at the apex of his campaign. It is doubtful that six per cent would even follow him into an election. Now that he has thrown his support behind Republican candidate Donald Trump, his supporters will probably split between the two main parties.

Also, a two-party system lends itself to a smooth transition. In the U.S. case, the Democrats were able to replace U.S. President Joe Biden with Harris without a full leadership convention because opponents were edged out by the current vice-president.

The fact that she would have replaced Biden in the event of a presidential illness or incapacity made it simpler to rally around her at a national convention less than three months from the election.

In Trudeau’s case, his succession would trigger a full leadership process. Contrary to some media reports, Mark Carney is not a putative leader in waiting. There are several current cabinet ministers who have been quietly setting the stage for their own leadership ambitions.

Pundits would suggest that it is better to have someone from outside the current crop of politicians, and Carney certainly has a polished Canadian and international pedigree. But the Liberal Party’s previous experience with global pedigree has not been positive.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant scholar with a renowned global reputation who was supposed to be the party’s saviour. Instead, he was quickly rejected as someone who came back to Canada only to run for office. Carney has declined multiple offers to run for office, and that doesn’t sit well with those working in the trenches.

While the public may be tired of Trudeau, the party’s volunteer base is actively working to explain why his leadership and the current government are worth supporting.

The checklist is long for Liberals. National childcare, dental care, pharmacare and school lunch programs send a message that the party is working for all the people.

But the government has been telling that story for several months, and so far, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Party members are ready for a leadership change, but also realize that the decision is in the hands of the prime minister.

Meanwhile, from François-Philippe Champagne to Dominic LeBlanc, many are weighing their future chances. Former parliamentarian Frank Baylis, who sold his heart-device business for $1.75-billion in 2021, is also actively assessing a potential campaign for the top job.

Baylis, son of a Barbadian immigrant, served in Trudeau’s government for one term, from 2015 to 2019, as the member of parliament for multicultural Pierrefonds-Dollard in Montreal, Que. If successful, he would be the party’s first non-white leader.

All of the foregoing means Liberals will not follow the American example and force out their leader. Multiple candidates are already planning their own robust campaigns, so there would be no shoo-in for Carney.

No huge bump, and multiple candidates rule out a smooth post-Trudeau transition in Canada.

Vive le Canada.

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

If history is any indication, Kamala Harris will face an onslaught of attacks about her gender.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 26, 2024.

OTTAWA–Former U.S. president Donald Trump was unusually quiet during the rollout of the Democratic National Convention.

He seemed to be heeding the advice of those who have suggested to the former president that he needs to start debating issues, and to stay away from personalities.

That was the public Trump last week. But the private Trump is not so circumspect. According to multiple news reports, he often refers to his opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris, as a “bitch.”

Those reports appeared to be confirmed when his former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, appeared at the Democratic convention to denounce her former boss and tell the world how Trump also mocked his own supporters as “basement dwellers”.

Grisham denounced Trump as someone with “no empathy, no morals, and no fidelity to the truth.”

She recounted a story when the former president visited a hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic, and was upset that cameras were focused on the dying patients, not him.

The Democratic gathering was rife with speakers who opined on why Trump was unsuitable as a commander-in-chief. But some also warned that the love-in people felt at the Chicago, Ill., gathering would quickly turn sour in the uphill battle leading to election day.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama suggested that Harris, the Democratic candidate, would face “ugly, misogynistic, racist lies” in the next 75 days. If history is any indication, she will face an onslaught of attacks. Chances are her gender will be a more popular line of attack than her race.

Trump has already put his foot in his mouth by falsely claiming that Harris is not Black. Trump made the statement in a speech to the National Association of Black Journalists when he drew a shocked reaction after stating, “I’ve known her for long time… and she was always of Indian heritage… I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now, she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”

Trump shut down that line of attack after criticism from Democrats and Republicans.

Harris’ father is Jamaican, and she has consistently embraced her racial identity since joining a historically Black sorority at a historically Black university.

Attacks on her Blackness have been silenced, but we can expect gender name-calling to continue right up to election day on Nov. 5.

It seems that racial epithets are a lot more politically risky than gender slurs.

Just last week, the CBC published a story outlining the shocking level of misogyny facing female politicians on social media. The British-based Centre for Countering Digital Hate published a report stating that Instagram ignored 926 of 1,000 reported abusive comments targeting American female politicians on the app.

The not-for profit monitoring centre focused on comments left on the accounts of 10 politicians, including Harris.

Most were not removed after complaints, including comments like “make rape legal”, “death to her,” and “we don’t want blacks around us.”

Instagram owner Meta has guidelines which allow “stronger conversation” when it involves people like politicians and other public figures who are often in the news.

The Instagram exposé did not surprise those of us who have faced misogyny during and after a life in politics.

On a fairly regular basis, I am insulted when I post or repost items on X. As well as getting death threats and being told to die, I have been attacked as an over-the-hill alcoholic, “Tequila Sheila” hag. The Tequila Sheila name-calling actually came from a moniker given to me by a former Conservative minister.

Former Liberal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna left politics in part because she was tired of the attacks and stalking that she faced as a woman politician. Her office was spray-painted with unprintable insults, and her opponents in the Conservative Party labelled her “climate Barbie” because of her interest in fighting climate change.

Harris has been in politics for a long time, and no doubt will not be cowed by the attacks she will face because of her gender and race.

Obama levelled her own personal attacks during a fiery convention speech, saying Trump may be told “that the job he is currently seeking might just be one of those ‘Black jobs’” to a roar of crowd approval.

Trump must be seething over how his presidential trajectory has been reversed since Republicans celebrated his escape from an assassin’s bullet literally days before their convention last month.

Expect Trump supporters to respond with more misogyny on social media.

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