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.

After the game, Montreal safety and Quebec native Marc-Antoine Dequoy told broadcaster RDS that the French language was disrespected due to the lack of bilingual signage in Hamilton’s Tim Hortons Stadium. He’s right.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 27, 2023.

OTTAWA—The Grey Cup in Hamilton delivered a shocker last weekend when the expected frontrunner Winnipeg Blue Bombers were defeated by the Montreal Alouettes.

Most Canadians probably heard more about the Super Bowl rematch between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Kansas City Chiefs last Monday night.

Both games were exciting, with the Eagles defeating the Chiefs by four points, and the Alouettes delivering a touchdown in the last 15 seconds to overtake the Bombers 28-24.

But nobody in the sports world saw a victory in the offing for the Alouettes.

It was pretty well unanimous that Winnipeg would grab the win, given that Montreal had trailed the Toronto Argonauts through most of the regular CFL season, and was not even expected to get to the Grey Cup.

Montreal quarterback Cody Fajardo said the underdog status was what bonded the team and led to the upset. Fajardo was named the most valuable player in the game, passing for 290 yards and three touchdowns.

There was some doubt the Alouettes would survive long enough to complete the season as the financially-troubled club was taken over by the league last February and then purchased by Quebec billionaire Pierre-Karl Péladeau the following month.

It wouldn’t be the Grey Cup without a photo finish. And it wouldn’t be Canada without a linguistic controversy.

Following the game, Montreal safety and Quebec native Marc-Antoine Dequoy told broadcaster RDS that the French language was disrespected because of the lack of bilingual signage in Hamilton’s Tim Hortons Stadium.

He also said, in French, that no one believed in Montreal, pointing out that only two days before the games, a TSN broadcast listed the Toronto Argonauts as the Eastern finalist in the match.

“But you know what man, keep your English because we’re grabbing the Cup and we’re bringing it home to Montreal, and we’re bringing it home to Quebec, and we’re bringing it home … parce qu’ on est f*cking champions.”

Dequoy subsequently sent out a clarification, explaining he was not attacking English people, but rather the Canadian Football League’s unilingual approach to the national game.

Dequoy’s comments were made in the context of post-game adrenaline. But he was right. The eastern final between Toronto and Montreal did not even include a French version of the national anthem.

How difficult could it be to find a singer capable of performing in two official languages? The absence of French in the anthem was totally disrespectful.

Would it be too much to ask for Tim Hortons Stadium to post signs in both languages during the Grey Cup? The company sells plenty of donuts in Quebec, and it would not take much to amend key signage for the national event.

But what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander. Not sure how many English signs were posted in Quebec City when the National Hockey League still had a team there?

The Canadian Football League should take Dequoy’s criticism to heart, and spend some time and money to bring the league up to a better bilingual standard.

In amateur sport, the federal government provides financial support to ensure that national organizations can function in a bilingual fashion.

Perhaps the CFL could seek similar support to ensure that the next Grey Cup does not make francophone participants feel left out.

At the end of the day, the Montreal Alouettes’ blockbuster performance is good for Canadian unity. Sport has a way of bringing people together, and the Grey Cup has been around for 110 years.

The American Super Bowl, which garners so much attention in Canada, has only been in existence since 1967.

As a general rule, the Super Bowl has a spectacular half-time show, and a lopsided game.

The CFL half-time show is not usually as spectacular, but the game is always a nail-biter with the winner often being decided in the last couple of minutes.

With Péladeau taking over as the Alouette’s owner, there will be plenty of French news coverage as he owns Canada’s largest tabloid newspaper, le Journal de Montreal.

Péladeau is the most well-known business sovereigntist in Quebec, having served briefly as leader of the Parti Québécois almost a decade ago.

His decision to purchase the Alouettes may actually soften his separatist stance.

Sport has a way of bringing people together. Connecting with other Canadians should take any wind out of separatists’ sails. Many other Canadians were cheering for underdog Montreal in last Sunday’s game.

Montreal is the home of Canada’s Grey Cup champions. Vive les Alouettes!

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

The only party that must navigate this issue with great difficulty is the Conservative Party.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 9, 2022.

OTTAWA—The f-bomb was allegedly dropped in the House of Commons on May 4 by a frustrated prime minister.

It was not picked up by any microphone and even though Conservatives vociferously demanded an apology, even they were at odds over what exactly was said.

Upon exiting the House, Justin Trudeau himself mimicked his own father’s explanation when Trudeau senior was accused of using the same language in 1971.

Members of the official opposition jumped on the transgression, but their voices were muted when a clip of leadership front-runner Pierre Poilievre emerged on social media, saying, “Fuck you guys” at a legislative committee.

An f-bomb may have been fatal a half-century ago, but today it barely makes a ripple in news coverage.

In the same way as language has been liberated, so too have social attitudes.

The notion that a non-binary leader could be the head of a Canadian political party was unheard of 50 years ago.

In fact, no one really even knew what non-binary meant.

Today, the interim leader of the Green Party is non-binary and it is common to state his/her/their declaratory gender preference.

Fifty years ago, the notion of legalizing abortion was hugely controversial. Even the most liberal of politicians had to tread carefully when the issue was up for debate.

Today, it is accepted that the majority of Canadians are in support of a woman’s right to choose.

Even in the Conservative leadership, only one candidate is openly promoting an end to abortion in Canada, even though two other candidates with similar views have been been kept off the leadership list.

The same cannot be said for Conservative party members, many of whom have public views opposing abortion and have promised to vote against the procedure in any private member’s bill brought forward in a parliamentary session.

In the last election, observers attacked the Liberals for raising the spectre of a renewed abortion debate based on the number of Tories who had promised to do so.

But now that the United States Supreme Court is preparing to rescind the law legalizing abortions in that country, the issue will move to the forefront in Canada too.

The only party that must navigate this issue with great difficulty is the Conservative Party.

The prime minister has already said that the government is looking at a regulatory amendment to the Canada Health Act to guarantee a woman’s universal right to reproductive choice. No time limit has been put on the move but one thing is certain.

The amendment will force the Conservative Party to take a solid position on the issue once and for all.

The longer it takes to bring in any changes, the better it is for the Liberals. The government would love nothing better than to have that wedge issue to present to Canadians in the next election.

Six months ago, the issue was not even on the general public agenda.

But with the bombshell leak on Roe v. Wade last week, there is no doubt that a woman’s right to choose will be an ongoing political issue south of the border. And what dominates in the United States will undoubtedly have a spillover effect in Canada.

According to the Pew Research Center in Washington, 59 per cent of Americans support abortion access. That number jumps to more than 70 per cent in Canada.

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, expected in June, would immediately impact access in all states across the country, including those that currently offer the right of abortion to all.

The result of a legal reversal to reproductive access by the United States will embolden the minority of Canadians who have been actively opposing abortions for years.

It will also mean that more money, and more volunteers will be crossing the border with the same fervour enjoyed by the cross-border movement of ‘freedom fighters’ who joined the Ottawa truckers’ occupation.

There is no law in Canada on the issue of reproductive choice, but there are standards of care that have been developed by the medical profession.

However, there is an uneven application of these standards, with some provinces offer little or no access while most other provinces make abortions readily available.

The Liberals promised in the last election to introduce regulations forcing less-compliant provinces to open up their abortion access requirements.

In 2020 and 2021, New Brunswick suffered federally-imposed financial penalties totalling almost $300,000 for refusing to offer access.

Expect last week’s abortion bombshell, not the f-one, to dominate the fall agenda.

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

Published first on Monday, January 23, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The politics of language and the language of politics are as Canadian as hockey.

Last week, the Liberals and Conservatives were both facing heat on Quebec’s hot-button language issue.  

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in trouble for speaking too much French, and Conservative candidate Kevin O’Leary for not speaking enough.

Both were defending their language choices for different reasons. Both faced the wrath that can only be unleashed by the politics of language in Canada.
 
Trudeau, in Sherbrooke, Que., on his cross-country tour, waded into the language issue, by answering all questions during the town hall debate in French, even those that were asked in English.

He prefaced his language switch with a comment in English that “since we’re in Quebec, I’ll respond in French.” Trudeau had obviously decided in advance to stick to the preferred language in every province.  

He spoke mostly English in provinces that are designated as unilingual English, and vice versa in Quebec. The only Canadian province designated bilingual is New Brunswick.

But federal language policy guarantees every Canadian the right to receive federal services in the language of their choice, regardless of where they live.

In pursuit of that right, at least two people have taken the prime minister to task by filing complaints with the official languages commissioner. Those complaints guarantee that this issue is not going to go away any time soon.

It also puts the prime minister in the enviable position of defending his use of the French language in Quebec. This politics of language may actually reinforce support amongst francophones who criticize Trudeau for not being French enough. With a francophone father and an anglophone mother, Trudeau is truly comfortable in both languages but has been denigrated publicly for thinking in English and being less  fluent in his father’s mother tongue.

Holding any political event in Quebec always puts the language issue under the spotlight. Had Trudeau simply responded in the language of the questioner, he might actually have spent more time speaking English, which could have caused a different kind of political flak.

His team obviously calculated that, in the long term, risking the ire of Quebec anglophones was less dangerous than appearing too English in Quebec. He does, however, run the risk of falling short on his avowed support for bilingualism.

If that ever-present language dilemma is all too complicated for politics, Trudeau has a less intractable problem than that of Conservative leadership candidate Kevin O’Leary.

The television host announced his candidacy the day after after the party’s only French-language debate so he could avoid exposing his ineptitude in Canada’s official Gallic tongue. Montreal-born O’Leary professes his love for Quebecers but doesn’t believe fluency in French is a sine quae non for political leadership.

His answer when questioned about the importance of French is that he speaks the language of jobs, and that is what Quebecers want to hear. But fellow Tory candidate and fluent French speaker Maxime Bernier challenged that contention during another recent debate. “Sure, Quebecers are happy to speak English to tourists. But that doesn’t mean you can govern Italy without speaking Italian.”

With one-quarter of the delegates to the Conservative leadership coming from Quebec ridings, mastery of French is a must. Seventeen years older than Trudeau, O’Leary grew up in a different time. But O’Leary attended school in Quebec, and even credits McGill University with curing his dyslexia. The fact that a native son cannot even speak the majority language is puzzling.

And to assume that his inability to speak French is a non-issue reflects a deep  misunderstanding of Quebec and Canadian politics. O’Leary’s refusal to acknowledge the importance of fluency is a political mistake of gargantuan proportions. Perhaps the reality that the candidate has spent most of his adult life living outside the country has distorted his political judgment.

Even before O’Leary entered the race, fellow candidate and former minister Chris Alexander put the issue bluntly. “One cannot understand Canada and one cannot prepare to govern Canada without understanding Quebec,” said Alexander, a former Immigration minister.

Now that O’Leary is officially in the race, language will loom large in Conservative conversations over the next few months.

Trudeau made a mistake in not responding to a question in the town hall participant’s language of choice. But his language problem pales in comparison with that of O’Leary.  

For a native-born Quebecer to speak too much French in his home province is explicable. To speak no French at all is not.
 
Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era Cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.