But it certainly has not captured the public’s imagination.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 31, 2022.

OTTAWA—Not too many people seem to care about the current inquiry into the government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to end the trucker occupation.

Even the hero of most anti-trucker locals did not reap much benefit in the Ottawa municipal election held last week.

Most pundits were predicting a tight race between long-serving councillor Catherine McKenney and newcomer Mark Sutcliffe in the run to replace outgoing Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson.

Many believed that the appearance by McKenney in the opening days of the inquiry would give their campaign a boost. Their testimony coincided last week with the mayoral race and reminded voters of their very public stance against the occupation in the weeks when the city was under siege.

But that past did not seem to affect the city election outcome. Sutcliffe sauntered to victory, with media decision desks declaring his win within minutes of the polls closing.

McKenney is not the only one who did not reap benefits from anti-convoy visibility.

The opposition in the House of Commons has been silent on the inquiry with no questions directed at the government.

The inquiry has held a number of public hearings, but is currently entertaining secret testimony from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The judge leading the inquiry approved the secrecy provisions sought by the government last week, acceding to the request that the CSIS information is classified.

Police testimony on multiple sides has simply left people confused.

City police appeared to be experiencing crossed communication lines and infighting. As for other levels of policing, the testimony thus far has yet to get to the bottom of the story.

The Ontario Provincial Police were highly critical of city police performance, but it remains unclear how much help they were prepared to offer.

According to inquiry testimony, even provincial ministers were misinformed about the nature and strength of the provincial participation.

We may never get to the bottom of that story because Ontario Premier Doug Ford is declining to participate in the hearing, claiming it is a federal matter to assess federal involvement and therefore the provincial politicians have no business participating.

Ford also clings to the claim that the decisions made around the provincial policing participation were strictly limited to police authorities and had nothing to do with Queen’s Park.

It appears as though Ford had little interest in breaking up the Ottawa convoy. He only got involved when the borders were shut down and automotive jobs were suspended because of the supply chain problems caused by the blockade in Windsor, Ont.

The opposition’s original narrative that the legislation was simply a “just watch me” moment for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t seem to have gained much traction.

At the time, the prime minister and his team were criticized for not stepping in earlier to put an end to the local economic paralysis caused by the occupation.

Those who have a hate-on for Trudeau will find a way of blaming him for the occupation.

Some feel he overstepped his authority, but in the context of the occupation, it appears as though he tried hard to work with the relevant police authorities, to little avail.

What is surprising is the level of dysfunction that has been exposed during various police testimony.

For those who think that police are well-equipped to protect us, it is scary when they don’t even have the authority to compel private tow-truck operators to remove vehicles parked illegally for weeks.

It is also clear that an element of the police was sympathetic to the occupiers, determined to assist the occupation instead of breaking it up.

In the end, the inquiry has already exposed a major failure of local police leadership, and perhaps that is not surprising.

Police are constantly encouraged to work with protesters in an effort to de-escalate violence. Their hope to dialogue with the occupiers is not surprising.

They should have understood from the beginning that this was no normal occupation. The occupiers themselves were claiming they planned to take over the government.

A normal protest group arrives on Parliament Hill, spends a few hours hearing speakers and making points, and then moves on.

The Ottawa police ignored intelligence received very early on, anticipating an occupation that would last for several weeks, not several hours.

The occupation was like nothing the nation’s capital had ever witnessed. The local police force appeared woefully ill-equipped to deal with the protesters.

The post-mortem on the Emergencies Act continues apace.

But it certainly has not captured the public’s imagination.

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

Lionizing illegal occupiers has nothing to do with freedom. Instead, it is an attempt to overthrow the social compact that Canada was built on.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 4, 2022.

OTTAWA—Freedom obviously means different things to different people.

In some parts of the world, freedom is survival.

If you don’t have access to food or water, how can you worry about anything more than securing the basics of life?

If you are a woman in some countries, you do not even have the right to leave home unless accompanied by a male member of your family. Absurd though it may be, your son may actually have the authority to keep you locked inside.

If you are a girl in Afghanistan, you don’t have the right to an education. Even if your family could afford to send you, schools are verboten for those who have been born with a vagina.

If you are not a straight male, there are many places in the world where you could be imprisoned or even killed simply for loving someone.

You are not free to be who you are, but must either hide your sexual orientation or simply bury your sexuality to be free.

In some countries, there is no freedom.

But that is not the case in Canada. And as we celebrated our national holiday on July 1, it is time to start calling out those fakers who claim they are fighting for freedom in our country.

Can you imagine any other country in the world where you are so free you can park a bouncy castle in front of Parliament for weeks, paralyzing the operations of government, without being arrested?

Threatening judges and disobeying court orders is common amongst those who claim they are fighting for our freedoms.

Our “freedoms” involve infecting others with variants of COVID simply because they refuse to embrace the reality that vaccines make us all safer.

Why would any political party want to associate themselves with a bunch of fake freedom fighters whose main claim to fame is an illegal occupation of Canada’s capital?

Last week, interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen authorized all caucus members to meet with these fakers, in the name of democracy. She told CTV “I support peaceful and legal demonstrations, and if my MPs want to be there, they’re free to do whatever they want and they’ll answer to their constituents.”

Conservatives are currently battling with the People’s Party of Canada for the favour of those illegal occupiers who continue to display their disdain for the very system they claim to support.

Illegal convoy organizer Tamara Lich was released from prison in March after she agreed to bail conditions which prevented her from inciting another illegal occupation.

Instead, her lawyer confirmed she was arrested last week in Medicine Hat, Alta., for allegedly violating bail conditions. Meanwhile, political parties battle to share the spotlight with Lich.

“This is disgusting,” tweeted Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada. “Tamara Lich is a political prisoner and the Liberal regime is persecuting her like all authoritarian regimes do with dissidents. We will continue to support this courageous woman.”

Meanwhile, one judge involved in convoy prosecutions is alleging claims of harassment, intimidation, and even death threats.

In an interview with Radio Canada under concealed identity, the judge said multiple threats forced them to change the locks on their home, vary their daily path to work and consider moving their children out of the family residence.

This is harassment and intimidation from a group that claims to be fighting for freedom. The fact that any of these illegal protest organizers could be characterized as political prisoners illustrates just how bizarre our political narrative has become.

Even more strange is the fact that any legitimate political party would want to be associated with this group of twisted malcontents.

Conservative front-runner Pierre Poilievre constantly peppers his speeches with references to freedoms, underscoring that his political goal is to give liberty back to Canadians.

There may be many challenges facing our country, including the bite taken out of our wallets by rising inflation, but it is pretty hard to absorb the notion that we live in a country replete with political prisoners.

That claim has zero credibility.

As we celebrated our real freedoms on Canada Day last week, let’s not fall into the trap of legitimizing the goal of those who use illegal means to make their message heard.

Shutting down communities, blocking roads with bouncy castles and hot tubs, lionizing illegal occupiers has nothing to do with freedom.

Instead, it is an attempt to overthrow the social compact that Canada was built on.

Living in society comes with collective responsibilities.

Happy and Free Canada Day!

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

If he doesn’t connect with the truckers who are promising weeks of disruption, he runs the risk of being outed as a non-supporter. If he does stand with the truckers, he runs the counter-risk of facing the ire of citizens in the Ottawa region, including those in his own Ottawa riding, Carleton.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 27, 2022.

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre’s Canada Day celebrations may blow up in his face.

If he doesn’t connect with the truckers who are promising weeks of disruption, he runs the risk of being outed as a non-supporter.

If he does stand with the truckers, he runs the counter-risk of facing the ire of citizens in the Ottawa region, including those in his own Ottawa-area riding, Carleton.

They handed him a healthy plurality in the last election but just last week, Mainstreet Research published some interesting data about how the trucker-Pierre tango was viewed by voters.

Amongst 555 constituents polled by Mainstreet between June 13-14, Poilievre enjoyed a healthy 10 per cent majority over his closest opponent in the last election.

If that same election were held today, Poilievre would still be in the lead, but his margin of victory would shrink by half.

According to respondents, the single biggest factor in their dissatisfaction was Poilievre’s support for the Ottawa convoy blockade.

Forty-nine per cent of those polled said they would be less likely to vote for the Conservatives if the riding representative was Poilievre.

It appears as though the trucker occupation played a huge rule in Poilievre’s fall from electoral grace.

The Mainstreet question was clear: “During the trucker occupation … Pierre Poilievre met with and encouraged the freedom protesters. How has this impacted your opinion of your Member of Parliament?”

Fifty-six per cent of those interviewed said they had a “much less favourable” opinion of Poilievre because of his blockade support. An additional 10 per cent said they had a “somewhat less favourable opinion.”

By contrast, only 15 per cent said they had a “much more favourable” opinion, while three per cent claimed a “somewhat more favourable” opinion.

In the next month, the truckers have vowed to return to Ottawa to disrupt Canada Day and remain in the capital throughout the month of July.

They may be pleased to return to the scene of the crime, but Poilievre and the Conservatives can’t be too thrilled.

So far, Poilievre’s support of the truckers has not made much news beyond the nation’s capital.

It really is an “inside the beltway story.” But inside the beltway is Poilievre’s own constituency, and he could vault to the top of the Tories, only to be spurned by local voters in the next election.

Most party leaders are supported by their constituents. It is only when the party faces dire straits that the leader is defeated. Witness the rejection of Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca in his own riding the recent Ontario election.

But being a representative in the nation’s capital is not the same as other ridings across the country.

There, people do expect you to stare down the Freedom Convoy and support the residents, not vice versa.

Last January and February were brutal times for the 30,000 people who live in Ottawa’s downtown core.

According to a friend who lives there, the only dialogue that happened between truckers and residents was a volley of epithets that started with “f” and ended with “u.”

The city is bracing for the same nastiness next week. And Poilievre has to make up his mind whether he represents his constituents or the freedom convoy, because, if the Mainstreet poll is accurate, it cannot be both.

It remains to be seen whether Poilievre can translate his obvious internal popularity into votes across the broad spectrum of Canadians.

But the early signal from his riding sounds a warning bell.

Swinging so far right may win support within Conservative party circles.

But that swing also alienates the majority of mainstream voters.

With the crash of crypto-currency and the pushback on his view of the governor of the Bank of Canada, Poilievre appears to be resonating within his own party.

His situation is so strong that, not only did Patrick Brown’s co-chair bolt, as referenced in last week’s column, but also Brown’s campaign manager quickly followed Michelle Rempel Garner, abruptly leaving Brown’s campaign to work for her potential Alberta leadership entry. Rempel Garner has since decided not run for the UCP leadership.

Jean Charest continues to insist publicly that “I will win this.” He is pumping up his supporters with audacious declarations of victory. But his own numbers do not appear to back up those words.

Poilievre and Brown membership sales allegedly amount to 75 per cent of the total, so it is tough to see how Charest will win.

Poilievre is definitely ahead.

How he handles the Canada Day convoy will signal much about his capacity to win an election.

Like Icarus, flying too close to the truckers might burn him badly.

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

It sounds good to vaccinate all truckers, but hampering $1-billion of daily traffic between Canada and the United States may not help.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 17, 2022.

OTTAWA—To vax tax, or not to vax tax, that is the question.

Once again, the Government of Quebec appears to be at the head of the pack when it comes to new public health policies.

Whether the proposed vax tax is actually brought to fruition remains to be seen.

Reaction to the tax proposal ranges from tepid to negative. The prime minister refused to weigh in, seeking more information. Multiple premiers said they would not be following the lead of Quebec Premier François Legault in levying a health fee on those who refused to be vaccinated.

Premiers opposed to the move include Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe diagnosed with covid just after his public briefing on the issue where the premier was not wearing a mask.

Legault has promised to introduce a package on the health tax in February that will be debated in the Quebec National Assembly. It was no coincidence that the controversial tax was floated at the same time the province lost its second public health director since the beginning of the pandemic.

The departure of Dr. Horacio Arruda was expected to take some heat off the premier for criticism his government has faced following the Christmas implementation of a curfew that now ends Monday.

Throughout the pandemic, Legault’s personal popularity numbers have remained high, even when his province experienced the highest national death rates in long-term care facilities.

Perhaps the surprise tax proposal was designed to keep those numbers high. Most observers have been skeptical about the tax proposal. Some have argued the proposal violates medical ethics. Others call it an attack on universal health care.

If there is a public policy to tax anti-vaxxers, what about smokers or others who contribute to health problems by personal choices? One could argue that the smoker’s tax already exists because the high cost of a package of cigarettes in every province is largely based on taxes, which are ploughed back into provincial health-care expenditures. What is next, an obesity tax? Some see the benefit in a sugar tax for that very reason.

The other question that begs is what result will the tax have in encouraging the non-vaccinated to step up and get the vaccination?

Eighty-five per cent of the Quebec population is already vaccinated and early reports indicate that there has been an uptick in vaccination appointments since the premier’s announcement.

The Government of Quebec also recently announced that vaccination proof will be required to purchase liquor or cannabis in government stores.

That may also be responsible for the increase in vaccination bookings, but the bottom line is that Legault is banking on the fact that the vast majority of Quebecers are tired of being locked down because a small minority of citizens refuses to protect the rest of the population.

Legault has been playing tough with anti-vaxxers while Ontario Premier Doug Ford seems to be going in the opposite direction.

His reaction to the pandemic has been focused on encouraging people to vaccinate but with no mention of coercion.

If anything, the Ontario government has been criticized for worrying more about anti-vaxxers’ rights than those of ordinary citizens. School boards and parents were outraged when the government announced that, with schools reopening in a few days, the threshold for informing families on active school covid cases was being increased.

The announcement that parents would only be informed when 30 per cent of the school student or teacher population was infected caught educators and school boards by surprise.

It runs counter to previous reporting requirements that let parents know when a dozen or so cases were reported in any school.

Minister of Education Stephen Lecce defended the move, saying families could use at-home rapid tests provided by the province if they are concerned about potential infection.

However, critics are saying the lack of transparency is not justifiable.

Meanwhile, the federal government reversed its position again on the requirement of all truckers, Canadians and foreign nationals, to be vaccinated or face quarantine when they are crossing the border. All have to vaccinated as of Jan. 15.

The United States is planning on imposing its own vaccination requirement within the next week.

Some 20 per cent of Canadian truckers are currently unvaccinated and existing supply chain issues could be exacerbated if one of five truckers stopped working this month.

It sounds good to vaccinate all truckers, but hampering $1-billion of daily traffic between Canada and the United States may not help.

Like taxing anti-vaxxers, the cure may be worse than the disease.

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