If history is any indication, Kamala Harris will face an onslaught of attacks about her gender.

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

OTTAWA–Former U.S. president Donald Trump was unusually quiet during the rollout of the Democratic National Convention.

He seemed to be heeding the advice of those who have suggested to the former president that he needs to start debating issues, and to stay away from personalities.

That was the public Trump last week. But the private Trump is not so circumspect. According to multiple news reports, he often refers to his opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris, as a “bitch.”

Those reports appeared to be confirmed when his former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, appeared at the Democratic convention to denounce her former boss and tell the world how Trump also mocked his own supporters as “basement dwellers”.

Grisham denounced Trump as someone with “no empathy, no morals, and no fidelity to the truth.”

She recounted a story when the former president visited a hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic, and was upset that cameras were focused on the dying patients, not him.

The Democratic gathering was rife with speakers who opined on why Trump was unsuitable as a commander-in-chief. But some also warned that the love-in people felt at the Chicago, Ill., gathering would quickly turn sour in the uphill battle leading to election day.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama suggested that Harris, the Democratic candidate, would face “ugly, misogynistic, racist lies” in the next 75 days. If history is any indication, she will face an onslaught of attacks. Chances are her gender will be a more popular line of attack than her race.

Trump has already put his foot in his mouth by falsely claiming that Harris is not Black. Trump made the statement in a speech to the National Association of Black Journalists when he drew a shocked reaction after stating, “I’ve known her for long time… and she was always of Indian heritage… I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now, she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”

Trump shut down that line of attack after criticism from Democrats and Republicans.

Harris’ father is Jamaican, and she has consistently embraced her racial identity since joining a historically Black sorority at a historically Black university.

Attacks on her Blackness have been silenced, but we can expect gender name-calling to continue right up to election day on Nov. 5.

It seems that racial epithets are a lot more politically risky than gender slurs.

Just last week, the CBC published a story outlining the shocking level of misogyny facing female politicians on social media. The British-based Centre for Countering Digital Hate published a report stating that Instagram ignored 926 of 1,000 reported abusive comments targeting American female politicians on the app.

The not-for profit monitoring centre focused on comments left on the accounts of 10 politicians, including Harris.

Most were not removed after complaints, including comments like “make rape legal”, “death to her,” and “we don’t want blacks around us.”

Instagram owner Meta has guidelines which allow “stronger conversation” when it involves people like politicians and other public figures who are often in the news.

The Instagram exposé did not surprise those of us who have faced misogyny during and after a life in politics.

On a fairly regular basis, I am insulted when I post or repost items on X. As well as getting death threats and being told to die, I have been attacked as an over-the-hill alcoholic, “Tequila Sheila” hag. The Tequila Sheila name-calling actually came from a moniker given to me by a former Conservative minister.

Former Liberal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna left politics in part because she was tired of the attacks and stalking that she faced as a woman politician. Her office was spray-painted with unprintable insults, and her opponents in the Conservative Party labelled her “climate Barbie” because of her interest in fighting climate change.

Harris has been in politics for a long time, and no doubt will not be cowed by the attacks she will face because of her gender and race.

Obama levelled her own personal attacks during a fiery convention speech, saying Trump may be told “that the job he is currently seeking might just be one of those ‘Black jobs’” to a roar of crowd approval.

Trump must be seething over how his presidential trajectory has been reversed since Republicans celebrated his escape from an assassin’s bullet literally days before their convention last month.

Expect Trump supporters to respond with more misogyny on social media.

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

In my day, threats were few and far between. Today, they are becoming commonplace, and almost expected or socially acceptable. But the viral load on the shoulders of every Member of Parliament should cause us all to sit up and take note.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 25, 2021.

OTTAWA—A parliamentary murder in the United Kingdom has left many Canadian Members of Parliament questioning their own safety.

And well they should.

Much has been said about the toxic debates generated by the influence of social media.

And that toxicity can lead to harm.

The image of Jan. 6 on Capitol Hill is burnt into our collective memory. When a gang of anti-politicians can roam the halls of power in one of the world’s most vaunted democracies, can anyone really be protected?

Our own Parliament was stormed by a madman, forcing the prime minister Stephen Harper and everyone else into hiding.

Just last week a second British murder in five years was perpetrated on 38-year political veteran MP David Amess while in a church meeting with constituents.

He was stabbed multiple times by an assailant who was a self-described Islamic State supporter.

A previous British shooting and stabbing of member Jo Cox also occurred while she was preparing to meet constituents on the eve of Brexit in what the British call a parliamentary surgery.

Frankly, the surgery is most vulnerable as it involves riding meetings with constituents.

The unsung work of a Member of Parliament can often involve dealing with people who are under tremendous personal stress or even suffering acute episodes of mental illness.

And the reality is that once members exit the relative safety of the Parliamentary Precinct, they are most vulnerable in their home communities.

When I served in Parliament, I was regularly threatened, with a brick once sailing through my office window so hard it hit the back wall. Luckily, no one was injured.

Provincial Hamilton East colleague Bob Mackenzie wasn’t so lucky. His constituency assistant was burned when the riding office was firebombed by an irate citizen who escaped without ever being arrested.

At one point, a constituent was harassing my staff and leaving hundreds of bizarre messages on my telephone. The riding office is supposed to be part of the parliamentary process so instead of the local police, the RCMP provides security.

The harassing individual entered city hall, where my mother was an elected city councillor, and burst into her office, slapping down a Soldier of Fortune magazine featuring an armed man sporting an Uzi on the front cover.

The man announced to my startled mother that this was the weapon he was going to use to kill me. At that point, the RCMP was called but because it was Friday evening, there was no one on duty in Hamilton. The backup investigator was in London, some 120 kilometres away.

When an officer finally responded, he discouraged me from pursuing charges, but I insisted. It turned out the individual in question had already been convicting of stabbing a journalist.

Cabinet ministers receive more security support than ordinary members, with police patrols established where they have a residence in Ottawa.

But the real danger is in ridings, far away from regular police protection.

Canadian Members of Parliament will be seized of the issue when Parliament reopens because of their own fears, observing what has been happening across the pond and down south.

They also face the bold new world of cyber-stalking.

NDP MP Charlie Angus was the target of a two-month cyber-stalking campaign last year.

The Twitter feed of former minister Catherine McKenna recounts internet threats and real-time graffiti attacks at her local campaign office.

McKenna joined other female environment ministers involved in the climate action fight, all of whom experienced misogynistic attacks.

She was quoted last week in the media saying her biggest challenge as minister was feeling constantly on edge. “It was the threats, people verbally accosting my staff & defacing my constituency office & sending me smashed up Barbie dolls.”

In my day, those threats were few and far between. Today they are becoming commonplace, and almost expected or socially acceptable.

Therein lies the problem. The toxic vocabulary used during election campaigns by many political parties increases the danger.

And the negative view of all things political which permeates the social media world has made things more dangerous.

The aggressive behaviour of anti-vaxxers picketing hospitals gives us some idea of just how unhinged some people can be.

Indeed, when it comes to protests, politicians are suggesting they should happen in front of Parliament not medical facilities.

But the viral load on the shoulders of every Member of Parliament should cause us all to sit up and take note.

The deaths in the United Kingdom and Washington are harbingers of what could easily happen in Canada.

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

The election will likely be decided on the strength of who can best manage the post-pandemic economic and social recovery.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 9, 2021.

OTTAWA—Happy people vote governments back in.

It is not surprising that at the close of the Olympics, the Canadian government will soon pull the plug on the current minority government.

Some ministerial employees were issued layoff notices last week, standard operating procedure for governments just before an election.

On the Olympic scene, Canadians keep piling up good news stories.

From Andre De Grasse to Damian Warner, from the swimming pool to the soccer pitch, Canada could do no wrong.

And Canadians back home, from family members to Olympiophiles, were riveted to the two-week Olympic run coverage.

Retiring cabinet minister Catherine McKenna, a competitive swimmer herself, sent out a tweet at the beginning of the Games telling her followers that her feed would be sport-dominated for the Olympic period.

She also had something very special to say about the magic of sport, attributing her success in life to the lessons she learned on the water.

On the opening day of the Games, McKenna had a message about the linkage between sport and politics. “I never dreamed of being a politician when I was a kid. I dreamed of being an Olympian. But even though I didn’t make it, all the training paid off for politics.”

McKenna went on to tweet: “I learned more lessons for politics from my time in competitive swimming than anywhere else. Have a clear goal & work hard every day to achieve it, ignore the noise, get back up when you fall, it’s all about the team. And have fun!”

As Canada comes to the close of one of its best Olympics ever, even those who don’t watch the Games are beaming with pride because of the athletes’ performances.

That puts everyone in a good mood. With the country looking at the back end of the pandemic, the Liberals could choose no better moment to call an election.

Even though there were some bumps on the road to recovery, Canada’s current world standing in pandemic management is extremely high.

On the vaccination track Canada is leading the globe, and thus far, has managed to mitigate the spread of variant viruses.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who received plenty of criticism for the slow rollout of the vaccine, will definitely benefit from the high percentage of vaccinated Canadians.

We compare particularly well with the United States. The anti-vaxxers there seem to line up by political party, with the majority of vaccine opponents in the Republican Party. In Canada, even the most die-hard Conservatives understand the value of stopping the spread of COVID via vaccinations.

With the virus under control, and the Olympics winding to a close, the time is ripe for Canadians to go the polls.

Of course, the opposition parties are going to decry the decision, but once the election is called, no one will pay much attention to the whys and the wherefores.

Instead, the election will likely be decided on the strength of who can best manage the post-pandemic economic and social recovery.

With children finally back in the classrooms and university students back on campus, the general mood this autumn will be positive.

An almost giddy euphoria has already set in as Canadians are finally able to enjoy most aspects of life without fear of viral death.

Politics may not be top of mind for most of us, but the writ period of 37 days will be short and sweet.

That doesn’t mean the election will be a slam dunk for the Liberals. If the last election is a guide, anything can happen.

Who knows whether there is another “blackface scandal” lurking in the prime minister’s closet?

But the pre-election summer tour did not go great for the Conservatives. Erin O’Toole seemed to spend more time courting Calgarians than worrying about his status in the eastern parts of the country.

If he is working on solidifying existing support, that does not bode well for O’Toole’s capacity to beat the government. An election win depends on making inroads in Ontario and Quebec, not piling up huge majorities in the only province where the Tories are guaranteed a majority.

As for the New Democrats, they may well benefit from the implosion of the Green Party and with a targeted vote, they could increase their representation in the House of Commons.

But even though their leader has attracted his own TikTok following, Jagmeet Singh will likely not have the same newcomer appeal that he enjoyed in the last election.

A solid campaign could deliver a Liberal majority.

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

An internal Liberal fight in Ottawa Centre would sap the strength of party volunteers, and definitely cut into the enthusiasm of key election workers. It would also help the NDP.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 12, 2021.

OTTAWA—Inside party politics you find the toughest fight of all.

Last week, I wrote about some rumours flying around about the surprise departure of popular Liberal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna.

Turns out those rumours were wrong. The last time McKenna, Liberal guru Gerald Butts, and former bank governor Mark Carney were in the same room was at a European negotiating session on climate change.

They did not break bread in Ottawa recently, nor did they hatch a plan to have Carney replace McKenna and vice-versa.

The story came from other insiders in the Ottawa Centre political world.

McKenna left with the intention to spend more time with her family and to work on her passion for climate change, in whatever shape that might take.

She has previous experience in international negotiations so it is natural that she might consider something on the global stage. However, she did not, nor would she entertain, an offer to switch jobs with Carney.

So how did the rumour start?

The interest in taking a shot at the vacant seat is not surprising.

The Liberals are running high in the polls and the Ottawa Centre seat has been considered among the safer seats in the country. Former provincial attorney general Yasir Naqvi has already announced his intention to run for the Liberal nomination.

There was a tremendous amount of internal support for his decision, and he moved quickly to block the path of a potential chosen candidate like Carney.

Carney is certainly entitled to pursue the nomination if he chooses. But in a political city like Ottawa, many local executive members have already backed Naqvi against an outsider.

Carney actually lives in Ottawa, so the accusation of parachute would not actually stick.

And parenthetically, the NDP would be hard-pressed to claim interloper status because at one point, Ottawa’s mayor Marion Dewar, and mother of beloved Paul Dewar, actually became the NDP MP for Hamilton Mountain.

After McKenna’s unexpected announcement, the New Democratic Party has its eye on the prize as well. Within hours, the NDP made it clear that this is now a riding in their potential win column.

Historically, the riding has flipped between Liberals and New Democrats federally and provincially.

And with the possible exception of Ottawa-Vanier, there is no other Ottawa-area riding where the New Democrats even come in second.

So, they will be strategic and pour their considerable human resources into the open riding in the heart of the capital.

The other thing that separates the New Democrats from the Liberals is that party in-fighting on the left is less prevalent.

That is partly because they usually are not fighting to form government.

But their origins in the labour movement also promote a belief in solidarity, with all for one and one for all.

In the Liberal Party, there is a tendency for the insiders to take many sides.

In the last municipal election, even though there were no party labels on candidates, the New Democrats threw all their support behind one candidate in Capital Ward.

The Liberals split their votes in two, thus managing to ensure that New Democratic Shawn Menard emerged as a winner.

The NDP work as a combined team on education, municipal, provincial, and federal politics.

They will do their best to jump on the opportunity created by the McKenna vacuum.

Liberals must work hard to remain united.

An internal nomination division runs the risk of creating enmities with the party that could be costly.

In that scenario, a united New Democratic organization could close the huge gap that existed in the last election.

When McKenna defeated Dewar in 2015, it was by the slimmest of margins. He was a hugely effective local member, and she was a newbie.

Her margin was only five per cent in a Liberal majority sweep. But a testament to McKenna’s own work ethic and popularity was the 2019 result, where she led her NDP opponent by almost 20 points.

Her work in the environment and tireless commitment to the riding stood her in good stead, and she seemed unbeatable.

All that has changed, and it would behoove the Liberals to remember Julius Caesar’s motto regarding “divide and conquer.”

An internal fight would sap the strength of party volunteers, and definitely cut into the enthusiasm of key election workers.

On what appears to be the eve of an election, Ottawa Centre Liberals need to come together to carry the seat.

Without McKenna in Ottawa Centre, anything is possible.

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

Catherine McKenna may still get to Brookfield, but Mark Carney’s political future is much cloudier. In the absence of a clear nomination, Carney may simply accept the prime minister’s offer to act as an economic recovery adviser. Like hell, the path to politics is paved with good intentions.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 5, 2021.

OTTAWA—Catherine McKenna’s surprise retirement announcement last week sent shock waves through Liberal land.

First was the Sunday tweet which set the stage for her widely anticipated Monday morning announcement.

Then was the announcement, which clarified her reasons for stepping down and her avowed intention to keep working in the field where she made her mark as environment minister.

McKenna made it very clear she wants to pursue her passion for climate action outside the political sphere, potentially on the international scene.

And she certainly did not hide her support for a potential successor, giving a shout-out to former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney.

Carney was also referenced in newspaper articles surrounding McKenna’s retirement.

McKenna herself offered up an observation about her friendship with the current vice-chair of Brookfield Asset Management and United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance.

Carney recently published a book entitled, Value(s): Building a Better World for All, usually a portend of political interest.

He was also a keynote at the virtual Liberal national convention in April, fuelling rumours that his next foray would be into the federal election as a Liberal.

To most of us, his move into McKenna’s seat was a foregone conclusion.

But then political reality stepped in.

Local Ottawa Liberals were circulating a story that McKenna’s departure was part of a master plan conceived by Canada’s modern rainmaker Gerald Butts.

Political chess moves were allegedly discussed at weekend dinner amongst the three, where it was decided that McKenna and Carney would switch roles.

Carney would run in Ottawa Centre while McKenna would move to Brookfield focusing on green infrastructure investment.

On the face of it, the plan seemed brilliant. The party had already been polling to find out what riding would be a good fit for Carney.

One of the possibilities was the Carleton seat, which would pit Carney against Conservative Pierre Poilievre, a tough fight for a Liberal. The incumbent beat popular Liberal challenger Chris Rodgers by almost 6,000 votes in 2019.

Ottawa Centre is a much safer seat, where Liberals won the last election by more than 15,000 votes against a putative star New Democratic Party candidate.

The Carney coronation was lacking one critical element, support by local Liberals.

Not a single member of McKenna’s executive was aware of the minister’s pending departure. Neither did they know about the possible parachuting of Carney into the riding.

The majority of locals had other ideas.

Former Ontario attorney general and provincial MPP, Yasir Naqvi, had kept his political network intact after losing in the provincial massacre inflicted by Conservatives under the leadership of Doug Ford.

Naqvi has just completed a two-year term as CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, but his love of politics has not waned.

Nor have his close ties to the riding and to the Liberal Party.

But he is also a political realist. When Naqvi learned of McKenna’s departure, he said he would not be a candidate if it was the prime minister’s intention to anoint Carney.

Naqvi spent the hours following McKenna’s announcement seeking advice from every single person on the federal and provincial riding association executives.

To his surprise, not a single member of either inner circle had been apprised of McKenna’s prospective departure. There was zero groundswell of support for a transplant into Ottawa Centre.

Naqvi also made overtures to the leader’s office and was informed that there would be no coronation in the riding.

With the solid backing of local Liberals, two days after the McKenna announcement, Naqvi announced he was in.

And the response was raucous.

Naqvi has already started building a campaign team and made it clear he was not going to be stymied by the potential arrival of a star candidate.

Naqvi told the media he was just looking for a fair and equitable nomination process, which he could win in a heartbeat.

Against this backdrop it is highly unlikely that Carney will contest the nomination.

He may look elsewhere, including the greater Toronto area, but the window for an uncontested nomination with local riding support is getting smaller.

The Liberals have already formally entered election mode, which allows nominations to be called without the same rigour as a non-writ process.

McKenna may still get to Brookfield, but Carney’s political future is much cloudier.

In the absence of a clear nomination, Carney may simply accept the prime minister’s offer to act as an economic recovery adviser.

Like hell, the path to politics is paved with good intentions.

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

Bob Bratina will probably go down in history as the first politician who quit because his own government put too much money into his riding, writes Sheila Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 24, 2021.

Hamilton-area Members of Parliament from all parties applauded a $1.4-billion infrastructure investment announced last week.

The investment into a light rapid transit project in the city was announced by the prime minister himself as part of a $15-billion rapid transit spending package designed to battle climate change. It didn’t hurt that Canada’s labour minister, Filomena Tassi, and Canada’s infrastructure and communities minister, Catherine McKenna, are both natives of Canada’s ninth city and vocal proponents of going green. There was only one outlier in the near unanimous chorus of support: that came from Hamilton East-Stoney Creek Member of Parliament Bob Bratina, who announced his future resignation, claiming he was not consulted on the project.

Bratina will be eligible for a partial pension in November, so it was not surprising that his protest exit did not take effect immediately. National commentators jumped on his retirement, reiterating the claim that the government in Ottawa is simply not listening. But those chroniclers failed to mention that the project is currently supported by all other local Members of Parliament from three different parties.

Bratina insisted the last straw was that he was not consulted on the route or the decision. In the past two elections, Bratina ran on the Liberal platform, which included a widely publicized promise to invest in public transit in all parts of the country.

Bratina will probably go down in history as the first politician who quit because his own government put too much money into his riding.

The other inexplicable element of Bratina’s position is that he says any light rail system should go north-south, not east-west. That route would ensure that his riding in the lower city is completely excluded from any light rail access.

Bratina claims that developers are promoting the east-west route but offers no evidence to back up his claim. In fact, developers lined up in the last municipal election to oppose the rapid transit plan, and their chosen candidate was handily defeated by incumbent mayor Fred Eisenberger. The city election turned into a referendum on the rapid transit option, and Eisenberger won by more than 22,000 votes.

Those who claim that Bratina is reflecting the will of the people obviously don’t follow Hamilton politics very closely. If they did, they would probably know that another reason looming large for Bratina was his repeated statement during the last election that he was running for the last time. Bratina is 77, and his wife Carol has been patiently hoping for a happy retirement.

In addition, a 2019 meltdown in his office where he reportedly told local steelworkers’ union representatives and pensioners to get out and cursed at them has not been lost on his New Democratic Party opposition. The next election would have been tough, as steelworkers planned to plaster the riding with social media tapes of the Bratina expletives. Given the area is home to the largest number of steelworkers in the country, that could have been problematic.

What is most unfortunate about Bob’s kamikaze mission is that this light rapid transit project will be the single most important investment in the east end of Hamilton by any government in the history of our country. It will guarantee urban revitalization, with a line starting at McMaster University in the west and wending its way to the former city limits at the old border of Hamilton and Stoney Creek. That means real estate values will surge, and many expat Torontonians, who are already moving to Hamilton to take advantage of robust housing stock and the arts-renaissance in the downtown core, will accelerate their migration.

Hamilton has become quite a magnet for film and television. The Oscar-winning film, Shape of Water, was filmed there as is The Handmaid’s Tale. Just last week a Disney movie began production. A multimillion-dollar waterfront redevelopment will simply add to the appeal of a city that has more Victorian architecture per capita than any place in Canada.

It would have made sense for Bratina to back the east end investment. That’s where he has spent his whole life. But for years, he has been opposed to rapid transit. He is already musing publicly about running again for mayor to fight the deal.

Bratina was a popular mayor before entering the federal arena. But he does not have the backing of Hamiltonians on this one. Instead, last week’s announcement is a winning issue for the Liberals.

Too bad Bob couldn’t see it that way.

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, January 22, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA–Elizabeth May is horrified and Brad Wall plans to take the federal government to court.

Liberals must have done something right because they occupied the moderate middle in last week’s proposed legislation on carbon pricing.

Co-authored by the ministers of finance and environment, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was unveiled to criticism from the left and the right.

The starkest complaints were that the government was going too easy on industrial emitters.

According to the Green Party, the plan weakens regulations for industrial producers. Instead of tying the carbon price to fuel purchase, the legislation averages carbon output across industries, rewarding companies that reduce their emissions more than average and punishing those that don’t.

Conservatives, including the premier of Saskatchewan, are claiming the plan is too aggressive and, given the non-compliance approach of U.S. President Donald Trump, our tough new laws will cost jobs.

In actuality, Liberals have adopted the Goldilocks approach to carbon pricing.

Former Liberal interim leader Bob Rae first coined that term in an autobiography chronicling his tenure as Ontario’s first New Democratic Party premier.

He described the options that the bureaucracy usually laid before cabinet to shape any legislative package.

The same approach is used in federal circles. Usually, decision documents referred to cabinet include three potential options for approval.

One is too hot, one is too cold, and one is just right. The middle ground tends to represent the choice of perfect porridge in the story of Goldilocks.

In the draft version of carbon pricing, Liberals obviously opted for the not-too-hot and not-too-cold approach.

Their decision to provide a separate track for industrial polluters reflected concerns about competitiveness in relation to the United States, since it will not face the same federal framework with a climate denier as president.

The fact that only Wall vehemently attacked the plan means that most premiers believe it strikes a good balance.

Wall has become an isolated oil patch cheerleader, increasingly marginalized from any serious discussion about how to tackle climate change.

The four Canadian provinces with the most robust economies have already incorporated some form of carbon pricing into their regulatory frameworks. Saskatchewan is not one of them.

The Canadian framework, which runs more than 200 pages, is extremely complex. That complexity makes it even more difficult for opponents to fight the legislation.

May, a fantastic communicator, was hard pressed to distill her opposition into manageable sound bites.

Most Canadians believe that a competitive economy is equally as important as a healthy environment.

Their first responsibility is putting food on the family table and for that, they need decent-paying jobs.

The positive performance of the Canadian economy helps Catherine McKenna and Bill Morneau soft sell the national carbon framework.

The middle ground they chose on industrial emission measurements will make that job sell easier.

Solutions to global warming are challenging and so is the legislation. That complexity makes it difficult for the public to engage. In turn, the absence of public involvement makes it easier for sectoral interests to seek and achieve changes.

Industrial emitters are going to be a lot more engaged in this legislation than the average voter, and their voices will be heard. The complexity makes it difficult for critics to even explain their opposition.

The New Democrats have been unusually quiet on the proposals. They are strongly supportive of carbon pricing and will likely tweak some of the industrial emission elements.

But, especially with their strong union membership, this is not a hill that New Democrats will be prepared to die on. As for the Tories, they will oppose but they also run the risk of simply being seen as merely oil-centric if they are too a vociferous or strident in their criticisms.

This proposed legislation is a game-changer for the acceleration of a green economy. We can also expect the promotion of a whole new raft of jobs related to sustainable development.

All in all, the legislation was not blockbuster. That was why the disappointment expressed by Elizabeth May was so visceral.

But in the balancing act between the environment and the economy, the ministers of environment and finance chose the Goldilocks solution.

In doing so, they can expect their global warming porridge of legislative changes is just right.

The issue of comprehensive legislation has been on the government agenda since the first International Panel on Climate Change met in Montreal back in 1994.

Twenty-four years later, this isn’t perfect but the country is finally moving in the right direction.

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

Great meeting with great minister @cathmckenna re world Design summit. Good Design can green the planet! pic.twitter.com/dbvg7SYSW0

— Hon. Sheila Copps (@Sheila_Copps) August 9, 2017

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, June 5, 2017 in The Hill Times.

U.S. President Donald Trump just hammered another nail in the American coffin.

In his petulant conversations about pulling out of the global climate change consensus, he is labouring under the misimpression that his withdrawal would influence the agreement.

Instead, he is reinforcing the impression that his leadership is leading the United States down the wrong road.

At a time when other potential global players are emerging to challenge American hegemony, the president seems bound on taking his country backwards.

It all started with his slogan, “Make America great again.”

In reality, old America may have welcomed a certain demographic, but not everyone. Equality for women and minorities, still more myth than reality, is much closer today than it was in the last century.

Income inequality and racial tension prompted the civil rights and women’s liberation movements.

Times were pretty good for white men who headed traditional families with no pesky questions about who ruled the roost.

Ask a gay or transgender person how happy things were in the good old days and their response will be different. Today’s equality, with all the ensuing challenges of integration, is far preferable to going back to the good old days.

And the same is true for climate change.

The world has collectively come to the conclusion that Mother Nature needs help.

From floods to fires, from extreme weather to desertification, the environment around us in changing in a way that needs a global response.

That means changing the way we live, including weaning ourselves off our dependence on non-renewable fuels.

That train has left the station, and while it is possible for the United States to bolt, it will be that country, not the world, that is left behind.

China, battling a pollution problem of epic proportions in its’ own major cities, is tackling national environmental challenges with gusto. It has rolled out a 10-year green plan and is currently in the process of electrifying its complete transportation system.

Its government’s edicts have also spawned a thriving alternative-energy industry, with almost every neighbourhood in the country sporting solar panels on the rooftops of most households.

China is also working actively in countries around the world promoting sustainable infrastructure with its Silk Road investment fund.

Meanwhile, Trump is closing off his country and making the United States a less attractive destination for innovation and investment.

The European Union is embracing green solutions, driven by a combination of necessity and invention. The emergence of the Green Party movement as a force in politics accelerated the European appetite for embracing climate-change solutions.

The new coalition government in British Columbia will also promote the appetite for alternative energy solutions.

And with those solutions come business opportunities.

As Environment Minister Catherine McKenna tweeted last week, “No matter what the U.S. decides today, the world is going to keep marching on. The momentum is irreversible. And we have only one planet.” She went on to tweet that the climate-change movement makes good business sense.

By exiting, Trump may claim that he is working to save jobs in the rust belt and elsewhere. But instead, he is simply setting up an exodus for the jobs of the future.

If China gets it, and America doesn’t, the axis of influence that has been gently shifting for years will be accelerated.

When president Bill Clinton pushed hard for international climate-change progress during his time in government, American influence was a key factor in getting the world on board.

At this point, an American withdrawal will have little influence on the rest of the world. Instead, the decision will be perceived as what it really is: a ham-handed climate denial by a president who daily grows more out of touch with reality.

Given Trump’s close relationship with Russia, he may be able to enlist President Vladimir Putin in his back-to-future vision.

But the rest of the world is already moving. Canada is starting to invest heavily in rapid-transit infrastructure, provinces are committed to real political action to reduce carbon dependence, and the world is rapidly waking up to the real cost of doing nothing.

In the end, the future of areas like the American rust belt depend on attracting innovative companies, including those who are developing sustainable energy alternatives.

There is a huge market opening up for renewable design and the new economy, a market that will not be attracted to a country that refuses to even recognize the problem.

Trump’s decision could hurt America. But the world isn’t listening.

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

When one part of Canada is hurting, we all hurt. Parochial provincialism did not build this country in the first place. When the times come to move energy east, we need to figure out the best way to make it work.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 1, 2016.

OTTAWA—Any Canadian who drives a car should take an interest in the Energy East pipeline debates.

And we should all be hoping, for the good of the environment and the economy, that political leaders start working together on these key issues.

Energy security and a clean environment go hand and hand. Nobody wins when we simply throw rhetorical brickbats from one side of Canada to the other.

The hot buttons currently being pushed on both sides are proof positive that the federal government needs to play a leadership role on this issue.

That, of course, means working with provinces, but it also means convening meetings where various governments can hammer out their differences around the same table.

The absence of federal leadership on the environmental and energy agenda has meant that every province has stood alone. Each believes they can score political points and extract economic concessions on pipeline route choice from their geographic neighbours.

It sets up a very ugly scenario where each part of the country beats the drum in favour of its own energy advantage, without considering the rest of the country.

Local politicians jump into the mix, with consequences that quickly turn toxic.

The latest volleys over the Energy East pipeline debate have ignited controversy from East to West.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall’s suggestion that Quebec should return equalization payments as a penalty for non-support of the pipeline route was bound to play right into the hands of the separatists.

If the country cannot get its act together on something so crucial as national energy, what is the glue that binds us together?

Separatists argue that they would be better off defining energy policy on their terms, without any other government getting in the way.

Thoughtful leaders on all sides should understand the need for pipelines to carry product to market. There are certainly trade-offs in route placement and economic benefits. The location of a refinery, and value-added petroleum production, both play a role in the mix.

Properly planned, constructed and managed pipelines have served Canada in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

The foremost consideration of safe transport works in favour of pipelines. Whether by road or rail, the potential environmental damage and loss of life is much greater when factors like traffic load and human error are brought to bear.

One only has to reflect on the devastation of the whole Lac Mégantic community because of faulty train braking to realize that pipelines are a safer method of moving product.

Environmentalists will argue that we should be encouraging alternative energy sources. They are right. But in a world with a weakening economic picture, the investment in alternative energy innovation will take time.

Meanwhile, how are we going to gas up our cars?

Of course, an active federal-provincial dialogue will not solve all the challenges of the energy sector.

Quebec will continue to play the hydroelectric green card, because of its abundant access to electrical energy in its own north and that of neighbouring Newfoundland and Labrador.

Alberta is hurting, and needs support from the rest of Canada. But when an economy is suffering, politicians like to refocus the blame.

Only a national energy and environmental dialogue will ensure that all parties are working toward a common solution.

In his mandate letter to Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asks for an early meeting “with provincial and territorial leaders to develop a pan-Canadian framework for addressing climate change.

Trudeau proposed the meeting occur with 90 days of the Paris climate change discussions.

The time frame is ambitious but it could provoke a sea change in debate tone and substance.

Canada has already committed to a trilateral North American energy pact. The government is in full preparation mode for the November climate change discussions in Morocco.

That doesn’t leave a lot of time for interprovincial squabbling.

We need to speak with one voice.

When one part of Canada is hurting, we all hurt. Parochial provincialism did not build this country in the first place.

When the times come to move energy east, we need to figure out the best way to make it work.

A national energy consensus benefits all provinces. Most importantly, it can tangibly demonstrate to Canadians that governments are prepared to come together for the common good.

When we work together, the whole of Canada is much bigger than the sum of its parts.

When politicians expend energy simply picking old scabs, we all lose.

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