By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 2, 2024.

OTTAWA—Doug Ford is talking tough against Donald Trump.

He knows it is good politics. Canadians are extremely upset about the possibility that our economy will be bludgeoned by a bully.

As premier, Ford is in a position to talk tough and face few of the repercussions that would rain upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if he were to say the same thing.

Ford also took a nasty shot at Mexico, demanding they be turfed from the North American Free Trade agreement for allowing Chinese auto production into their country.

Ford has a point, and the new Mexican government may have to rethink the trade policy.

Trudeau must proceed cautiously because the reported animus that Trump feels for him could cost our country dearly.

Canadians are in for a rough ride as Trump also knows that most Canadians do not like him. He is a man who needs to be loved.

Ever since the president-elect won a majority, news from south of the border is nothing short of cringe-worthy.

Putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of health policy, especially one as crazy as Robert Kennedy, is nothing short of deadly.

Kennedy has promised to ban fluoride in all American water systems. Democratic state governors are already lining up to block any federal edicts that infringe on their jurisdiction.

Hulk Hogan is publicly ruminating that he will be given a senior position on the Trump team. An alleged sex philanderer had to drop out as Trump’s pick for attorney general.

Ford attacked Trump for claiming illegal drugs and migrants were coming from Canada. Instead, according to Ford, Canada is the recipient of illegal guns and drugs coming north.

Trudeau is working with premiers on a joint approach to the Trump threat to impose an immediate 25 per cent tariff on all goods entering from Canada on the day he is sworn in.

While Trudeau and Ford may be working together on that issue, they are going to be at political odds in upcoming elections.

Ford has already made noises about moving to the polls early, and his advertising strategy seems to confirm that intention.

His government is running non-stop messaging on radio and television to explain the strength of the Ontario economy. One of the reasons is the move to electrification of vehicles.

At the same time as government ads are lauding the new investments (made in tandem with the federal government), Ford’s party ads are designed to trash Trudeau’s price on pollution.

Trudeau’s fight against global warming is one of the reasons the federal government has invested heavily in alternative energies, and public transit.

In Ford’s party ads, the premier takes all the credit for these investments, when in reality, the push came from the feds.

Ford is intending to run his campaign against Trudeau.

Meanwhile, Trudeau continues to make announcements about good public policy with zero supportive government advertising. It is almost as though Trudeau wants to lose the next election.

In the past week, Ontario became the third province to join the federal government’s plan for a national school food program.

Newfoundland was the first to sign on to the national initiative, followed by Manitoba and now Ontario.

But while the announcement was well-received in each province, there is been little change in the poll numbers for the federal Liberals.

That is partly because of the unpopularity of the prime minister, but it is also because the government has not spent any real money explaining why helping children’s nutrition in schools will lead to stronger communities.

The only federal ad I saw last week was a vague reference to how our banking investments are covered by a government agency known as the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation.

For some reason, some idiot in federal advertising thinks the inner workings of CDIC are more important than telling Canadians about the new school food program.

The other recent huge-ticket item was a GST pre-Christmas holiday on some items and a $250 bonus for workers with incomes under $150,000. The Liberals have since split the bill and separated the GST break from the $250 cheques which will be sent to most working Canadians in the spring.

How did that giveaway work for the government?

With zero advertising to support the initiative, what made the news was that those who did not work were upset about being left out. What was supposed to be a gateway to a positive story is now more bad Liberal news.

The New Democrats now say they won’t support the program unless it is expanded.

This multi-billion-dollar announcement should have been launched in tandem with a national advertising campaign.

Why not follow Doug Ford.

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.

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

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

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

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

The numbers are impressive.

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

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

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

Most confused Canadians received the payment without any explanation.

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

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

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

Most Canadians don’t make money from a tax.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on 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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 5, 2023.

OTTAWA—The political fires surrounding foreign interference are being dwarfed by real fires.

Special rapporteur David Johnston’s decision to ignore a negative parliamentary vote could have added fuel to the firestorm.

But even Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre toned down his Question Period rhetoric, asking only one foreign influence question on June 1, the day following the Johnston vote. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who introduced the “Dump Johnston” resolution, did not lead off on that issue, focusing instead on fires in Nova Scotia.

The fact that two major opposition parties moved away from Johnston indicates that the public is not as engaged with the issue as some believe.

Most people don’t know David Johnston, but they do know that he served two different governments and has a personal history as a non-partisan. He has been widely recognized for his experience in legal and university sectors, and accepted the responsibilities of being governor general.

The opposition may not like Johnston’s answer, but it is pretty hard to argue with his logic. In his decision to stay on, Johnston made it clear that he was mandated by the government and could not be removed by Parliament.

That is obvious. But it doesn’t coincide with the opposition’s attempt to keep the issue burning.

A majority in parliament should wield huge political clout. But by refusing to annul his own mandate, Johnston is banking on the fact that his personal history is strong enough to withstand the critics.

And the public may be moving on to other issues.

With real fires burning across the country, Canadians are rightly focused on that.

With firefighters working round the clock in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canadians are getting a taste of the damage that global warming can wreak upon a country with so much land vulnerable to forest fires.

According to the federal government, multiple fires are the new normal.

With the summer still ahead, politicians are rightfully concerned about fire fatigue. Professional help to fight the fires has arrived from as far away as South Africa.

More than 200 homes have burnt to the ground in Nova Scotia, with evacuees awaiting the green light to return to residences that still remain.

The forest fires and floods were predicted by scientists more than a quarter century ago, but the human toll taken by the heating of the planet is only starting to be felt.

The mayor of Halifax and the premier of Nova Scotia are working diligently with emergency services to keep residents of that city safe and battle the flames. They are also working with Ottawa to clarify the level of support coming from the federal government once the rebuilding process begins.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted personally that he would be there for any measures required to restore normalcy.

The country’s attention has been riveted by urban encroachment and the speed of fires in Halifax. The sister of a friend of mine had 10 minutes to get out of her house, which subsequently burned to the ground in a matter of hours.

The before and after pictures of her home were devastating. There was literally nothing left. No photos, no mementoes, nothing.

She has insurance, but it is going to take months to figure out whether her family will rebuild onsite or simply move on.

Heat wave warnings are in place across the country and the military is moving in to help with the aftermath of the fires in Nova Scotia. But we should expect that the evacuations being suffered in eastern Canada will continue over the summer in all parts of the country.

There are currently 2,400 firefighters attacking blazes in Alberta. Northern Quebec is currently evacuating citizens from two smaller communities.

When it comes to political issues, the public’s attention is shifting just as quickly.

At a press conference to update citizens on the situation in Nova Scotia, Progressive Conservative Premier Tim Houston accused the federal government of dragging its feet on post-Hurricane Fiona funding. He urged the federal Liberals not to repeat that mistake.

The Prime Minister’s Office rebutted his claim, saying the Fiona fund was approved within six hours of receiving the request.

In an emergency situation, all parties work together, but as the damages mount, forest fires can also become a political issue.

In the end, the real fires facing Canadians have nothing to do with China.

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

Amid infighting and challenges to Annamie Paul’s leadership, Green MP Elizabeth May has been mostly silent. May’s return as leader would allow the party to limp through the next election with a known quantity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 19, 2021.

OTTAWA—In the Green Party mashup, the voice of reason that guided the party for years is steeped in silence.

This week the party executive will be seized with a non-confidence vote on leader Annamie Paul, which needs 75 per cent support to carry.

May’s partner John Kidder quietly resigned from the executive in June before the internal feuding broke into the open following the June 10 floor-crossing of Green MP Jenica Atwin to the Liberals.

Paul publicly defended May’s silence at a press conference last month, claiming family issues prevented the former leader from tweeting a statement of support.

The same code of silence appears to hold true for fellow British Columbian Green MP Paul Manly.

However, news reports also suggested that Paul threatened May to defend the leader publicly, or else there would be consequences.

The infighting has been described by some in the media as akin to the petty politics of a condo board or a book club.

One thing is certain. The damage being done to the Greens on the eve of a potential election is incalculable.

How can Paul run a campaign when her own executive has already made moves to limit party funding for the leader’s local riding race, in downtown Toronto?

Meanwhile, May herself has encouraged Paul to invite recalcitrant Atwin back into the fold and to make a public apology for a staffer’s attack on the New Brunswick MP.

No apology has been forthcoming, and the temperature rose again last week when the party executive began a move to strip the leader of her membership.

The proposed membership revocation only requires a simple majority vote of the executive committee, a much less onerous bar than the three-quarters vote required to oust a leader mid-stream.

The executive has also been reduced in the number because of departures, so it appears as though Paul’s status as leader will not be overturned.

So, the Green team has resorted to the extreme measure of actually kicking her out of the party.

In the midst of pre-election planning, the party could be leaderless and rudderless, leading to the question as to who might replace Paul in the short term.

May is the logical choice.

She spent years as the only recognizable face of the Green Party, in Parliament and across the country.

She has already participated in multiple campaigns, with decent showings at the leadership debates where she was allowed to join.

But the Green Party under Elizabeth May was a nascent party with hope and idealism. Many Canadians wished them well, sharing their passion for grappling with the global issue of climate change.

They would also consider supporting the party in the hopes that it might prod the established parties to move on climate change.

In the past few weeks, climate change has taken a back seat to the politics of Green power, in a way that is very reminiscent of traditional parties.

Back during her tenure, May once posited that her success was largely due to the fact that she was not a politician. Rather, she was a dedicated environmentalist who saw politics as a way of making the changes required to tackle issues.

Back in 1977, May was instrumental in getting Nova Scotia to ban aerial spraying for the spruce budworm.

And she has been working on environmental issues ever since.

But during her 13 years as leader of the Green Party, she was unable to add more than two other members to the House of Commons cohort.

And now one of them has joined the Liberals.

The promise of the Green movement has stalled.

Not only is the current leader facing party expulsion, but the environment has not even played a role in disagreements that, instead, revolve around party members’ contradictory positions on the Middle East.

The return of May would allow the party to limp through the next election with a known quantity.

But there is no way she will be able to convince Canadians that hers is the party to make real environmental change.

The implosion of the Greens has, instead, opened the door for other parties to woo environmental voters.

A May-led party will not prevent an exodus of support. The past two months have sealed the Greens’ fate, with or without a leader.

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.

Annamie Paul could survive by recanting the threats tweeted by her former staffer. But it is hard to see how the internal strife is going to do anything but consign the Greens to the scrap heap of political history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 21, 2021.

Internal party battles are the ugliest part of politics. And when they spill out into the open, everyone gets hurt.

The current debacle in the Green Party may fatally damage the leadership of Annamie Paul.

She could survive by recanting the threats tweeted by her former staffer.

But it is hard to see how the internal strife is going to do anything but consign the Greens to the scrap heap of political history.

One of the most important jobs of a leader is to keep their caucus happy.

In Paul’s case, she only had three members to worry about and last week she lost one of them.

But instead of standing down and spending some time in personal reflection on what went wrong, she concocted a crazy theory that it was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the anti-feminist, who worked against her to convince Fredericton Green Party MP Jenica Atwin to cross the floor to the Liberals.

Meanwhile, the two remaining MPs did not back Paul when the fight went public, with former leader and Green dean Elizabeth May calling on Paul to apologize to the floor crosser.

After a fiery press conference in which Paul blamed the internal turmoil on racism and sexism within the Green Party national executive, not a single caucus member came to her defence.

According to Paul, it was a busy day.

But the party executive decided that Paul’s only path to survival is to organize a joint press conference with British Columbia Green MP Paul Manly, in which she repudiates attacks on caucus members by her former chief adviser Noah Zatzman.

Zatzman is seen to have played a crucial role in Atwin’s defection, having responded to her pro-Palestinian tweet with a Facebook accusation of anti-Semitism against unspecified Green MPs.

Zatzman vowed in a post on Facebook to defeat them and replace them with “progressive climate change champions who are antifa and pro-LGBT and pro-Indigenous sovereignty and Zionists.”

The substance of his tweet should have been raising eyebrows even before Atwin bolted the tiny caucus.

Most Canadians currently believe that a vote for the Greens is a way of putting climate change at the forefront of the political agenda.

But when it is mixed with antifa and Zionism, the message gets a lot more muddled. And those Canadians who might have cast their ballots in principle for the Greens will likely decide to park their votes elsewhere in the next election.

If Paul cannot even manage a caucus of three, how can she possibly expect to run the country?

Instead of following the advice of elder Green statesman May by trying to get Atwin back into the fold by apologizing, Paul simply dropped another verbal bomb, accusing members of her own national executive of racism and sexism.

Two Atlantic Green national council members resigned last week. In a written statement to The Globe and Mail, departing Nova Scotia representative Lia Renaud said the subject of the national council meeting was “Annamie Paul’s leadership approach and relationship building skills.”

Renaud called the claims of sexism and racism against council members as “just another example of the toxic relationship and work conditions.”

There is no doubt that as a black Jewish woman, Paul is facing the kind of scrutiny that would not have been levelled at a middle-aged white man.

In Paul’s own words, the Green party’s historic vote for her leadership was intended to change the current Canadian gender and race dynamic.

Even if Paul is successful in repairing the recent damage done to the party’s reputation, how will she respond to her own accusations of Green Party racism and sexism?

With an election expected within the next two months, this fight has done irreparable damage to Green chances across the country.

And environmental supporters who previously parked their votes with the Greens will definitely be looking elsewhere.

According to an Abacus poll published last week, the Green Party is sitting at six per cent. The front-running Liberals are at 34 per cent with the Conservatives closing in at 29 per cent.

The New Democratic Party, following a Prairie uptake, is sitting at 21 per cent.

The Conservatives are not likely to benefit from this Green implosion. A fragmented status quo on the left is their path to victory.

The majority of loose Green votes could deliver a majority government to the Liberals.

Atwin’s move could prove prescient.

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