The fallout from the parliamentary foreign activity report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2024.

OTTAWA–The cloud of suspicion hanging over Members of Parliament was partly lifted by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week.

May spoke out at a lengthy press conference on June 11 after having read the classified document on parliamentary foreign activity produced by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP).

May said she was “relieved” to read that, in her opinion, none of the “few” Members of Parliament mentioned in the document are being disloyal to Canada.

There was one former MP who knowingly colluded with a foreign government, but their identity was not revealed. May stated that her reading of the report concluded that no current MPs were involved in any malfeasance.

May asked, “are there currently MPs sitting with us in the Chamber who would set out knowingly to sell Canada out for personal benefit? If there are, there’s no evidence of that in the full report.”

She urged other party leaders to read the report, and to draw their own conclusions.

Reports of the document state that “the committee has also seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.”

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh, who also read the report, said he was even more concerned after reading it, and urged Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to do the same. The current leader of the opposition refuses to seek the security clearance required to read the document.

Singh also questioned whether Poilievre was refusing to read the document because it included references to potential foreign influence in the Conservative leader’s own party leadership bid. The NSICOP report references interference by Indian and Chinese governments in the Conservative leadership race.

Singh said: “In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.” CBC News later reported that Singh’s office would not confirm if he was referring to current sitting MPs.

Meanwhile, with no specifics on which Members of Parliament have been named, the House of Commons agreed on June 11 to a Bloc Québécois motion to refer the parliamentary report to the public inquiry into foreign interference.

That inquiry, led by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, is already reviewing the issues surrounding foreign election-meddling allegations.

Hogue produced her interim report last month, which said there is evidence of foreign interference, but the integrity of Canada’s electoral system remains intact.

The commissioner also concluded that “vigorous measures” must be taken to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system after unveiling evidence that foreign governments did interfere in the elections of 2019 and 2021, leaving “a stain on our electoral process.”

The fallout from the NSICOP report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system. Instead, the report left the impression that there were multiple Members of Parliament knowingly sharing confidential information with foreign influencers.

Poilievre and his Alberta-based attack dog Michael Cooper both called on the prime minister to immediately release the names of all members cited in the document.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a parliamentary committee that it would be illegal to release names. “I am not going to violate the Security of Information Act, and risk prosecution for a political stunt,” he said.

He, too, encouraged Poilievre to get full security clearance so the Conservative leader could read the report, and decide for himself what level of foreign influence has affected our democracy and electoral process.

Poilievre refuses to read the report himself, claiming that to do so would prevent him from asking pertinent questions. The Conservative leader says clearance would limit his capacity to comment on issues, since top-secret material is usually only for the eyes of the security-cleared reader.

But his refusal to gather all the data begs the question: if Poilievre were to win the election, would he be able to become prime minister without a full security clearance? And if so, why would he want to make decisions without being in possession of all the facts?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for a leader to gather as much background as possible before deciding on what direction s/he would be taking on the foreign interference question?

Poilievre is simply demanding that the prime minister name names. He cares not for illegality, or due process.

His insouciance really makes you wonder what kind of prime minister he would be.

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

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.

As the details of who these people are emerge, any person who was associated with their cause is going to suffer residual damage. The ‘Freedom Convoy’ will roll out, but in its dust, Ottawa is left in political chaos.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 21, 2022.

OTTAWA—At the end of the day, from city hall to Parliament Hill, there is no winner coming out of this so-called “Freedom Convoy.”

The truckers will claim victory, because several premiers announced a relaxation of their vaccine requirements at the height of the tension.

But when the dust settles, the story of Canada’s trucker siege is going to cast them in a very negative light.

One leader of the siege fled just as the new emergency law was announced, claiming his work had been done and he needed to move on to the Maritimes.

Another organizer went to YouTube, tearfully announcing she expected to be imprisoned because of her involvement, but claiming she was not afraid.

As the details of who these people are emerge, any person who was associated with their cause is going to suffer residual damage.

And the effect on the body politic is even more profound.

The Ottawa police chief was fired and a new one chosen by the Ottawa Police Services Board without consultation with city officials. That prompted city council to implode as board chair Diane Deans was voted out of her position by a 15-9 council vote.

Councillors were calling for the immediate resignation of Mayor Jim Watson, even though he has already announced that he will leave city hall at the end of this term.

Ottawa residents are not the only ones who have lost confidence in the capacity of politicians to protect them from harassment as they are left to their own defences.

But with the state of hooliganism reigning in an area inhabited by more than 30,000 citizens, the city was hardest hit by the occupations.

A friend of mine, who is 80 years old and recovering from cancer, was out for his daily constitutional near the grounds of the University of Ottawa when he was accosted by three roving hoodlums demanding that he remove his mask. He politely declined, telling them he had pre-existing conditions and they responded by telling him that he was full of shit and that they wanted the mask off.

He turned away from the confrontation by reversing his path, shaking in fear and wondering what has happened to the city he has called home for more than 40 years.

Another friend is the head of a major Canadian non-governmental organization. One of his organization’s members posted some of the “Freedom Convoy” links to international white supremacist groups on social media.

My friend’s address and unpublished personal phone number were found by the supremacists, and then linked to the posted research. He started receiving hundreds of death threats on his cell phone. Police were contacted. At press time, the investigation has not been concluded.

In Alberta, two Edmonton police officers were suspended after participating in the international blockade at Coutts. Near the site, police uncovered multiple assault weapons and four people have been charged with conspiracy to murder after a raid on the blockade.

While politicians prognosticated, citizens acted. Ottawa residents are suing convoy organizers and participants for $306-million and counting, with an additional $15-million in personal harm and charges every day it continues.

At Queens’s Park, it was revealed that a senior member of the solicitor-general’s staff was one of thousands who funded the convoy. Director of communications Marion Isabeau-Ringuette was fired without further comment.

As the donation list becomes public, there will definitely be more questions around support for occupiers from senior politicians and law enforcement officials.

Interim Conservative Leader Candice Bergen embraced the protesters and then claimed the prime minister was at the divisive centre of this debacle.

The prime minister waited far too long before making the decision to invoke special authorities to quell the violence and mayhem.

According to Toronto Star reporter Robert Benzie, recent polling shows that two-thirds of Canadians support the imposition of the Emergencies Act. But that isn’t the end of the story. Eighty-two per cent said the protest has gone on too long, and seventy-one per cent say that Canada’s handling of the situation was an international embarrassment.

Fifty-six per cent also say that premiers caved by lifting vaccine passports and other mandates at the height of the occupation.

So, the prime minister and the premiers have all been damaged by this debacle.

When the dust settles, Canadians will not forget one thing.

Only one party embraced the protesters. And who could forget the image of Conservative Michael Cooper, smiling away for photographs in front of a swastika on an upside-down Canadian flag?

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

The decision of Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer to keep Michael Cooper in his caucus will cost him dearly.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 10, 2019.

OTTAWA—In politics, and in life, we are judged by the company we keep.

The decision of Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer to keep Michael Cooper in his caucus will cost him dearly.

Scheer says the case is closed because Cooper apologized and was removed from the House Justice Committee.

But in an inexplicable display of bad judgment, Scheer kept Cooper on as the deputy justice critic in the House of Commons.

That kind of responsibility is usually conferred on a Member of Parliament when the leader believes he or she has the makings of a minister.

Cooper’s potential ministerial aspirations should serve as a red flag to thousands of visible minority Canadians who wonder about the Conservatives’ real commitment to diversity.

The intention of a shadow cabinet is to showcase those who might eventually hold ministerial positions if the official opposition forms the government.

By keeping Cooper as deputy critic, Scheer sends the wrong signal.

Cooper’s recent public meltdown on the House Justice Committee made it painfully clear that he possesses neither the temperament nor the judgment to be considered ministerial material.

His posted apology read as though it had been written while he was under house arrest. One wonders whether Cooper actually believed his own words.

His attack was not just an off-the-cuff retort to an inflammatory committee witness. The Alberta MP came to the committee loaded for bear.

Cooper knew the question of alt-right internet commentators would likely be the subject of discussion for a parliamentary committee review of online hate crimes.

He calculated and accepted the risk when he deliberately highlighted a manifesto from a hate-motivated maniac who had one wish—to murder Muslims.

Keeping Cooper in caucus can only damage the leader.

Only two weeks ago, in launching his immigration policy, Scheer claimed that he would show the door to any member of his party who put one religion ahead of another.

His tough words left no room for interpretation: “I would like to be absolutely crystal clear. There is absolutely no room in a peaceful and free country like Canada for intolerance, racism, and extremism of any kind … if there’s anyone here who disagrees with that, you’re not welcome here. There’s the door.”

Yet when he had clear evidence of intolerance with Cooper’s parliamentary attack on a Muslim leader from his own home province, Scheer refused to act.

What Faisal Khan Suri, the president of the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council, said to provoke the outlash was all provable.

When speaking of the Québec City Muslim murder rampage, Suri said “The evidence from Bissonette’s computer showed he repeatedly sought content about anti-immigrant, alt-right and conservative commentators, mass murderers, U.S. President Donald Trump, and about Muslims, immigrants living in Quebec.”

Cooper disagreed; using the New Zealand-banned manifesto to buttress his assessment that murderous incitement comes primarily from communists, not conservatives.

His claim was reminiscent of United States President Donald Trump’s reaction to the racist march of pro-Nazi torchbearers, in Charlottesville, North Carolina. Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides.”

In Cooper’s apology, he said he was sorry because he “quoted the words of a white supremacist anti-Muslim mass murderer in an ill-advised attempt to demonstrate that such acts are not linked to conservatism.”

Using the words of a mass murderer to support his viewpoint shows incredibly bad judgment. But the usage also needs to be subjected to a reality check. On the Internet, it is mostly the conservative alt right promoting interracial hate.

There aren’t too many communists speaking out, but there certainly are huge numbers of yellow-vested, Nazi-loving groups fomenting racism.

The fact that Cooper believes the problem is caused by communists makes one wonder how he could ever be considered for any position of authority in the justice field, if Scheer were to win the election.

Likewise, Scheer abandoned his promise to show the door to anyone promoting religious hate, when he claimed it was up to the caucus, not him, to fire Cooper.

Scheer says that as leader, he has no authority over membership in caucus.

But the leader is required by election law to approve the nomination of every single Conservative candidate. Having enlisted Cooper in the first place, he has every right to fire him with the same alacrity.

If Scheer does not believe Cooper committed a firing offence, he should say so.

Otherwise, he needs to revisit his “show the door” promise.

An attack on a Muslim witness has no place in Parliament.

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