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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 21, 2023.

OTTAWA—Three white men have weighed in on the renaming of Toronto’s Dundas Street.

Last week, former mayors John Sewell, David Crombie, and Art Eggleton jointly signed a letter asking Toronto City Council to revisit a decision to rename Dundas Street, the nomenclature of which derived from a British parliamentarian who delayed the abolition of slavery.

Chances are their intervention will be met with a wall of opposition. There is certainly plenty of evidence to show that Henry Dundas’ policy of “gradualism” meant the path to abolition was slower than outright prohibition.

The conundrum is that Dundas was an avowed abolitionist who devoted his legal and political life to ending the practice. According to the mayoral triumvirate, Dundas “understood that it would take a lot more than simply passing a British law to get rid of the slave trade and slavery.”

Not surprisingly, modern day critics see Dundas’ gradualism as another way of simply permitting an abhorrent practice, enslaving humans like animals. While Dundas was gradually moving the political classes toward abolition, the practice allegedly increased under his watch, as slave traders wanted to make money while slavery was still legal.

Three retired mayors weighing in on any debate will be attacked. In conjoining on the issue, they are subjecting themselves to a potential political backlash that could have been avoided by simply staying silent.

Speaking out took a certain amount of courage. The fact that they did it collectively offers a bit of political cover, but not much. Together, they have more than 50 years’ experience in politics, but nowadays, that is more of a lead weight than a buoy.

Politicians are treated with disdain as most members of the public think they are self-interested and too slow to make things happen. The public could be right on both counts. Self-interest involves getting re-elected, and that means sometimes slowing down change to secure the political support of those on the fringes.

It also means than change always happens more slowly than advocates would like.

The average international agreement, whether it be at UNESCO, the WTO or the WHO, usually takes at least a decade to develop before an internal consensus can make it into a legal document. When UNESCO passed the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions it was the culmination of seven years of work that began in Canada.

At the time, it was the quickest legal instrument ever adopted by the world body responsible for science, education, and culture.

Any politician would know that wiping out the slave trade would not happen overnight. Why punish the memory of one of those who was actually fighting to abolish it?

The financial cost of changing the name motivates some to oppose the change. I have a daughter living on Dundas Street in Toronto, and a sister living in the town of Dundas, so they have a personal stake in the name.

But the decision should not just be based on money. The outgoing council of the City of Toronto supported the move, which was estimated to cost $8.6-million. That number doesn’t include the cost to all those residents and businesses who would have to change their postal addresses, signage and other street identifiers.

The real issue is that judging actions from almost three centuries ago through today’s lens opens the door to major misrepresentations and mistakes. It is also tough for white men to politically weigh in on issues like human enslavement.

It would have been a lot easier for the three authors of the mayoral missive to simply sit on the sidelines and watch the story unfold without having their say. All three hailed from three different parties, so there seems to be a broad spectrum of consensus on the issue.

The former mayors also noted that Dundas, actually, was key in making Upper Canada the first jurisdiction in the then-British Empire to abolish slavery. Dundas appointed a noted abolitionist, John Graves Simcoe, as the province’s lieutenant-governor. He was joined by an abolitionist attorney general, John White, who introduced the legislation to abolish slavery in 1793.

White was defeated in the next election.

By all historical accounts, Dundas was a committed abolitionist, who introduced the notion of gradualism so that an achievable path to abolition could be cleared. Instead of being pilloried as a slave-lover, he should be recognized as a committed abolitionist who use compromise to continue the pursuit of his personal goal, an end to slavery.

That’s no reason to abolish his memory.

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

But at the end of the day, the bulk of the blame will be borne by the federal government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 13, 2022.

OTTAWA—To mask or not to mask. That is the question.

As the provinces move to end requirements for wearing masks in public places, the federal government continues to insist that COVID rules will not be loosened.

As passengers return to air travel, they are continuing to experience massive delays, the blame for which is falling directly on the shoulders of the government.

The chaos at Pearson International Airport is so bad that a former National Hockey Leaguer has dubbed the airport “the worst place on Earth.”

Ryan Whitney, who hosts a popular podcast, tweeted about Pearson after taking 30 hours to complete an Air Canada flight from Edmonton to Boston.

One video showed Whitney waiting for six hours to rebook a cancelled flight only to be turned away. His documented video went viral with more than one million views.

Upon arriving home in Boston, Whitney declined media requests but posted his final unmistakeable global rebuke: “God bless anyone who ever has to step foot in that hellhole.”

Air Canada, and the airport, are blaming delays on federally required pandemic related tests and mandatory vaccination questionnaires.

Frustration has reached such a point that pro-Liberal Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie has been on the news calling the situation “completely unacceptable. It is not how we want to be viewed by the rest of the world. … Tourism season is on us. We need to get this fixed!”

Finger-pointing will continue between governments, the airport management, the airlines, and national regulatory authorities like the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which is responsible for all screening.

But at the end of the day, the bulk of the blame will be borne by the federal government.

As the summer season looms, the last thing anyone wants is chaos at Canada’s largest airport.

Fifty countries around the world have already decided to drop their COVID airport screening requirements.

But instead of following their lead, the federal government is continuing to require lengthy screening processes, notwithstanding the request by everyone in the airline business to ease up on COVID processes.

“This is not the face we want to show the world,” Crombie told CTV news in a wide-ranging interview explaining how Pearson’s problems are affecting business and tourism in the region.

Transport Minister Omar Alghabra has been working double overtime, trying to ensure that security and airport screening hires are made and trained quickly.

Agencies involved in the hirings have even allowed employees in training to go right to the frontlines of work at the airport.

The transport minister announced the hiring of 865 more screening employees, who must go through training before they are fully operational.

Alghabra’s hands are tied on the health front, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated last week that science dictates a requirement for airport rules should remain in place.

He reminded Canadians we are still experiencing the pandemic. Travel rules will remain in place until at least Canada Day.

Alghabra has to simply keep reassuring stranded travellers that his department is working hard to fix the problem.

Non-travellers are not worried about lineups, but for those trying to get back to pre-COVID business normalcy, the delays are damaging.

With such a large contingent of GTA Liberals, it is hard to see a solution to the political pressure they must be feeling.

Passport delays are further adding to travel grief, with long lineups reported at many offices across the country.

Add the Pearson mess to dismal provincial Liberal results in the Ontario election, and members going home for the summer will be getting an earful from their constituents.

Most Canadians are not personally invested when government programs face glitches.

But when it comes to travel, every single Canadian who intends to leave the country needs a passport.

Likewise, tourism operators who have been starving during COVID are hoping to see a springboard to normalcy this summer.

But with all the bad news on Pearson going global, many foreign travellers may think twice before making Canada their chosen destination.

One answer would be to end COVID screening requirements on all flights.

There is no doubt that certain health risks are attached to those measures, but with provincial governments de-masking most activities in their provinces, the danger of going into a crowded restaurant is probably equivalent to passenger travel risk on planes.

Medical professionals may not be happy with the de-masking requirements, but the general population is ready to embrace the new normal.

After more than two years in lockdown, people want to be free.

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

Artists who are out on the streets once again because of COVID lockdowns are lobbying furiously for a return to a full Canadian Emergency Response Benefit for their sector.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 6, 2022.

OTTAWA—Musical blockbuster Come From Away has already been seen by a million Canadians.

But if you missed the Canadian performance in Toronto, you won’t be able to see it in this country again.

The story of how the people of Newfoundland opened their hearts to passengers stranded by the downing of the World Trade Centre is reverberating around the world.

It is the most successful Canadian musical ever produced and has prompted a domestic theatre renaissance that has already spawned more live theatre offerings for the globe.

The numbers published by David Mirvish when he announced the shuttering over the Christmas week were indeed impressive.

The press release cited box office sales of $115-million, including over $15-million in HST.

Mirvish estimated the economic impact on the Toronto economy at $920-million.

Mirvish pointed a finger directly at government, “in other parts of the world, the government has stepped up to support the commercial theatre sector by offering a financial safety net for the sector to reopen and play during the pandemic, thus protecting the tens of thousands of good jobs the sector creates. That is the case in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia—where productions of Come From Away continue.”

But in Canada there is no such government support.

Mirvish’s holiday announcement provoked shock waves in Canada’s artistic community.

New Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has been working feverishly to find a solution to the dilemma.

And artists who are out on the streets once again because of COVID lockdowns are lobbying furiously for a return to a full Canadian Emergency Response Benefit for their sector.

With all the theatres shuttered, it is impossible for the thousands of people who depend on live performance for their livelihoods to even feed their families.

Canada Council for the Arts CEO Simon Brault has emerged as a champion for those artists.

He has been working with unions representing the arts community trying to figure out the best solutions for support in these trying times.

But the question begs. If the city of Toronto garners almost a billion dollars in economic benefits from live performances, why are the arts treated like an afterthought in Canada’s COVID business support model?

For some reason, if you are manufacturing autos or pumping oil, your jobs are worth the full attention of governments.

If you are artists, bringing joy, perspective and global reach to the Canadian story, you are left picking up the scraps.

And it was always thus.

For some bizarre reason, commercial success in cultural industries has generally disqualified creators from government support.

There are government incentives and subsidies for book publishers, media content creators and community not-for-profit operations. But live commercial productions are generally left to their own devices as they are profit-making enterprises. However, governments help lots of industries in the name of economic development. Why exclude the cultural industries?

On the Hill, there is much discussion about how to turn this around. Not much is happening at Queens’s Park either even though the provincial capital is by far the largest beneficiary of commercial entertainment investment.

Some are discussing possible tax credits, which kickstarted a robust growth in Canadian film opportunities back in the nineties.

The tax credit introduced then has been replicated around the world, and it has been one of the best models for media content creation on the globe.

That credit was introduced by the Department of Finance, in tandem with Heritage, which begs the question. Where is Toronto-based Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland in this picture?

The cut to the CERB may have made some debt hawks on Bay Street happy. But it has devastated the creative sector, who continue to lobby for direct support for unemployed artists locked out of their places of employment by pandemic fiats.

Where, too, is the Department of Industry in this quest for solutions?

Francois-Philippe Champagne’s ministerial title is minister of innovation, science and industry. Surely the world of entertainment is built on innovation.

Before Come From Away, there was no real hope of developing a domestic theatre industry equivalent to London’s west end or Broadway.

But this magical story got Canada’s foot in the door for the creation of a whole new innovative industry, live theatre that actually makes money and entertains.

The brains behind innovation in Canada need to get together and find a solution to this gaping hole in public policy. All hands need to be on deck, including the prime minister’s office.

Come From Away should not have Gone Away.

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

The time has come to move as a herd.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 1, 2020.

OTTAWA—Surgical sterility is great for an operating room. But it does not work in the real world.

The notion that after almost three months in lockdown people are expected to either stay home or go to places where they are not allowed to sit down for fear of transmitting COVID is unworkable.

In Calgary, people gather in bars and restaurants in a convivial atmosphere. In Ottawa, you cannot even sit down on picnic tables at the Dairy Queen for fear of an infection outbreak.

In the olden days, Hogtown had another nickname, Toronto the Good. It was based on laws with a distinctively Presbyterian flavour that restricted drinking, dancing, and all things purportedly sinful.

The new normal has unleashed a wave of righteous caterwauling the likes of which we have not witnessed since the seventies (of the last century).

The blowback on the Trinity-Bellwoods park exuberance, was a case in point.

Everyone from the premier to the mayor jumped on the finger-pointing bandwagon, instead of realistically assessing why there was only a postage-stamp park in an area of multiple, low-income high-rise dwellings.

Not everyone has a private backyard to COVID in. In Toronto, the possibility of having your own personal space is even more remote.

So, on a sunny Saturday in May, when the province had announced the loosening of rules to stage two, people came out in droves.

On the fish-eye lens shots that immediately circulated on social media, it looked as though thousands were elbow to elbow.

But when the television cameras arrived, it was clear that people were trying their best to ensure social distancing.

But the armchair critics jumped in to attack millennials, claiming their irresponsibility was putting lives at risk.

At one point, a COVID-commentating doctor was almost in tears on television because he could not understand why people would be undermining the contribution of health-care workers in this thoughtless romp in the park.

Across the pond, critics are vicious in their attack British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s top aid for defying lockdown rules and driving to his mother’s home to drop off his four-year-old with grandma. He claims he and his wife were sick, and therefore the trip was about necessary childcare while they convalesced.

Without drilling down into the details of his explanation, the revelation rocked the country. People are stuck at home and obviously hurting when the rules that apply to them do not apply to others.

But the COVID epidemic has also unleashed the vitriol of unhappy people who normally keep their acidic worldview to themselves.

In today’s world, the COVID police are everywhere, ready to pounce on someone who veers too close on a walking path or accidentally steps in the wrong spot in a grocery store.

The old nosy parker, who was into everybody’s else’s business, is now doing it with impunity, as though their observations on everyone else are in the public interest.

In the condo in which I live, some dwellers have taken to counting the empty visitor parking spots every weekend to make sure that no interlopers are sneaking into the premises.

Last weekend, I hosted two family members for a dinner. It was within the rule of five, and we had covided in their backyard (with self-distancing) several times over the past few months.

To enter the apartment without neighbourly reporting, we made sure family entered through the underground parking, so as not to be outed by anyone looking out their window into visitors’ parking.

I have a friend who is struggling alone to support her husband, suffering with brain cancer. We have a weekly COVID meeting in the passageway between our apartments.

Last Friday, she broke down in tears, describing the loneliness of watching her partner slowly slip away, without the support that would normally attend a dying family member.

Horror of horrors, I hugged her. She needed a human connection and two meters of space just did not cut it.

Perfection may occur in hospital settings, but I think the public’s attention would be far better focused on eliminating risk in long-term care facilities.

With the high ratio of deaths in vulnerable populations, it is shameful that we need the military to expose germ-infested, understaffed conditions in health facilities.

But while we focus on not touching each other, the death rate numbers are largely driven by long-term care neglect.

Canadians have been very supportive of the new normal. But enough is enough. The time has come to move as a herd.

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

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on September 17, 2018.

OTTAWA—Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s municipal hijack is likely to be just the beginning of a tumultuous four-year ride.

It matters little that he will throw Toronto municipal elections into a tailspin because the majority of the people will not even bother to vote.

The rest of a province will shrug and mostly smirk over the chaos that is being visited upon their “love to hate” capital city.

The notwithstanding clause is another tool King Ford will use to punish disloyal subjects, like the mayor who beat him and some councillors he would like to get rid of.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is wise to avoid weighing in on this one.

This is a mess solely of Ford’s making. Had the prime minister stepped in, the story would quickly become that of a power game between the two. That is exactly the kind of confrontation that Ford would love to provoke.

But the long-term implications of the premier’s unilateral political heist cannot be ignored. The haste with which the premier is moving to override the courts via the use of the notwithstanding clause is a risky ploy which will create other problems. Some see it as a blatant misuse of power.

Bill Davis, a highly-respected Ontario premier for more than 14 years, told TVO’S Steve Paikin the clause was never meant to permit dominance over the rule of law.

“The sole purpose of the notwithstanding clause was only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when a province wanted to bring in a specific benefit or program provision for a part of their population—people of a certain age, for example—that might have seemed discriminatory under the Charter.”

“The notwithstanding provision has, understandably, rarely been used, because of the primacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians. …That it might now be used regularly to assert the dominance of any government or elected politician over the rule of law or the legitimate jurisdiction of our courts of law was never anticipated or agreed to.”

Clearly, a decision to halve the number of councillors in only one city in the province does not align with the initial reasons for including the clause in Canada’s new Constitution back in 1982.

Ontario has never used the clause and initially opposed its inclusion. Ultimately, it bowed to the wishes of Saskatchewan and Alberta who proposed the amendment.

Notwithstanding the original intention of the drafters, the clause apparently can now be used by any premier in any circumstance.

No one included an interpretation guide to the Charter so Ford will likely get his way in the short term. In the long term his move creates two problems which he will live to regret.

The first was his attack on the judiciary. When the courts overturned the initial seat cuts, claiming the change was unconstitutional, Ford ignored the substance of the decision to attack the judge.

He wrongly claimed Edward Belobaba was appointed by Kathleen Wynne. In fact, Belobaba was named federally in 2005 with a stellar list of legal credentials.

He began his career as a law clerk to chief justice Bora Laskin at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973. He subsequently served as associate professor and associate dean at Osgoode Hall Law School.

As a partner at Gowlings, for almost 20 years, he specialized in litigation and international business law and co-founded the Supreme Court Law Review, where he served as an editor.

Belobaba was not the kind of judge who received his appointment because of any connection to the political system. Ford’s personal attack will raise hackles in the legal system.

If his use of the notwithstanding clause is appealed, Ford can expect to have some pushback from the judiciary.

Likewise, mayors across the province are raising questions about where they stand and whether they are safe from the ire of the premier in another round of municipal council cuts.

At the recent Association of Municipalities of Ontario meeting in Ottawa last month, the buzz revolved around who would be hit next.

Ford’s behaviour reminds us of another politician south of the border who also listens to no one.

When Ford was running for office, his predecessor was attacked for comparing him to Donald Trump.

Last week, it was beginning to look like Wynne was right. Ford had few defenders of his use of the notwithstanding clause.

Even the father of Attorney-General Caroline Mulroney spoke out against the move, at the very moment she was defending it.

Notwithstanding everyone, Ford steamrolls ahead.

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

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on August 6, 2018.

OTTAWA—Premier Doug Ford’s decision to cut Toronto City Hall down to size has all the earmarks of a revenge move.

And those at city hall piling in behind him have their own grudge matches to settle.

Toronto city councillor Jim Karygiannis wants to increase the size of local council seats to mirror federal jurisdictions. Not surprisingly, he used to be the federal Member of Parliament in the area he now represents municipally. He probably believes the realignment would guarantee his personal re-election in perpetuity.

Most observers believe that Ford wants to cut Toronto Mayor John Tory down to size because he was unable to beat the mayor in a real election.

What people do not know is that Karygiannis also has reasons for a federally-sized grudge match.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was preparing for the last election, he was fine-tuning his team in all parts of the country.

Part of that work included sitting down with the Scarborough Liberal Member of Parliament to quietly let him know that his services were no longer required.

Karygiannis uncharacteristically withdrew from the federal scene without a fight, and decided to throw his hat into the ring in Toronto city politics where no party affiliation is required.

For Jimmy K. that was a good thing, because his temperament and style did not lend themselves to collegiality. Party insiders knew him as a political thug, albeit a very effective one. A superb organizer, he easily marshalled voters in contested riding nominations and proved an invaluable asset when it came to leadership races.

It may be karma that one bully has found common cause with another. The move Ford announced last week, with the support of a dozen local councillors, including Karygiannis, is nothing more than a smack down of political opponents.

Sadly, Ford will probably get away with it because most people automatically believe that less government is better.

What they don’t realize is that minimizing political oversight will do nothing to enhance services or reduce expenditures. It will merely concentrate power in fewer hands, eroding democracy in a process the current mayor has described as fundamentally flawed.

Ford may be stopped by the courts, but if not, the political firestorm will be limited to a few downtown elites, the very voters that Ford blames for his mayoral loss to current city incumbent Tory.

The normally mild-mannered Tory was livid in his denunciation of the process and approach taken by Ford in the proposed downsizing.

Tory said he was angered by Ford’s decision to make the announcement on the eve of the civic nomination cut-off and issued the following statement. “I have said clearly that you don’t change the rules in the middle of an election. That’s why I believe the municipal election should proceed as is.”

The mayor has received the backing of a majority on Toronto City Council to seek legal advice and demand a referendum on the question. But chances are, if a referendum were held, Tory may not be happy with the outcome.

People outside government have little understanding of the oversight role that is played by politicians. It would not be hard to convince voters that halving the number of elected officials is actually a good thing.

From a financial point of view, the move will not affect the bottom line, so why bother? The fewer politicians you have, the more powerful they become. If Karygiannis were able to claim a constituency as large as that of a federal Member of Parliament, he would wield more power. With fewer councillors vying for budget allocations in line with their priorities, there would be more money around to support his own pet projects.

The proposal smacks of a power grab, pure and simple. For Ford, it is a chance to have back at those councillors, and urban, left-leaning voters, who derided his brother while in office, and didn’t even give him a chance to govern.

For both men, revenge is a dish best served cold. But this dish is rotten to the core.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on April 30, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Misogyny lives. And the internet is giving it too much oxygen.

While Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is being called to account by governments around the world for political misuse of social media intel, a bigger issue looms in cyberspace.

Normal platforms of discourse are governed by legal restraints which serve to cool down the rhetoric that can come from unfettered anonymity. Slander, libel and anti-hate laws serve to make people think before they speak, write or act. Not so for tweets and social media postings.

The kind of bilious outrage that is common on the internet would be outlawed in traditional newspapers and television.

The internet is the modern-day equivalent of the Wild West, with like-minded bandits, terrorists and incels getting together to cultivate a venomous sense of brotherhood.

Hate speech is given free rein on the web, and communities connected by common deviance are rapidly mushrooming. They thrive in the dark web with little public knowledge or exposure. Underground chat groups provide blanket anonymity, encouraging deviants and misfits to group together into cells of like-minded outsiders who do not even have to use their own names to make common cause against the world.

From jihadists to white supremacists, from incels to pedophiles, they derive comfort in the belief that they are part of a bigger movement and form a community.

Their hate-mongering would be illegal in other fora. So it is about time the purveyors of social media put their mouth where their money is. Anonymity in social media should be outlawed.

An international convention to ban internet hate speech would be a good place for world governments to start. That initiative should be accompanied by national laws outlawing anonymity and hate speech in social media communications. And social media owners should be responsible for the content their platforms create.

Last week Canadian Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly joined with the Canada Council for the Arts in announcing a series of initiatives to support harassment-free workplaces in the arts. She vowed to deny funding to organizations that fail to provide such a workplace.

The initiative is an important one. But it pales in comparison to the looming challenges of the virtual workplace. One should not preclude the other but the government would be well-advised to launch targetted public discussions about how to achieve a harassment-free internet.

The tragic events in Toronto last week shone a light into the depth of misogyny that festers and is fostered in the deep net.

Like many, I had never heard of the incel movement. But the more I learn about it, the more I fear that with these movements growing by the day, misogyny will never be stamped out.

According to an investigative piece in Elle magazine, incel is an underground movement of disgruntled men who blame women for their incapacity to form lasting relationships.

Until it was shut down last November, internet purveyor Reddit provided a safe place for misogynists to gather and spew hate. The site posted this proviso to warn users “Normies are allowed to post here, but do note that many incels are generally hostile to normies; tread carefully. Blackpill: A subjective term used to describe the real or perceived socially unspoken realizations that come from being a long-time incel. This sidebar will certainly be revised every now and again.”

Reddit boasted 40,000 registered members in its incel chat group. The real numbers are much higher because that figure does not include visitors who monitor the site without establishing their own accounts.

The now-infamous Facebook posting of Alek Minassian was linked to incel chat rooms. He conferred high praise upon the self-described “supreme gentleman” Californian Elliot Rodger, who murdered six people and injured 14 others before killing himself.

Minassian appears to have replicated Rodger’s massacre, right down to motive. In Rodger’s pre-massacre suicide note, he claims his murders were designed to “punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex”. He also uploaded a YouTube video explaining why.

Minassian claims similar victimization status on his postings. After the murders, Facebook deleted the Minassian account, but that is not enough. A current posting on Incel.me says that women should be like cattle, enslaved to service men’s sexual desires.

The oversight of hate speech must be expanded and included in a legislated, legal framework.

The only way to stop poison spewing from hate sites is to shut them down and deny the cover of anonymity to potential perpetrators.

That would be a noble outcome of the horrific Toronto tragedy.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, April 9, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Toronto Pride should be ashamed.

Last week’s misguided decision to deny the Toronto Police Service official participation in the country’s largest gay pride celebration is a blot on Canada’s reputation as an open and inclusive country.

It simply repeats the same kind of prejudice that forced thousands of gays and lesbians into the closet years ago.

It also sends the message that the current crop of Toronto Pride organizers have little understanding of the struggles that the community went through when it was criminally against the law simply to love a person of the same sex.

When members of Toronto Pride and a half dozen other related associations signed an open letter to explain their decision, they claimed it was in part motivated by the loss of seven community members to murder at the hands of accused serial killer Bruce McArthur.

The letter stated: “It is an incredibly complex and difficult time. The arrest of Bruce McArthur, the alleged serial killer, has added a new poignancy and a new pain to the fears that sit at the heart of anyone who lives a life of difference.”

“At the end of June, we will come together as we have for decades and we will be seen. We will rally and rise, but it will be with heavy hearts as we have not yet begun to grapple with our anger, shock, and grief.”

Of course members of the LGBTQ community and others are horrified and saddened by the discovery of multiple undetected killings over several decades. It reverberates through the whole city and the country to see such horrific crimes undetected for decades. There are many unanswered questions as to how and why a killer could move freely in the community, undetected for years.

But it was also the diligent work of the Toronto police force that ultimately uncovered the evidence to bring the cases to trial and offer closure to families whose loved ones had been missing for years.

Indeed, continuing prejudice directed toward the LGBTQ community today is what forces some members to live a double life. Keeping people out of the parade merely serves to remarginalize them.

Isolating one group of people from celebrating the joy of Pride is simply reverting to the same kind of behaviour that kept many people in the closet for years.

The decision is a slap in the face to thousands of law enforcement officials who are courageous enough to march openly in a police environment which is still rife with machismo and homophobia.

There are places around the world where police would never march and where people would be beaten by them for marching. That used to be Canada too.

Some of us are old enough to remember the bath house raids when police armed with crowbars and sledgehammers arrested 250 men in four bathhouses across Toronto.

The attack galvanized the community and is considered by historians to be a catalyst in the gay rights movement in Canada. That was in 1981.

Pride Toronto executive director Olivia Nuamah acknowledged the history when she defended the ban by saying “Pride was born out of protest. It actually was born out of resistance to police.”

To link the bath house raids to today’s ban trivializes the tremendous progress that has been made in the past 39 years. Nuamah claimed she had hoped the force would have been included after a Pride-imposed ban last year but the horrific revelations of multiple murders of gay men prevented that from happening.

“That would have continued to be the case were it not for the kind of series of events that took place in the course of about eight months.”

The open letter claimed “This has severely shaken our community’s already often tenuous trust in the city’s law enforcement. We feel more vulnerable than ever.”

The group added that police and the community need to work together to regain trust and allow members of the LGBTQ community to feel safe.

“That will not be accomplished in one day. The relationship cannot be mended through a parade,” the letter said.

“Marching won’t contribute towards solving these issues—they are beyond the reach of symbolic gestures.”

But they make a mistake in minimizing the power of symbolic gestures.

Rosa Parks and Viola Desmond’s “symbolic gestures” spawned the civil rights movement in the United States and Canada.

Unfortunately, today’s Toronto Pride ban is damaging an inclusive celebration of diversity.

Pride is repeating the very history that it claims to abhor.

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

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, December 18, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Byelections burst the Ottawa bubble last week.

Mid-term report cards on the governing Liberals have been flagging. They were unanimous in predicting the honeymoon was over.

But four byelections in other parts of the country told a different story.

The Liberals made surprising gains in British Columbia, while the Conservatives lost a seat but gained in popular vote. The New Democrat Party ended in deep trouble.

Losses by both opposition parties are interrelated.

A Tory general election victory could not happen without a hike in NDP support to peel votes away Liberal votes.

Just as Jean Chrétien’s government benefited from a right-wing split to win three successive majorities, Stephen Harper’s Conservative three-peat was spawned by splits on the left.

Most concerning for the New Democrats must be that their new leader underperformed in the very areas where his singular attributes were supposed to grow the vote.

Born in Scarborough, Jagmeet Singh was tagged to increase NDP support in suburban GTA, and in the Surrey-White Rock riding adjacent to one of the largest Indo-Canadian populations in the country.

After Singh was chosen leader of the NDP, most pundits predicted his charisma and unique visible minority status would dip into potential Liberal support in key battlegrounds like Toronto and Vancouver.

After all, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau enjoyed strong support amongst women and minorities, and his diverse cabinet reflected those successes.

Being a minister is one thing. Being leader is a more compelling story. Most believed support from diverse populations in places like Surrey and Scarborough would bleed away from the Liberals in favour of Singh.

The byelections put that myth to rest. Singh needs to take a long, hard look at these results and revisit his current absence from the House of Commons.

In most instances, the political fight was strictly between the Liberals and the Tories, although the NDP retained second-place status in Saskatchewan. Everywhere else, the New Democrats were simply irrelevant.

The Conservatives improved their overall vote percentage, but the most efficient voter operation was that of the Liberals.

Not only did the party hold on to support in vote-rich Toronto, it actually defeated the Tories in a British Columbia seat that had not been Liberal for more than 75 years.

Contrary to Singh, Andrew Scheer has been building Conservative Party support since his leadership win.

While working to solidify the votes of traditional Conservatives, the leader also needs to focus on moving up with swing voters across the country.

Increasing the Tory vote in rural Saskatchewan, while making good headlines, does not actually change a general election result.

Trudeau and the Liberals are obviously benefitting from the strength of the national economy. But they decided not to ignore the importance of by-elections in preparing a general election strategy.

Historically, leaders of all parties have stayed out of by-elections. But, as in so many other areas, Trudeau threw away the playbook. His personal popularity still outstrips that of his party in many parts of the country, so he campaigned hard in ridings where the party was expecting close outcomes. That work paid off.

It didn’t mean so much in seats that the Liberals already held. But it did allow the grits to sideline the NDP in races that could be a portent of the next general election.

The more trouble the NDP is having, the harder it will be for the party to recruit quality candidates who can make a difference in a tight local race.

Last week’s Liberal winner in British Columbia had already enjoyed a successful political career as a popular local mayor and provincial minister. He was facing off against a well-known Conservative former provincial and federal minister. The NDP candidate, a community organizer, barely outpaced the Green Party candidate in support.

Singh really needs to hit the reset button, and the best way to do that is to get a seat in the House of Commons. He needs the visibility that comes with Question Period and the opportunity to act as chief party spokesperson on key parliamentary issues.

Without the benefit of constant Ottawa exposure, Singh is not going to be able to increase his media presence by travelling the country.

Scheer needs to move beyond reinforcing his right-wing base by shifting his party to the centre, if he has any hope of winning the next election.

Notwithstanding Ottawa insiders, the prime minister seems to be moving in the right direction.

If it ain’t broke, he probably does not need to fix it.

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