It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 25, 2024.

OTTAWA–The World Meteorological Organization had grim news for the globe last week.

In every climate indicator, temperatures were the highest on record in 2023.

And for the past nine years in a row, the planet has been getting hotter.

For the first time ever, Canada’s air quality was worse than the United States, largely because of the effect of massive wildfires across the country.

Evidence is mounting for all but the most obtuse that action needs to be taken to reverse the climate crisis. Zombie fires that started last year are still continuing in parts of British Columbia. New wildfires are starting at an unbelievably early time of the year with 90 fires burning there last week.

But the man who would be prime minister, Pierre Poilievre, is running advertisements attacking British Columbia Premier David Eby because he refuses to pile in with other premiers who are attacking the April increase in the price on carbon established by the federal government.

Instead of focusing on climate solutions, Poilievre is trying to bully provinces into reversing the federal action plan to reduce our carbon footprint.

Politicians should be focused on climate solutions instead of reversing our work on climate action.

Eby was not one to be bullied. British Columbia, arguably Canada’s greenest province, was the first to adopt a price on carbon. That happened a decade before the federal government introduced its 2018 plan.

The B.C. experience has been used as a model for other jurisdictions. Their carbon pricing has had a beneficial impact on the environment with little impact on the economy.

Eby characterized Poilievre’s “axe the tax” as a “baloney office” campaign. Poilievre responded by accusing Eby of forcing British Columbians to eat baloney because of carbon pricing.

What nobody seems to be including in the discussion is how the country will fight forest fires and floods by abolishing the national climate action strategy.

Poilievre has put nothing in the window in his axe campaign, and is deliberately conflating a world inflationary trend with a made-in-Canada carbon plan.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made it very clear that the government has no intention to reverse its climate plan, even after Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Premier Andrew Furey joined six Conservative premiers in his request to cancel the proposed carbon price hike.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has vowed not to collect the carbon price, which could prove rather costly to his residents.

In the national plan, carbon rebates actually go out to approximately 80 per cent of the population based on their reduced carbon footprint.

If Moe refuses to collect, the average family of four in his province will miss out on an annual rebate of $1,800 according to the federal Department of Finance.

Trudeau is committed to the federal action plan, and vows to keep fighting for pollution pricing, despite the claim by Ontario Premier Doug Ford that the federal Liberals could be “annihilated” in the next election because of the pricing policy.

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie last week distanced herself from her federal counterparts by saying if she were elected, her party would not impose a provincial tax.

The party could fall back on the federal program, but has not committed to doing so as an internal committee studies the issue.

Suffice to say, across the board, the country is gripped with the issue of climate pricing and nobody is particularly engaged in the challenge of doing nothing.

Poilievre is framing the issue as another Liberal gas tax, and spending millions of dollars to get Canadians on his side.

Meanwhile, the federal government has spent nothing in explaining to Canadians what is actually involved in carbon pricing, and why it is so necessary to help the country fight climate change.

At a heated press conference in Calgary recently, Trudeau said it was not his job to be popular when pressed on whether he should ditch the carbon tax.

But to win elections, and carry out his climate plans, he does need to secure the popular vote.

His climate plan is worth fighting for. It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change.

If the country wants to hang on to the progress we have made on climate change, we need to increase the price on carbon so consumption patterns will change.

We are experiencing the hottest decade in history and we owe it to our grandchildren to push ahead on carbon pricing.

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

Ed Broadbent, before his passing, agreed to join Liberals and Conservatives in an effort to save the structure and he was ready to co-sign a letter with Chrétien. So I approached Chrétien, who had an even better idea. He suggested that he would reach out to Harper so the pair could head up a fundraising effort which would be devoted to restoring the residence.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 18, 2024.

OTTAWA—As the country mourns the passing of two great former political leaders, much has been written about the time when politicians from all parties were able to work together.

A recent effort to rebuild the prime minister’s residence involved just such a collaborative effort.

But last week the Prime Minister’s Office said no to a proposition where former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper would work together on a fundraising campaign to rebuild 24 Sussex Dr. as the prime minister’s residence.

For the past several months, a group of Canadians has been trying to secure a future for the residence, which had become rat-infested after years of neglect.

I was approached to help with the project and reached out to former political leaders in an effort to build some political support.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, before his passing, agreed to join Liberals and Conservatives in an effort to save the structure. He was ready to co-sign a letter with Chrétien so I approached Chrétien, who had an even better idea.

He suggested that he would reach out to Harper so the pair could head up a fundraising effort which would be devoted to restoring the residence.

Harper agreed with the plan, and both planned to raise money for a restoration of the house with no additional wings added to the residence. They also proposed a scaled-down version of the security package which allegedly was responsible for ballooning restoration costs.

At the last count, the National Capital Commission set the cost of rebuilding at $37-million.

Chrétien met privately with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office in February to pitch the plan, and went away thinking it was a winner.

But last week the answer came back negative. The Prime Minister’s Office communicated that it was not interested in engaging the volunteer services of two former prime ministers in a fundraising effort for 24 Sussex Drive.

It is hard to understand how a such an offer would be rejected, particularly in view of the public climate on current government spending.

According to a recent Nanos poll for Bloomberg, 63 per cent of Canadians think the government should cut back on spending.

Respondents are not unanimous on what should be done with the savings. According to Nanos, 38 per cent of those who want less spending would like the savings to go to debt reduction, while 25 per cent would like tax cuts.

The prime minister probably thinks the renovation is one more political hot potato that he simply cannot handle at the moment.

But by turning down the co-operative support of three political leaders, he risks an even bigger problem.

As the cost of housing rises across the country, Canadian are naturally skeptical about spending public money on a prime ministerial mansion.

Private donations would certainly be a solution. But there would undoubtedly be criticism about who is donating and what do they expect to get from it.

When Trudeau’s father built an indoor swimming pool at the residence, via private donors, he spent months dodging questions on who donated and why.

Chrétien and Harper were prepared to handle the backlash, as was Broadbent.

With a trio of leaders of that stature, it is pretty hard to understand why the government would refuse an offer to fix a political problem that has been percolating for years.

The last time a similar offer was refused was when a group of political and business leaders were trying to mend fences with China after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou was arrested at the Vancouver airport because of an American extradition order.

In that instance, Mulroney was among those suggesting that Chrétien could head up a high-level visit to China to try and solve the diplomatic spat could be solved by face-to-face, diplomacy.

That suggestion was publicly labelled as “dangerous” by then foreign minister Chrystia Freeland, who stated a move to drop extradition proceedings in return for the prison release of two Canadians would set a precedent leaving all Canadians in danger.

The imprisoned Canadians spent two more years in jail before China bypassed Canada to negotiate a deal with the Americans for her release.

Just last week, it was reported that the Canadian government paid $7-million to compensate Michael Spavor for its role in the detentions.

The latest offer by former leaders pales in comparison to the international implications of the Two Michaels’ arrests.

But saving 24 Sussex is also in the public interest.

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

Brian Mulroney was a people person. Even when his party had plummeted in popularity, he was able to keep the caucus united thanks to his awesome interpersonal skills. Though we were political adversaries, we remained friends long after he left politics.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 7, 2024.

OTTAWA—This year is the 40th anniversary of the election of Brian Mulroney.

The right honourable prime minister would have loved to celebrate the largest victory in Canadian history, but time robbed him of that opportunity.

Instead, a state funeral will be held to honour his life, and Canadians will revisit the accomplishments of a remarkable leader.

The prime minister and I were elected on the same day: Sept. 4, 1984.

But we sat on opposite sides of the House. Mulroney was leading 211 Conservatives, most of whom were elected in that sweep, while I was one of only 10 new Liberals.

Our party had been decimated, and political pundits were predicting the Liberals would disappear to be replaced by the New Democrats. It was widely predicted that Canada would follow an international trend of the political right and left in constant battle with nobody in the centre.

Mulroney was the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. He was a centrist prime minister who believed in the power of government for positive change.

Current Conservatives say it is the job of government to get out of the way, and let people run their affairs with no collective responsibility.

But Mulroney understood that government could be an instrument of positive change. He was born in Baie Comeau, a small mining town in northern Quebec, and he understood the need for government.

He was also the first Conservative leader to really understand Quebec, and its need for distinctiveness.

It was that understanding that paved the way for a massive Progressive Conservative majority back in 1984.

But it was also his wish to get Quebec’s signature on the Canadian constitution that eventually fractured the party in favour of a western-based equivalent of the Bloc Québécois.

In 1987, the Reform Party was formed under the leadership of Preston Manning. Fatigued by the Meech Lake debate, Reformers believed Progressive Conservatives were too focused on the East, especially Quebec.

Their platform called for a Triple-E Senate: equal, elected and effective. An elected Senate was supposed to counterbalance the influence of the House of Commons, dominated by Members of Parliament from Eastern Canada.

Some Reformers also held negative views towards women, minorities, and homosexuals. Built on a strong Christian base, the party blurred the separation between church and state that had been the foundation of Canadian politics.

But in the 1988 election, Reformers only managed to garner two per cent of the vote while the Progressive Conservatives sustained a second majority with their promise of a free trade agreement.

Mulroney believed in an activist government. He negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement in the face of considerable opposition from the manufacturing heartland of Ontario.

He also introduced the goods and services tax, another initiative that opposition Liberals opposed.

That tax replaced a 13.5 per cent manufacturers’ sales tax, but—unlike the former—it was not embedded in the price of goods, but was added at the cash register.

While it was wildly unpopular, the tax set the stage for fiscal stability as it has generated billions of dollars annually for federal coffers. Last year, it produced more than $16-billion in revenue and, in 2022, government collected $21.5-billion in GST.

Mulroney also loomed large on the international scene, setting the stage for an end to apartheid in South Africa by working within the Commonwealth to impose sanctions.

Mulroney had to fight Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and American president Ronald Reagan on that move, as both opposed the sanctions that ultimately broke the back of the South African government.

Above all, Mulroney was a people person. Even when his party had plummeted in popularity, he was able to keep the caucus united and motivated, largely because of his awesome interpersonal skills.

Even though we were political adversaries, we remained friends long after Mulroney left politics.

Whenever I would call him, his first question would be about my family.

Mulroney had every reason to despise a former Liberal rat-packer, but he never made politics personal. He understood we all had a job to do. While we were adversaries, we were never enemies.

The centrist party Mulroney led no longer exists.

Instead, anti-government former Reformers have taken centre stage in the Conservative movement.

Perhaps it is a reflection of the direction of the country. The notion of collective responsibility has largely been replaced by rabid individualism with an emphasis on the word “rabid.”

Mulroney understood that there was no place in politics for hate.

His prime ministerial legacy changed Canada. May he rest in peace.

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

The current bill is a softer version of the 2019 proposal because the government doesn’t want to be accused of stifling free speech. According to Arif Virani, the awful stuff will still be lawful. But now people will have to think twice before telling me to hang myself.

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

OTTAWA—Gatineau’s first woman mayor stepped down on Feb. 22, joining 800 other municipal politicians in Quebec who’ve quit, citing death threats and a hostile political climate.

In a tearful press conference, France Bélisle said she had thought long and hard on before making the decision to terminate her two-and-a-half-year term.

Bélisle did not specify the nature of the threats that prompted her departure, but social media is currently a hotbed for vicious attacks.

As a woman, she probably got more than her share of misogyny.

She is not alone. The following is a verbatim message I received last week following one of my posts on Twitter regarding the use of toilets by transgendered individuals. “Sheila, you’re a disgusting, old, ugly, dyke-looking, treasonous piece of shit who should be thrown into the sea with Trudeau. Fuck you, Fuck Trudeau & the LGBT+ pride freaks. Rap the sick LGBT flag around your neck, tie it to a tree branch, and do humanity a favor. Can’t wait for Freedom/Justice Convoy.”

The federal government finally stepped in last week to introduce legislation governing online harms. Justice Minister Arif Virani specifically targeted three obligations, including “a duty to protect children, a duty to act responsibly and the duty to remove the most egregious content.”

Virani was surrounded by supporters of the proposed legislation, including mothers of teenagers on both coasts whose daughters were bullied online to the point where they committed suicide.

The proposed legislation is far narrower than an earlier version tabled in 2019.

The original bill died when the election was called.

The updated version includes the creation of a digital safety commission, a five-person panel with the power to enforce the rules. The commission would also provide a venue for investigation of complaints about online violations targeted at bullying children and/or posting private images without consent.

Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, a British Columbia teenager who committed suicide because of online threats, said the legislation was a long time coming.

She was joined at the press conference by the mother of Nova Scotia teen Rehtaeh Parsons. According to Leah Parsons, her daughter was driven to her death after being gang-raped and having the images posted online.

The proposed law requires social media platforms to have mechanisms in place to remove two kinds of offensive material: that which sexually victimizes children, and the posting of intimate images without consent.

Platforms have 24 hours to remove offending posts or face financial punishments. Fines are to be linked to the size and profitability of the platforms.

Virani insists the legislation would not affect free speech on the internet, however awful it might be. So social media attacks on politicians like the former mayor of Gatineau will not likely be stopped.

However, the newly-created commission will have the power to oversee the legislation, which will also mean that hate speech on the internet will be facing legal scrutiny and review.

The former Facebook data scientist who went public on its refusal to delete nefarious content endangering children lauded the proposed legislation.

Interviewed on CTV, Frances Haugen said it was among the best pieces of legislation on the matter she has seen.

But that didn’t stop Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre from opposing the legislation before he had even read it.

Poilievre immediately labelled it “Justin Trudeau’s latest attack on free speech,” and characterized the legislation as “woke authoritarian agenda.”

Social media opponents moved quickly online to post pictures of the Liberal Party covered in a Nazi flag, claiming the legislation is a first step toward a takeover of the whole country.

Poilievre attacked the prime minister personally, saying because Trudeau partied in “blackface” he had no right to speak on the issue of hate speech.

He vowed to kill the bill before it was introduced, but was silent following Virani’s press conference.

Poilievre himself has spoken out in support of a Senate bill that would require online age verification to access pornography, so he obviously sees some benefit in protecting minors on the internet.

It is impossible to see how his party would benefit from opposing this bill, but apparently his hatred of the prime minister appears to be more politically motivating than hate speech on the internet.

The current bill is a softer version of the 2019 proposal precisely because the government does not want to fall prey to accusations of stifling free speech.

According to Virani, the awful stuff will still be lawful.

But now people will have to think twice before telling me to hang myself.

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

Poilievre’s recent weak reactions have some people wondering whether he is really ready for prime time.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 26, 2024.

OTTAWA—Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is usually not one to mince words. Why say something in a minute when you can do it in 15, and have your social viewing audience grow exponentially?

That’s why Ottawa was abuzz last week with his curt reference to the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. While most world leaders were fulsome in their condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s role in the sudden death of his fiercest critic, two North American politicians were parsing their post-mortem comments.

Poilievre claims he has nothing in common with former U.S. president Donald Trump, but the pair were the only voices that failed to condemn Putin absolutely in the imprisonment and death of Navalny.

The following was Poilievre’s statement: “Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny has died in prison. Putin imprisoned Navalny for the act of opposing the regime. Conservatives condemn Putin for his death.”

“Brief” is the only way to describe Poilievre’s reaction which was posted on X.

Compare that to the reaction of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. In a post on the same site, Trudeau said: “Reports of Alexei Navalny’s death are tragic and horrifying. An unwavering advocate for Russian democracy and freedom, his courage was unparalleled. To be clear: He should never have been imprisoned to begin with. Let this be an important reminder that we must continue to promote, protect, and defend democracy everywhere. The consequences of not doing so are stark. I’m sending my deepest condolences to Alexei Navalny’s family—and to all those around the world who had championed his pursuit of justice. Canada remains committed to holding Putin responsible for his actions.”

Trudeau continued to condemn Putin in multiple media interviews, while the Poilievre family’s main social presence was selling T-shirts following a dust up in the House of Commons where the opposition leader posed a question using the initials “W.T.F.” To Poilievre, it supposedly means “where’s the funds.”

Ignoring the bad grammar, Poilievre’s spouse, Anaida, was flogging the shirts in social media at the same time the world’s focus was on the aftermath of Navalny’s death, and the horrific arrests of Russian mourners.

Trump was also busier shilling than condemning in the days following Navalny’s death. As for the Russian opposition leader, Trump found a way to compare his death to Trump’s own domestic troubles. In a Fox media interview, this is how he framed the situation: “It’s happening in our country, too. We are turning into a communist country in many ways. And if you look at it, I’m the leading candidate, I got indicted … I got indicted four times. I have eight or nine trials … all because of the fact that I’m in politics.”

Trump then pivoted quickly announce the launch of his new US$400 golden running shoes at “Sneaker Con” in Philadelphia. Along with the shoes, Trump introduced a line of cologne, entitled “Victory.” The runners were launched the day after a civil fraud trial judgement where Trump was ordered to pay out $350-million in interest and damages.

Both politicians were notoriously quiet following Navalny’s death, even when his widow was publicly calling on the world to seek justice for her late husband.

Three days after her husband died, Yulia Navalnaya vowed to continue his fight. “In killing Alexei, Putin killed half of me, half of my heart and half of my soul,” Navalnaya said on social media. “But I have another half left—and it is telling me I have no right to give up.”

While Navalnaya vows to continue her husband’s brave battle in opposition to Putin, Ukraine passed the two-year anniversary last week of its unwavering response to Putin’s illegal attack.

Once again, Trump and Poilievre share the same vision. With Trump’s blessing, Republicans have been blocking or reducing war funding for Ukraine, just as Poilievre voted against Canadian funding in the House of Commons.

Conservatives in Canada keep saying they have nothing in common with Trump, but the actions of both men in the past week seem to mirror each other.

Poilievre may think that most Canadians vote on pocketbook issues, not foreign policy. But 1.2 million Ukrainian-Canadians are not happy with his refusal to support Canadian funding for Ukraine.

Strangely, then the leader of the opposition came out against proposed legislation to limit internet hate speech before reading it. Instead, he reminded us of Trudeau’s blackface history.

Poilievre’s recent weak reactions have some people wondering whether he is really ready for prime time.

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

Hamas is a horrific butcher of Jews. But the death of thousands of innocent Palestinians serves to promote these antisemitic militants. Heaven forbid a Member of Parliament should speak his mind.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 19, 2024.

OTTAWA—If you want to know why politicians are loathe to speak out, just ask Rob Oliphant.

The CBC reported last week that the parliamentary secretary to the foreign minister was having a private telephone conversation with a constituent when he “ripped into” his own government’s position on the war in Gaza.

In a telephone call recorded without his consent or knowledge, Oliphant was particularly critical of the government’s decision to defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees after it was alleged that 12 of its employees participated in the massacre of Jewish civilians on Oct. 7, 2023, that prompted the current conflict.

Oliphant also ruminated openly about quitting his job, telling the person on the other end of the line: “I’ve come many times thinking, ‘Do I quit that job? Do I just go on being an MP?’ “

The constituent declined to be identified publicly for fear of job repercussions, and Oliphant explained his comments, saying he was dealing with a constituent in crisis, and hoped the comments would remain private.

No one would expect a private conversation to go viral but, unfortunately, in this day and age, there is no such thing as privacy.

That is why politicians are so loathe to air their own feelings in public, whether on the phone, in an email, or in ordinary conversation.

Of course, there is no unanimity in the Liberal caucus over all the actions that have been taken following the Oct. 7 massacre.

The constituent who released the telephone recording said they were pushing for a ceasefire, but I am not sure how the Oliphant exposure promotes their position.

Instead, it simply underscores the divisions that exist within the government on this issue.

And that should come as no surprise. Just as Jewish and Palestinian supporters in caucus have been outspoken in their views, so it would be ludicrous to assume that Oliphant is in favour of every aspect of his party’s foreign policy.

Oliphant also said he was willing to defend his statements in public, including his opposition to the defunding of UNRWA.

He told the CBC: “You don’t stop aid to Gaza because of 12 or 13 employees out of 13,000. It drives me crazy. … It is opportunistic, unfair, and it is maligning the operation of a UN organization that is doing, not perfect work… .But it is the best we have for education, medical care, for food, all of those things.”

Oliphant is a United Church minister as well as a Member of Parliament, and he has travelled to refugee camps managed by UNRWA in multiple countries, including Lebanon and Jordan. He told the constituent that even if the aid were cancelled directly, there should have been an immediate indirect method to secure food and medicine for those trapped in Gaza through no fault of their own.

History is proving Oliphant right. The death toll of women and children in Gaza rises daily with no end in sight.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it very clear that his goal is to annihilate Hamas and push all Palestinians out of the region.

He has the support of the majority of Israelis traumatized by the murderous, orchestrated attack on civilians Oct. 7.

But the enormity of the Israeli response has drawn criticism from around the world, including from those Israelis hoping their family members who are currently in Hamas’ clutches are returned home alive.

The United States and United Kingdom have both recently spoken about the full recognition of Palestine once the war ends.

NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson is moving a motion that will ask the Canadian government to do the same thing.

Her motion was to be tabled last week, but would likely not come to a House vote anytime soon. However, the pressure will mount on the government to bridge the caucus gap between those on either side of this challenging issue.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly will have to navigate this mess all the while trying to keep Canadians on both sides of the issue on board.

As she is a potential future leadership candidate, her international decisions will also be weighed against domestic political considerations.

With the NDP on one side and the Conservatives on the other, it is not surprising that the centrist Liberals have divided views on the war.

Hamas is a horrific butcher of Jews. But the death of thousands of Palestinian innocents serves to promote these antisemitic militants.

Heaven forbid a Member of Parliament should speak his mind.

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

Bell Media says it lost $140-million in advertising revenues last year while its new division suffered more than $40-million in operating costs. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 12, 2024.

OTTAWA—BCE Inc. is selling off almost half its radio stations and eliminating 4,800 jobs as so-called heritage media continues to lose advertising revenue to social media outlets.

According to The Canadian Press, it was the second round of cuts in less than a year as the company closed nine radio stations and laid off six per cent of their employees last spring.

In an open letter, chief executive Mirko Bibic said employee departures would be met by natural attrition and unfilled vacancies as much as possible.

The company raised its quarterly dividend as profits plummeted.

Internally, the move was characterized as a “significant divestiture.”

According to Bell’s chief legal and regulatory officer Robert Malcolmson, “it’s just not a viable business any more. We will continue to operate ones that are viable, but this is a business that is going in the wrong direction.”

Malcolmson saved his severest criticism for the federal government, claiming the slow pace of promised financial aid to news outlets was a factor in the decision.

An overview of the 45 radio stations being sold indicates not a single station is in a major provincial or federal centre.

The seven buyers for the stations, Vista Radio, Whiteoaks, Zoomer Media, Arsenal Media, Maritime Broadcasting, Durham Radio, and My Broadcasting Corporation are spread from Atlantic Canada, through Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia.

Some, like Zoomer, are open about targeting a certain age demographic, while others are moving rapidly into technology. Vista advertises itself as the first broadcaster in Canada to embrace cloud-based music distribution.

Meanwhile, Bell Media says it, too, is investing in digital transformation, but whether that can be made profitable remains to be seen.

It also says that it lost $140-million in advertising revenues last year while its new division suffered more than $40-million in operating costs.

One can expect that the vast majority of layoffs will be in news.

The company’s decision to blame the government for its woes is confusing.

If there is no viable business case for running radio stations, why would the government step in to fill the gap?

And, as the 45 radio stations have been sold to other radio conglomerates, somebody must think there there is money to be made somewhere.

Malcolmson says the company cannot wait another year for the financial help promised by the introduction of Bill C-11, federal legislation designed to charge social media broadcasters a fee for repeating news gathered by traditional media outlets.

He also criticized the amount of prospective payments saying it simply would not be enough to stem the losses.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hopes to be ready to make payments by the end of this year.

Complicating that picture is the promise by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to trash the proposed financial help. Consistent with his general hate-on for the media, Poilievre has promised: “We will repeal this anti-speech censorship law and restore freedom of expression on the internet.”

Maybe Bell needs to do a little more housekeeping at the top of its food chain by ushering in some innovation to an organization that appears sadly stuck in the last century.

Women are still smarting over the 2022 decision to dump national anchor Lisa LaFlamme as one senior manager attacked her for her choice to go naturally grey.

In the notice of current layoffs, there doesn’t appear to be a single woman involved in the announcement.

One of the things that the pandemic taught us is that the new workforce is nimble.

Millennials can be very creative, and heaven knows Bell is in need of some creativity, but younger workers are also seeking workforce flexibility. Companies need to be able to react to that.

The regulatory affairs office at Bell doesn’t see it that way.

In the thick of the pandemic, when many employers were allowing housebound workers to do their jobs from warmer climes for a few freezing winter weeks, Bell’s legal department said ‘no’.

Maybe the company has simply grown too big to be able to innovate in the areas where it needs innovation.

If the company isn’t sure it can make money from digitization, it needs to take a look around it at the outside world.

From online shopping, to music selection and media streaming, digitization is where the profits lie. Being able to reach customers virtually is a huge advantage.

If the regulatory team at Bell is leading its innovation charge, no wonder the place is in fire-sale mode.

It is not the government’s fault.

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

Social housing should be national in scope, and part of a major income reform. Immigration and refugee support should be regionally based, and there should be incentives for moving to underpopulated regions.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 5, 2024.

OTTAWA—Immigration Minister Marc Miller made a $362-million refugee housing announcement last week.

Instead of garnering positive impact, the announcement opened the door for provincial governments and critics to claim that the amount in question is simply too little to deal with the problem.

Quebec is looking for a cheque for $470-million, as outlined in a letter from Premier François Legault last month.

Legault is also asking the federal government to stem the flow of refugees finding their way into the country by land, sea, and air.

Miller’s announcement seemed to reinforce Legault’s concerns.

“I think we owe it to Canadians to reform a system that has very much been a stopgap measure since 2017 to deal with large historic flows of migration.”

Miller is speaking frankly, but his admission simply sets the government up for further criticism.

If 2017 is the date when things went sidewise, the federal government has had seven years to come up with a solution.

Like the housing crisis, the Liberals are taking the full brunt of criticism for immigration spikes.

The link between the two is tenuous at best, but the government doesn’t seem able to convince the public about who is responsible for the housing crisis in the first place.

It is not refugee spikes.

It was bad public policy foisted on Canada when the federal government was convinced by the provinces to get out of the housing field back in 1986.

For 30 years, the provinces had full responsibility, including federal transfer funding, for housing construction in their jurisdictions.

For the most part, they did nothing to fill the gap in social or Indigenous housing, while city hall used housing payments for new builds as a way to finance municipal coffers.

The responsibility for housing was completely in provincial hands for three decades until Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the courageous step of getting back into housing in 2017.

The refugee housing problem would not exist if sufficient social housing had been built over 30 years for residents in need. Help should be available to anyone who cannot afford market solutions.

Meanwhile, the cost of market rental housing for those who can pay continues to rise as demand outstrips supply.

That is a completely different issue from the cost of immigration and refugee services.

For the federal government to defend itself against accusations that it caused the housing crisis, it needs a national strategy engaging cities and provinces in the solutions.

There are a few provinces that have continued to support social housing in the past three decades but, by and large, the availability of housing for the poor has not been increased.

The Liberals have worked to tackle child poverty, and some of those direct payments have definitely made a difference.

According to statistics, more than two million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty because of the Canada Child Benefit.

But as incomes grow, the cost of living grows along with it.

The Liberals need a big new idea that goes beyond simply ministers making announcements in their own bailiwicks.

At one point, the government was looking at the creation of a Guaranteed Annual Income for all Canadians.

That idea needs to be dusted off, and the feds need to invite provinces and municipalities to the table to see who can help in what manner with the creation of a guaranteed income.

Basic housing should be a human right for all Canadians, with the guaranteed income built on the cost of housing by region.

Social housing should be national in scope, and it should be part of a major income reform.

Immigration and refugee support should be regionally based, and there should be incentives for moving to underpopulated regions of the country.

A big vision on how to house the underhoused, feed the underfed, and finance the poor would get everyone to the table.

In the current system, everyone is blaming the federal government for a problem that has largely been caused by provincial indifference and municipal greed.

The country also needs to understand what constitutes a basic housing right.

What should be the average housing size for socially funded financing?

Many Canadians live alone these days, which changes the type and size of housing we should be building.

There are no magic bullets. But the federal government needs to think bigger than single housing announcements if it wants to spread the responsibility—and the blame—for the current crisis.

A guaranteed income is the answer.

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

Conservatives need to convince Canadians that they are centrist enough to be trusted in government. But linking themselves to the likes of Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson will not reinforce that sentiment.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 29, 2024.

OTTAWA—He was too toxic for Fox News. But Tucker Carlson was welcomed with open arms by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith last week.

The pair enjoyed a private dinner before they shared the stage at a sold-out Carlson appearance.

The premier featured in a photo with two other Carlson wannabees: Conrad Black and Jordan Peterson.

Carlson was in the province for two speaking events, engaging 4,000 attendees in Calgary and 8,000 in Edmonton.

Carlson, who spent the fall on tour to countries governed by extreme right-wingers, told the media he was coming to Canada to liberate the country from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

While Carlson attracted thousands of people to his events, more than 17,000 people signed a petition calling for the cancellation of those appearances because of his hate speech against the LGBTQ+ community.

Carlson has also spoken out vociferously against support for Ukraine against the Russian invasion.

Carlson says he would rather liberate Canada from Trudeau than liberate Ukraine. He has compared the Canadian prime minister to Hitler, and said Canada was turning into a totalitarian state because of its legalization of medically-assisted deaths.

Since the MAID legislation was introduced in 2016, almost 45,000 medically assisted deaths have been recorded in Canada, much to the chagrin of Carlson, who claimed that these deaths were evidence that Canada was slipping into totalitarianism.

While Carlson and Smith were linking arms on issues like their opposition to COVID vaccinations, the federal Liberals were meeting in caucus to figure out how they may be able to dig themselves out of their political hole.

Trips like that of Carlson are fodder for Liberal strategists who think the way to beat Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is to link his party to the Trumpian-inspired anti-government movement in the United States.

Like Carlson, Poilievre refused to fund war assistance for Ukraine, calling it a faraway foreign land when they voted against financial assistance in the House.

Like Carlson, Conservative Members of Parliament such as Leslyn Lewis are calling for Canada to drop out of the United Nations.

Conservatives need to convince Canadians that they are centrist enough to be trusted in government. But linking themselves to the likes of Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson will not reinforce that sentiment.

Peterson was another speaker at the Carlson roadshow. He was listed as an author.

Peterson has failed to meet professional standards in psychology, and has been required to undergo social media communication coaching.

In refusing to do so, Peterson went to court, but his appeal was denied by a three-judge divisional panel in August. Their decision was recently upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeals, and refusal to comply means Peterson will soon lose his right to practise.

Peterson teaches that chaos is a feminine trait, and that “confused gay kids are being convinced they’re transsexual.”

Peterson says women’s studies should be banned from university, and claims that the pay gap between women and men could be “predicated on competence.”

Peterson says the rise of Donald Trump is a response to a collective push to “feminize” men, claiming that if men are pushed too hard, they will become more and more interested in fascist ideology.

Poilievre has been promoting the defence of Peterson on X (formerly Twitter).

At the same time that the Conservative leader attacks “woke Liberal-NDP mayors,” he defends Peterson’s decision to ignore a court order on his professional misconduct charges.

Before Carlson appeared on the stage with Smith last week, he joined a webinar with Peterson and Canadian businessman Brett Wilson.

Liberals were quick to tie Poilievre to the Tucker event, with Edmonton Centre Member of Parliament and minister Randy Boissonnault leading the charge.

Boissonnault, a gay MP, said Carlson’s appearance in his riding in downtown Edmonton had caused a lot of fear in the LGBTQ+ community.

Boissonnault was joined by fellow ministers Pascale St-Onge, Pablo Rodriguez, and Steven Guilbeault in Ottawa last week. They all called on Poilievre to denounce the presence of Carlson, and make it clear that his caucus is not aligning their views with those of Smith and Carlson.

The Carlson appearance was limited to Alberta, and chances are he may not be invited elsewhere in Canada as he continually referred to Toronto as an “atrocity,” a great crowd-pleaser.

He laughed at gays and defended white anglos who are being undermined in Canada.

The decision by the Alberta premier to invite Carlson will certainly provide political fodder to those who question what kind of Canada conservatives really want.

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

Most confused Canadians received the payment with no explanation. If they already receive direct deposit payments, the climate bonus arrived with a simple annotation: Climate Action Incentive Plan. Talk about a missed opportunity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 22, 2024.

OTTAWA—Last week, 80 per cent of Canadians found a new year’s bonus us in their bank accounts.

The surprise deposit came from a quarterly rebate which is part of the federal government’s pollution pricing program to tackle climate change.

The numbers are impressive.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the average family of four in Alberta received $386, followed by Saskatchewan with $340, and Newfoundland and Labrador at $328.

Manitobans received $264, with Nova Scotia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island netting $248, $244 and $240 respectively. New Brunswickers received $184.

That was a quarterly, tax-free payment from the Climate Action Incentive Program destined to buffer the adjustment to the price on carbon prompted by an effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

Most confused Canadians received the payment without any explanation.

If they are already receiving direct deposit payments, the climate bonus arrived with a simple annotation: Climate Action Incentive Plan.

Talk about a missed communications’ opportunity. Most Canadians don’t have an idea what CAIP is. Somebody in government should have been able to come up with a sexier moniker to explain the new price on pollution.

A name like POP, price on pollution, would have served to refute the Conservative claim that this is a carbon tax.

Most Canadians don’t make money from a tax.

But the rollout was so quiet that many people were calling their banks to find out whether a mistaken deposit had been made.

The silent deposits were a missed moment to refute the narrative that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been peddling all year on his carbon tax.

He may be using unorthodox methods like YouTube videos and other social outreach measures, but compare that to the work of the government.

Why did nobody even write a letter to all climate action recipients explaining the basics of why they were getting the money, and how it would help them offset increased costs associated with the price on pollution?

The supply chain is facing hikes in transportation costs which ultimately get transferred to the consumer. Fuel, especially home heating, is also facing a hit.

But a payment that in some cases will amount to more than $1,500 a year should ease the pain. Poilievre has promised to cancel this payment should he form government.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau brought some new faces into cabinet last fall, with the specific aim of upping the communications game.

He also brought in a new director of communications, which some saw as a signal that he was finally going to get serious in combatting the Conservative storyline.

Some new faces have been very successful in getting out their individual messages, but when a government is floundering in the polls, ministerial announcements simply won’t be enough to turn the tide.

Instead, the government needs to invest real cash in explaining to Canadians what is at stake.

We have a planet that is burning itself up by the use of fossil fuels, and governments around the world are working to try to reduce carbon consumption.

A price on pollution is the way that the Canadian government has chosen in an effort to move the dial toward carbon reduction.

The quarterly rebate is an attempt to protect more vulnerable Canadians from the financial hit they could face because of pollution pricing.

Everyone needs to do their part, but getting a quarterly cheque from the government is not a bad political move.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears, did it really fall?

If a payment goes into your bank account with no explanation, did the government really send it?

The fact that people had no idea how this money ended up in their bank accounts is proof positive that the Liberal communications strategy needs an enema.

Either the government gets serious about using paid means, including major advertising and direct communication with each taxpayer, or the Liberals might as well cede the next election.

They have a great story to tell. But the old way of ministerial announcements is outdated and ineffective.

In the last century, when families received the baby bonus cheque to help with family expenses, the payment went directly to women and was clearly marked “Baby Bonus.”

Pretty hard to mistake that payment. That was a program that people still remember.

Now is the time to POP the question. Are Canadians ready to help in the battle to put a Price on Pollution?

The answer is yes. But the question has not even been asked.

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