PARLIAMENT HILL - Federal Liberal leadership candidate
Sheila Copps says the Canada-U.S. relationship is "deep and wide enough to
withstand" the fact that Canada has opted out of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. "We
have had tough words on many sides, but the reality is that the relationship
is deep and wide enough to withstand those words and in some of those words
there is a legitimate difference of opinion on the policy. I find it
interesting that certain elements of the Canadian media are quick to jump to
the use of the word Œanti-American.’ The Alliance, for example, is doing this
every day. We have a legitimate difference of opinion on this issue and I
think that it is a position supported by the vast majority of Canadians. We
have the right to speak on behalf of our country. We are a sovereign country,"
Ms. Copps said last week on Parliament Hill.
Meanwhile, Ms. Copps (Hamilton East, Ont.) who "loves campaigning," and has 88
days to go in the campaign, says the main difference between herself and the
other two leadership candidates Paul Martin and John Manley is her "vision of
this country." In a wide-ranging interview with The Hill Times, Ms. Copps
talked about her vision, her leadership campaign, the relationship between
Canada and United States and the need to defend Canadian culture, bilingualism
and multiculturalism.
How is your leadership campaign going?
"I am extremely happy. It’s going very well. I am working throughout the
country and the response is very positive. I love campaigning anyway.
What’s going to change in your campaign now that Mr. Manley
has entered into the race?
"It mixes up things a little bit and it means that there will be many
choices. It’s good for the party and it’s good for the convention. The more
people in the race, the better it is."
Why should Liberals vote for you, instead of Mr. Martin or
Mr. Manley?
"The main difference probably relates to the vision of Canada. I believe that
one of the greatest challenges we face in Canada is creating a party and a
country that is more diverse, more inclusive and more empowering of everyone
and I think, in a way, it is a kind of marriage. You could have a good
marriage but, if you don’t work at it, it may slip into atrophy. I think the
party, and especially the Liberal government, need really to reach out to
include all the regions of the country, all the changing demographics of the
country. At the present time, [people] are doing great things in the private
sector but who feel, even in the Canada of 2003 that they are hyphenated
Canadians. And, in a way, it goes back to some of the discussions we had years
ago when we were discussing about what it was like to be an immigrant, or a
woman. You can do great things but there is always some place you can’t go.
And I would like to make sure that there no dreams you can’t dream, no place
you can’t go, no ambition you can’t achieve.
I’ve interviewed Larry Di Ianni, a Hamilton city councillor
who might be a candidate for mayor. He said that one of the considerations is,
if someone of Italian origin might be accepted in Hamilton for that position,
how come in the multicultural Canada we have those concerns when in the
American melting pot we have Rudy Giuliani mayor of New York?
"They even had Fiorello LaGuardia, Ben Koch and others."
That’s right. So why are there still those concerns in
Canada?
It shouldn’t be. It’s absolutely crazy that in the 2003 race it should be
a factor. But, if the same holds true, when you look at the public life, you
look at boards of directors, you don’t find many Italian names, not many
women’s names. You certainly don’t find visible minorities’ names. And I
believe that that’s the point. The glass ceiling doesn’t exist when you talk
about the private sector, entrepreneurs, business, and the capacity to create
wealth. It is generally different when you talk about constructural ladders
that you have to climb to really change Canada. And you can even speak to the
public service for example. The fact that in Canada we presently have 14 per
cent of visible minorities and we only have seven per cent in the public
service and if you look at the senior positions, like deputies and assistants,
in the public service it is very much a reflection of a part of Canada not all
of Canada."
Canada is a multicultural and bilingual country. Why do you
need to keep spending billions for bilingualism and almost no money for
multiculturalism?
"I believe that Canadian Heritage should belong to everybody and we
shouldn’t send people only through the door of multiculturalism. It’s been a
small part of the department and we really want to open the door to the Canada
Council. That’s the way we have now the multicultural section in the Canada
Council. We have asked the CBC and the private broadcasters to reflect the
diversity. I think that the idea of having two official languages creates a
country that starts from the premises that one culture should not be dominant.
And I think it is a good place to start for respect of diversity. But when it
comes to multiculturalism, when I think back of the days when we had
significant financing for heritage languages, when we had significant national
investments in the Canadian ethno-cultural council and the opportunities for
Canadians to interconnect, we need to go back.
The solution?
"In a sense, to go back to the future. Look at how we interconnect
Canadians, not just across regions, but especially cross-cultures. And that’s
what we are looking at the conference we are going to have in April."
Are you concerned about the present relationship between
Canada and the United States?
"We are certainly experiencing the divergence of views in relation to the
decision of the Americans to enter into a warfare with Iraq without receiving
the endorsement of the UN Security Council. This is a legitimate difference of
opinion between mature countries. I don’t think that it should break our
friendship in other areas. We certainly have an economic interdependence that
is important, but also I think that it is important for us to choose our own
political path; because we differ on policy, we differ on issues and the
approach that the United States is taking with Iraq, I don’t think that we are
against that country; it only means that we have a legitimate difference in
policy."
Many tough words have been used.
"We have had tough words on many sides, but the reality is that the
relationship is deep and wide enough to withstand those words and in some of
those words there is a legitimate difference of opinion on the policy. I find
it interesting that certain elements of the Canadian media, are quick to jump
to the use of the word anti-American. The Alliance, for example, is doing this
every day. We have a legitimate difference of opinion on this issue and I
think that it is a position supported by the vast majority of Canadians. We
have the right to speak on behalf of our country. We are a sovereign country.
We are a sovereign country but the borders, because of
the new technology seem to become foggier and foggier.
"We are geographic partners, we have a special relationship, a gift of
geography and also of history."
Do we need to change something in order to defend our
Canadian culture in the future?
"I believe that the institutions must innovate with the time. For example,
the music business: we are on the verge of having a very big celebration in
Ottawa with the Junos and we literally will have hundreds of musicians across
the country benefiting in part form policies that have said that when you have
a licence for radio, in return for that licence you must play Canadian music.
And we have started that process. In 2003, every young person who owns an MP3
will know that technology can trump culture if we don’t find ways to protect
intellectual property. Especially with the arrival of the information age, in
the last 10 years we have kind of telescoped the learning curve on technology.
If you look at the industrial age, the agriculture age went on for several
hundred years, the industrial age went on for 75 years, the information age is
on for 10 years and we have to adjust and adapt."
Can we?
"I think we have a good model in Canada, but I don’t think that we should
necessarily assume that because we have done things that way, they should stay
that way."
What kind of changes should people expect?
We have done things. If you look at how we changed the Feature Film Fund.
We definitely changed it to reword success. We used to fund a tremendous
number of films, and most of those films never actually saw the box office.
Now we have created a system to reward success. The larger the percentage of
your private sector investment is, the greater chances are to get assistance.
Those are relatively new concepts. We are not talking any longer about
straight subsidies, we are talking about a combination of equity investments
and tax credits. And it is working very well."