Fasten your seatbelts. Canada is in for a long election run.

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

OTTAWA—A small line item in last week’s budget could be the line in the sand for the next election.

The government announced an increase of $42-million for news and entertainment programming at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

CBC president Catherine Tait hailed the hike as “welcome news.” For CBC watchers, it was a respite from the cuts and job losses that have plagued the Crown corporation in the past year as viewing habits change.

The question now begs: How many CBC supporters are there, and do they care enough to make it an election issue?

The government certainly hopes so. It is hard to see how a CBC on the verge of extinction would cover an election campaign without bias.

It is unlikely that journalists will exercise neutrality in news coverage when the outcome of the next election could leave them jobless.

Unlike Conservative predecessors, who grumbled about the CBC, but did not go further, Poilievre uses his hate-on for the broadcaster to fuel the base. At any rally, a call to defund the CBC is met with a rousing cheer.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to oppose the budget. And he has made his disdain for media, in general—and the CBC, in particular—widely known.

Poilievre is vowing to defund the CBC. His position on Radio-Canada is less clear as he has intimated that the French-language public service could be kept while the English branch could be abolished.

That move is currently illegal, so a plan to defund in one language only would require a legislative change that might not pass muster.

It would also provide time for CBC’s supporters to mobilize, and for the public to weigh in on whether the Mother Corp—as it is euphemistically known—is worth keeping.

So the budget line item sends a quiet message that, as far as the Liberals are concerned, the CBC is worth saving.

There may be many other items in the budget that could have an influence on the next election, but much depends on what cuts will be included in the Poilievre promise to vote down the document.

He characterized the spending as akin to a ‘pyromaniac spraying gas on the inflationary fire he has lit.”

Poilievre claimed the budget caused $2,400 of new inflation, but he has not actually said which programs he would axe. He is calling for a “carbon tax election.”

But that “carbon tax” theme could be an intergenerational mistake. Young people are far more committed to sustainable development than their boomer elders.

The vote could pit the new generation against middle-aged Canadians, but it could also incite grandmothers to vote with their grandkids in an effort to save the planet.

After all, it is one thing to “axe the tax.” What will be offered up in its place to actually tackle the climate change crisis that we are witnessing on a daily basis?

Poilievre may be called out on whether he is planning to trash any or all of the national child benefit, dentalcare, pharmacare, or daycare programs that Liberals have introduced.

If they are already too deeply embedded, and he decides not to cut those programs, just where will Poilievre get the $40-billion in savings to make up for the spending he opposes?

Defunding the CBC is just one small element of a debate that will unfold in the leadup to next year’s election.

There are millions of English-speaking Canadians in all parts of the country who support the public broadcaster, and would not like to see it abolished.

The English television audience is not as robust as the French version, which can regularly attract the majority of Quebecers to a year-old special revue. But radio listeners are devoted and influential. Sunday’s “Cross Country Checkup” can regularly poll listeners and motivate them to action on any political issue of the day.

Governments normally defeat themselves. But with the long rollout of Poilievre’s “axe” campaign, questions are starting to dog him.

Last week’s budget marked the start of the election campaign. CBC funding sent a clear signal that the government is not going down without a fight.

Any policy that drives a wedge between the parties is fair game in an election leadup.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland used her budget speech to underscore availability of free birth control, tying it directly to women’s reproductive rights. That alone will touch a nerve with the Conservatives.

Fasten your seatbelts. Canada is in for a long election run.

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.

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.

The Conservatives have already started their pre-election communications strategy and are well-funded to keep it going. If the government wants to remain in the game, it needs to get in the game.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 11, 2023.

OTTAWA—P.T. Barnum once said that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Oscar Wilde followed suit with this zinger: “There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre followed Barnum’s advice by vowing to bring in thousands of amendments to legislation until the Liberals change some elements of their pollution pricing strategy.

Poilievre didn’t call it “pollution pricing,” but rather “carbon tax,” which is how most Canadians seem to be viewing the issue.

Government House Leader Karina Gould was quick to repudiate Poilievre’s tactic, accusing him of being a bully, and “not a serious politician.”

She also pointed out that Canadians earning less than $50,000 are actually receiving more in their pockets because carbon pricing includes personal rebates.

Poilievre seems to be winning the ground war, and has not been damaged by his bully tactics on parliamentary bills.

Most Canadians are not watching the machinations of Parliament on a daily basis, but they are feeling the pinch of inflation, and a hike in cost for basics like food and housing.

On the housing front, Poilievre dominated the headlines again, for good or for bad.

He released a 15-minute docudrama on housing which was widely quoted by pundits in both positive and negative news columns.

Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason called the video “a dime-store analysis of our housing crisis.”

Globe columnist Andrew Coyne, on the contrary, called it, “extremely impressive. Simplistic, tendentious, conspiratorial in places, but by the standards of most political discourse, it is a PhD thesis.”

The video had legs. Within days of its posting, the docudrama had received more than three million views.

That compares with a prime ministerial upload the same day that received fewer than 100,000 views.

Liberal Housing Minister Sean Fraser joked that the Poilievre video got multiple views because of the opposition leader dialling in to watch himself perform.

Anyone can manipulate social media to inflate the number of views.

But the fact that the video occupied so much ink in mainstream media means that Poilievre was getting out his message.

The media and positive polling numbers have emboldened the Conservatives in the House of Commons.

Last week, one member was bounced out of the place for accusing the prime minister of lying on the carbon tax issue.

Alberta MP Damien Kurek ignored repeated invitations from the Speaker to withdraw his comments and was drummed out. Kurek almost immediately posted his exchange from the House on Twitter.

Meanwhile, a journalist for social media Insight has used the incident as a fundraising measure, inviting people who support Kurek to assist by sending money to a media PayPal account.

But this is no ordinary media strategy. Instead, Poilievre and the Conservatives plan to use every social media platform to promote their positions.

On these platforms there is no real rebuttal, so it doesn’t matter much that a number of statements in Poilievre’s housing video were simply false.

To follow the Barnum school of promotion, simply getting out the message on multiple platforms helps reinforce Poilievre’s status.

Screaming matches in the House of Commons are intended to reinforce the Conservative message that the carbon tax needs to be axed.

Liberals have some great talking points to deflate the video, but talking points will not carry this day.

Instead, they need to get serious on social media, attacking the falsehoods that are being perpetrated by Poilievre.

Fraser issued his own video in rebuttal to Poilievre’s housing claims.

But he is a single actor in the parliamentary story. Instead, the government needs to spend as much effort on rebuttals as it does on its own positive announcements.

As long as Canadians are talking about carbon tax and not a price on pollution, it is pretty simple to see who is winning this public relations battle.

But that doesn’t necessarily equate to winning the war.

A hard-hitting rebuttal to the “dime-store” housing analysis needs to come from the Liberals, and it needs to involve social media saturation and paid media messaging.

The Conservatives have already started their pre-election communications strategy, and by all accounts, are well-funded to keep it going.

If the government wants to remain in the game, it needs to get in the game.

Any winning team needs a defensive and an offensive strategy.

By leaving the offence to Poilievre, Liberals look defensive. Only by going into attack mode will they win.

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 12, 2023.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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