It may also be a reflection of how young men feel they are the forgotten generation. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 21, 2024.

OTTAWA—It has been 95 years, on Oct. 18, since Canadian women were given the right to vote.

In recognition of that right, the Ottawa chapter of the Famous Five Foundation will celebrate a Pink Tea event at the Canadian Museum of Nature on Oct. 27.

At the ceremony, the foundation will unveil this year’s recipients of the Famous 5 award for their contribution to the fight for equality.

Dozens of other Famous 5 chapters across the country hosted similar events to commemorate Oct. 18, 1929.

That day, a landmark decision by the Privy Council of Great Britain recognized women as persons before the law, thus conferring upon them the right to vote.

The appeal to the British Privy Council followed an unsuccessful campaign in 1928 at the Canadian Senate for women’s right to vote. The effort was led by five Alberta suffragettes who became known as the Famous Five. Their names are Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, and Henrietta Moore Edwards.

The Famous Five is currently the most visited grouping of statues within the Parliamentary Precinct on Wellington Street in Ottawa. The Famous Five Foundation was formed to secure national recognition for those women, and then to fight for recognition of modern-day suffragettes.

At next Sunday’s Pink Tea, five women will be honoured for fighting for Indigenous rights, the rights of Afghan women and others involved in the battle for modern day racial and gender equality, and against misogyny.

The Famous 5 Ottawa will recognize the following award recipients: Mariam Abdel-Akher, Cindy Blackstock, Najia Haneefi, Marie-Noëlle Lanthier, and Christine Romulus for special recognition, each in their own area of expertise.

“These extraordinary women continue to doggedly push the envelope in the face of obstacles and challenges just as the original Famous Five had to do,” said Beatrice Raffoul, chair of Famous 5 Ottawa.

The modern Famous 5 know that much work still has to be done when women in some parts of the world are not even allowed to go to school, and Indigenous women are recovering from the trauma of residential school cultural annihilation.

Canadians think that the fight for equality is over, but one only has to look at the current political situation to understand that we still have much work ahead.

In the upcoming American presidential election, according to an Environics Institute poll published by The Globe and Mail last week, the majority of Canadians prefer the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over Republican Donald Trump.

But the younger a man is, the more likely he is to support Trump.

Notwithstanding his multiple criminal convictions and Trump’s vehement refusal to accept the 2020 election loss, the former president’s level of support has actually increased since the last election, Environics revealed.

At that time, Trump had the support of 15 per cent of Canadian respondents, and that figure has now increased to 21 per cent. Trump’s greatest level of support comes from young men, and in that cohort, young Conservatives are most likely to support the convicted felon. Conservatives were more likely to support Trump than Harris, with 44 per cent voicing support—an increase of 11 per cent from four years ago.

The vote split in other parties has remained relatively stagnant, with 89 per cent of Bloc Québécois supporters, 85 per cent of Liberals, and 82 per cent of New Democrats preferring Harris over Trump.

The rise in Conservative support for Trump makes one wonder whether the current Democratic candidate’s gender is at play.

Former president Barack Obama hit the campaign trail last week with exactly that message.

He specifically called out Black men for refusing to support Harris simply because she is a woman.

Obama told his audience that while they claimed other reasons for not supporting her, their refusal is based on misogyny because they will not vote for a woman.

Harris is currently working hard to try to bridge that gender divide, reaching out on podcasts and other non-traditional media platforms hosted by men for men.

But, just like in Canada, the gender gap in voting is quite stark in the United States.

Older people and women are supporting Harris, while the younger male generation has been more supportive of Trump.

That the level of misogyny is highest in young voters is troubling. It may also be a reflection of how young men feel they are the forgotten generation.

Some 95 years after Canadian women got the right to vote, we still have a long way to go.

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

The debate moderator rebutted the pet-eating immigrants claim, but that didn’t faze Trump, who said he’d seen the carnivorous behaviour talked about on TV.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 16, 2024.

OTTAWA—I ate dawg to celebrate the debate-thrashing administered to former president Donald Trump by future president Kamala Harris.

My dawg wasn’t real. It was a hot dog confection created by the team at Tavern on the Falls on Sussex Drive in the nation’s capital.

Called da dawg, it includes corned beef and sauerkraut atop the large steamy that the restaurant is known for.

This dawg choice was perfectly timed because everyone was talking about Trump’s bizarre debate claim that dogs and cats were being eaten by immigrants who should not have been let into the United States. Trump literally screamed that illegal immigrants were eating people’s pets in Ohio.

ABC’s debate co-moderator David Muir immediately rebutted the claim saying that Springfield city manager Bryan Heck had already laid waste to that false accusation. That didn’t faze Trump. He said he had even seen the carnivorous behaviour being discussed on television.

Trump was referring to a discredited internet claim that Haitian immigrants were kidnapping people’s pets to cook them for dinner.

That internet nugget had been peddled by his running mate J.D. Vance who was reported to have clarified the pet-eating rumours might have been false.

Trump’s shouts about eating dogs prompted Harris to laugh out loud, which spiked Trump’s temperature even further.

Even when the debate’s subject matter was supposed to be delving into other issues like economic policy, Trump focused his pitch almost exclusively on Democratic immigration policies that he claims have let millions of criminals into the country.

He went on to say that the crime rate around the world is going down because Harris and U.S. President Joe Biden have created border policies that are letting all foreign lawbreakers to move to the United States. He said that was causing a spike in American crime.

When Muir pointed out that the American crime rate had gone down, Trump ignored that fact and simply pointed to his own experience, declaring he had taken a bullet in the head because of Harris’ policies.

Trump was referring to the assassination attempt on July 13 where his ear was allegedly grazed by a bullet that killed a rally supporter but he was saved because he moved his head at the last minute.

His ear appeared fully intact on debate night. Sporting a new haircut, the side of his head was visible. No tear or scarring is visible on the lobe.

Trump trumpeted his near-death experience, but didn’t seem too out of sorts until Harris mentioned how many people were leaving his rallies from boredom.

The former president kept his lips pursed throughout that line of attack, and went on to waste valuable airtime explaining how his crowds were bigger than hers, and how much he was loved by the people while she was hated, even by President Biden.

Harris was deftly able to bait her opponent on a number of issues, but also managed to engage in economic issues in support of small business and housing.

She repeated her positive claim that she would be running an “opportunity economy” while in government, expanding the child tax credit, and lowering prices for food and prescription drugs.

She also peppered Trump with questions about his inconsistent position on abortion. He recently said he would oppose a Florida referendum banning abortions after six weeks into a pregnancy, and then reversed his position the following day.

For her part, Harris agreed to reinstate a national policy to take the abortion decision out of the hands of government and give it back to the women whose bodies are affected.

She went on to accuse Trump of currying favour with dictators who could easily seduce him with flattery and favours.

Trump helped make her point by telling his audience that he has the support of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who is known as an autocratic strongman cosying up to the Russians.

Trump also dodged questions about whether he supported Ukrainians in their fight for survival following a Russian invasion of their sovereign territory.

When asked repeatedly whether he supported Ukraine, the former president simply ignored the question, and repeated that he would have the issue solved before the presidential swearing-in if he were elected president.

All the post-debate punditry seemed to say that Trump was badly beaten by a better-prepared, calmer Harris who was more presidential in demeanour.

The former president was more into personal attacks than in convincing Americans he was fit to govern.

If he is defeated, Trump’s political effigy should read “Let them eat dog.”

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

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.

Justin Trudeau believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Pierre Poilievre, but Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited. The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 4, 2024.

OTTAWA—The winds of political change are blowing everywhere.

Instead of interpreting that as a renaissance of the right, we have to assume that voter fatigue in multiple countries is fuelling this desire for change.

In the case of the United Kingdom, that wind led to a majority Labour government win on July 4.

British Conservatives have been in power for 14 years.

But unlike Canadian Liberals, the British Tories have motored through five leaders during the same period.

The revolving door on British leadership is prompted by a rule similar to that of Canadian Conservatives. If the majority of caucus votes against the leader, they are dismissed from power.

In the British Parliament, the dumping of leaders by caucus springs from rules written into party constitutions.

In Canada, only the Conservatives can trigger a leadership review. That process stems from a private member’s bill adopted unanimously in the House of Commons on condition that implementation is up to each caucus to be voted on privately at the beginning of a new Parliament.

Because of this rule, even if Pierre Poilievre were to secure a majority government in the next election, if his popularity flagged, he could be quickly replaced.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the revolving door leads to internal party divisions that are hard to heal.

In the dying dies of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s campaign, former prime minister Boris Johnson was brought in to rally the troops. He rallied hard, but did little to support his leader.

Instead, he used his time on stage in London’s Chelsea neighbourhood to praise his own initiatives, and trash the left.

He simply ignored Sunak, who was part of the group that dumped him. With such Tory in-fighting, the Labour Party has doubled its lead heading into a vote predicted to be a washout for the governing party.

From France to Canada, from the United Kingdom to the United States, multiple western leaders are suffering from voter fatigue.

Some may also be suffering from personal fatigue.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s performance in the June 27 debate against Donald Trump was palpably painful to watch. He struggled to keep his train of thought, and spoke in a gravelly, weakened voice. There were moments when he appeared to be confused about what the issue was. His wife, Jill, went up to the podium at the end to usher Biden away, as one would do for an elderly relative with balance problems.

All in all, it reinforced the narrative that Biden should not be the Democratic Party’s choice in the next election if they intend to defeat Trump.

Americans are also suffering from price fatigue and inflation, but there does not seem to be the obvious stampede to the right that one witnessed in the first round of the French elections last week.

Instead, the American race is a sparring match between relatively equal political movements, with the two-party system almost split down the middle.

But with the mental and physical feebleness Biden displayed on debate night, his party will be ceding the election to the Trump Republicans unless he is encouraged to step aside.

In the French coalition system with multiple parties, the group led by President Emmanuel Macron is running a poor third in the vote he himself triggered early.

Like the U.K’s Sunak, Macron called a surprise election. Both seem to be facing imminent defeat because of their own bad judgement.

In Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s case, he is hoping that time will heal all wounds. But it may also be that time is running out because the governance agreement with Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats will expire early next year.

The shocking Liberal loss in Toronto-St. Paul’s, Ont., left the party with a sense of foreboding that will fester when they hear negative feedback on the summer barbecue circuit.

Unlike Sunak, Trudeau cannot simply be dumped by a vote of his caucus.

Like Biden, Trudeau must reflect on whether his presence in the next election will be a plus or a minus.

The prime minister believes his strong campaigning skills will kick into high gear when people finally have a chance to compare and contrast him with Poilievre.

But the prime minister also needs boots on the ground, though with many Liberals both privately and publicly expressing their reservations, the volunteer base of the party will be shrinking.

Poilievre has a head of steam going which gets people excited.

The winds of change have not bypassed Canada.

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

Joe Biden is banking on the fact that Donald Trump’s daily one-liners will be overshadowed by the substance required to sustain a full debate. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 20, 2024.

OTTAWA—The next American election doesn’t happen until November.

But the first debate will happen on June 27 on CNN.

This historically early showdown was shaped through a social media exchange.

U.S. President Joe Biden launched the debate challenge in a video on X—formerly Twitter—where he accused Donald Trump of avoiding debates against his Republican challengers.

“Donald Trump lost two debates in 2020. Since then he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he is acting like he wants to debate me again,” Biden said.

“Well, make my day, pal. I’ll even do it twice. So let’s pick the dates, Donald—I hear you are free on Wednesdays,” Biden said, in a not so-subtle reference to Trump’s daily criminal court appearances, which don’t happen on Wednesdays.

Trump accepted the challenge on his social media platform, Truth Social, with this response. “I am READY and WILLING to Debate Crooked Joe at the two proposed times in June and September.” Trump also said he is strongly recommending more than two debates.

The president’s decision to launch the challenge is more than unusual.

For the past 37 years, all presidential debates have been managed by a non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

That organization has already announced three debates in September and October, in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

But voters can actually cast their ballots as of Sept. 6 in some states, and both candidates think the debates should be held earlier.

Two years ago, the Republican National Committee agreed unanimously to boycott the commission’s presidential debates, but Democrats did not follow suit until this week.

There has been disagreement with the commission by the Democrats, who felt the organization broke the rules in allowing Trump and supporters to forego the wearing of masks during a COVID debate in 2020.

Democrats also want a debate without an audience, while Trump is seeking more people in more venues. He even suggested a debate in front of the courthouse where he is currently on trial for allegedly falsifying business records for hush money paid to former porn star Stormy Daniels.

Biden’s decision to call for an early debate is not a total surprise, as Democrats have not been happy with the college-based format.

But the fact that he would launch the challenge on social media is surprising.

It signals the importance of social media in the upcoming election race, and also suggests that Trump’s positive polling numbers are causing concern in presidential circles.

If the president were firmly in the lead, he would be minimizing the attention paid to debates. Democrats are also anxious to keep third-party candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. out of the ring.

They obviously don’t think he can win, but in a tight race, the scion of the Kennedy clan could actually deliver the race to Trump.

The early debate on CNN won’t likely include Kennedy, although that decision has not been finalized. That is one big reason why Biden wants to go early.

A second reason is that, notwithstanding Trump’s judicial challenges, his poll numbers are actually increasing.

Biden is banking on the fact that Trump’s daily one-liners will be overshadowed by the substance required to sustain a full debate.

Whatever happens in the United States, a presidential debate involving Trump will have a spillover effect in Canada.

Trump has been travelling the country bragging about his appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court who have thrown out women’s right to control their own reproduction.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he won’t touch the abortion issue, but his caucus is rife with those who plan to do just that. He has also promised to use the notwithstanding clause to overturn laws that he doesn’t like.

Trump is also saying that he does not support a national ban on abortion, but says the states should make the decision and, once they do, it should be respected.

Democrats would love to run the election on that issue, because they know that the vast majority of women—especially young women—do not want the clock to be turned back on abortion rights.

Liberals would love to have Canadian voters focused on the same issue.

Poilievre hopes to park the abortion question having promised not to reopen the issue. But more than half his caucus members are actively anti-choice.

Poilievre recently joined them in voting against the provision of free birth control medication as part of the rollout of a modified pharma care program.

The more Trump’s team campaigns against abortion rights, the more Canadians will wonder if that could happen here.

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 7, 2023.

OTTAWA—The more charges that former U.S. president Donald Trump faces, the more his path to power is paved.

Trump responded to multiple accusations on Aug. 3 in relation to his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election of U.S. President Joe Biden.

The image of a former president in court does not seem to have any negative impact on his run for next year’s presidential election. His opponents are dropping off, one by one, as new legal challenges propel Trump to the head of the pack in the Republican nomination race.

Instead of finishing off the former president, allegations of conspiracy to defraud the government and obstruct an official proceeding have energized his campaign. They play into the Trump narrative that the “deep state” is out to get the former president, thus pumping up his support in the Republican Party.

His former vice-president, Mike Pence, said last week what most are thinking. According to the man who served as his running mate, the president was surrounded by “a group of crackpot lawyers who kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear.”

Pence also said that “anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”

Trump’s reply was clear: “I feel badly for Mike Pence, who is attracting no crowds, enthusiasm, or loyalty from people who, as a member of the Trump administration, should be loving him.”

Trump does not feel badly. He was encouraging his followers to string up Pence when the vice-president refused to disallow the results of the Biden win. But the former president is known for saying one thing and thinking another.

Legal pleadings show that Pence and others advised Trump that there was no legal path to overturn the election results. Trump’s criminal charges are costing a fortune, but recent press reports say that his registered fundraising vehicle is covering the millions in legal bills.

While charges cost money, they are being paid by supporters, and those same supporters are rallying behind his 2024 bid for the White House.

It seems inconceivable to foreign observers that after all his legal troubles, Trump should still be so popular in his party.

But there is no denying that he is head and shoulders above any opponent in the race. His closest rival, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, is lurching from one problem to another. By banning books and limiting transgender rights, DeSantis has managed to alienate Floridians and drive business away from his state.

As support plummets, his campaign rhetoric seems to be increasing. At a New Hampshire event last week, DeSantis vowed he would start “slitting throats” on his first day in office as part of his battle against the “deep state.”

DeSantis may believe that he will attract supporters by reaching out to angry Americans who stormed their seat of government on Jan. 6, 2021, but Trump seems to have cornered the angry-voter market.

Such is his popularity that Republican nominee rival Nikki Haley, who served as an ambassador under Trump, has already promised to use her presidential powers to pardon him in the event of any conviction.

In Canada, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s angry fight against government pales in comparison to the deep-state conspiracy theories that motivate Republican voters.

His continuing calls for freedom amid claims that Canada is broken mimic the Trump message about the dangers of the state south of the border. The challenge Poilievre faces may be that Canadians are less skeptical than Americans about the role of government in their lives.

Poilievre has already won his party’s support and his leadership is not under threat. He does not need to appeal to the narrow band of Canadians voters who share the “deep state” mistrust that permeates the American political landscape.

Poilievre needs to reach out more broadly. But unlike the two-party fight down south, he is in a multi-party race, so he does not need to convince the majority of voters to win a majority government. All he needs for victory is about 39 per cent of the electorate evenly distributed across the country.

Last week Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attacked Poilievre, saying “cuts and being angry” are his answers to everything. Poilievre fired back, saying that the prime minister should take responsibility for Canadians’ anger.

Both are banking on the fact that anger could also be a theme in our next federal election.

But chances are, the Canadian vexation quotient is nowhere near what we are witnessing in America.

Trudeau is certainly hoping so.

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