By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 9, 2024.

OTTAWA—While governments are focusing on gender designation in sport, women are just making it happen.

Charge Ottawa opened the second season last week with a three-two victory over the Toronto Sceptres at TD Place.

The game started a new season with a new name.

The league launched last year without team names, and fans were thrilled with the Charge new look.

Season ticket holders were snapping up merchandise while fans in the thousands arrived to witness the season opener for the Professional Women’s Hockey League.

Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government passed three bills last week limiting transgender rights.

One bill is designed to prohibit transgender pronoun choices by minors, another restricts transgender access to human rights support.

The third is a sport bill. The Fairness and Safety in Sport Act is designed to require school boards, educational institutions and provincial sports organizations to develop policies to “protect the integrity of female athletic competitions by ensuring women and girls have the opportunity to compete in biological female-only divisions.”

The law will also require parents to opt in to education on transgender issues. Current law requires parents to opt out. The burdensome requirements for opting in include informing parents one month in advance and offering alternative education for children who do not get gender sex education.

The law will also limit educational material and lesson plans on sexual orientation and gender identity, potentially erasing same-sex families from the curriculum.

Opponents say the proposals go against research that proves sexual education reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, sexually-transmitted diseases and unchecked child abuse.

Puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy would be illegal for children under the age of 16. Youth aged 16 to 17 would require parental consent for such therapies.

Some bill opponents say the prohibition would be particularly challenging for adolescents trying to avoid puberty that is not aligned with their sexual identity.

Equality groups are vowing to fight the Alberta legislation as they have enjoined legal challenges against similar changes to law and policy in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick.

The Canadian Medical Association, the Alberta Medical Association, and the Canadian Paediatric Society oppose the medical limitations in the legislation.

The Alberta changes go beyond those introduced by New Brunswick and Saskatchewan.

The New Brunswick government that introduced a prohibitive transgender law was defeated recently while the Saskatchewan government faced a steep drop in its recent election support.

For years, governments have used their power to keep women out of sport, even when female athletic prowess would have meant they could participate equally in men’s sport.

Some say the sport changes are just another example of government weakening laws that protect athletes from harassment and bullying.

Meanwhile, girls and women are just doing it.

From the PWHL to the wildly popular American-based Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), professional sports has opened a new venue for girls who want to make a career of their sport of choice.

The WNBA, which has been operating for almost 30 years, has 13 teams and is the premier women’s pro team globally. Two more teams will join the league next year and their televised games are very popular.

The world of tennis is also changing as the issue of pay equality has been addressed between the genders. Last year, the Women’s Tennis Association approved a plan to achieve pay equity by 2033. Part of that proposal means that gender payments for non-Grand Slam 1,000 and 500-level tournaments will be equal in 2027.

Governments have ignored their potential role in pay equity although former federal sport minister Pascale St-Onge moved quickly to stem sexual harassment in sport, suspending world junior hockey financial support while the issue of sexual assault was addressed.

Smith could be focusing her government’s attention on equality for women and girls in sport. Instead, she is catering to a small minority that is interested in stamping out understanding or support for those who choose to change their gender.

By targeting her attention on reducing support for adolescents struggling with gender identity issues, Smith will shore up support with ultra-conservative members of her caucus.

But she opens the door to a revolt by ordinary Albertans who believe there are other health issues far more important than what pronoun is used to identify non-binary students in the classroom.

Naheed Nenshi and opposition New Democrats are hoping the legislation will provoke the same reaction from Albertans that New Brunswickers expressed at the polls when they dumped the Blaine Higgs Progressive Conservative government.

Only time will tell.

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

At the conclusion of the anti-Boissonnault attack, there’s only one question that matters: which political party has a plan to tackle the gross injustices Indigenous People have faced since colonization?

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

OTTAWA—Identity politics run amok. How else to explain the resignation of employment minister Randy Boissonnault on Nov. 20?

Boissonnault was forced to step down for claiming that he is a Métis except he has never done so.

By his own admission, he was adopted into a Métis family and raised by them although he has often mentioned the influence of a Cree grandmother.

A prime ministerial statement said Boissonnault “will focus on clearing the allegations made against him.”

Boissonnault was listed as Métis by the Liberal Party Indigenous Peoples’ Commission when they compiled a list of successful Indigenous candidates after the 2015 election.

According to a commission member, an adoption by a Métis family confers Métis status on the child, which is why Boissonnault was so identified.

The Conservative Party has made Boissonnault a clear target. Three members were ejected from the House of Commons last week because of the nature of their personal attacks.

Seven Tories peppered Boissonnault with a dozen questions while Government House Leader Karina Gould tried to set the record straight.

Gould said the company managed by Boissonnault while he was not in politics was never listed as an Indigenous company, and did not receive any contracts from the government.

NDP MP Blake Desjarlais joined the attack, suggesting that Boissonnault should resign as minister because he is making decisions about Indigenous lives without knowing about his own.

Allegedly, Boissonnault’s grandmother is listed as a person with German ancestry, although Boissonnault’s understanding was that she was full Cree.

The bottom line is that this so-called scandal was nothing more than a successful attempt to unseat a minister so popular that he got elected during a Conservative near-sweep of his home province, Alberta.

Boissonnault’s departure leaves the province without a federal minister at the table.

This opens the door to the ministerial elevation of Calgary Liberal MP George Chahal.

Boissonnault’s departure is a huge loss for Indigenous and minority supporters.

He was one of the most well-liked ministers in the government with a reputation for speaking out for the underdog. He is also a self-identified gay man.

Liberal First Nations MP Jaime Battiste defended Boissonnault as an advocate for Indigenous people who never self-identified as Métis.

Battiste characterized the attack as a witch-hunt, and said that the whole issue was blown up to score points. Boisssonnault was a member of the Liberal Indigenous caucus, but there are also supportive men who have been members of the women’s caucus.

Embittered former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould weighed in on the controversy, blaming it all on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and saying “we get to watch white people play ancestry wheel of fortune.”

The wheel of fortune has been anything but. Until Trudeau actually began tackling Indigenous issues with real financial support, the education of on-territory Indigenous children was funded at a level 40 per cent less than the rest of Canada’s children.

The wheel of fortune meant that if you lived in Indigenous territory, you were likely to suffer for years under a boil-water advisory. Trudeau and the Liberal Party fixed that.

As for Indigenous ministers, the Liberal Party actually set up a recruitment system to attract Indigenous candidates. That was how Wilson-Raybould was rewarded with an uncontested nomination in the coveted Vancouver-Granville, B.C., riding in 2014.

Conservatives who succeeded in ousting Boissonnault have zero strategy of their own on reconciliation and the recruitment of Indigenous Members of Parliament.

They are ready to use identity politics to destroy the reputation of someone as earnest and hardworking as Boissonnault.

When Andrew Scheer was leader of the Conservative Party, Indigenous voters in his own riding voted against him because he did not represent the views of Indigenous constituents.

Yet he was frontline in the attack on Boissonnault. According to everyone who follows the issue, Boissonnault’s departure means the loss of a vociferous supporter of reconciliation and minority political engagement.

At the conclusion of the anti-Boissonnault attack, there is only one question that really matters: which political party has a plan to tackle the gross injustices that have been faced by Indigenous People ever since Europeans settlers arrived to overtake their land?

Certainly not the Conservatives, whose slash-and-burn political strategy would turn back the clock on reconciliation, housing, and a huge array of other issues.

Pierre Poilievre’s carbon-tax election isn’t happening. Instead of focusing on character assassination, why doesn’t he work on specific positive issues to get things done?

That could actually make Indigenous lives better.

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

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 8, 2024.

OTTAWA–I woke up to a news item last week that said Liberals had experienced a big spike in national popularity while the Greens and the Bloc were on the uptick.

Hardly believable, but in the world of politics, you are on a roller coaster. And six months is about the time-frame for either a dip or rise in popularity.

Then I had a coffee and realized it was April Fool’s Day. I was the fool. Because for a brief second, I thought Liberals’ flagging fortunes had turned around.

Both the Liberal and Conservative leaders seem to be in campaign mode.

Whether it’s an orthodox synagogue in Montréal, or a rally in Newfoundland or British Columbia, Pierre Poilievre is everywhere. And on his ‘Axe the Tax’ campaign, he really seems to be enjoying himself.

Finally, it looks as though the prime minister is also moving into campaign mode.

In a series of pre-budget announcement, Justin Trudeau and some of his key ministers have peppered the country with funding and programs.

From children’s school lunch funding, to a renters’ bill of rights, to carbon pricing, the governing party has finally realized that in government, you can control the agenda.

And they are definitely shaping a narrative that could play in their favour in the next election.

Poilievre is focusing on individual pocketbook issues. By pushing his anti-tax view, he is sending the message that under a Poilievre government, there would be cuts in government spending that would end up in your wallet.

He may be on to something. As altruistic as we would like to think ourselves to be, Canadians usually vote for what is in their personal self-interest.

Up until last week, not too many Canadians actually knew that 80 per cent of the population will receive a carbon rebate which exceeds the additional cost of the pricing program.

The frenetic pace Poilievre was keeping climaxed on April 1 when the new pricing regime went into effect.

He pulled out all the stops, including engaging oil-producing provincial premiers in a fight to roll back the carbon price increase.

But by associating so closely with leaders like Danielle Smith and Doug Ford, who are not universally admired across the country, he may be digging himself a petroleum hole from which he cannot get out.

Smith was hard-pressed to explain why, on the same day she was trashing carbon pricing, her government was hiking Alberta’s gas tax by a total of 13 cents a litre. Her supporters defended the hike, saying the money would be used to build roads and infrastructure, not to reduce carbon emissions.

When you compare the building of roads to the fight against global warming, which is more critical to our survival?

The younger generation—or NexGen as they are euphemistically known—consider global warming the challenge of our times.

Poilievre has been successful in attracting young voters on the basis that his policies will make housing and daily essentials more affordable.

Just like Trudeau rode the marijuana wave to victory in his first election in 2015, Poilievre hopes to ride the affordability train.

But on global warming, he has been strangely silent. His communications people say that the Conservative plan to fight climate change will come out when an election is called. That will be too late. By then, his image as a petro-politician will have solidified.

That will help in Alberta, but he certainly won’t become prime minister on the basis of that province alone.

His anti-environmental positions do not play well in Quebec or British Columbia, both provinces which were critical in getting the Liberals over the line in the last election.

Because Poilievre’s political message has been so tightly identified with carbon pricing, it will be hard for him to build any credibility on global warming.

His axe will also be used to cut government spending. But where will he start? Will he cancel dental benefits, pharmacare, or $10-a-day childcare? Something has to go.

The Axe-the-Tax campaign has finally created an opening for Liberals to start talking about what they have achieved, and asking the pertinent question: what will Poilievre axe?

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax.

With April 1 come and gone, if the sky doesn’t fall, Poilievre could be left looking like Chicken Little.

A campaign that promotes dental care, pharmacare, rental rights, and daycare sound a lot more interesting than one involving an axe.

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

Increasing the minimum wage, hiking pensions, and supporting the disabled may not be as politically sexy, but those decisions make Canadian lives better. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 1, 2024.

OTTAWA—Canada’s lowest paid federally-regulated workers got a raise last week.

Their hourly rate will go from $16.65 to $17.30 as the result of a government decision four years ago to peg the wage to inflation.

Back in 2021, the federal minimum wage was $15. In Saskatchewan, the current minimum wage is $14 with an increase of one dollar slated for next October.

That is the lowest minimum wage in Canada. The second lowest minimum wage is in New Brunswick, with Alberta sharing the spot for the third lowest minimum. Three other provinces are slated to hike theirs this year.

Alberta currently has no plans to increase its minimum wage.

It is no surprise that three of the provinces at the bottom of the pay scale for Canada’s lowest-paid workers are Conservative.

Not coincidentally, British Columbia has the highest provincial minimum wage at $16.75, with no current plans to increase.

Tracking the minimum wage is probably one of the easiest ways to determine the politics of any province.

Those who care about increasing the wealth of our poorest citizens are usually called left-wingers.

But if you look at the World Happiness Index, countries that have done the most to support their vulnerable citizens are on top.

During Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s the time in office, his party has worked hard to lift people out of poverty.

According to Statistics Canada, from 2014 to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the speed of poverty reduction was palpable. There were fewer people living below the poverty line, and those who became poor exited poverty faster.

That changed during COVID, with current levels moving back to where they were before the Liberals took office in 2015.

The spike in poverty is one of the reasons that dozens of Liberal MPs have signed a letter asking the finance minister to include disability benefit cash in the upcoming April 16 budget.

Liberal MPs Pam Damoff and Ryan Turnbull made the letter public last week calling the potential move a “legacy social policy” for the government.

The potential benefit stems from an all-party resolution supporting the creation of a disability benefit.

The government has been working on regulations since the bill passed last June.

The proposed federal benefit is supposed to be added to funds already going to disabled citizens from provincial coffers. However, one area of concern is the fear that some provinces will simply use federal dollars to replace the meagre provincial funds that are currently being paid to disabled citizens.

The provinces received similar cash for housing and health over several decades, and in many instances, the money was simply rolled into provincial coffers with no increase in affordable housing or health care.

Hopefully, federal disability benefits will be protected in the regulatory process.

A new federal disability benefit is one more tool to lift Canadians out of poverty.

Another tool, which received little public attention, was the government’s decision to top up old age security benefits to those Canadians over the age of 75.

Liberals are currently using X to contrast their record to that of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

The Conservatives raised the retirement age to 67. The Liberals reversed that decision. Poilievre voted against increases to the old age pension, the Canada pension plan, and the Guaranteed Income supplement.

The government increased OAS for older seniors by 10 per cent, which lifted 187,000 seniors out of poverty.

According to the Liberals, if they had not reversed the Conservative plan to increase the age of pension eligibility to 67, some 100,000 seniors would be pushed below the poverty line every year.

Seniors’ pensions, disability benefits, and minimum wage are not top-of-mind issues for all Canadians. But they should be.

If history has taught us anything it is that society is stronger when the gap between the rich and the poor is smaller.

The fact that poverty reduction is top of mind to dozens of Liberals means something might be done in the next budget that will help lift the disabled out of poverty.

Few federally-regulated truckers will likely be sending thank-you notes to Trudeau for the increases in their paycheques.

But they should remember that political parties can make a difference.

If an opposition party votes against pension increases, it sends a clear signal of its priorities. Poverty reduction is not one of them.

Increasing the minimum wage, hiking pensions, and supporting the disabled may not be as politically sexy, but those decisions make Canadian lives better.

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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 7, 2023.

OTTAWA—Party conventions are truly places to party. As a political party is a gathering of like-minded individuals, in a sense, it takes on the ethos of a large family.

In every family, there are those who don’t always agree. And sometimes high-octane gatherings like weddings, funerals and conventions can literally blow up.

Organizers for the Conservative convention in Québec City are hoping for what all political operatives seek: internal party peace.

During most of the year, the fighting spirit of a political activist is focused on the opposition. Their policies, their leadership, their direction are all fair game in the political battle for the hearts and minds of voters.

Conventions are the only place where the cannons are turned inward.

Party policy wonks fight for their favoured positions while volunteers try to support the issues that they think are important.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been trying to keep the temperature down at the convention, with good reason.

This is the first gathering of his clan in five years. And it is likely to be their last national confab before a federal election where they are obviously hoping their guy will win.

As happens in every political party, the pragmatists will battle purists on the convention floor.

Some purists will have been pushing the party to adopt a stronger stance on the so-called “woke” agenda.

Three provincial premiers have already adopted some limitations on the use of pronouns in schools by students without parental permission.

Thus far, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has refused to go down that road, but she is under substantial pressure from her own base to do so.

And that base will be very active at the convention.

Journalists have pointed out that there are no abortion resolutions under discussion.

And some observers wisely explain that away as “The smell of power.”

In a pre-convention interview, Dmitri Soudas, the former communications director for then-prime minister Stephen Harper, put it perfectly: “When the polls are good, Members (of Parliament) have nothing but good things to say.”

Those who work for the current leader are hoping for the same serenity.

But the convention wild card is the volunteer base. Many who are not job-dependent on Conservative success at the polls are motivated by religious beliefs that transcend politics.

Some may do their darndest to get touchy issues like abortion and gender reassignment back on the agenda.

The one elephant in the room that convention-goers have not been able to avoid is a convention resolution on defunding the public broadcaster in French and English.

The current resolution calls for an end to funding the CBC and Radio-Canada. That caught the attention of journalists in the heartland of Quebec as Radio-Canada is seen as the lifeblood of Quebec culture and history.

Any party proposing to shut the place down would do so at their peril.

And the second element to the story is the Conservatives need to gain seats in Quebec to have any chance of forming the government.

A promise to abolish Radio-Canada would make Pierre-Karl Péladeau happy, but would not curry much favour with anyone else.

The billionaire owner of Vidéotron has been campaigning for years to abolish federal funding for the public news channel that rivals his own, but no one has yet been convinced.

Politically speaking, it is hard to get positive media from a news outlet that you are planning to put out of business.

One possibility could be a convention resolution to defund the English—but not the French—CBC.

But that would likely face significant backlash as well as a charter challenge.

Poilievre may believe he has managed to build his popularity through social media, and does not really need to care about conventional news services.

But his constant attacks on multiple news platforms, including The Canadian Press, make him vulnerable to a journalistic backlash.

Before elections, the mainstream messaging is most important on Parliament Hill.

But once the writ drops, the focus of the so-called “legacy media” will make or break the outcome.

A happy weekend in Québec City could set the stage for a march toward a Conservative government.

But if that march trashes the voices of journalists at organizations like Radio-Canada and The Canadian Press, Poilievre’s efforts could be stymied.

When then-Progressive Conservative leader Kim Campbell called the election back in 1993, she was sailing to a clear majority.

A few ill-chosen words turned victory into defeat.

Poilievre needs to take a history lesson before he declares victory.

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 14, 2023.

OTTAWA—While forest fires rage around the world, some Canadian leaders continue to deny climate change.

Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault launched regulations last week to build a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, as opponents lined up against him.

Canada’s official opposition leader continues his “Axe the Tax” campaign while premiers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba add their voices to those who want to get rid of carbon pricing.

National pollsters added fuel to the debate with findings that the majority of Canadians do not think the carbon pricing has actually positively influenced the environment.

A poll published last week by Nanos research said two-thirds of Canadians say it is a poor time to increase the cost of carbon, and a majority who said they believe the carbon price increase is ineffective at tackling climate change.

That result was not surprising. When is there ever a good time for a tax increase in most peoples’ minds?

To be fair, ordinary Canadians are not involved in the minute details of what needs to be done to tackle climate change.

But the notion that an increase in the cost of carbon will not affect carbon use is simply not logical, whatever the polling says.

It was the increase in the cost of gas during the climate crisis in the last century that encouraged the introduction of smaller vehicles and increased focus on reducing emissions.

Emissions are reduced when less carbon is burned. Less carbon is burned when vehicles are lighter, smaller and more fuel efficient.

The rise in the purchase of hybrid vehicles and electric cars is directly linked to the increasing cost of fuel.

One only has to travel to Europe or Asia to see how the high price of gasoline has encouraged people to move into smaller cars, and multiple means of lower-emitting forms of transportation.

A poll about taxation or carbon pricing does not delve deeply enough into the real problem.

The question should be comparative. Are you willing to pay more in energy costs to reduce fires and floods? That is the real cost-benefit analysis that must be done by governments, companies, and consumers.

According to Driving, most recent 2021 statistics show that one in four vehicles purchased in Canada is a pickup truck. The highest number of pickup truck users are in Alberta with the highest per capita usage of trucks in Saskatchewan.

Ontario’s population is more than three times greater than that of Alberta, but consumers in Canada’s most populous province don’t buy as many trucks. Ontario’s rural footprint is also much larger than Alberta’s.

The more it costs to fill up those vehicles, the more consumers will make decisions to move to smaller and more energy-efficient vehicles.

Carbon pricing will affect purchasing practices, but changes won’t show up immediately.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston was on the news last week attacking the federal carbon pricing program.

But he is also lined up looking for financial help in the wake of disastrous loss of life and property caused by fires and floods resulting from global warming in his province.

The federal government pays 90 per cent of the cost of disaster relief.

This year will likely be the most expensive for disaster relief payouts in history based on the number of forest fires and floods across the country.

Houston did not have a plan to tackle climate change. He did refer to the potential of ocean wind power, and blamed the lack of wind investment on the federal government.

Houston kept repeating that he believed in solutions to climate change, but had nothing specific to offer except opposition to increase the price of carbon.

Nobody likes to pay more for anything.

But if we are serious about tackling the reality of climate change, something has to give.

Not all carbon pricing opponents are in denial. Houston kept repeating that he realized there is a problem. But he seemed ill-equipped or unprepared to offer alternatives.

The only way to move consumers toward energy efficiencies is to increase the cost of pollution caused by burning carbon.

When the world was facing a growing hole in the ozone layer, the solution was a replacement to the chemical in use as a coolant in refrigerators and air conditioners.

The new coolant was vastly more expensive. Not surprisingly, wastage dropped dramatically solving the ozone layer problem.

When things cost more, people conserve. When energy costs more, they cut back on consumption.

When transportation costs more, people’s driving habits change.

Pricing pollution is key.

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 19, 2023.

OTTAWA—A Conservative private member’s attempt to revive the abortion debate by conferring unique legal status on pregnant women was clobbered in the House last week.

The governing Liberals united with New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois to defeat Bill C-311 by almost a two-to-one margin.

Opponents of the bill introduced by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall numbered 205. Supporters mustered only 113 votes.

Under most circumstances, that should be the end of the story. But with the Conservatives leading in national public opinion polls, and their strong support for the bill, it will only be a matter of time before the question of the legal status of fetuses ends up being litigated when a future Wagantall bill is passed.

Witness the debate concerning the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act in Parliament to understand why this legislation could represent a threat to legal abortions in the country.

The United States is already experiencing a wave of anti-women and anti-gay legislation as a result of a Supreme Court ruling that put legal abortions at risk in parts of their country.

Canadian pundits said this could not happen here, but another item in the news last week paints a different picture.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith named her cabinet, including a health minister with a strong bias against legal abortions. Adriana LaGrange served as education minister in the United Conservative Party government of former premier Jason Kenney. In that role, she presided over one of the largest public sector cuts in Alberta history, firing 20,000 educational assistants, substitute teachers, bus drivers and maintenance staff.

With LaGrange at the helm and Smith’s well-documented ruminations on private medicine, it likely won’t be too long before the new government moves to start charging for more health services.

Even more concerning is the minister’s opposition to legal abortion in the province. Her maiden speech in the Alberta legislature four years ago was entitled, “The lord leads me where he needs me.”

While she was a school trustee, LaGrange served on the provincial board of Alberta Pro-Life. In her first provincial election, she was backed by RightNow, an activist anti-abortion organization.

As education minister, LaGrange introduced a controversial piece of legislation requiring parental notification when any student joined a gay-straight alliance club. The original protection from parental notification was designed to protect those students who could face danger if their parents became aware of their sexual orientation. Students were also denied the right to use the word ‘gay’ or ‘queer’ in describing after-school clubs, and administrators were permitted to keep their inclusivity policies secret.

If LaGrange was controversial in education, there is no reason to think she won’t repeat that history in health. Those who think that access to abortion is safe across the country need to face facts.

Wagantall in Saskatchewan and LaGrange in Alberta are only the tip of the iceberg. When the bill on pregnant women was introduced, the Conservative party was pretty much unanimous in support, starting with the leader.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said that he will not introduce legislation on abortion, but he has also stated that other members of his caucus are free to do so.

He is the only leader ambivalent about his support for the LGBTQ2S+ communities, refusing to attend Pride parades or showing visible support for those struggling with a wave of homophobia across the country.

With a raucous parliamentary session coming to close, Poilievre’s popularity continues to outstrip that of the governing Liberals.

Abacus Data released a poll last week in which 35 per cent of the respondents said they would vote Tory if an election were held today. That number had increased three percentage points since the previous month, while the Liberals were down two points at 28 per cent.

The appetite for electoral change is there and the Conservatives are the beneficiaries. Approximately 80 per cent of those polled said it is time for a change in government.

Polls move, and most would agree that both Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are stellar campaigners. The fight may come right down to the wire in a tight election in 2025 (or whenever it happens).

If there is a Conservative majority win, do not be surprised if limitations on women’s reproductive rights and rights for those in the gay community resurface.

Premier Smith did not hide her intention to move toward health privatization.

Her party has many abortion opponents sitting in the legislature. A key one is now occupying the health minister’s chair.

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 May 22, 2023.

OTTAWA–As northern Alberta is engulfed in flames, Premier Danielle Smith must be breathing a sigh of relief.

The forest fires have taken the spotlight away from an election in which her own gaffes would have played a major role. Some have suggested that the election should be postponed because the fires have necessitated the evacuation of more than 25,000 residents in multiple communities.

What could have been a daily discussion of Smith’s multiple positions on private medicine and interference in the judicial system has taken a back seat to evacuation and safety briefings on the status of the fires.

Smith has also joined hands with New Democratic Party Leader Rachel Notley in getting updates on the emergencies facing residents in northern Alberta.

As the flames abate, all eyes might have been on the May 18 leaders’ debate. But the choice of timing ensured that the audience would not be huge. For some reason, broadcasters aired the debate at 6 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time, which meant that most Albertans would be busy getting supper ready or driving from work to home.

Polling shows more than 40 per cent of voters say they could be affected by the debate, so a major “aha” moment could prove to be a turning point for victory by the United Conservative Party or a defeat by the New Democrats.

Before the fires, the debate would have focussed almost exclusively on Smith’s plans to privatize the health care system. Before Smith returned to politics, running for the leadership of the UCP, she hosted a radio show that yielded plenty of election fodder for her opposition.

Some of the most shocking statements focused on her minority position against vaccinations. She confessed at one point that she was so disgusted with vaccine mandates that she refused to wear a poppy in honour of Remembrance Day. In videos from the pandemic period, Smith compared the 75 per cent of vaccinated Albertans to those who followed Adolf Hitler into tyranny.

She also claimed that doctors are not capable of managing the pandemic, and instead, it should be managed by soldiers, saying: “the problem with putting doctors in charge is that they seem hardwired against criticism. We seem to have a medical system that was almost like a military command structure that the person at the top cannot be argued with, cannot be contradicted, otherwise it’s some crime that’s worthy of punishment. If that’s the way the medical system operates, then I don’t think we can have them in charge again in a future pandemic.”

Now Smith says she wants citizens to forget about those comments and to focus on current issues.

But current issues should include how a premier would manage a future pandemic, and more importantly, how a premier would finance the health-care system. With such disdain for doctors, it is hard to see how she would support a public health-care system.

In a paper written two years ago, Smith said the healthcare system should change “to shift the burden of payment away from taxpayers and toward private individuals, their employers and their insurance companies.”

While seeking the UCP leadership, Smith proposed health-care spending accounts of $375 per Albertan to cover services and get people used to paying for out-of-pocket expenses.

She also claimed in a YouTube video discussion with a naturopathic doctor that it was within a person’s control to avoid stage four cancer.

On the morning of the debate, Alberta’s ethics commissioner upped the tension by issuing a report that found the premier in a conflict of interest for her interactions with the minister of justice and attorney general, trying to influence criminal charges faced by street preacher Artur Pawlowski.

The report could play a pivotal role in the election, as most polls claim the race is deadlocked. Notley is ahead in Edmonton while Smith leads in rural Alberta, so the election outcome will probably be decided by voters in the city of Calgary.

By all accounts, Smith has been premier-like in her handling of the fires. However, her party still refuses to accept the fact that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming, which prompts an increase in catastrophic fires and floods.

Mother Nature usually doesn’t play a direct role in an election, but a rainy voting day can depress the number of participants who get to the polls.

If Smith pulls off a victory, she can thank the province’s ongoing firefighting efforts for taking the focus off her health and vaccine pronouncements.

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