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.

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.

If members choose the leader in the first place, why don’t they do the firing?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 24, 2022.

OTTAWA—What do British Tories and British Columbian New Democrats have in common?

They both moved with dispatch last week to get rid of leaders or potential leaders of their respective parties.

In the case of the British prime minister, Liz Truss’s resignation—after just six weeks in office—marks the end of a tumultuous term during which a massively unpopular mini-budget saw the party’s numbers plummet.

The party elected the leader but, in the end, it was a loss of caucus confidence that cost her the job.

Even after sacking the finance minister and rescinding the millions of pounds in tax cuts, Truss was unable to right her sinking ship. One vitriolic British newspaper headline characterized the Tory governance as a clown car.

Truss will suffer the fate of having the shortest prime ministerial tenure in British history. The next leader will be chosen by the party, but given the capacity to dump a leader after six weeks, it must be hard for members to believe their participation really counts.

Another leadership will not be facing the New Democrats in British Columbia because, as a result of an internal report, the party has chosen a coronation.

In either case, the leader is much less dependent on party support and much more dependent on caucus support.

Is that necessarily a good thing?

In the British system there is absolutely no room for error. If an unpopular move is made by the prime minister, he or she has no time to rebuild support and confidence.

To use a Canadian example, when the Liberals came to power in 1993, the country was deemed a financial basket case by certain financial institutions.

There was no choice but to cut, and cut deeply. The government laid off thousands of employees, and cut budgets across the board by between 15 and 25 per cent.

The only budget that then-prime minister Jean Chrétien refused to cut was spending for Indigenous services. But that financing normally increases with a hike in population, so even a standstill amounts to the equivalent of a cut.

The reduction process took a year as every minister had to present their budget cut proposals to a cabinet committee. I sat on one that was nicknamed “the Star Chamber.”

Some ministers could not agree on what the cuts should be. For example, when the department of foreign affairs recommended meeting its target by ending its funding of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the minister of finance vetoed that move. The foreign minister was sent back to the drawing board.

During this period, there was a fair bit of internal grumbling about the shape of the cuts, and it was particularly difficult for Ottawa-area members of Parliament to explain the job reductions to their constituents.

How easy it could have been to organize a group within caucus to dump the leader, and end the cost-cutting exercise before it even began.

The Brits are facing a fifth Conservative leadership in six years.

In British Columbia’s case, current Premier John Horgan enjoyed longevity.

But what would have been a party election for leader has been replaced by a coronation, since the elections committee has disallowed the candidacy of the only other opponent.

The decision to refuse the candidacy of Anjali Appadurai was based on an internal report which found that, “Ms. Appadurai engaged in serious improper conduct by co-ordinating with third parties” to recruit new members.
Anjali Appadurai was disqualified from the NDP leadership race on Oct. 20—the same day that Liz Truss stepped down as British prime minister. Photograph courtesy of Twitter

The candidate vigorously denied the claims, suggesting instead that the party introduced a mid-campaign interpretation of the membership rules which was applied retroactively.

Appadurai, an environmentalist, had little caucus support, but was said to have sold many more memberships than her leadership rival and former Attorney General David Eby.

Eby automatically becomes the premier as a result of the coronation. When Eby announced his candidacy last summer, he had the support of 48 colleagues.

That support was likely what caused several other caucus colleagues to stay out of the race.

A coronation may be the simplest route forward for the party, but it may not enhance New Democrat chances with the general public.

Leadership campaigns provide an opportunity to recruit new members. Many stay, even after the race is over. Appadurai supporters, who joined the party for the race, are already leaving in despair.

The British decision to dump a leader after six weeks, or the B.C. NDP move to dump a candidate, may both cause members of each respective party to quit.

If members choose the leader in the first place, why don’t they do the firing?

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

Doug Ford is banking on the fact that as the threat wanes, so will the political power of the vaccine question and he wants anti-vaxxers on his side in next June’s provincial election.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 8, 2021.

OTTAWA—Erin O’Toole has friends in high places.

And now, Ontario and Quebec provincial governments have taken a page from the O’Toole playbook. They claim to support the need to vaccinate all Ontarians, but have exempted those who work in health-care settings from mandatory vaccinations.

Notwithstanding the sage advice of his former leader that all Conservative MPs should be vaccinated, O’Toole won’t even tell us how many members of his caucus refuse to follow his vaccination advice.

If he can’t convince caucus members to get the jab, how can he convince the country?

Apparently, Quebec and Ontario leaders believe that an individual anti-vaccination right is more important than keeping hospital and extended care patients safe.

Ontario Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca accused Ontario Premier Doug Ford of putting anti-vaxers ahead of cancer patients. He was right.

How else to explain the spineless decisions to exempt health-care workers from vaccinations in work settings where they are supposed to be taking care of the most vulnerable people?

Quebec even had a date for implementation of the mandatory rule, extended it, and then cancelled it.

The Ontario premier defended his decision by saying that he was “not prepared to jeopardize the delivery of care to millions of Ontarians.”

Ford even went so far as to claim that once British Columbia required a mandatory vaccine, some surgeries were cancelled because of a shortage of workers. He didn’t mention how many have already been cancelled because of COVID outbreaks.

The premier also claimed tens of thousands of health-care workers could potentially leave if the province mandated vaccines.

In Quebec’s case, the government has approved a two-tier workforce, with all new entrants into the health-care field facing mandatory vaccines while current employees are exempt. Exempt employees are required to be tested thrice weekly, and according to the Quebec Health ministry, some 5,000 of unvaccinated workers are in direct ongoing contact with patients.

So, in both Ontario and Quebec, the politicians have ignored advice from public health officials to promote mandatory vaccinations in settings dealing with vulnerable, hospitalized people.

These political decisions had zero support in the scientific community. The Ontario Science Advisory Table argued that mandatory vaccinations would increase safety and reduce the risk of staffing disruptions.

The Ontario Medical Association also called on the government to mandate vaccinations in the health-care field. The physicians’ call for mandatory vaccinations was joined by the voice of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, which said the vast majority of health-care workers want a mandated vaccine to protect themselves and their patients.

Last week’s dual decisions on vaccinations will ultimately put more patients at risk.

One-hundred and twenty of Ontario’s 141 hospitals signed an Ontario Hospital Association letter calling on the government to mandate vaccines.

The vast majority of medical advice provided to both premiers claimed that the risk from unvaccinated workers far outweighs that of anti-vaxxer labour shortages.

Most patients have already been hit with cancelled surgeries and delayed tests. My requisitioned cancer test was delayed for one year because of the health-care stresses brought on by COVID. When the premier says he is worried about cancellations, why doesn’t he use all the tools at his disposal to prevent another wave of COVID hitting the province.

Listening to the health experts would be a good place to start. It was positively embarrassing to watch his health minister struggle to explain the reasons behind this crazy decision when the premier himself simply provided Ontarians with a written statement.

The look on Christine Elliott’s face made it clear that this was a plan coming from the premier’s office.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of Ontarians are in favour of mandatory vaccinations. But Ford probably believes that the squeaky wheel that got his grease will be more motivated to political action on the matter.

Ford, like Erin O’Toole, is also leading a right-wing party that considers mandatory vaccines a violation of individual freedoms.

O’Toole won’t even convince his own caucus members to get the jab, so he can hardly be expected to force health-care workers to do likewise.

In the end, O’Toole’s refusal to promote vaccine mandates was a major factor in the national Liberal victory.

Ford is banking on the fact that as the threat wanes, so will the political power of the vaccine question.

The premier wants anti-vaxxers on his side in next June’s provincial election.

Ford may be dead wrong, with the emphasis on dead.

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

Armed with today’s knowledge and technology, it only makes sense to issue an international vaccine for anyone who plans to travel.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 26, 2021.

When does personal freedom blind us to professional responsibility?

When the health-care system permits unvaccinated workers in facilities housing vulnerable people.

It is the state’s job, first and foremost, to protect those who are under its care in public hospitals or long-term communal living arrangements.

The Quebec government understands that. Last April, it became the first jurisdiction in Canada to require health-care workers to either vaccinate or provide thrice-weekly COVID tests to their employers.

Alberta, on the other hand, is clinging to the notion that a vaccination requirement is a violation of civil liberties. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is even considering amending a 100-year-old Alberta law that gives the government the right to mandate vaccines in certain circumstances.

Why would any government assume it is okay to allow employees who have not been vaccinated to come to work?

Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters last week that he thinks it is a constitutional right that, “no one should be forced to do anything.” With that perspective, we should all stop paying taxes.

Someone should ask the premier what happened to the constitutional rights of the frail and elderly in long-term care facilities who depend on us to protect them. Many other countries have already decided it is not a personal freedom issue but a health responsibility for those who work in facilities that look after the vulnerable and hospitalized.

Several European countries have already mandated vaccinations for all health-care employees. France, a country which has some of the strongest worker protection laws in the world, has imposed a deadline of Sept. 15 for health-care workers to be vaccinated or lose their jobs.

Throughout the pandemic, politicians have repeatedly stated that it is their job to listen to the science.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal has been calling on provincial governments to make sure they bring in vaccination rules that cover all facilities, not just those in the public sector. The CMAJ also believes that mandatory vaccinations in those facilities would pass a Charter challenge even though a previous call for mandatory flu vaccines was disallowed.

In this case, the disease transmission and death rate from failing to vaccinate is much higher than for a flu vaccine, and there are already a number of vaccination requirements mandated for hospital employment that have passed Charter scrutiny.

Health-care associations in Canada have been calling on premiers to act quickly and save lives.

Voiceless patients in long-term care facilities, many of whom died during this pandemic, have every right to be fully protected.

On-site testing is not enough.

What is even more egregious is that the cost of refusing the vaccination is not even being borne by the anti-vaxer, but by the rest of us.

In many instances, health-care professionals are required to have tests to prove they are COVID-free. In New Brunswick, unvaccinated workers in long-term care facilities must be tested every second day. If the test is molecular, the cost is approximately $200 each, so in the course of a single week, $800 could be spent to guarantee the employment rights of anti-vaxxers.

A simpler solution would be to make the vaccine mandatory and deliver it quickly.

British Columbia’s chief medical officer of health stated last month that mandatory vaccination was one of the options being considered in their long-term care facilities.

According to the Ontario Medical Association and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, mandatory vaccines in the health care system could help prevent a third wave of infection caused by the delta variant of the Coronavirus.

On the science side, the verdict is unanimous: a health care vaccination program would have a significant impact in reducing the possibility or severity of a third wave of variant Covid infection.

There is zero reason for politicians to play the civil liberty card on this one.

I still carry a federal vaccination card that was co-issued by Health Canada and the World Health Organization as a requirement to comply with international health regulations when entering various countries. The vaccines were administered and signed off by Health Canada and you could not enter certain countries without this vaccination certificate.

In those days, we were not dealing with a virus that morphed into a pandemic.

Armed with today’s knowledge and technology, it only makes sense to issue an international vaccine for anyone who plans to travel.

And it is about time the Canadian government and the provinces got their act together and realized that saving lives trumps vaccine liberty.

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

In a minority situation, an election can happen at any time if parties clash on spending priorities. But these are not ordinary times. In the middle of a pandemic, even getting to the polls is complicated.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 28, 2020.

OTTAWA—The election cat and mouse games begin.

In a minority situation, an election can happen at any time if parties clash on spending priorities.

But these are not ordinary times. In the middle of a pandemic, even getting to the polls is complicated.

The British Columbia government just called an Oct. 24 election. Hours after the call, it was revealed that voting results could take weeks to tabulate.

Because of the second wave of the pandemic, many people are limiting their movement amongst larger crowds.

Within hours of the election call, 20,000 requests for mail-in ballots had been sent to Elections BC.

According to officials, they expect a mail-in participation of up to 40 per cent, which means 800,000 ballots, compared to only 6,500 people in the 2017 campaign.

Election law says that absentee ballots cannot be tallied until the final results of the polls are counted, and that could be up to 13 days after the vote.

Given Canada Post’s COVID-based backlog as more people shop via the internet, the arrival of that many ballots could clog up the system for up to three weeks.

British Columbia Premier John Horgan called the snap election a year sooner than the end of his mandate, but his announcement came as no surprise. He and his team have been busy rolling out pre-election promises for weeks.

The early call is a gamble for Horgan, but he is also banking on the pandemic bounce that has been felt by leaders across the country.

New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs recently launched a similar quick COVID call two years into his minority mandate and was rewarded with a comfortable majority.

Popularity numbers for Ontario Premier Doug Ford and François Legault have also risen during the pandemic.

Even though both provinces are plagued by high levels of contagion and an increasing concern with the arrival of the second wave, the electorate has been happy with their work.

Voters are also witnessing unprecedented federal-provincial harmony which provides a peaceful backdrop in a world pandemic that could easily morph into panic.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not oblivious to the crisis bump.

When the Corona virus impact appeared to be waning, the summer was replete with scandal stories like the one that caused WE Canada to shutter its operations.

But with the return of kids to classrooms, and more people back at the workplace and larger social gatherings, the predicted second wave is upon us.

The prime minister’s televised national address was designed to promote calm but also encourage Canadians to stay the course with limited social contacts and self-distancing.

He has also set out a plan designed to put the Liberals on a collision course with all opposition parties.

On the left, New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh is doing his best to put his party’s stamp on promised items like national pharmacare and childcare.

But the Liberals are crowding their space with the intention of securing support from voters who might swing between both parties.

On the right, Erin O’Toole is going to have to refrain from coming away from the Throne Speech as Mr. No. His focus on the deficit and spending may sit well on Bay Street but it does not comfort Main Street Canadians who are losing jobs, homes and life savings because of the financial havoc wreaked by the pandemic.

Then there is the Bloc Québécois. Trudeau’s promise to introduce national standards for long-term care facilities, a direct result of the deaths of thousands of innocent seniors, has raised the hackles of the premier and the nationalists in the province.

They claim that Ottawa should merely increase health budgets and that will solve all the problems.

However, the image of the premier calling in Canadian soldiers to clean up the mess in multiple facilities was not lost on the ordinary Quebecer.

Long-term care is solely the provincial jurisdiction, but it is obvious that the basic rule of protecting the health of citizens and workers was sadly ignored in multiple institutions in more than one province.

Canadians are wise enough to know that it makes sense to work on a national plan in a pandemic that has already killed almost 10,000 people. There is a public interest argument that trumps federal-provincial fights.

Trudeau is itching to test his vision in a federal election, but he risks a backlash if the Liberals are seen to provoke it.

However, Liberals would be happy if an opposition party pulls the plug,

Meanwhile the political war games are on.

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

Instead of trying to go it alone, provinces are stronger when they work together.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 27, 2020.

OTTAWA—The death of separatism is an unintended outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the first time in my memory, provincial governments are looking to the federal government as more than just a cash machine.

They are actually working together, pooling resources and information in an effort to fight the spread of a pandemic that knows no borders.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been positively glowing in his exhortations for partners across the country to work together.

While announcing the redistribution of excess Alberta personal protective equipment, the premier was effusively collegial.

It was a far cry from only a few short months ago, when Kenney was lauding the Wexit movement for shining a light on Alberta’s oil troubles.

Premiers across the country have been working together with the prime minister to solve the common problem of access to COVID-fighting information, protective equipment and health care human resource shortages.

Without a scintilla of criticism, the Quebec government called in the Canadian military to supplement the shortage of personnel in the province’s long-term care facilities.

Pre-pandemic, a similar move would have prompted a howl from those separatists who think Quebec’s strength lies in going it alone.

The pandemic also gives us a better picture of the shared benefits of acting as a strong team. Compare the infection and death rates in our country to those in the United States, and it is abundantly clear that a national, public health-care system is a better weapon against an anonymous virus than the hodgepodge of medical supports available south of the border.

At press time the American death rate was 40 times higher than Canada’s, with only ten times the population.

So, one lesson has been learned from our time together in collective self-isolation. Canada works better as a country when we all work together.

On the domestic level, we have an oversight of just what is working and what is not.

The death rate in Quebec is almost double that of Ontario and the gold standard bearer for COVID containment is the province of British Columbia.

With a population of more than five million people, the province has suffered fewer than 100 COVID-related deaths. Quebec’s population is almost 8.5 million, but their death rate is 11 times greater than that of B.C.

Pandemic post-mortems will undoubtedly delve deeply into the reasons for the mortality discrepancies among different provinces.

Some of the provincial differences are self-evident.

The first, and probably most significant, was the difference in the date of spring break between Quebec and British Columbia.

Quebec’s break was in early March, at a time when the ferocity of the virus was not yet fully understood by politicians.

Self-distancing had not yet started, and Quebecers brought the virus back home with a vengeance.

In the case of British Columbia, it was the latest school recess in the country, and by the time break-week arrived, the province had already clamped down on travel, effectively limiting the viral path.

Provinces also have different regimes managing their long-term care facilities.

British Columbia did not allow personal service workers to operate in more than one nursing home.

That regulation is cited as one of the reasons that the rapid spread of COVID-19 in Ontario and Quebec homes was not replicated in British Columbia.

During the pandemic, Ontario and Quebec have modified their regulations, but the issue of health workers’ pay has not been addressed in kind.

Most health care aides would love to work in one facility only. But the companies that manage many of these facilities for government focus on hiring part-time workers to keep their costs down.

Discussion is ensuing about topping up the pay in these low-wage high-risk health environments, but that is only part of the problem.

The other part is the lack of government oversight into what is actually happening in nursing homes.

Quebec Premier François Legault is promising a fulsome investigation into the deplorable situation in some of the homes in his province. His effective communication skills managed to build public confidence early in the crisis, but the widespread number of deaths in long-term care homes has been eroding his credibility.

Ontario cut the number of inspections in its homes to only nine of 626 homes last year, with the lack of oversight partly responsible for inspection spread. Three years ago, all facilities were inspected annually.

The post-mortem will spawn serious changes to disparate long-term care regimes.

Instead of trying to go it alone, provinces are stronger when they work together.

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

Courageous, when she told the country that successive governments had neglected their responsibilities by not investing in pandemic preparation. Dangerous, because at the end of the day, Canadians will blame current governments when things go wrong.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 6, 2020.

OTTAWA—Health Minister Patty Hadju made a courageous and dangerous statement last week.

Courageous, when she told the country that successive governments had neglected their responsibilities by not investing in pandemic preparation.

Dangerous, because at the end of the day, Canadians will blame current governments when things go wrong.

The general strategy in politics is never complain, and never explain. That is based on the belief that the more information is out there, the more it can be twisted by political opponents to become disinformation.

The general rule of thumb in communication is that less is better.

But these are no ordinary times.

And Hajdu is no ordinary politician. In the daily briefings she is clear, concise, informed and not overly verbose. Like Dr. Theresa Tam, Hajdu transmits an aura of believability.

The Hajdu admission may be out of step with her political colleagues but it reflects what is happening out there in the real world of hospitals, nursing homes and health delivery across the country.

The overreaction to Hajdu’s admission also underscores why governments hesitate to publish modelling projections of worst-case scenarios. Those projections have not been available in all parts of Canada.

Ontario and British Columbia have promised or delivered modelling projections. Some other provinces have not. And the federal government is trying to synthesize disparate data from different provinces, as some experienced the virus onset earlier than others.

According to the premier of New Brunswick, all provinces should be collating the same information, but that is apparently not the current case.

Canada’s chief public health officer suggests that building projects too far in advance is not useful because it is simply not accurate.

Information is vital in the fight to engage all Canadians, but too much information could cause panic or complacency.

American President Donald Trump went from claiming we should all be out celebrating at Easter to suggesting that a quarter of a million Americans may die because of the virus. The American newscasts reported last week that their military has been tasked with securing 100,000 body bags for the dead.

The United States is also claiming that statistics from other countries, specifically China, have been underreported.

Hajdu debunked that claim during a press conference last week, saying that the World Health Organization is gathering all the pertinent data from multiple jurisdictions, and there is no evidence that China understated its deaths. According to Hajdu, the current numbers in that country are actually less than what was originally reported.

But each country is doing its best to reassure its own citizens and position its response to the pandemic as in keeping or superior to that of other jurisdictions.

For the past several weeks, Canadian politicians from all levels of government having been reassuring the country that we have enough supplies of masks, gowns, and ventilators to meet the upcoming crush facing hospital emergency departments.

Front-line workers are living a whole different situation.

A hospital in Ottawa recently told their medical staff that protective material would not be available in the delivery ward as the normal protective devices were being repurposed to fight the COVID-19 battle.

The federal and provincial governments have been pulling out all the stops to secure protective supplies for the medical front lines. With a $2-billion purchase order, Ottawa is locking down supplies, and provinces are even sending planes to secure materials that have been ordered from international sources.

Their efforts include public bulk purchasing and financial support for Canadian companies to replace their normal lines of business with COVID-19-fighting materials to join this war on the coronavirus.

Irving is retooling operations to make hand sanitizers. Bauer is switching from hockey masks to hospital masks.

Stanfields is making medical gowns and protective apparel where the company usually focuses on underwear.   Canada Goose has moved away from their iconic down filled jackets to medical gowns.

Canadian medical suppliers are partnering with auto companies to speed up production of desperately needed life-saving ventilators.

Transformations take time. Frontline workers are scrambling to protect themselves by recycling materials and seeking out any sources they can. Some make their own protective masks, and others are trying to source protective equipment in whatever way they can.

But they also face a race against time and a global hunt for similar products. The issue of supply is not just a Canadian problem.

“Many governments around the world are going to be reflecting on this issue,” Trudeau admitted last week.

Pandemic reflection yes, but flattening the virus comes first.

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 on Monday, April 23, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Politics can be a four-letter word. Last week that word was ugly.

Political disputes between Alberta and British Columbia and the opening salvos of the Ontario election left most spectators wondering how low politics could go.

The Western oil fight is particularly ugly because it involves two provinces whose leaders ostensibly share the same political values.

Both Alberta and British Columbia have rarely had a New Democratic premier at the helm, so one would think that the leaders would make a special effort at reconciliation.

But British Columbia Premier John Horgan didn’t even give his Alberta counterpart a head’s up when he yanked the rug out from under the Trans Mountain Pipeline, effectively dooming thousands of jobs and potential future investments in oil exploration in Canada.

His government hangs by a sliver, and that sliver is being supported by the Green Party, which believes the best way to wean the country off oil is to stop delivering it.

Well, they may get their wish.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, pictured on the Hill on April 15, 2018, after meeting with B.C. Premier John Horgan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Rachel Notley, embroiled in her own strongman battle with United Conservative provincial leader Jason Kenney, has signalled her intention to use all the tools at her disposal to pressure British Columbia. That includes legislation curtailing the shipment of fuel and oil to her neighbours on the West Coast.

The Canadian government is vowing not to pick fights but the energy minister has signalled introduction of new legislation to guarantee federal primacy over the project.

That proposed law, yet to be tabled, has caught the attention of the Quebec government, with Horgan ready to make common cause with Philippe Couillard in opposition to federal authority.

Horgan has qualified the legal proposal as “trampling on provincial rights” but says in the same breath that provinces are trying to establish those rights. That statement itself undermines his claim that British Columbia has wide-ranging authority over pipeline permitting.

And he is intent on bringing Quebec into the dispute, to buttress his view that provincial jurisdiction takes precedence in any discussion about pipelines.

Meanwhile, the company behind the Trans Mountain Pipeline, has given the politicians until May 31 to come to an agreement that will permit the $7.4-billion expansion to go ahead.

That deadline is literally one week before two other political events take centre stage. Ontario goes to the polls on June 7 and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hosts the G-7 nations in the heart of Quebec on June 8 and 9.

Kinder Morgan had to know their deadline would put ultimate pressure for a solution on the national government.

Prime Minister Trudeau will be hosting leaders from key economic partners around the world, and sustainable development will be central to the economic discussion.

How to move away from a non-renewable fuel dependence in a country that is one of the top world producers of oil and gas is no mean feat.

It is one thing for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to heed the strong Green Party presence in her country.

She is not reaping royalties from oil and gas.

But the German economy is dependent on the success of Volkswagen and other key industrial partners, who have had problems with overstating environmental emission standards in automobiles.

No one is coming to the table with totally clean hands. But there is a lot more pressure on Trudeau to keep his environmental message on target while still supporting safe carriage of oil and gas products.

Pipelines are still the safest way to move product, and unless British Columbia wants to stop tourists from visiting its beautiful province, people will need gas to get there and oil to fuel business.

By the time the Charlevoix G-7 gathering takes place, the government may have already met the test of certainty sought by Kinder Morgan.

But the interprovincial tinderbox lit in the past week is not going to be snuffed out any time soon.

Meanwhile, Canada’s most populous province does not need to fight with anyone else. That slugfest is internal, with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Conservative leader Doug Ford mincing no words in their mutual mistrust.

According to Ford, most Liberals should be in jail, and according to Wynne, her opponent is in this race only for himself.

Both came out of their respective corners itching for a fight last week. The formal election call has not even been launched and already the tone is down and dirty. More dirty than down.

The only certainty in interprovincial relations is it will get worse before it gets better.

Uglier than last week.

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 on Monday, December 18, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Byelections burst the Ottawa bubble last week.

Mid-term report cards on the governing Liberals have been flagging. They were unanimous in predicting the honeymoon was over.

But four byelections in other parts of the country told a different story.

The Liberals made surprising gains in British Columbia, while the Conservatives lost a seat but gained in popular vote. The New Democrat Party ended in deep trouble.

Losses by both opposition parties are interrelated.

A Tory general election victory could not happen without a hike in NDP support to peel votes away Liberal votes.

Just as Jean Chrétien’s government benefited from a right-wing split to win three successive majorities, Stephen Harper’s Conservative three-peat was spawned by splits on the left.

Most concerning for the New Democrats must be that their new leader underperformed in the very areas where his singular attributes were supposed to grow the vote.

Born in Scarborough, Jagmeet Singh was tagged to increase NDP support in suburban GTA, and in the Surrey-White Rock riding adjacent to one of the largest Indo-Canadian populations in the country.

After Singh was chosen leader of the NDP, most pundits predicted his charisma and unique visible minority status would dip into potential Liberal support in key battlegrounds like Toronto and Vancouver.

After all, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau enjoyed strong support amongst women and minorities, and his diverse cabinet reflected those successes.

Being a minister is one thing. Being leader is a more compelling story. Most believed support from diverse populations in places like Surrey and Scarborough would bleed away from the Liberals in favour of Singh.

The byelections put that myth to rest. Singh needs to take a long, hard look at these results and revisit his current absence from the House of Commons.

In most instances, the political fight was strictly between the Liberals and the Tories, although the NDP retained second-place status in Saskatchewan. Everywhere else, the New Democrats were simply irrelevant.

The Conservatives improved their overall vote percentage, but the most efficient voter operation was that of the Liberals.

Not only did the party hold on to support in vote-rich Toronto, it actually defeated the Tories in a British Columbia seat that had not been Liberal for more than 75 years.

Contrary to Singh, Andrew Scheer has been building Conservative Party support since his leadership win.

While working to solidify the votes of traditional Conservatives, the leader also needs to focus on moving up with swing voters across the country.

Increasing the Tory vote in rural Saskatchewan, while making good headlines, does not actually change a general election result.

Trudeau and the Liberals are obviously benefitting from the strength of the national economy. But they decided not to ignore the importance of by-elections in preparing a general election strategy.

Historically, leaders of all parties have stayed out of by-elections. But, as in so many other areas, Trudeau threw away the playbook. His personal popularity still outstrips that of his party in many parts of the country, so he campaigned hard in ridings where the party was expecting close outcomes. That work paid off.

It didn’t mean so much in seats that the Liberals already held. But it did allow the grits to sideline the NDP in races that could be a portent of the next general election.

The more trouble the NDP is having, the harder it will be for the party to recruit quality candidates who can make a difference in a tight local race.

Last week’s Liberal winner in British Columbia had already enjoyed a successful political career as a popular local mayor and provincial minister. He was facing off against a well-known Conservative former provincial and federal minister. The NDP candidate, a community organizer, barely outpaced the Green Party candidate in support.

Singh really needs to hit the reset button, and the best way to do that is to get a seat in the House of Commons. He needs the visibility that comes with Question Period and the opportunity to act as chief party spokesperson on key parliamentary issues.

Without the benefit of constant Ottawa exposure, Singh is not going to be able to increase his media presence by travelling the country.

Scheer needs to move beyond reinforcing his right-wing base by shifting his party to the centre, if he has any hope of winning the next election.

Notwithstanding Ottawa insiders, the prime minister seems to be moving in the right direction.

If it ain’t broke, he probably does not need to fix it.

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