The world needs to be seized of the emergency at hand. With thousands of hectares of our own country burning, we need to reignite global interest in finding an energy solution. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 16, 2025.

OTTAWA—While the world fiddles, Canada is burning.

Air quality report IQAir reported that, as of June 10, smoke was descending to lower European altitudes and impacting air quality across the continent.

The impact ranged from “unhealthy to sensitive groups” in some cities to “very unhealthy” in parts of France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy.

Lyon was listed as the third most polluted city in the world while Munich was ninth. It was reported that a plume of smoke crossed the Mediterranean reaching Greece on May 18 and 19, while another plume arrived in northwestern Europe on June 1. All thanks to our country’s summer fires.

Canadians were feeling the effects directly, with air advisory warnings in most eastern communities. It was reported at one point that Montreal was suffering the worst air quality in the world.

In the midst of massive evacuations of Indigenous communities and other northerly settlements, it almost seems as though fire season is the new harbinger for summer.

Everyone is expecting more and earlier fire eruptions. But our political focus has moved from climate change to the financial havoc being wreaked by United States President Donald Trump on the world economy.

The lack of focus on climate action has environmentalists frustrated. They are trying to figure out how to get the issue of global warming back on the global agenda.

Some of them have gone elsewhere.

The other big news last week was that renowned Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was arrested by the Israeli military for entering a no-go zone in an attempt to bring food and medical supplies to Gaza.

Thunberg and 11 others were sailing on the Madleen in an effort to get supplies to Palestinians. The Israeli government reported that the group had few supplies on board, and this was instead a “selfie yacht of celebrities” carrying out “Instagram activism.”

Gazans who have been reporting massive food and medicine shortages would have appreciated the efforts of the sailors who were part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition.

As it stands, Thunberg was deported and, as a result, will be prevented from returning to Israel or Gaza.

But the strange twist to this story is that Thunberg used to be the voice for global warming.

As a teenager back in 2019, Thunberg got the attention of world leaders, calling them out at climate gatherings for the “Blah, blah, blah” approach of talking while doing nothing.

Now she seems to have moved on to other issues, with her ongoing focus on the politics of the Middle East.

COVID forced the world into small personal bubbles, but it also meant a slowdown of global warming because house confinement prompted a world drop in fossil fuel consumption.

The pandemic resulted in an immediate decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution literally within a few weeks of the shutdown.

It also changed some habits forever, permitting employees to work at home more frequently, thereby reducing their environmental footprint permanently.

But the gains made by the pandemic and the former public interest in environmental changes appear to be lagging badly.

Thunberg doesn’t seem engaged.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first political action was to cancel the cost of carbon pricing to consumers. It had been effectively labelled by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as a carbon tax, and was seen to be politically toxic on the eve of an election.

Carney definitely took the wind out of Poilievre’s sails, and he is now speaking about Canada’s capacity to be an energy and environmental powerhouse globally.

The prime minister has experience marrying the two. In his previous life at Brookfield, his company focused on sustainable practices with a view to creating current and future value for investors.

He was part of an international group promoting solutions for global warming, which he hopes to apply to Canadian government environmental policies.

The call for a major national energy corridor has certainly impressed Canadians, especially Albertans, who seem to have taken a new shine to the prime minister.

His promise to achieve it with full Indigenous and provincial consensus is more than ambitious.

Meanwhile the environmental interest that we experienced before the pandemic has disappeared. Even the sale of electric cars has stalled, in part as a backlash to Trump adviser Elon Musk. But time is running out.

The world needs to be seized of the emergency at hand. With thousands of hectares of our own country burning, we need to reignite global interest in finding an energy solution.

Otherwise, Canada will keep on burning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to speak with one voice.

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

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

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

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

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

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