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.

But by refusing to put a price on his plan, and by assuming that technology alone will bridge the carbon gap, Andrew Scheer’s plan runs counter to advice from environmentalists and economists.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 24, 2019.

OTTAWA—Global warming followers may be flummoxed by the differences in party positions on climate change action plans.

Andrew Scheer’s announcement last week was long on photos and short on specifics.

He characterized his plan as the most anticipated policy announcement of an opposition leader in the history of the country.

Scheer framed his work in the context of Conservative prime ministers who came before him, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Brian Mulroney.

Our first prime minister established Canada’s first national park back in 1885. Brian Mulroney was recognized as Canada’s greenest prime minister, launching the $3-billion Green Plan in 1990 in the lead-up to the Rio Earth Summit. This was the first-ever gathering of world leaders on environmental issues.

Since the 1992 United Nations summit, multiple international meetings have tackled climate questions.

Then environment minister Angela Merkel chaired the first United Nations Climate Conference in 1995. Berlin set the stage for the Kyoto Accord, which paved the way for the Paris targets.

Canadians can be forgiven for being confused. After almost 30 years, our carbon footprint is still growing.

Scheer says his plan will change that. He cited multiple Progressive Conservative leaders to buttress his claim that environmental protection was a core Conservative principle.

But one prime minister’s name was glaringly absent from the list, that of Stephen Harper.

Progressive Tory predecessors believed that governments could lead in climate solutions. But when Andrew Scheer and his boss split from progressives to create the Reform Party, environmental interests were also dismissed.

In his time Mulroney signed the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement with his American counterpart, George W. Bush.

That treaty committed both governments to legislating solutions for the reduction of acid rain. The agreement also annexed a chapter on ozone depletion, pricing ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons that were used as cheap coolants for refrigeration.

Both governments committed to costing pollution, because that is the best way to get companies and citizens to tackle the current climate crisis.

Scheer’s predecessor was not mentioned because in the legacy of green Conservative prime ministers, he is not one of them.

One of Harper’s moves was to eliminate many environmental initiatives, including government funding for homeowners and businesses to retrofit for energy efficiencies.

The cancelled retrofit program was recycled last week in Scheer’s announcement.

Scheer also promised to regulate heavy industrial polluters, forcing them to reinvest in environmental solutions when emissions exceed 40 kilotonnes per year, a threshold 10 kilotonnes lower than the Liberal plan.

But Scheer does not explain how his government would oversee reported company investments. What would stop a company from simply passing off normal capital acquisitions as new technology investments?

By refusing to price pollution, the Tory plan also ignores the origin of one-quarter of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation accounts for one-quarter of our country’s total emissions.

But the Scheer plan does not include any strategy directed to reducing carbon use in planes, trains and automobiles.

Instead, the leader of the opposition plans to follow in the footsteps of his cousin at Queen’s Park. Doug Ford’s first act was to cancel the pricing framework put in place by the previous Liberal provincial government. He also cancelled the planting of one million trees, designed to absorb carbon emissions.

Scheer says his solution will be based on technology, not taxes.

But economists agree that the single most effective way to change consumer behaviour is to properly include the price of pollution in any consumer purchasing decision.

From gasoline to automobile trends to housing footprints, people generally use price as a major factor in their spending decisions.

By putting a price on pollution, the Liberal plan would drive innovation and also encourage Canadians to change their habits.

At the end of the day, Canadians and companies will be moved by the key argument of their wallets.

If it costs them more to pollute, they will find ways to cut down on pollution. That means buying an electric vehicle, or using alternative methods of transportation like bus, rail and bicycle and ride sharing.

LED lighting pays for itself in reduced hydro bills and reduces carbon footprint.

By refusing to put a price on his plan, and by assuming that technology alone will bridge the carbon gap, Scheer’s plan runs counter to advice from environmentalists and economists.

The Liberal plan, while not perfect, will reduce our collective carbon footprint faster and more effectively.

The electoral choice is clear. Those Canadians who consider climate change the key campaign issue cannot vote Conservative.

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 July 9, 2018.

OTTAWA—Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s very first political act was to scrap the provincial cap and trade system.

He framed the decision as “promise made, promise kept,” circulating a video tweet that features gas tank prices going down.

As of last Thursday, 32,000 people had viewed the tweet and almost 2,000 liked what they saw. But the Twitter discussion following the announcement seemed more focused on Ford family dynamics than the substantive setback for real climate action that Ford has set in motion.

The premier’s ill-conceived plan to dump the cap and trade system without having anything to replace it is eerily reminiscent of the decision-making style ushered in by Donald Trump. Don’t bother with the facts, don’t consult the experts, don’t involve your cabinet. Simply govern by Twitter. And if the number of followers grow, and they like what they see, you can simply bypass conventional media sources to sow the information seeds you would like on your own mini-communication network.

The Ford feed included a brief comment from his minister of environment, conservation and parks, reassuring citizens this would be a seamless transition. Minister Rod Phillips used all the right calming vocabulary, promising to work with stakeholders to ensure that the course correction on climate change is not going to cause any problems.

But the single biggest culprit in global warming is the automobile. The more we are able to encourage public transit, bicycling, and alternative fuels, the fewer greenhouse gases will be created.

Leadership involves making the link between consumer choices and our collective carbon footprint. It is simple for politicians to blame all environmental problems on some anonymous smokestack. Asking people to pay for their own pollution comes at a price.

The previous Liberal government took a huge political hit in on energy files; from gas plant locations to hydro prices. But reminding the public that there is a cost to the energy we consume is what leadership should be all about. If Canadians are truly interested in climate solutions, we need to change the way we move around the planet.

Almost one-third of American greenhouse gases come directly from the automobile. Giant, gas-guzzling super trucks are the vehicle of choice in many major cities, where only a single person is driving the vehicle at any given time.

The premier’s move serves to sabotage environmental responsibility. By cutting government taxes on gasoline, he is actually decreasing the envelope available for investment in public transit expansion across the province.

Until last week, every time an Ontarian gassed up at the pump, 2 cents per litre of the fill-up was being turned over to municipalities to improve public transit. According to the Ontario ministry of transportation, for every $100-million of public infrastructure investment, the province’s GDP is increased by $114-million, especially in construction and manufacturing sectors.

More importantly, easily accessible rapid transit is what gets people out of their cars and opting for public transportation. A single bus takes 40 cars off the road, accounting for 25 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year.

By abolishing the cap and trade system, and reducing gas prices by 10 cents a litre, Ford has restricted available government revenue sources for infrastructure designed to reduce our emissions via public transit, and kneecapped the plan to put a real price on the creation of carbon. Now the government must either cut spending, reduce public transit investment, or increase general taxes to cover the shortfall. A general tax hike has the perverse effect of forcing the poor, senior citizens and those without cars to subsidize gas guzzlers and polluting corporations.

The move to encourage more use of public transit has been working. According to Ontario ministry statistics, in 2014, there was a hike of more than 217 million trips on municipal transit systems, compared to 2003—equivalent to cancelling approximately 181 million car trips.

But Ontario also supplanted Alberta last year as the province with the most per capita new automobile purchases. In a province that loves its’ cars, Ford has dialled back the clock and doomed future generations to pollution problems with no real solutions.

The province’s population is also slated to grow by 40 per cent by 2041, spawning more energy consumption, urban sprawl, and dependence on automobile transport.

The cap and trade plan provided a roadmap in our fight to reduce carbon emissions.

Thanks to last week’s announcement, Ontario has turned back the clock in the fight against climate change.

Bad promise made and kept. Trump that, 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.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, April 23, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Politics can be a four-letter word. Last week that word was ugly.

Political disputes between Alberta and British Columbia and the opening salvos of the Ontario election left most spectators wondering how low politics could go.

The Western oil fight is particularly ugly because it involves two provinces whose leaders ostensibly share the same political values.

Both Alberta and British Columbia have rarely had a New Democratic premier at the helm, so one would think that the leaders would make a special effort at reconciliation.

But British Columbia Premier John Horgan didn’t even give his Alberta counterpart a head’s up when he yanked the rug out from under the Trans Mountain Pipeline, effectively dooming thousands of jobs and potential future investments in oil exploration in Canada.

His government hangs by a sliver, and that sliver is being supported by the Green Party, which believes the best way to wean the country off oil is to stop delivering it.

Well, they may get their wish.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, pictured on the Hill on April 15, 2018, after meeting with B.C. Premier John Horgan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Rachel Notley, embroiled in her own strongman battle with United Conservative provincial leader Jason Kenney, has signalled her intention to use all the tools at her disposal to pressure British Columbia. That includes legislation curtailing the shipment of fuel and oil to her neighbours on the West Coast.

The Canadian government is vowing not to pick fights but the energy minister has signalled introduction of new legislation to guarantee federal primacy over the project.

That proposed law, yet to be tabled, has caught the attention of the Quebec government, with Horgan ready to make common cause with Philippe Couillard in opposition to federal authority.

Horgan has qualified the legal proposal as “trampling on provincial rights” but says in the same breath that provinces are trying to establish those rights. That statement itself undermines his claim that British Columbia has wide-ranging authority over pipeline permitting.

And he is intent on bringing Quebec into the dispute, to buttress his view that provincial jurisdiction takes precedence in any discussion about pipelines.

Meanwhile, the company behind the Trans Mountain Pipeline, has given the politicians until May 31 to come to an agreement that will permit the $7.4-billion expansion to go ahead.

That deadline is literally one week before two other political events take centre stage. Ontario goes to the polls on June 7 and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hosts the G-7 nations in the heart of Quebec on June 8 and 9.

Kinder Morgan had to know their deadline would put ultimate pressure for a solution on the national government.

Prime Minister Trudeau will be hosting leaders from key economic partners around the world, and sustainable development will be central to the economic discussion.

How to move away from a non-renewable fuel dependence in a country that is one of the top world producers of oil and gas is no mean feat.

It is one thing for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to heed the strong Green Party presence in her country.

She is not reaping royalties from oil and gas.

But the German economy is dependent on the success of Volkswagen and other key industrial partners, who have had problems with overstating environmental emission standards in automobiles.

No one is coming to the table with totally clean hands. But there is a lot more pressure on Trudeau to keep his environmental message on target while still supporting safe carriage of oil and gas products.

Pipelines are still the safest way to move product, and unless British Columbia wants to stop tourists from visiting its beautiful province, people will need gas to get there and oil to fuel business.

By the time the Charlevoix G-7 gathering takes place, the government may have already met the test of certainty sought by Kinder Morgan.

But the interprovincial tinderbox lit in the past week is not going to be snuffed out any time soon.

Meanwhile, Canada’s most populous province does not need to fight with anyone else. That slugfest is internal, with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Conservative leader Doug Ford mincing no words in their mutual mistrust.

According to Ford, most Liberals should be in jail, and according to Wynne, her opponent is in this race only for himself.

Both came out of their respective corners itching for a fight last week. The formal election call has not even been launched and already the tone is down and dirty. More dirty than down.

The only certainty in interprovincial relations is it will get worse before it gets better.

Uglier than last week.

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.