I thought long and hard before writing today’s column because I wasn’t sure I wanted to spread my bad news far and wide. But if my experience can help any other person facing a cancer diagnosis, it will be worth it. I am not going to let this cancer get the better of me.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 2, 2021.

OTTAWA—Three years ago, I joined a very elite group of Canadian women. At the ripe old age of 65, I was diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

We all hear the numbers on cancer. But they don’t really mean much until it hits home personally.

My first diagnosis was not a major surprise. My mother suffered from breast cancer at the age of 56. She underwent a radical mastectomy, standard procedure in those days, and lived cancer-free for another 35 years. Not a bad track record to imitate.

So, after a surgical lumpectomy and radiation, I figured that was it. I did not need chemotherapy because the lymph node involvement was microscopic and detailed tumour analysis suggested the magic treatment formula excluded a full-body chemical assault.

I was told by doctors that there was a chance the cancer could come back elsewhere, but it was extremely unlikely it would return in the same breast where it first presented.

Once you have been diagnosed, the surveillance system of cancer patients is pretty amazing.

But COVID did require a cutback on cancer treatments so an ultrasound that was supposed to happen last year was delayed.

In my case, COVID may save my life. Because the ultrasound was so late, doctors decided to order a full MRI of my breast area, exposing minute breast changes that might have missed detection in an ultrasound.

The MRI exposed two masses, which could be simply necrotic scarring or cancer. Only a biopsy would tell the whole story.

Within three weeks, I was biopsied and both attending physicians said they thought the sample was not cancerous, so I went home feeling very relieved.

But their initial visual optimism was not borne out in the biopsy.

I ended up being diagnosed with one small cancerous mass, measuring in the millimetres, situated very close to the initial tumour.

I had done enough of my own research to know that a second tumour in the same breast can only be treated by full removal.

My first reaction was panic. I was not afraid of the mastectomy, but I certainly could not explain why the big C was back. I had followed all the rules, including post-surgical, estrogen-reducing medication.

And then I began scouring the internet for information on life expectancy. That freaked me out even more. A first-time breast cancer patient generally has an 85 per cent chance of survival beyond the benchmark five-year lapse. For a recurrent cancer, that drops to somewhere around 50 per cent.

Fifty per cent odds would be great at the casino, but life is not a casino, and the chance that I could be dead within the next five years is pretty hard to swallow.

But then my fight gene kicked in. I am not going to let this cancer get the better of me.

The fact that it was discovered at a very early stage is obviously operating in my favour. And I know the oncology team in our region is the best in the business.

I have no doubt that they will recommend the best treatment possible. My family is also fully supportive.

My wonderful husband, Austin, immediately went out and got his hair shaved in solidarity.

He came home to show off his locks and I burst into tears, telling him I do not want to be reminded every moment of my cancer.

With his near hairless head, I cannot run away from the diagnosis. But nor do I want to.

I thought long and hard before writing today’s column because I wasn’t sure I wanted to spread my bad news far and wide.

But if my experience can help any other person facing a cancer diagnosis, it will be worth it.

Just last week we mourned the loss of a beloved long-time Liberal organizer, Hamiltonian Marg Stewart. She was taken by an aggressive cancer that could only be treated by respite.

Marg was diagnosed too late to bring her considerable fight to the game.

But I am not. I plan to bring all my power to this battle.

Within weeks, I expect to undergo a mastectomy and whatever else the doctor orders. If chemotherapy is needed, I want as much as they can throw at me.

I would be lying if I said I was not scared. The uncertainty of cancer is probably the element that makes it one of modern medicine’s most dreaded diagnoses.

But there are more survivors today than ever before.

I fully intend to be one.

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

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

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

When does personal freedom blind us to professional responsibility?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On-site testing is not enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As medical specialists ratchet up the message of concern around the virulent spread of the COVID variants, the public is simply not listening.

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

The naked member’s member was discreetly blocked by a phone in another first for Canadian parliamentary procedure last week.

Obviously, the Liberal Member of Parliament from Pontiac, Que., was mortified when he learned his parliamentary camera accidentally caught him in his birthday suit.

Will Amos issued an embarrassed apology which was immediately accepted by Chief Government Whip Mark Holland, responsible for upholding decorum on the government side of the House of Commons.

Other parties jumped in to make sure this historic moment was shared with a wider audience, as the first screening was limited to an internal parliamentary committee feed.

Colleagues offered, tongue-in-cheek, to lend clothing to Amos, and the Bloc even raised a question of parliamentary privilege because Amos’ requisite suit and tie was absent from the filming.

In Amos’ defence, he claimed he had just gone for a run and was getting changed to prepare for committee when the rogue camera lens went viral.

His flub went beyond Canada, making international headlines in many parts of the world.

It was a welcome respite from the doomsday scenario playing out daily in Canada’s fight against COVID.

As medical specialists ratchet up the message of concern around the virulent spread of the COVID variants, the public is simply not listening.

Most of the dramatic messaging saturating the airwaves 24 hours a day, appears to be falling on deaf ears as Canadians have abandoned the stay-at-home strategies of the past 14 months.

With the weather warming up, young people are trying to reconnect with friends by gathering in parks and open spaces. In some instances, these super-spreader events have simply ignored any attempt to limit their social contacts, and we have seen the spread of the virus through indiscriminate crowds gathering in all provinces.

Canada’s doomsday approach has actually been seen in stark contrast to what is happening in other parts of the world.

The United States has already opened up international and domestic travel to those who have been fully vaccinated, and their rate of vaccination is moving closer to full herd immunity.

In addition, Canada is languishing in 11th place in the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s COVID misery index.

The tool compares health outcomes from all diseases in 15 “peer” nations and analyses the success or failure of a lock-down versus vaccination strategy.

At last count, Canada ranked 11 among the 15 with the worst death rate amongst those over 85 years of age, and those aged 15 and over. While COVID-related deaths are low, threats to life and health in other areas have been exacerbated by delayed treatment.

Canada also ranks 11th in overall full-dose vaccinations, but that number jumps to second when considering the percentage of the population that has already received a first vaccine.

The United States is the only country with more vaccinations, but our southern neighbour has also issued directives for those who have been fully vaccinated.

Canada continues to treat fully vaccinated citizens with the same rules as those that apply to non-vaccinated people.

What is the point of vaccinating if the benefits of doing so are not shared by the Canadian population?

The Government of Canada still requires vaccinated Canadians with a current COVID-free test result to remain in quarantine when returning from an international trip.

Neither science nor medicine can provide a single health-related reason for this isolation, so it is little wonder that the public health officials who are informing Canadians about COVID health risks have been largely tuned out.

Prince Edward Island Liberal MP Wayne Easter put the situation best when he said that Americans are moving full steam ahead, while Canadians are subject to the “fear factor” in their desire to keep even internal borders closed.

Just last week, the Atlantic premiers agreed to collectively extend the prohibition against visitors for another two weeks, with May 3 now cited as the date to reopen unquarantined travel.

Almost a month ago, Easter issued a call to begin the process for opening up the borders.

In March, Alaskan Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan introduced legislation intended to permit cruise ships to enter their borders while bypassing Canada after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a one-year moratorium on cruising last February.

After the Air Canada bailout announced last week, expect more airlines and more industries to line up with their hands out to cover their Covid losses.

One way to avoid massive bailouts is to vaccinate enough people to secure herd immunity.

Otherwise, Canadians will simply choose to ignore the droning COVID doomsayers.

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

It would be dangerous for Liberals to skew their campaign to millennial voters. That cohort was a winner in 2015, delivering a solid majority to the Liberals. But it is not likely to be as effective this time around.

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

Liberal Rainmaker Keith Davey led the party to multiple successful elections.

Such was the Senator’s electoral prowess that he is widely credited with the Liberals becoming the “natural governing party” in the last century.

Last weekend’s Liberal convention reflected Davey’s rule.

He always said that the key to Liberal success was campaigning from the left and governing from the right.

The party secured the best policies for a socially progressive country while remaining fiscally prudent, so as not to scare the business community.

But this century is turning politics on its head.

In an effort to guide Canada through the pandemic, the government is spending as widely and rapidly as possible.

So, when it comes to a pre-election message, the party will have to prove that it can also be fiscally prudent.

So do not expect a blanket endorsement of a guaranteed annual income, even though this has been on the agenda of many progressives for decades.

Instead, there will be a resolution to cost the plan, and incorporate the views of provincial and Indigenous governments before anything specific moves forward on the national level.

Such a resolution will give some comfort to Bay Street, which is already making noises about excessive Liberal spending. And main street will be reassured in knowing that national income support will be available at least through the pandemic.

The convention will also embrace near unanimity on a resolution calling for the implementation of national standards for long-term care residences across the country.

There was a time when such a resolution would have meant political death in Quebec.

And everyone knows that it is near impossible to secure a majority government without substantial support in La Belle province.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec Premier François Legault have been making multiple joint announcements in recent time, so they will probably organize an opt-out clause to handle the claim of federal interference in provincial health matters.

But at the end of the day, the death rate in Quebec cannot be ignored and simply assuming that more of the same will be a solution does not make sense.

The sturm and drang of a convention will allow all sides to air their perspectives but, in the end, the party will come out united behind a policy that will ensure a national strategy for long-term care and no national consensus on the Guaranteed Annual Income.

Party organizers have been very pleased with the participation level at the convention, with more than 4,000 registrants, of whom 60 per cent are new members.

New members are good news, but the party also has to be concerned about the ongoing support of long-time, loyal Liberals.

I was chatting last week with a former cabinet minister, who was a very active political organizer in the past, and he is sitting the next election out.

In his words, the party seems a lot more interested in recruitment than in involving those who have been around for a long time.

That could spell trouble, because in most elections where the Liberals lose, their loyal voters don’t necessarily change sides. They just don’t bother to vote.

Pollsters have recently identified that the party is either behind or in a toss-up in 13 ridings which they need to form a majority government.

Most of those ridings are rural, with a population that is not likely as mobile so long-term, loyal voters are important to the victory.

New political participants are important for energy and excitement. The young generation is most likely made up of urban participants who will not carry the day in the case of a tight election.

It would be dangerous for Liberals to skew their campaign to millennial voters.

That cohort was a winner in 2015, delivering a solid majority to the Liberals. But it is not likely to be as effective this time around.

The longer any party has been in government, the harder it is to keep everyone happy.

Marijuana legalization is a distant memory, and that policy will not persuade those new voters to support the Liberals again.

Instead, the party will depend on older people to carry tight ridings in rural areas.

Seniors are usually most likely to vote in large numbers, but the pandemic has altered everyone’s habits.

Trudeau’s Covid hotels have also cost support among snowbirds who represent up to 500,000 voters.

Hopes for majority could depend on whether the Trudeau glow is losing lustre with loyal Liberals.

The convention could kickstart that renewal—or not.

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

According to the study by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 69 per cent of Canada’s COVID-related deaths occurred in long-term care. That represents one of the highest mortality rates in the world. The international average was 41 per cent.

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

Shame on Canada.

When it comes to quality of life, we rank very well in the world on many fronts. But the treatment of incapacitated seniors has always been our dirty little secret.

COVID-19 has exposed the real story behind many of our long-term care facilities.

Last week’s report on Canada’s global status in residential care mortality rates is a must-read for anyone interested in improving lives for vulnerable elderly.

According to the study by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 69 per cent of Canada’s COVID-related deaths occurred in long-term care. That represents one of the highest mortality rates in the world. The international average was 41 per cent.

The CIHI also underscored the COVID cost to those seniors dying from other causes.

Because of the focus on COVID, during the first few months of the pandemic, doctors’ visits and hospital transfers for other reasons also dropped dramatically.

The shameful conclusion: Canada suffered the worst record for COVID-19 deaths in long-term care homes compared with other wealthy countries.

The CIHI also reviewed the general trend of resident deaths, which was exacerbated during the pandemic.

Mortality rates ranged from a high of 28 per cent in Ontario to a low of four per cent in British Columbia. According to the report there were 2,273 more deaths during COVID than the number of deaths during the same period over the previous five years. Not surprisingly, the largest hike came during the peak of the first wave in April of 2020.

There are currently multiple inquiries going on across several provinces to get to the bottom of the issue. But clearly this story needs a pan-Canadian perspective to offer the insight that will inform future decisions.

According to the report, more than one-third of all Ontario long-term care homes and 44 per cent of homes in Quebec suffered an outbreak, compared to only eight per cent in British Columbia and 17 per cent in Alberta.

But as health-care delivery is provincial, each province is doing their own autopsy without reviewing the situation from a national perspective.

Most federal reports will get widespread attention for a few days and then get filed under the “federal interference in provincial jurisdiction” subject matter.

Provinces are generally more interested in protecting their autonomy than in actually protecting their vulnerable, elderly populations.

If British Columbia managed to keep its COVID outbreaks to single digits, it has something to teach the rest of the country. But because of our bifurcated system, the lessons will likely stop at the Rockies.

Instead, we will end up with 13 studies of how to improve an internalized process.

Some solutions are simple. Obviously, an injection of money into chronic care support will be required, especially to increase the salaries of those frontline workers who were struggling to make ends meet.

The issue of part-time employment is definitely one that needs to be tackled. It is not surprising that personal service workers are forced to take more than one job when their salary is limited to part-time work as a way of avoiding payment of benefits and labour law protection for full-time workers.

In British Columbia, a strong union has been able to negotiate better working conditions. The province had a prohibition on health-care workers operating in more than one home, and that single rule minimized the spread of COVID from one institution to the next.

According to federal New Democrats, the only solution is to close down all private facilities and replace them with public sector solutions. However, there were a number of poorly run public sector facilities that suffered deaths.

The issue involves developing a set of applicable standards, with the funding to support it, that can be implemented across the country.

Instead of solving 13 problems, the country would be finding a unified solution.

Surely the challenges in long-term care management cannot be that different from Newfoundland to British Columbia. So why not tackle the problem from a pan-Canadian perspective?

The CIHI report should serve as a wake-up call that the time has come to look beyond politics and focus on what is best for those most vulnerable seniors who end up in long-term care facilities.

Most of them have lost the ability to fight for themselves, and so it is up to the rest of the country to fight for them.

Long-term care facilities have been deteriorating for years.

We need a concerted national effort to clean up Canada’s sorry treatment of our aged.

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

If the prime minister’s team thought an early election could move the Liberals into majority territory, the uncertainty in Newfoundland may give them pause.

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

Three elections and three majority governments sent the message that a government managing COVID-19 is rewarded by the voters.

That was the general school of thought when Newfoundland and Labrador called its COVID election. But the arrival of the variant crisis has changed all that.

The Newfoundland and Labrador government was forced to call an election by August. Based on previous results in British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan, it appeared as though the electorate would put their trust in the party that was actually managing the pandemic. In all three of those previous elections, the governing party was returned with a comfortable majority.

So Liberal Leader Andrew Furey, a medical specialist, probably thought he was on solid ground when his government called the election in Newfoundland and Labrador. But in the middle of the vote, a virus variant crept into Newfoundland, taking a province that was almost COVID-free by storm, as Mount Pearl and parts of St. John’s were hit hard with the new virus.

All of a sudden, the province went from a place that had been a spectator in the coronavirus battle to a province that was facing a distressing multiplication of a frightening variant. Questions started coming: how can you have an election when people cannot get to the polls because they are forced into a quarantine to protect community transmission of these new variants?

So, health and election officials tried to sketch out a roadmap for a safe election. The government responded with more opportunities for mail-in ballots, but in order to achieve that goal, they needed to change the shape and date of the election.

In mid-February, the chief electoral officer of Newfoundland and Labrador postponed the voting date for almost half of the voting districts in Newfoundland. The delays occurring on the Avalon Peninsula represented most urban voters in the capital’s periphery.

The cancellations were spurred because frightened election workers resigned out of fear of interacting with the public on election day, according to chief electoral officer Bruce Chaulk. And voters were also frightened about what they might face in a lineup going into the voting booths.

Unlike most other provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador had been largely free of the virus, so citizens were extremely concerned that the variant had hit them hard.

The whole election process has been somewhat odd, with the premier participating in regular briefings with the chief medical officer of health, in the middle of an election.

Progressive Conservative Leader Ches Crosbie complained about the conflict of the premier’s appearance during an election, but that complaint was overridden by citizens’ desire for information.

Crosbie and Furey both carry an impressive political pedigree. Crosbie’s father was John Crosbie, the inimitable Newfoundland minister who served in the cabinet of prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Furey’s father is former backroom Liberal organizer and now Senator George Furey, who is the current Speaker in the Senate of Canada. His uncle is Chuck Furey, who served as a minister in the government of premier Brian Tobin.

Polls still predict victory for Furey, but the confusion around the COVID election has definitely eaten into his popularity.

Newfoundlanders are experiencing their first full lockdown. After three weeks, they are getting crusty. They understand it is for the collective good, but they also want to know why an election is happening in the middle of a medical crisis.

Taking a page from the Newfoundland book, a parliamentary committee in Ottawa passed a unanimous resolution last week demanding that no election be called during a pandemic. The Procedure and House Affairs Committee, not usually known for controversial recommendations, unanimously sought a commitment from the government that there would be no election, except in the case of a lost confidence vote. New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh endorsed the resolution, promising that his party would not trigger an election.

The Tories have not chimed in, although they claim the Liberals have been trying to trigger an election.

For their part, the governing grits claim they don’t want an election, but will not allow their legislative agenda to be blocked in by the Tories. The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of trying to block pandemic-related aid legislation designed to assist individuals and small businesses.

Now that Newfoundland’s election has been torpedoed by the pandemic, the prevailing wisdom that governments are rewarded during an election is definitely at risk.

If the prime minister’s team thought an early election could move the Liberals into majority territory, the uncertainty in Newfoundland may give them pause. Pandemic elections may not be so fruitful after all.

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

Last week’s world conference was an opportunity to refocus global attention on the long-term challenges we face if the planet fails to curb coastal erosion and land degradation. The risk of death faced by climate change is far greater than anything this pandemic delivered.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 18, 2021.

Just as the post-Trump America is a very different place, the post-COVID world will change us all forever.

Virtual meetings have gone from being a techie tool used by geeks to the go-to place for people to meet globally.

A year ago, no one could have envisioned an international meeting of leaders on global warming taking place virtually.

But that is just what happened last week when French President Emmanuel Macron chaired a virtual One Planet Summit of first ministers and environment ministers from around the world.

The summit was organized by the French government in concert with the United Nations and the World Bank.

Its aim was to refocus world attention on the climate crisis and the role played by biodiversity in achieving carbon capture targets.

Macron compared the global fight for biodiversity to a human rights battle. “I do not believe that the right of any other living creature is higher than a human right. But I do not believe in the effectiveness of preserving human rights without preserving the ecosystems. For me, this is the philosophical and ethical basis for this battle for biodiversity.

At the gathering, Canada joined 49 other countries in reiterating its commitment to set aside 30 per cent of our land and water by 2030.

Because of COVID, the world’s insatiable appetite for energy has abated somewhat. But the urgency that accompanied youth marches headed by Greta Thunberg seems to have been sidelined by Covidmania.

People are focused much more on their own short-term survival than on the status of the planet.

That did not stop Prime Minister Justin Trudeau from announcing a $55-million contribution to the United Nations Land Degradation Neutrality fund designed to prevent biosphere degradation and erosion in low and middle-income countries.

The conference was attended by several key international players, including UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The United States and Brazil, two key players in the climate discussion, were notably absent. In one week, the new American president will likely join a world biodiversity solution.

The summit managed to assemble like-minded countries that have all committed to protecting 30 per cent of their land and water mass over the next decade.

In terms of world environmental improvement, it was the most significant gathering since the launch of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

But the current obsession with everything COVID meant that, while a virtual meeting enlisted more participants, global coverage of these critical environmental issues has been dwarfed by the spectre of COVID-19.

Hopefully, the pandemic will be overcome soon when countries vaccinate all their citizens.

So that means, for Canada, by this fall, we should finally see an end to the ongoing lockdowns, emergency measures and life-altering changes that have forced most citizens to live like hermits since last March.

But how will we reinvigorate the debate on the global climate crisis if a gathering like the one hosted by Macron last week can barely make a ripple in the national news cycle?

Canada has taken the lead as one of the early signatories to an international treaty designed to secure natural spaces in all countries as part of a solution to environmental degradation.

According to Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, the government has already made the single largest contribution to nature conservancy in Canadian history by boosting conserved coastal areas from one per cent to 14 per cent.

Last week, the minister announced an even more aggressive target. He pledged that Canada would commit to conserve 25 per cent of our land and water by 2025. That will be the first step in our commitment to protect 30 percent of our land and water by 3030.

Wilkinson launched a clear plan, with specific targets for southern, middle and northern Canada.

He understands that simply setting aside major swathes of natural landscape in remote areas cannot be a replacement for real change in how we sustain and protect biodiversity in southern Canada.

Wilkinson is focussing on strategies for large cities, middle Canada corridors and large areas of northern wilderness. He has put in place different initiatives to support biodiversity and sustainability of these decidedly different ecosystems.

Last week’s world conference was an opportunity to refocus global attention on the long-term challenges we face if the planet fails to curb coastal erosion and land degradation.

The risk of death faced by climate change is far greater than anything this pandemic delivered.

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

By procuring almost one-quarter million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the government will be able to start distribution immediately so that frontline workers and the vulnerable elderly will get protection. And once the procurement deal was announced, Health Canada moved quickly to approve the vaccine.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 14, 2020.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled a huge rabbit out of his hat last week.

By procuring almost one-quarter million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the government will be able to start distribution immediately so that frontline workers and the vulnerable elderly will get protection.

And once the procurement deal was announced, Health Canada moved quickly to approve the vaccine.

By doing so, Canada joined the United Kingdom, and Bahrain, becoming just the third country in the world to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Four thousand people will be receiving the vaccine next week with priority given to frontline health-care workers.

It also gave Trudeau some much-needed good news in advance of last week’s first ministers’ meeting on health that was not going to be an easy ride.

The federal government has been the major contributor to funding during the COVID crisis. According to Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, the national government has been responsible for 80 per cent of the extraordinary costs associated with the pandemic.

And last week’s first ministers’ meeting gave the prime minister a chance to outline some of those successes, including funding for personal protective equipment and direct support for those who lost their jobs because of the virus.

But Trudeau is also under pressure to increase the federal financial share of provincial health funding, as the provinces were seeking an increase from 22 per cent to 35 per cent. That increase would represent additional funding of $28-billion annually, up from the current $42-billion yearly transfer.

Trudeau will not be able to meet their full demands, which some premiers have privately acknowledged as unrealistic. But any increase in ongoing funding will also be tied to the introduction of common standards into health-care delivery, while the provinces want to spend the money in their own jurisdiction with no strings attached.

In normal times, the federal involvement in provincial health matters is a no-go zone. There is simply too much jurisprudence that the matter falls under provincial authority.

More than two decades ago, BlackBerry co-founder Mike Lazaridis offered to develop a chip for health care that would record and retain health records for every single Canadian from cradle to grave.

That technology could have been critical in reducing duplication and overlap when patient records are often lost in transfer between hospitals or provinces, when people move.

The senior official involved in the offer, then heading up online initiatives for the government, shut the conversation down in five minutes. She said a single health information system would never happen because the federal government would not impinge on provincial jurisdiction.

That was long before this global pandemic infected the world and exposed gaping holes in provincial delivery of Canadian health care.

Our collective treatment of seniors living in long-term care facilities has been disgraceful. It was so bad that premiers actually called in the Canadian military to save patients. In the financial update, Freeland announced $1-billion to be spent in long-term care facilities on the condition that provinces and the federal government work together to devise national standards.

The provinces are resisting but the population is not impressed after what they have witnessed in filthy nursing homes across the country.

Seniors and single young people are probably those who have suffered most during this world crisis.

Isolation from family and friends is most difficult for those who live on their own, or who are in continuing care facilities where visits have been limited for almost a year.

The vaccine has finally given people hope that there is a light at the end of this tunnel.

The first person in the world to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was a 90-year-old British woman who pleaded with everyone to follow her example.

Her message to anti-vaxxers was that if she could take it, anyone could. She said the vaccine would finally allow her to reunite with her family, from whom she had to isolate because of the virus.

Her message was meant to encourage those who might have doubts about the test. According to the American Food and Drug Administration, only 61 per cent of Americans are likely to get the vaccine. Many vaccine opponents see their refusal as an anti-government political statement. The vaccine is supposed to be taken by at least 70 per cent of citizens for the best chance to achieve herd immunity.

The vast majority of Canadians will likely be lining up eagerly for a vaccine. Their annus horribilus is finally coming to an end.

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

The anti-gay and anti-choice views that formed the basis of his campaign for the Conservative leadership were bad enough.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 7, 2020.

OTTAWA—Derek Sloan should be tossed from the Conservative caucus.

The anti-gay and anti-choice views that formed the basis of his campaign for the Conservative leadership were bad enough.

Last week, he went from the ridiculous to the delirious, sponsoring a parliamentary petition that discourages Canadians from vaccinating themselves against the worst public health scourge in a century.

Sloan actually went so far as to claim that the vaccination was human experimentation and within hours of its announcement, his petition had gathered more than 22,000 signatures. Even more frightening was the decision by Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole to sidestep the question when asked about it during a presser on the government’s handling of the vaccine. On this one, O’Toole is making a deadly mistake.

While he and his party were starting to develop some media traction in the attacks on government pandemic strategies, the Sloan petition has the effect of throwing all that under the bus.

It makes a number of egregiously false claims including the fact that “no coronavirus vaccine has ever been approved because of serious adverse effects, including death to test animals, due to pathogenic priming; COVID vaccines are not designed to prevent infection or transmission and bypassing proper safety protocols means COVID-19 vaccination is effectively human experimentation.”

This is not the first time Sloan has put his foot in the wrong place. Who can forget his claim that Dr. Theresa Tam was a Chinese agent, a statement for which he did apologize? He has not apologized for opposing federal legislation to end conversion therapy. Sloan stands with those groups that claim they can stamp out homosexual urges through shaming and bullying.

O’Toole is refusing to silence Sloan and by not doing so, he will alienate the majority of the thinking population.

How can the Conservative leader convince Canadians to vaccinate themselves when his own colleague is leading the warped world of online anti-vaxxers?

Before the recent American presidential vote, social media websites like Instagram and Twitter actually blocked false anti-vaccination claims, suggesting they were untrue and designed to have an influence on the election result.

But here in Canada, O’Toole runs the risk of losing the public completely by refusing to stop Sloan from peddling his false and dangerous claims.

It looks as though the Conservatives are backing themselves into the same corner that cost them the last election.

Their refusal to shake off the extremists in their caucus and party are going to do them grievous harm when most Canadians are looking for leadership on pandemic issues.

With the government launching another confidence vote on the $25-billion COVID-fighting investment announced by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland last week, the Tories could be facing the electorate sooner rather than later.

That means a clear, coherent strategy on the main issue of the day should not be muddied by caucus members with mixed messaging. Kicking Sloan out would mean a couple of days of internally negative headlines, but it would clear the way for an election that would not be affected by mixed Tory messaging.

O’Toole has struggled to place himself in the moderate middle when it comes to social issues facing his very conservative caucus. He made it clear immediately after his leadership that he was not going to follow the lead of Andrew Scheer and turn his back on the gay community.

But with colleagues who have no problem doing that, O’Toole’s brand is damaged when he does nothing about them.

Thus far, the Conservatives have not made much political hay out of the COVID challenge. Even with government missteps, the Tories have been kept off balance by bizarre claims from Sloan that question mask-wearing and accuse public servants of being in cahoots with the Chinese government.

Those statements were beyond bizarre but last week’s anti-vaccination rant makes Sloan’s previous missteps pale in comparison.

If there is one way that we are going to be able to end this collective, global nightmare, it is by massive immunization with a vaccine that can protect the globe from this deadly virus.

The opposition has every right to question the government on vaccine availability and rollout, and the federal/provincial cooperation that has characterized the last nine months could be shattered in the fight for vaccinations.

Under normal circumstances, that tension should provide a real opening for a reasoned, competent Opposition leader to show how his party could offer something better.

But when O’Toole refuses to fire a team member who is a delirious anti-vaxxer, all leadership claims ring hollow.

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

Putting Canadian jobs first would also ensure that when it comes to vaccines, we are not at the back of the line.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 30, 2020.

Now that several vaccines are on the horizon, there is hope in sight for an end to this global pandemic.

But Canadians are now learning that we might have to wait longer than other countries to be vaccinated since there is no domestic manufacturer.

The government was quick off the mark to sign agreements securing multiple potential vaccines as soon as international universities and companies began researching vaccines. Canada has already stockpiled enough syringes to vaccinate every single citizen.

But the material used to go into the syringe is not so easy to obtain.

Without a made-in-Canada vaccine, we are being forced to line up behind other countries that understandably want to protect their own citizens first.

Outgoing president Donald Trump launched Operation Warp Speed with the intention of securing enough vaccines as quickly as possible, strictly for American citizens.

Early on in the pandemic, he made it very clear that any personal protective equipment manufactured in the United States would be staying there. At one point, he even made it illegal to export 3M protective masks to Canada, even though Canadian pulp was imported to form the basis of the masks he was refusing to share.

In the end, the Canadian government partnered to open a 3M factory in Canada, the only way to guarantee security of supply of the medical-grade masks.

So why hasn’t the government done the same thing for vaccines?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the country does not have the capacity to produce vaccines. Its strategy, instead, was to sign as many vaccine deals as possible so that Canada would be in a position to secure vaccines from multiple sources.

That strategy does not explain why the government did not secure domestic licensing agreements during the advance purchase negotiations.

Many other countries have those licensing agreements and are already beginning production in anticipation of an approval by the American Food and Drug Administration or the European certifying authority. Unlike many countries, Canada does not accept health certifications from other jurisdictions, and carries out its own analysis.

That gives most of us a sense of security that we are not simply mimicking approvals from elsewhere.

But to those familiar with the system, Health Canada approval delays are actually restricting the development of a robust domestic pharmaceutical industry.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am currently working to assist a number of Canadian companies selling PPE and/or developing tests to help in the global pandemic fight.

One such company in the Toronto area, BTNX, has been making Health Canada-approved test kits for drug testing, strep throat testing, pregnancy and others for more than 20 years.

In the early stages of the COVID outbreak, it started working on the development rapid antigen and antibody tests.

The tests were approved in Europe last spring, and are currently sold in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain. Brazil, Peru, and with a partner in the United States.

But its test kits in Canada are still awaiting approval. Not only can the test kits not be sold in our country, according to Health Canada regulations, kits cannot even be exported for sale in countries that have already approved it.

So, the Canadian company, located in the riding of the minister for small business, was forced to set up its COVID manufacturing facility in the United Kingdom. That country has already approached the company, offering financial assistance to move the balance of its operations there.

But even though its test was included in the Regeneron drug protocol given to Trump, it is still awaiting Canadian approval.

Meanwhile, the Canadian government last week announced the purchase of 20 million similar test kits from a foreign competitor, despite the fact that the Canadian test kit was better ranked by the World Health Organization.

Purchase orders from major Canadian airlines remain unfilled while those airlines secure test kits from foreign companies.

Another Canadian company, again with deep roots in the testing area, has developed a saliva test that it expects to be approved in Europe and the United States in January. When asked about expected Health Canada approval dates, the company sarcastically suggested it might come in 2031.

But if the vaccine delay shows us anything, our country must have a made-in-Canada pandemic strategy.

A good start would involve prioritizing domestic pharmaceutical companies in testing and purchase of COVID-fighting tools.

Putting Canadian jobs first would also ensure that when it comes to vaccines, we are not at the back of the line.

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