By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 13, 2025.

OTTAWA—Enemy of the state: that is the only way to characterize the threat of Canadian “economic annexation” by American president-elect Donald Trump.

His so-called joke about Canada joining the United States is turning deadly serious.

It is a threat that one would expect from a dictator. It is not a threat that one could expect from the leader of our democratically-elected neighbour, the United States.

All bets are off with the Trump claim that Canada should join the U.S. in the formation of a single country.

He even has the nerve to post a map of Canada absorbed into the United States, with the stars and stripes flag covering all the way from Mexico to the Arctic.

Trump has ruled out military force as a method of annexation, speaking instead about economic annexation.

He continues to falsely claim that Canada receives hundreds of millions in subsidies in America.

He wants to end auto, milk, and lumber imports from Canada, claiming that his country doesn’t need any of our goods to survive.

However, Trump did not mention electricity or oil and gas, Canadian exports that America needs to keep its economy running.

Trump also reached out to support the candidacy of Pierre Poilievre as a future prime minister, saying the pair are on the same political wave length.

Poilievre moved quickly to distance himself from Trump, stating the obvious: Canada will never become the 51st state.

But Conservative allies like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith plan to attend the president’s inauguration on Jan. 20 in celebration of his victory.

The Alberta premier has also refused to join Ontario Premier Doug Ford in denying the export of energy to the U.S. Ford promised to retaliate on tariffs by refusing to export energy south of the border, but Smith quickly rebutted that Ford did not speak for her province.

However, that happened before Trump launched his campaign to annex Canada.

Smith would be hard-pressed to explain her presence at Trump’s inauguration when the leader she plans to celebrate is claiming publicly he will buy Greenland, annex Canada, and take over the Panama Canal.

While Trump’s threats are being widely covered here at home, they won’t make the news very long in the U.S.

Ford was supposed to be interviewed on the subject by CNN, but his presence was cancelled when the California wildfires replaced Canada’s annexation in the news cycle.

While Americans may gloss over Trumpian machinations, we cannot afford to do so.

We need to get tough on as many fronts as possible. One of those could be a refusal to allow the president to enter Canada for the G7 meeting in June because of his recent federal criminal conviction.

Diplomacy could override that refusal, but diplomacy is also a two-way street.

Unless Trump issues a clarification regarding his crazy annexation claims, he should be kept out of the country.

Words have consequences, and the words of a bully need to be met with consequences.

Some might argue that barring Trump from the country would simply poke the bear.

But stroking the bear has not gotten us anywhere.

Peter Donolo, former prime ministerial communications adviser to then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, recently wrote an opinion piece saying that we can’t treat the Trump threats as a joke.

Instead, we need to act with political muscle. That muscle should include testing Trump in international fora.

The Organization of American States is where the unilateral declaration of annexation theory could be tested. Last year, the OAS issued a condemnation of Venezuela’s move to annex the Essequibo region of Guyana.

Canada, and the rest of the Americas, has an interest in dampening down Trump’s rhetoric.

Annexation is not legal, which is why the world has been working to get Russian troops out of Ukraine.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should also be asked to take a stand on the American president-elect’s annexation ruminations.

The United Nations could also be an appropriate forum for condemnation of Trump’s hostile annexation rhetoric.

These claims need to be fought at the highest level of international diplomacy, including the potential for legal remedies.

The International Court of Justice should be asked for its opinion as to the legality of Trump’s annexation threats. It has a mandate to give advice on international legal issues. What could be more pressing than a claim that one democratic country will undertake ‘economic annexation’ of another?

Trump must be taken seriously. It is time to fight a bully by destroying his bully pulpit.

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 June 12, 2023.

OTTAWA—Maybe the leader of the official opposition simply likes the sound of his own voice. How else to explain the one-man filibuster in the House designed to withhold budget funding for things like climate change?

Usually, a filibuster is supposed to be a team effort. It also has to last more than one parliamentary day before people notice.

I have some experience in that field, joining Don Boudria in a provincial filibuster on gas taxes in Ontario. But we had to talk for at least two days straight before anyone even noticed that it was not business as usual at Queen’s Park.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s filibuster was a solo performance. For those who follow Parliament closely, it was an epic example of his deep knowledge of political history. Poilievre quoted everyone from Churchill to Dionysius in his attempt to explain how Canada is in crisis.

The only one he missed, probably deliberately, was Nero, who appeared to be the model for his ill-timed parliamentary intervention.

Before Poilievre’s speech began, he threatened his own credibility by accusing the prime minister of using the wildfires as a distraction from economic issues. That statement could live to haunt him, as thousands of Canadians who have been evacuated from their homes, in some cases never to return, consider the fires to be far more than a distraction.

The raging fires have all Canadians engaged. For the first time, blazes that are usually confined to remote regions of the country are encroaching on cities and turning the focus to the huge health costs of climate change.

Air warning advisories forced school children inside during recesses and required those with breathing problems to take particular care.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau blasted Poilievre for his insouciance to the climate crisis, accusing him of having zero strategy to tackle the challenges that have left the country burning. The verbal Question Period duel was a portent of what Canadians can expect on the campaign trail.

While Poilievre blocks the budget, Canadians are fixated on the devastating effects of wildfires burning out of control across Canada. The smoke was so bad last week that it wafted all the way south to New York City, with the New York Post‘s front page headlines on June 8 reading, “Eh!pocalypse Now,” “Canuck wildfires plunge NYC into eerie, smoky hell,” and, in all-caps, “BLAME CANADA.”

Scientists and politicians are warning us that this frightening start to the forest fire season is going to get worse.

While Poilievre bemoans the price of carbon, thousands of people are bearing the brunt of one of the effects of climate change. Officials say we can expect more flames and floods this summer, and the solution to protecting homeowners from losing everything to forest fires is not obvious, but it certainly does focus the debate on how the climate crisis can cost individuals.

Poilievre wants Canadians to believe that the battle on pricing climate is going to be prohibitively expensive. That pocketbook argument against carbon pricing worked very well when there were no financial comparisons in the window. But when citizens have to stay inside to be able to breathe, it is the first time we collectively witness the potential national cost of reversing course on climate change.

Most people make electoral decisions based on their own personal situation. Inflation is hitting hard and even though it is a global phenomenon, the Liberal government is taking a popularity dive because of the hike in interest rates prompted by the financial situation.

By rights, Poilievre should be benefitting from this volatility. As his message is targeted directly to the pocketbooks of Canadians, he should be in a position to garner political growth. But his political perversity is costly, as he is making his own enemies on the road to power.

Most opposition leaders keep the attention focused on the government, but Poilievre continues to shine the light on himself. He obviously loves to hear the sound of his own voice, as evidenced by the constant smile he wore during his parliamentary filibuster.

With stunts like that, Poilievre keeps reminding Canadians that he may not have the gravitas it takes to hold down the government’s top job.

If people are looking for change, they may be willing to ignore Poilievre’s foibles in the hopes that a turn as prime minister will soften his hard edges. If Donald Trump’s tenure as president is any example, expect the past to be a predictor of the future.

Today’s Nero could still turn the page and get to government.

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 June 5, 2023.

OTTAWA—The political fires surrounding foreign interference are being dwarfed by real fires.

Special rapporteur David Johnston’s decision to ignore a negative parliamentary vote could have added fuel to the firestorm.

But even Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre toned down his Question Period rhetoric, asking only one foreign influence question on June 1, the day following the Johnston vote. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who introduced the “Dump Johnston” resolution, did not lead off on that issue, focusing instead on fires in Nova Scotia.

The fact that two major opposition parties moved away from Johnston indicates that the public is not as engaged with the issue as some believe.

Most people don’t know David Johnston, but they do know that he served two different governments and has a personal history as a non-partisan. He has been widely recognized for his experience in legal and university sectors, and accepted the responsibilities of being governor general.

The opposition may not like Johnston’s answer, but it is pretty hard to argue with his logic. In his decision to stay on, Johnston made it clear that he was mandated by the government and could not be removed by Parliament.

That is obvious. But it doesn’t coincide with the opposition’s attempt to keep the issue burning.

A majority in parliament should wield huge political clout. But by refusing to annul his own mandate, Johnston is banking on the fact that his personal history is strong enough to withstand the critics.

And the public may be moving on to other issues.

With real fires burning across the country, Canadians are rightly focused on that.

With firefighters working round the clock in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canadians are getting a taste of the damage that global warming can wreak upon a country with so much land vulnerable to forest fires.

According to the federal government, multiple fires are the new normal.

With the summer still ahead, politicians are rightfully concerned about fire fatigue. Professional help to fight the fires has arrived from as far away as South Africa.

More than 200 homes have burnt to the ground in Nova Scotia, with evacuees awaiting the green light to return to residences that still remain.

The forest fires and floods were predicted by scientists more than a quarter century ago, but the human toll taken by the heating of the planet is only starting to be felt.

The mayor of Halifax and the premier of Nova Scotia are working diligently with emergency services to keep residents of that city safe and battle the flames. They are also working with Ottawa to clarify the level of support coming from the federal government once the rebuilding process begins.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted personally that he would be there for any measures required to restore normalcy.

The country’s attention has been riveted by urban encroachment and the speed of fires in Halifax. The sister of a friend of mine had 10 minutes to get out of her house, which subsequently burned to the ground in a matter of hours.

The before and after pictures of her home were devastating. There was literally nothing left. No photos, no mementoes, nothing.

She has insurance, but it is going to take months to figure out whether her family will rebuild onsite or simply move on.

Heat wave warnings are in place across the country and the military is moving in to help with the aftermath of the fires in Nova Scotia. But we should expect that the evacuations being suffered in eastern Canada will continue over the summer in all parts of the country.

There are currently 2,400 firefighters attacking blazes in Alberta. Northern Quebec is currently evacuating citizens from two smaller communities.

When it comes to political issues, the public’s attention is shifting just as quickly.

At a press conference to update citizens on the situation in Nova Scotia, Progressive Conservative Premier Tim Houston accused the federal government of dragging its feet on post-Hurricane Fiona funding. He urged the federal Liberals not to repeat that mistake.

The Prime Minister’s Office rebutted his claim, saying the Fiona fund was approved within six hours of receiving the request.

In an emergency situation, all parties work together, but as the damages mount, forest fires can also become a political issue.

In the end, the real fires facing Canadians have nothing to do with China.

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