The Republican convention scenario could not have been scripted better if it had been written in Hollywood. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 22, 2024.

OTTAWA—What a difference a day makes. Donald Trump now appears unbeatable.

Even senior Democrats are reported to have quietly conceded the election which has the younger congressional leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seeing red.

The Republican convention scenario could not have been scripted better if it had been written in Hollywood.

The week leading up to the four-day love-in in Milwaukee, Wisc., was awash with negative news about the mental acuity of U.S. President Joe Biden. Numerous Democrats, including at least 17 members of Congress, came out publicly calling for the president to step aside in time to secure a replacement for the November vote.

Then, there was an attempted assassination attempt on Trump on July 13.

Trump himself said the bullet would have struck, but at the last minute he turned his head to review details of a graph on immigration that had been exhibited as part of his presentation.

That subtle shift saved his life, and the bullet intended for him instead hit and killed a former fire chief. News reports said Corey Comperatore used his own body to shield his wife and family from the attack.

His last words were “Get down,” before Comperatore was struck dead by a bullet intended for the former president.

His wife, who described her husband as a hero, refused to take a call from President Biden after the attack. Instead she said her husband was a lifelong Republican, and he wouldn’t have wanted her to talk to Biden.

Even the previously absent Melania Trump was part of the narrative. Within hours of the attack, she penned a long letter suggesting that it was time for all Americans to rally around the theme of unity.

“A monster who recognized my husband as an inhuman political machine attempted to ring out Donald’s passion—his laughter, ingenuity, love of music and inspiration. … Donald, the generous and caring man I have been with through the best and the worst of times.”

Even Melania sensed this was a historical moment for Trump. Expect to see her at his side soon even though, notwithstanding her penmanship, she has been absent from all his recent trials, travails, and campaign trails.

But she obviously understood the import of the failed assassination attempt.

“The winds of change have arrived. For those of you who cry in support, I thank you. I commend those of you who have reached beyond the political divide—thank you for remembering that every single politician is a man or woman with a loving family.”

While Americans were rallying around Trump, Canadian premiers were gathered for their usual annual whine fest.

This year’s theme was “federal creep.”

According to premiers, they are unhappy with the fact the national government is bypassing them to get municipal housing agreements to kickstart construction in the midst of a housing crisis.

Why would the federal government waste time to partner with the provinces who are largely responsible for the current shortage of available, affordable housing?

They inherited the social housing file with plenty of cash from the federal government in a transfer of responsibility that happened almost 40 years ago.

Since the transfer, social housing momentum has stalled in many provinces. Ontario has received billions of dollars for housing with very little new construction to show for it.

At their annual meeting last week in Halifax, the provinces also attacked national dental care as another infringement on their authority.

They would not dare touch medicare because it is deeply entrenched and valued by Canadians.

But that didn’t stop premiers from also opposing the federal government’s promise to establish a national school food program.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford told a press conference that his province is feeding many more children with fewer dollars than the proposed federal program.

The Council of the Federation meeting was not surprising as every year provincial premiers get together to demand more money with less accountability.

The council was formed on Dec. 5, 2003. In its founding document, it acknowledges that Canada was created in 1867. But beyond that, they don’t even include a Canadian flag in its circular flag logo.

They complain about duplication, but there is no reason why a country with only 39 million people cannot have a school lunch program, dental care, medicare and childcare.

Maybe the premiers need to upload some responsibilities, and get out of the way.

Canadians need and want a national vision for Canada.

Now more than ever.

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

Trudeau’s tenure is brief but he needs to weigh his legacy against the risk of losing it all. Quite a balancing act.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 15, 2024.

Politics is a disease for which there is no vaccination.

How else to explain the reason why politicians have such a hard time retiring?

Most people count down the days until they can stop working. But U.S. President Joe Biden is 81 years old, and still refuses to entertain the idea of getting out.

Ditto for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau has accomplished extraordinary things during his decade in power, which have even his enemies damning him with faint praise.

Norman Spector recently tweeted that Trudeau had been “the most consequential prime minister in his lifetime.” He went on to say Trudeau was even more consequential than his father. That praise was tempered by adding “more decades than I have left will have to pass to know whether the massive changes he’s precipitated are making Canada a better country—or destroying it.”

Trudeau put Indigenous issues on the agenda with more investments and legislative change to support reconciliation than any prime minister in history.

He also introduced nationally accessible child care, dental care and pharmacare, permanently hiked seniors’ pensions, and launched a national school lunch program initiative during the quickest economic recovery in the G8.

Quite a record for a decade which included two years of focussed attention on a worldwide once-in-a-century pandemic.

So why don’t either of these accomplished men want to exit with their heads held high?

To paraphrase former Ontario premier Ernie Eves, the worst day in politics is better than the best day on Bay Street.

Outsiders may think it is hubris that keeps politicians going. But they would be wrong.

The capacity for societal change lands squarely in the lap of politicians, and they know how much their work can actually be the agent for change.

Trudeau understands that his vision will not likely be shared by any successor, whether it be from his own party or the Conservatives.

Biden has devoted his life to fighting for the workers, and he wants to continue that work.

It is up to those closest to these leaders to guide them in the right direction.

In Trudeau’s case, following his separation from Sophie Grégoire last summer, he won’t be getting any pillow-talk counsel. He may be hearing from his children, but their youthful wisdom may not parallel advice from close adults.

Biden is obviously getting an earful from his partner Jill Biden, and his adult children. They are pushing him to stay even though his public performances and aging issues have become the dominant theme on the eve of his presidential re-election fight.

Donald Trump is chomping at the bit, hoping to bait Biden into another encounter since the first debate was so damaging to the Democrats.

Senior Democrats are working on the Biden family to convince them that keeping Joe in the job will end up destroying his legacy, not enhancing it.

Senior Liberals are not able to work on family members who can exercise a considerable amount of influence. Instead, they are reaching out to the inner circle of Trudeau’s key advisers.

That group seems to believe that the prime minister’s campaign prowess will carry him through the current travails.

His chief of staff has been working the back rooms of leadership since she was at Queen’s Park with then-Premier Kathleen Wynne. Katie Telford was there in the 2014 election when Wynne was supposed to lose. Instead, she turned it around and Liberals served one more term in provincial government.

Telford’s job also depends on Trudeau staying, so it may be understandable that she sees possible redemption on the campaign trail.

But Wynne’s second try in 2018 was a disaster with the leader announcing her own retirement days before the campaign ended. The party ended up losing status with few seats, and the worst defeat in Ontario political history.

Telford was not responsible for that debacle, as the campaign was run by David Herle, former adviser to prime minister Paul Martin who led Martin back to the wilderness in 2006.

But Telford understands political history.

Every leader cares about the direction in which they take their country. But at some point, even consequential leadership loses its lustre.

The power of political change is inevitable especially in the post-information age.

In Biden’s case, he has admirably served his country for 52 years. He can leave with his head held high.

In comparison, Trudeau’s tenure is brief, but he needs to weigh his legacy against the risk of losing it all.

Quite a balancing act.

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

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, then-Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown attacked the decision to grant bail to Umar Zameer back in 2021. Three years later, he’s been found not guilty.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 29, 2024.

OTTAWA—Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw should be fired.

There is no way anyone can have confidence in his impartiality after he told the world last week that he had hoped for a different outcome when Umar Zameer was found not guilty of all charges in a high-profile case involving the death of a Toronto police officer in 2021.

In her instructions to the jury before the not-guilty decision, Justice Anne Molloy said “the defence theory of what happened is consistent with the testimony of Umar Zameer, Aaida Shaikh, the Crown’s reconstruction expert, the defence reconstruction expert and the video. There is no evidence that fully supports the Crown’s theory.”

With such overwhelming unanimity on the reconstruction of the incident, one wonders how the case ever made it to trial?

Some are asking whether there was political pressure brought to bear, as three key politicians—including Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and then-Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown—weighed in to attack the decision to grant bail to Zameer back in 2021.

Ford minced no words in his tweet: “This is beyond comprehension. It’s completely unacceptable that the person charged for this heinous crime is now out on bail. Our justice system needs to get its act together and start putting victims and their families ahead of criminals.”

Demkiw refused to condemn comments by his predecessor who placed the “cop killer” label on Zameer, claiming it was not his job to criticize a former chief. However, the chief quickly walked back his own attack on the verdict after it prompted a firestorm of criticism from members of the legal profession.

Daniel Brown, past president of the Criminal Lawyers Association, told The Toronto Star that “the one thing that a chief of police isn’t supposed to say is that you were hoping for a verdict that didn’t conform with the evidence.”

Demkiw told the media at a mid-week press conference on an unrelated matter that he respected the decision of the jury. But Brown challenged that assertion. “You can’t say that you respect that jury’s decision, but that they also got it wrong.”

The judge also said that the jury should consider whether there had been collusion in the matching testimony of three police officers, though also noted that the officers had denied it. She also offered her “deepest sympathies” to Zameer following his acquittal, an apology seldom seen from the bench.

As for Zameer, he stuck to his story that he and his family were returning from a Canada Day celebration when four people starting banging on his car doors, ordering him to disembark. Zameer thought they were criminals trying to rob him, and he tried to drive away, resulting in the death of one officer who was allegedly holding on to the vehicle.

The accountant spent almost three years waiting for the outcome, and racked up legal bills in excess of $200,000, forcing his family to sell properties to pay for his defence.

Such was the public support for the defendant that within a few days, a GoFundMe page set up for his legal expenses had received $267,347 from more than 3,400 donors.

The police have already announced an external review of their actions by the Ontario Provincial Police. That review is automatic when any judicial decision involves criticism of police sworn testimony. But no review of the Crown’s decision to take this case to court, based on what we now know was flimsy or non-existent evidence, has been initiated.

Thousands of police officers attended the funeral of Constable Jeffrey Northrup, who was tragically killed in the incident. And with the public comments by high-profile politicians attacking the bail decision, one wonders whether there was political pressure exerted on the Crown to prosecute.

Demkiw has clearly shown that his interest is in protecting the actions of his police officers. That may work with the police, but it certainly undermines public confidence in the force. His statements reinforce the viewpoint of opponents who have been regularly lobbying to defund the police.

Without an external review of the judicial process in this case, too many questions remain unanswered.

Why did this case ever go to trial in the first place? Was there political pressure to lay charges, and why was the first-degree murder charge introduced, based on what did not appear to be a premeditated incident?

When a police officer dies, a first-degree murder charge is automatic. Maybe that rule also needs to be revisited.

The good news—in spite of all the questions surrounding the validity of the charges—is that justice was done.

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

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 8, 2024.

OTTAWA–I woke up to a news item last week that said Liberals had experienced a big spike in national popularity while the Greens and the Bloc were on the uptick.

Hardly believable, but in the world of politics, you are on a roller coaster. And six months is about the time-frame for either a dip or rise in popularity.

Then I had a coffee and realized it was April Fool’s Day. I was the fool. Because for a brief second, I thought Liberals’ flagging fortunes had turned around.

Both the Liberal and Conservative leaders seem to be in campaign mode.

Whether it’s an orthodox synagogue in Montréal, or a rally in Newfoundland or British Columbia, Pierre Poilievre is everywhere. And on his ‘Axe the Tax’ campaign, he really seems to be enjoying himself.

Finally, it looks as though the prime minister is also moving into campaign mode.

In a series of pre-budget announcement, Justin Trudeau and some of his key ministers have peppered the country with funding and programs.

From children’s school lunch funding, to a renters’ bill of rights, to carbon pricing, the governing party has finally realized that in government, you can control the agenda.

And they are definitely shaping a narrative that could play in their favour in the next election.

Poilievre is focusing on individual pocketbook issues. By pushing his anti-tax view, he is sending the message that under a Poilievre government, there would be cuts in government spending that would end up in your wallet.

He may be on to something. As altruistic as we would like to think ourselves to be, Canadians usually vote for what is in their personal self-interest.

Up until last week, not too many Canadians actually knew that 80 per cent of the population will receive a carbon rebate which exceeds the additional cost of the pricing program.

The frenetic pace Poilievre was keeping climaxed on April 1 when the new pricing regime went into effect.

He pulled out all the stops, including engaging oil-producing provincial premiers in a fight to roll back the carbon price increase.

But by associating so closely with leaders like Danielle Smith and Doug Ford, who are not universally admired across the country, he may be digging himself a petroleum hole from which he cannot get out.

Smith was hard-pressed to explain why, on the same day she was trashing carbon pricing, her government was hiking Alberta’s gas tax by a total of 13 cents a litre. Her supporters defended the hike, saying the money would be used to build roads and infrastructure, not to reduce carbon emissions.

When you compare the building of roads to the fight against global warming, which is more critical to our survival?

The younger generation—or NexGen as they are euphemistically known—consider global warming the challenge of our times.

Poilievre has been successful in attracting young voters on the basis that his policies will make housing and daily essentials more affordable.

Just like Trudeau rode the marijuana wave to victory in his first election in 2015, Poilievre hopes to ride the affordability train.

But on global warming, he has been strangely silent. His communications people say that the Conservative plan to fight climate change will come out when an election is called. That will be too late. By then, his image as a petro-politician will have solidified.

That will help in Alberta, but he certainly won’t become prime minister on the basis of that province alone.

His anti-environmental positions do not play well in Quebec or British Columbia, both provinces which were critical in getting the Liberals over the line in the last election.

Because Poilievre’s political message has been so tightly identified with carbon pricing, it will be hard for him to build any credibility on global warming.

His axe will also be used to cut government spending. But where will he start? Will he cancel dental benefits, pharmacare, or $10-a-day childcare? Something has to go.

The Axe-the-Tax campaign has finally created an opening for Liberals to start talking about what they have achieved, and asking the pertinent question: what will Poilievre axe?

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax.

With April 1 come and gone, if the sky doesn’t fall, Poilievre could be left looking like Chicken Little.

A campaign that promotes dental care, pharmacare, rental rights, and daycare sound a lot more interesting than one involving an axe.

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

It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 25, 2024.

OTTAWA–The World Meteorological Organization had grim news for the globe last week.

In every climate indicator, temperatures were the highest on record in 2023.

And for the past nine years in a row, the planet has been getting hotter.

For the first time ever, Canada’s air quality was worse than the United States, largely because of the effect of massive wildfires across the country.

Evidence is mounting for all but the most obtuse that action needs to be taken to reverse the climate crisis. Zombie fires that started last year are still continuing in parts of British Columbia. New wildfires are starting at an unbelievably early time of the year with 90 fires burning there last week.

But the man who would be prime minister, Pierre Poilievre, is running advertisements attacking British Columbia Premier David Eby because he refuses to pile in with other premiers who are attacking the April increase in the price on carbon established by the federal government.

Instead of focusing on climate solutions, Poilievre is trying to bully provinces into reversing the federal action plan to reduce our carbon footprint.

Politicians should be focused on climate solutions instead of reversing our work on climate action.

Eby was not one to be bullied. British Columbia, arguably Canada’s greenest province, was the first to adopt a price on carbon. That happened a decade before the federal government introduced its 2018 plan.

The B.C. experience has been used as a model for other jurisdictions. Their carbon pricing has had a beneficial impact on the environment with little impact on the economy.

Eby characterized Poilievre’s “axe the tax” as a “baloney office” campaign. Poilievre responded by accusing Eby of forcing British Columbians to eat baloney because of carbon pricing.

What nobody seems to be including in the discussion is how the country will fight forest fires and floods by abolishing the national climate action strategy.

Poilievre has put nothing in the window in his axe campaign, and is deliberately conflating a world inflationary trend with a made-in-Canada carbon plan.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made it very clear that the government has no intention to reverse its climate plan, even after Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Premier Andrew Furey joined six Conservative premiers in his request to cancel the proposed carbon price hike.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has vowed not to collect the carbon price, which could prove rather costly to his residents.

In the national plan, carbon rebates actually go out to approximately 80 per cent of the population based on their reduced carbon footprint.

If Moe refuses to collect, the average family of four in his province will miss out on an annual rebate of $1,800 according to the federal Department of Finance.

Trudeau is committed to the federal action plan, and vows to keep fighting for pollution pricing, despite the claim by Ontario Premier Doug Ford that the federal Liberals could be “annihilated” in the next election because of the pricing policy.

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie last week distanced herself from her federal counterparts by saying if she were elected, her party would not impose a provincial tax.

The party could fall back on the federal program, but has not committed to doing so as an internal committee studies the issue.

Suffice to say, across the board, the country is gripped with the issue of climate pricing and nobody is particularly engaged in the challenge of doing nothing.

Poilievre is framing the issue as another Liberal gas tax, and spending millions of dollars to get Canadians on his side.

Meanwhile, the federal government has spent nothing in explaining to Canadians what is actually involved in carbon pricing, and why it is so necessary to help the country fight climate change.

At a heated press conference in Calgary recently, Trudeau said it was not his job to be popular when pressed on whether he should ditch the carbon tax.

But to win elections, and carry out his climate plans, he does need to secure the popular vote.

His climate plan is worth fighting for. It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change.

If the country wants to hang on to the progress we have made on climate change, we need to increase the price on carbon so consumption patterns will change.

We are experiencing the hottest decade in history and we owe it to our grandchildren to push ahead on carbon pricing.

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

Most confused Canadians received the payment with no explanation. If they already receive direct deposit payments, the climate bonus arrived with a simple annotation: Climate Action Incentive Plan. Talk about a missed opportunity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 22, 2024.

OTTAWA—Last week, 80 per cent of Canadians found a new year’s bonus us in their bank accounts.

The surprise deposit came from a quarterly rebate which is part of the federal government’s pollution pricing program to tackle climate change.

The numbers are impressive.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the average family of four in Alberta received $386, followed by Saskatchewan with $340, and Newfoundland and Labrador at $328.

Manitobans received $264, with Nova Scotia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island netting $248, $244 and $240 respectively. New Brunswickers received $184.

That was a quarterly, tax-free payment from the Climate Action Incentive Program destined to buffer the adjustment to the price on carbon prompted by an effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

Most confused Canadians received the payment without any explanation.

If they are already receiving direct deposit payments, the climate bonus arrived with a simple annotation: Climate Action Incentive Plan.

Talk about a missed communications’ opportunity. Most Canadians don’t have an idea what CAIP is. Somebody in government should have been able to come up with a sexier moniker to explain the new price on pollution.

A name like POP, price on pollution, would have served to refute the Conservative claim that this is a carbon tax.

Most Canadians don’t make money from a tax.

But the rollout was so quiet that many people were calling their banks to find out whether a mistaken deposit had been made.

The silent deposits were a missed moment to refute the narrative that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been peddling all year on his carbon tax.

He may be using unorthodox methods like YouTube videos and other social outreach measures, but compare that to the work of the government.

Why did nobody even write a letter to all climate action recipients explaining the basics of why they were getting the money, and how it would help them offset increased costs associated with the price on pollution?

The supply chain is facing hikes in transportation costs which ultimately get transferred to the consumer. Fuel, especially home heating, is also facing a hit.

But a payment that in some cases will amount to more than $1,500 a year should ease the pain. Poilievre has promised to cancel this payment should he form government.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau brought some new faces into cabinet last fall, with the specific aim of upping the communications game.

He also brought in a new director of communications, which some saw as a signal that he was finally going to get serious in combatting the Conservative storyline.

Some new faces have been very successful in getting out their individual messages, but when a government is floundering in the polls, ministerial announcements simply won’t be enough to turn the tide.

Instead, the government needs to invest real cash in explaining to Canadians what is at stake.

We have a planet that is burning itself up by the use of fossil fuels, and governments around the world are working to try to reduce carbon consumption.

A price on pollution is the way that the Canadian government has chosen in an effort to move the dial toward carbon reduction.

The quarterly rebate is an attempt to protect more vulnerable Canadians from the financial hit they could face because of pollution pricing.

Everyone needs to do their part, but getting a quarterly cheque from the government is not a bad political move.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears, did it really fall?

If a payment goes into your bank account with no explanation, did the government really send it?

The fact that people had no idea how this money ended up in their bank accounts is proof positive that the Liberal communications strategy needs an enema.

Either the government gets serious about using paid means, including major advertising and direct communication with each taxpayer, or the Liberals might as well cede the next election.

They have a great story to tell. But the old way of ministerial announcements is outdated and ineffective.

In the last century, when families received the baby bonus cheque to help with family expenses, the payment went directly to women and was clearly marked “Baby Bonus.”

Pretty hard to mistake that payment. That was a program that people still remember.

Now is the time to POP the question. Are Canadians ready to help in the battle to put a Price on Pollution?

The answer is yes. But the question has not even been asked.

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

Foreign interference allegations are not limited to China. Recent reports of Russian interference have also surfaced. Politics is always a messy business. With identity politics, it will get even messier.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 20, 2023.

OTTAWA—Surprise, surprise: the first political casualty of the Chinese interference allegations was an Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP. Vincent Ke resigned last week from the PC caucus, despite characterizing the allegations as “false and defamatory.”

Ke tweeted his departure. “While the Global News allegations about me are false and defamatory, I do not want to be a distraction to the government and take away from the good work Premier Ford is doing for the province of Ontario.”

Global has been at the forefront of leaked stories about financial links between the Chinese government and Chinese-Canadian members of parliament.

Leaks are reported to be coming from inside the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The RCMP has been investigating the leak’s source, according to other news reports.

During last year’s provincial election, the Ontario Provincial Police was asked by the Liberal Party of Ontario to investigate the incorporation of 15 companies or associations associated with Ke.

Ke established the corporations after his election to the legislature in 2018.

At the time, Ontario Premier Doug Ford defended Ke, saying that several incorporations included non-profit cultural associations.

Ford defended his MPP’s exit last week in a statement. “Not proven, they [allegations] are serious and deserve his full and undivided attention as he works to clear his name.”

Identity politics will also take centre stage in upcoming federal investigations into electoral foreign interference.

By choosing former governor-general David Johnston to head a probe into foreign meddling, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has managed to secure an individual with impeccable credentials.

Appointed governor general by then-prime minister Stephen Harper, Johnston managed to secure broad public support during his seven-year tenure.

However, his nomination was criticized by the Conservatives because, after retirement, he volunteered for the Trudeau Foundation.

Johnston has his work cut out for him. Foreign interference allegations are not limited to China.

Recent reports of Russian interference have also surfaced.

Politics is always a messy business.

With identity politics, it will get even messier.

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

There are four putative candidates considering a run at the Liberal leadership. Shockingly, they are all current Liberals and each has something unique to offer. So it’s insulting to assume that their talent is ignored by 38 ‘insiders’ looking for another saviour. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 6, 2023.

Green Party of Ontario chief Mike Schreiner leads a party of one. After 14 years at the helm, he has only managed to get himself elected. He has had five years to grow the Green base after being elected as the Greens’ first member of Ontario Legislature.

It’s been five years and he hasn’t managed to a recruit a single additional successful Green candidate to the legislature.

Yet for some bizarre reason, a few big names in the Ontario Liberal Party want him as their next leader.

In an open letter that landed like a fart in church, several high-profile Liberals including the first woman leader Lynn McLeod and former deputy leader Deb Matthews penned an open letter, calling on Schreiner to consider joining the Grits.

Their rationale was this: “Our party needs to rediscover the politics of purpose and principle…that’s why we’re turning to you.”

At first blush, the letter seems like a call to arms for party reform. The biggest change would be to elect a leader who is not currently a Liberal.

But amongst four potential leadership candidates, three are racialized Canadians and the fourth is under the age of 40. So how is anointing an over-50-year-old white male going to appeal to a new generation?

In the last election, some of the authors of the open letter were actively working for the coronation of Steven Del Duca. The race was finished before it started because the rules were so restrictive.

Del Duca was a great organizer, but a lousy communicator.

Schreiner is the opposite.

But communications is just part of the job. The biggest challenge facing the next Liberal leader is to recruit a team that could credibly transition to government.

Del Duca did a great job in recruitment and had some fantastic candidates who are still working in their ridings.

And that’s what it will take: hard work on the ground. There is no saviour in politics. The party has to do the work from the ground up. That means recruiting new members in every part of the province. It also means opening up to new people. In some cases, riding associations consist of a few people who have been there for years, without ever having won a single election.

That is quite often the case in the Green Party. Look at its current national situation. The last election was a disaster for party, with their leader more focused on party infighting than winning elections.

When they decided to make a change, it was a simple: it was back to the future. Retired leader Elizabeth May returned as co-leader. May and Schreiner have a lot in common. Both born in the United States, they emigrated to Canada.

Like May, Schreiner is a great communicator. But when it comes to organization, the Greens have decided to embrace a leader who took over the party in 2006. Almost 20 years later, the party has topped out at four seats in Parliament and that number is dwindling because of internal party division.

It’s hardly a recipe for government.

Schreiner was an excellent addition to the leaders’ debate as was May, who held her own in every debate she entered. But neither have demonstrated the organizational skills needed for government.

There are already four putative candidates considering a run at the Liberal leadership. And shockingly, they are all current Liberals.

All four have already been elected, and two have served in cabinet.

The party will be reviewing a more open voting process at its annual general meeting in Hamilton next month.

Three of them are racialized Canadians. Mitzie Hunter would be the party’s first Black leader. Yasir Naqvi would be the first Muslim, Ted Hsu would be the first leader of Asian heritage. Nate Erskine-Smith would be the youngest leader ever elected.

Those demographics should be of interest to the “insiders” who want to reach out to a new generation.

None is a saviour.

But all have proven that they are not simply flyby Liberals. Two have been elected federally and provincially in ridings that were very tough to win. Two have survived the wipeout experienced by most candidates in the last election.

Each has something unique to offer. It is insulting to assume that their talent is ignored by 38 insiders looking for another saviour.

These candidates are offering experience, hard work, organizational skills, and a commitment to Liberalism.

The last thing the party needs is a walkover Liberal.

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

The Public Order Emergency Commission may have been the biggest political yawn in commission history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 28, 2022.

OTTAWA—The Public Order Emergency Commission has come to a close. 

It may have been the biggest political yawn in commission history.

Most inquiries dig into the background of political decisions that reveal much to the ordinary public.

From the Krever Inquiry to the Gomery Commission, these proceedings usually provide riveting coverage and fodder for political opponents.

In the case of the Krever Inquiry, formally known as the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, the government was dealing with the thousands of victims of tainted blood from AIDS to hepatitis victims.

Justice John Gomery, through the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, gave us a look into the inner workings of the Liberal Party, and the public was shocked by the exposure of malfeasance.

Then-prime minister Paul Martin, who launched the commission, eventually lost his own job because of the negative fallout.

In the current context, the government will emerge from this inquiry unscathed. If anything, the testimony simply reinforced the need for the federal government to take drastic action to end the illegal blockade.

From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to the testimony of multiple federal ministers, the message was simple: the federal government needed to act because the blockade would have continued if Canada was depending on provincial police forces to remove the occupying truckers.

From testimony evidence, provincial police in Ontario were reluctant to utilize all the tools at their disposal, as their political masters—including Premier Doug Ford—viewed this as an “Ottawa” problem, which would be resolved by the federal government.

On an economic level, the shutdown of the auto industry actually cost the economy and grabbed the attention of the Americans, who were also losing jobs because of the Freed Convoy’s supply chain disruption.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland testified that questions remained long after the blockade ended about how the risk to Canada’s supply chain could inflict serious economic damage in multiple sectors, including the auto and mining sectors.

The testimony gave the public a deep dive into the operations of the federal government, including the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, and the interchange amongst responsible ministers included public safety, transport, security and the economy.

Insofar as the political blowback, certain provincial premiers appeared far more negative in their private communications with federal ministers.

Former premier Jason Kenney was acid in his repartees with some federal ministers. It was obviously clear that political gamesmanship was the key factor in Kenney’s refusal to use provincial powers to end the blockade in Coutts, Alta.

The mayor of Coutts made it clear that he informed the premier’s office early on in the blockade, and said some would characterize the Coutts trucker blockaders as “domestic terrorists.”

He said he personally would not say that because he was actually afraid for his personal safety and that of his family.

Clearly, a small-town mayor in southern Alberta could see the convoy for what it was: a threat to communities that some of his constituents believe warranted the label of terrorist.

He also said that 70 per cent of the citizens in Coutts were supportive of the blockade. However, that support waned after the discovery of a cache of illegal weapons. The arrest of four men charged with conspiracy to commit murder ruined the original non-violent flavour of the protest.

At the end of the commission’s work, the decision that the federal government made will likely be justified.

Canadians have a deeper understanding of the limitations facing the federal government when it comes to jurisdictional conflicts vis-a-vis the authority of local and provincial police.

The fact that no federal opposition parties have taken up the convoy’s cause, including that of convoy supporter Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, is proof positive that the commission’s findings have largely reinforced the government’s decision to implement the Emergency Measures Act.

The commission also made clear how the local Ottawa police leadership failed to recognize the seriousness of the occupation at the beginning of the process.

Former police chief Peter Sloly, who resigned amidst the occupation, appeared unable to manage even his own team. It was clear the municipal government would not be in a position to end the blockade.

However, Ford did express more interest in getting involved when the auto industry was shut down because of the Ambassador Bridge blockade.

In the end, most reasonable Canadians have already concluded that the actions to end the blockade were in keeping with the gravity of the situation.

Now, the Freedom Convoy is calling for a reunion next February.

No bouncy castles this time.

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

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

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

OTTAWA—Is health care burning in Canada?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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