By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 19, 2023.

OTTAWA—A Conservative private member’s attempt to revive the abortion debate by conferring unique legal status on pregnant women was clobbered in the House last week.

The governing Liberals united with New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois to defeat Bill C-311 by almost a two-to-one margin.

Opponents of the bill introduced by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall numbered 205. Supporters mustered only 113 votes.

Under most circumstances, that should be the end of the story. But with the Conservatives leading in national public opinion polls, and their strong support for the bill, it will only be a matter of time before the question of the legal status of fetuses ends up being litigated when a future Wagantall bill is passed.

Witness the debate concerning the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act in Parliament to understand why this legislation could represent a threat to legal abortions in the country.

The United States is already experiencing a wave of anti-women and anti-gay legislation as a result of a Supreme Court ruling that put legal abortions at risk in parts of their country.

Canadian pundits said this could not happen here, but another item in the news last week paints a different picture.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith named her cabinet, including a health minister with a strong bias against legal abortions. Adriana LaGrange served as education minister in the United Conservative Party government of former premier Jason Kenney. In that role, she presided over one of the largest public sector cuts in Alberta history, firing 20,000 educational assistants, substitute teachers, bus drivers and maintenance staff.

With LaGrange at the helm and Smith’s well-documented ruminations on private medicine, it likely won’t be too long before the new government moves to start charging for more health services.

Even more concerning is the minister’s opposition to legal abortion in the province. Her maiden speech in the Alberta legislature four years ago was entitled, “The lord leads me where he needs me.”

While she was a school trustee, LaGrange served on the provincial board of Alberta Pro-Life. In her first provincial election, she was backed by RightNow, an activist anti-abortion organization.

As education minister, LaGrange introduced a controversial piece of legislation requiring parental notification when any student joined a gay-straight alliance club. The original protection from parental notification was designed to protect those students who could face danger if their parents became aware of their sexual orientation. Students were also denied the right to use the word ‘gay’ or ‘queer’ in describing after-school clubs, and administrators were permitted to keep their inclusivity policies secret.

If LaGrange was controversial in education, there is no reason to think she won’t repeat that history in health. Those who think that access to abortion is safe across the country need to face facts.

Wagantall in Saskatchewan and LaGrange in Alberta are only the tip of the iceberg. When the bill on pregnant women was introduced, the Conservative party was pretty much unanimous in support, starting with the leader.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said that he will not introduce legislation on abortion, but he has also stated that other members of his caucus are free to do so.

He is the only leader ambivalent about his support for the LGBTQ2S+ communities, refusing to attend Pride parades or showing visible support for those struggling with a wave of homophobia across the country.

With a raucous parliamentary session coming to close, Poilievre’s popularity continues to outstrip that of the governing Liberals.

Abacus Data released a poll last week in which 35 per cent of the respondents said they would vote Tory if an election were held today. That number had increased three percentage points since the previous month, while the Liberals were down two points at 28 per cent.

The appetite for electoral change is there and the Conservatives are the beneficiaries. Approximately 80 per cent of those polled said it is time for a change in government.

Polls move, and most would agree that both Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are stellar campaigners. The fight may come right down to the wire in a tight election in 2025 (or whenever it happens).

If there is a Conservative majority win, do not be surprised if limitations on women’s reproductive rights and rights for those in the gay community resurface.

Premier Smith did not hide her intention to move toward health privatization.

Her party has many abortion opponents sitting in the legislature. A key one is now occupying the health minister’s chair.

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

If Danielle Smith doesn’t like a federal law, she and her cabinet will simply toss it out. Sovereignty in a united Canada—sounds just like the separatists. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 5, 2022.

OTTAWA—Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants sovereignty in a united Canada.

She claims it has nothing to do with a desire to separate, but the first bill she tabled as premier says otherwise. 

The crux of the bill is to give her cabinet the right to refuse to proceed with any federal legislation or action that it perceives as detrimental to Alberta. 

Notwithstanding her promises while running for the United Conservative Party leadership, she makes it very plain that her cabinet decisions take precedence over the Canadian Constitution.

Observers have underscored problems with the legislation, but they have more to do with internal Alberta politics than anything coming from Ottawa.

The decision to give cabinet the right to overturn all laws could actually cause problems for democracy in Alberta.

The move certainly seems to diminish the power of the legislature’s involvement in the approval, rejection, or amendment of any legislation.

In a majority government, the cabinet recommendation is usually carried by the legislature. But that is not a given. 

Minority governments are unlikely in Alberta, given the dominance of only two political parties. But the decision to simply override parliamentary opinion by way of a cabinet fiat is definitely a political mistake. 

At this point, the premier has to be a lot more concerned about her standing amongst Alberta voters than her popularity, or lack thereof, in the rest of the country.

She has to face the voters in less than six months, and even her immediate predecessor has made it very clear that he disagrees with her sovereignty pitch. 

In resigning on the same day that Smith tabled the sovereignty bill, outgoing premier Jason Kenney took an indirect hit at Smith’s first piece of legislation by way of his retirement statement: “I am concerned that our democratic life is veering away from ordinary prudential debate towards a polarization that undermines our bedrock institutions and principles.”

There has never been any love lost between Kenney and Smith, but this oblique reference underscores the divide that still exists inside the UCP.

While its name is “United,” in reality the party is badly split. That division is natural during a leadership period, but Smith doesn’t have much time to heal the deep wounds that can occur during internal party races. 

Some are already characterizing Smith’s legacy as that of the shortest-serving premier.  

The sovereignty legislation did little to reach out to those inside the party who share Kenney’s perspective.

As for Smith’s attempt to clarify that sovereignty and separation are not the same thing, she needs to take a deeper dive into Quebec’s peregrination.

While the rest of Canada considered them separatists, successive leaders of the Parti Québécois claimed the movement was about sovereignty, not separation. 

Sovereignty is a positive moniker. Separation represents division. But in the end, all Quebec sovereigntists want to leave Canada to start their own country. 

Smith claims otherwise, but that is about the only affirmation of Canadian unity that she is likely to make. 

Her main reason for running the province seems to be a plan to run down the country.

Smith probably thinks that an anti-Eastern sentiment will encourage a majority of Albertans to vote for her. 

But chances are their interest in personal prosperity outstrips that of her continuous assertions of public enmity. 

She will be running against Ottawa, while Alberta New Democratic Party Leader Rachel Notley will be running against the Alberta Tory record. 

The blame game actually works in two directions, and at this point in time, Notley appears to have the edge. 

By introducing her sovereignty bill as the first piece of legislation, Smith is signifying that fighting the federal government will be her top priority.

Notley says she wants to work with the feds on common issues of economic importance. 

That message of co-operation may resonate with Albertans who are looking for solutions, not brickbats.

At the end of the day, Smith’s sovereignty move does not look much different from the Parti Québécois’ offering during the last referendum.

They told Quebecers they would keep the dollar, the military, the trade agreements and all the benefits of belonging to Canada, while setting up their own sovereign country.

Smith is seeking a similar sort of autonomy.

All the reasons to endorse Canada remain intact, including access to currency, international treaty status, and military protection while none of the responsibilities will matter.

If Smith doesn’t like a federal law, she and her cabinet will simply toss it out.

Sovereignty in a united Canada—sounds just like the separatists. 

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

The Public Order Emergency Commission may have been the biggest political yawn in commission history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 28, 2022.

OTTAWA—The Public Order Emergency Commission has come to a close. 

It may have been the biggest political yawn in commission history.

Most inquiries dig into the background of political decisions that reveal much to the ordinary public.

From the Krever Inquiry to the Gomery Commission, these proceedings usually provide riveting coverage and fodder for political opponents.

In the case of the Krever Inquiry, formally known as the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, the government was dealing with the thousands of victims of tainted blood from AIDS to hepatitis victims.

Justice John Gomery, through the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, gave us a look into the inner workings of the Liberal Party, and the public was shocked by the exposure of malfeasance.

Then-prime minister Paul Martin, who launched the commission, eventually lost his own job because of the negative fallout.

In the current context, the government will emerge from this inquiry unscathed. If anything, the testimony simply reinforced the need for the federal government to take drastic action to end the illegal blockade.

From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to the testimony of multiple federal ministers, the message was simple: the federal government needed to act because the blockade would have continued if Canada was depending on provincial police forces to remove the occupying truckers.

From testimony evidence, provincial police in Ontario were reluctant to utilize all the tools at their disposal, as their political masters—including Premier Doug Ford—viewed this as an “Ottawa” problem, which would be resolved by the federal government.

On an economic level, the shutdown of the auto industry actually cost the economy and grabbed the attention of the Americans, who were also losing jobs because of the Freed Convoy’s supply chain disruption.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland testified that questions remained long after the blockade ended about how the risk to Canada’s supply chain could inflict serious economic damage in multiple sectors, including the auto and mining sectors.

The testimony gave the public a deep dive into the operations of the federal government, including the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, and the interchange amongst responsible ministers included public safety, transport, security and the economy.

Insofar as the political blowback, certain provincial premiers appeared far more negative in their private communications with federal ministers.

Former premier Jason Kenney was acid in his repartees with some federal ministers. It was obviously clear that political gamesmanship was the key factor in Kenney’s refusal to use provincial powers to end the blockade in Coutts, Alta.

The mayor of Coutts made it clear that he informed the premier’s office early on in the blockade, and said some would characterize the Coutts trucker blockaders as “domestic terrorists.”

He said he personally would not say that because he was actually afraid for his personal safety and that of his family.

Clearly, a small-town mayor in southern Alberta could see the convoy for what it was: a threat to communities that some of his constituents believe warranted the label of terrorist.

He also said that 70 per cent of the citizens in Coutts were supportive of the blockade. However, that support waned after the discovery of a cache of illegal weapons. The arrest of four men charged with conspiracy to commit murder ruined the original non-violent flavour of the protest.

At the end of the commission’s work, the decision that the federal government made will likely be justified.

Canadians have a deeper understanding of the limitations facing the federal government when it comes to jurisdictional conflicts vis-a-vis the authority of local and provincial police.

The fact that no federal opposition parties have taken up the convoy’s cause, including that of convoy supporter Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, is proof positive that the commission’s findings have largely reinforced the government’s decision to implement the Emergency Measures Act.

The commission also made clear how the local Ottawa police leadership failed to recognize the seriousness of the occupation at the beginning of the process.

Former police chief Peter Sloly, who resigned amidst the occupation, appeared unable to manage even his own team. It was clear the municipal government would not be in a position to end the blockade.

However, Ford did express more interest in getting involved when the auto industry was shut down because of the Ambassador Bridge blockade.

In the end, most reasonable Canadians have already concluded that the actions to end the blockade were in keeping with the gravity of the situation.

Now, the Freedom Convoy is calling for a reunion next February.

No bouncy castles this time.

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

On the day after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dug herself out of an anti-vaxxer hole, she decided to add some levity to her Twitter feed. To do so, she took a picture of her nylon-clad legs and patent leather pumps with the tag line: ‘It’s a beautiful day.’

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 17, 2022.

OTTAWA—#ableg has taken on a whole new meeting in the Twitter world. It used to be a hashtag for the Alberta legislature.

Now it is a hashtag for the premier’s legs.

Does that sound bizarre?

If so, that is because it is.

On the day after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dug herself out of an anti-vaxxer hole, she decided to add some levity to her Twitter feed.

To do so, she took a picture of her nylon-clad legs and patent leather pumps with the tag line “It’s a beautiful day.”

Supporters lauded her sense of humour. Opponents accused her of poor judgment and sexism.

The vast majority simply asked the question, “Why?”

Why would a premier post a photo of their legs? As a woman, Smith must know how her gender has fought hard to avoid being defined by body parts.

But the post also prompted a larger question. What kind of judgment will Smith exhibit as a leader?

So far, she has not had a stellar start.

She spent her first post-inaugural day explaining away the claim that those people who chose not to be vaccinated were “the most discriminated group” she has witnessed in her lifetime.

Smith refused to apologize for the comments, but tried to put them in context, saying she did not try to “create any false equivalencies to the terrible historical discrimination and persecution suffered by so many minority groups over the last decades and centuries.”

But she did. She also used her first day in office to announce the firing of Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, Deena Hinshaw.

Hinshaw, who was seen as a capable manager of the pandemic, received public scorn earlier this year when it was revealed she received a $228,000 bonus for her work during the pandemic.

In the private sector, the bonus would likely have been expected, given the number of additional work hours attached to the pandemic response. In many ways, it literally became a 24-hour-a-day response.

But of particular concern, is that Smith supports the current and former health minister, both of whom were laudatory about Hinshaw’s leadership throughout the pandemic.

The premier is supporting the politicians who managed the pandemic and firing the scientists and health professionals. What does that say about the kind of government she would run?

Two days have produced two lapses in judgement.

The leggy tweet won’t do any lasting damage, but the decision to rewrite COVID history by turning anti-vaxxers into victims will.

That revisionist history couples with her backpedalling on the proposed Alberta Sovereignty Act.

During the campaign, Smith said she was prepared to fight federal laws and court rulings that were not in Alberta’s interest. She characterized Trudeau’s involvement in provincial affairs as “lawless.”

But within hours of taking office, she was already changing her position, promising to uphold any Supreme Court decision on jurisdiction, and claiming that her new sovereignty legislation would respect the rule of law.

The reversal was probably necessary. Even her United Conservative Party leadership opponents said her proposed sovereignty law did not pass the smell test.

But what about those UCP voters who supported her precisely because of her attack on the “lawless” prime minister.

Her comment on the mistreatment of anti-vaxxers is a sign that she wants to continue to appeal to the small percentage of Albertans who did not get vaccinated.

More than 80 per cent of Albertans have received at least one vaccination, so her target audience is less than 20 per cent.

But that same group does not expect her to reverse her sovereignty position within a day of taking office.

UCP opponents are pushing hard for an election. They claim Smith will not have a mandate until she is elected by all the people.

Smith’s predecessor, outgoing premier Jason Kenney, will have nothing to do with her, even though they hail from the same party.

By law, the election is expected to happen in little more than six months, on May 29 of next year.

If Smith’s next few months are like her first week, the opposition should hope that the election is delayed a little. The more she speaks, the less she appeals to the average voter.

But in the next six months, she may be able to harness the power of conservatism in Alberta to win.

Given the missteps of her first few days in office, that seems unlikely.

Her path to power may involve keeping her mouth shut and staying off Twitter.

And that’s no mean feat for a politician.

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

With sovereignty looming as a potential Alberta issue, it is time for the federal government to engage in Canadian nation building.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 25, 2022.

OTTAWA—Sovereignty is back on the political landscape. But this time, the s-word is not coming from Quebec, but Alberta.

The race to replace Jason Kenney is on.

And former Wildrose leader Danielle Smith is making the sovereignty issue a centrepiece of her campaign.

The gist of her proposal is a plan for the Alberta legislature to systematically refuse to uphold or enforce any federal law or policy that runs counter to Alberta’s interests.

Multiple legal experts have jumped in to claim the law would plunge the province into a legal quagmire and create an uncertain political climate which would be bad for business.

Smith doesn’t mind. The proponents of the original bill, the Alberta Sovereignty Act, appear to want legal chaos. Called the Free Alberta Strategy, the group’s leader Rob Anderson predicts the adoption of such a law will trigger a constitutional crisis.

He also thinks that something good will come out of the crisis that sovereignty legislation will provoke.

He hasn’t explained the positives in any detail, but Smith dismissed the claims of chaos, saying she is a person who believes in asking for “forgiveness rather than permission.”

Chaos is just what Anderson and his supporters want.

And votes are what Smith is looking for. She must believe that appealing to Tory extremists will differentiate her from other candidates in the running.

According to a Léger poll published last week, Smith is running a few points behind Brian Jean, former Wildrose Party leader who was behind the ousting of Kenney. The third most popular candidate is Kenney’s finance minister, Travis Toews, who is seen as the choice of the party establishment. That could be more of a curse than a blessing. The Léger poll focused on which candidate was most popular with the general public, but the leadership candidates are more focused on party members’ support.

Using her first day as an official candidate to endorse the sovereignty legislation, Smith is carving out a position that she hopes will separate her from the rest of the pack.

Opponent Jean stepped in quickly to douse the sovereignty fire, reiterating his support for the “rule of law” without which “you head toward tyranny.”

Smith obviously believes the controversy is worth the criticism.

Meanwhile, federal Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre has made hay by focusing on controversial issues like firing the Bank of Canada governor and replacing currency with bitcoin as the Canadian money of choice.

Most economists scoff at the Poilievre plan, but it won’t be the economists who could put him in office.

Instead, he is reaching out to the anti-government members of his party who are crowding the right wing.

And that is the same cohort that Smith is going for. She shares Wildrose’s right-wing credentials with Jean.

But she needs a platform that will clearly differentiate the two.

And it seems like she has found it.

As long as the Liberals are in power in Ottawa, there will be plenty of reasons why the United Conservative Party will want to turn its back on the federation.

Managing the challenge of climate change and fossil fuel extraction is tricky, and even after the federal government purchased a pipeline, the oilpatch was not satisfied.

But when a Conservative government comes to power in Ottawa, the Alberta sovereigntists may find themselves in the same political dilemma.

Sometimes national decisions must be made in the nation’s best interest.

No politician in their right mind would want to turn their back on any province, but on a global issue like climate change, domestic oil production is obviously affected.

The seeds of separation were sown in Alberta many years ago, but no one really expected the mainstream Conservative party to embrace them.

However, there is a good chance that Smith’s strategy will work and she will succeed in differentiating her candidacy from Jean and Toews.

If she does, the fragility of the federation will be centre stage once again.

Perhaps future federal governments should focus on the things that bring us together.

Just recently the premiers all demanded more cash for health care while at the same time the majority of health ministries don’t even share data points on common issues like maternal mortality and cancer.

Provincial management of our long-term care facilities has been disastrous. Making common cause in that area is something that most Canadians, not politicians, would support.

With sovereignty looming as a potential Alberta issue, it is time for the federal government to engage in Canadian nation building.

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

Jason Kenney’s departure was unexpected as he had gathered together a group of key supporters for what was expected to be a victory celebration.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 23, 2022.

OTTAWA—Internal party warfare can be fatal.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney eked out a bare majority in a party vote on his leadership, only to be forced out by advisers’ pressure.

Kenney’s departure was unexpected as he had gathered together a group of key supporters for what was expected to be a victory celebration.

Days before the United Conservative Party mail-in vote was announced, Kenney claimed that he would stay on if he secured a single-vote majority.

A large gathering of supporters was expecting to see Kenney continue in the job, but instead, he dropped a bombshell last Wednesday night.

In the end, the pressure inside his own party was just too great, so Kenney decided to step down after 48.6 per cent of UCP review voters said they wanted him out.

Meanwhile, the internal fight in the federal Conservative party gets more bitter by the day. Last week, saw candidate slagging candidate, and supporters’ slagging each other.

The climate got so difficult that former finance minister Ed Fast felt compelled to quit his job as Conservative caucus finance critic in opposition to Pierre Poilievre’s promise to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada.

Claims of party-based racism and sleazy politics were traded as candidate Patrick Brown accused Poilievre of aligning with racists in his support of the trucker occupation on Parliament Hill.

Brown supporter, Michelle Rempel-Garner weighed in on the racism theme, accusing Poilievre of being too slow to condemn the race-based slaughter south of the border in Buffalo.

Brown also attacked Poilievre supporters for allegedly criticizing his campaign’s push to sell memberships to racialized minorities.

The past week in the Conservative party has seen the temperature increase as the end of the membership sale period looms.

The federal party Twitter feed was vitriolic, with candidates lining up to accuse each other of stoking the flames of racism. In a media interview, Poilievre promoted his use of “Anglo-Saxon” language, a lift from white supremacists’ vocabulary.

Compare federal Tory accusations to the civilized official Ontario election debate last week. Hosted by TVO’s Steve Paikin and Althia Raj of The Toronto Star, the debate was positively benign in comparison.

Candidates respected rules and time limits. They were careful to attack their opponents on policies, not personalities.

New Democratic Party Leader Andrea Horwath delivered a surprisingly listless performance, absent her usual excellent communication skills.

Later in the week, she joined Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner with a diagnosis of COVID. Both were forced into virtual campaigns in the final stretch of the election.

While the NDP leader flagged, the Green leader shone in the debate. Schreiner was personable, articulate and knowledgeable, particularly on climate change issues.

Premier Doug Ford carried out his usual, aw shucks schtick, claiming friendship with everyone on the podium and defending government policies.

The most controversial was the Conservative promise of a $10-billion investment to build a highway which is not supported by any other leader.

In the last campaign, Ford promised a buck a beer in an attempt to reach out to the blue-collar cohort that was key to his victory.

This time, Ontario Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca promised a buck a bus ticket, vowing to take thousands of cars off the road by making public transit more affordable.

The Grit leader also promised to divert Ford’s $10-billion proposed road investment into education, repairing and building schools and cutting class sizes.

Horwath pitched an increase in the minimum wage, in direct contrast to Ford’s decision to abolish planned increases early in his term in office.

The NDP leader primarily focused on her base. But she took a direct hit when the premier claimed that unions were moving away from their traditional support for her party in favour of his re-election.

Ford’s strategy worked, with NDP support slipping after the debate.

That was good news for the Liberals because many anti-Ford voters want to rally behind the party that has the best chance to defeat the current government.

The latest six-point difference keeps Ford in the lead with just two weeks to go before voting day. But the 10-point difference between the Liberals and the New Democrats really favours a potential momentum shift to Del Duca.

As for internal Conservative struggles, on the federal level it is difficult to see how the angry differences among leadership camps of Poilievre, Charest and Brown can be healed in a post-campaign show of unity.

Centrist Conservatives may not elect a party leader.

But they hold the key to 24 Sussex.

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

Controversy inside the Conservative federal leadership race will have a spillover effect into the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 21, 2022.

OTTAWA—By summer’s end, the Canadian political landscape could change dramatically.

Ontario is into a provincial election in less than two months, smack in the middle of a national Conservative leadership race.

Quebec must have an election by Oct. 3, and next month Alberta’s controversial premier faces an internal review which could plunge his party into another fight.

Federal and provincial parties are separate, but the voting public sees them all as a single, homogenous mass.

So, controversy inside the Conservative federal leadership race will have a spillover effect into the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec.

In Ontario, the premier has already stated that he will remain neutral and none of his ministers will be involved in any campaign.

That is bad news for Jean Charest, as the leadership list of Caroline Mulroney, whose family has deep ties with the former Quebec premier, could be very valuable.

Charest’s only path to victory is to saturate Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada with enough votes to overcome his socially conservative deficit in the west.

But even though Mulroney herself cannot get involved, there is nothing stopping key organizers from enlisting volunteers and voters for Charest.

The organizing skills of former provincial Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown are well known. He could secure a base for a more centrist vote which would likely end up in Charest’s camp in a frontrunner’s fight.

Brown has no love for the premier, as Doug Ford actually came to office after Brown resigned following two allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied and for which CTV recently expressed “regrets” over some inaccurate details in its story. The Brown exit was ugly, and paved the way for Ford to beat Christine Elliott in a subsequent provincial leadership contest.

Any reference to the hate-hate relationship between Brown and Ford will not help the premier in the key ridings in Brampton. Mississauga and Scarborough where Brown has many supporters who would not likely support the premier in a general election.

As for Quebec, issues within the Tory federal leadership could definitely create some blowback in the provincial campaign. The bill that forced teachers to choose between religious headgear and their jobs has caused quite a stir across the country.

However, it is largely supported in Quebec, so attacks on Bill 21 by national Conservatives will simply reinforce the re-election chances of Premier François Legault.

Charest will have to tread carefully there because he needs to secure his Quebec base, but cannot afford to alienate the rest of the party on a divisive religious issue.

Alberta’s Jason Kenney, already hobbled by a popularity plunge in his home province, has historically tried to play a brokerage role in the federal campaign.

But given he has so many Alberta problems, the usual cadre of candidates lined up to seek his blessing will definitely decrease in this leadership campaign.

Ford is facing the voters on June 2, but 25 per cent of his current caucus has decided not to run again.

The most recent announcement by Christine Elliott, former leadership rival, that she is stepping down, does not augur well for the party’s election chances.

Most seasoned politicians can smell a change in the wind. When they decide not to reoffer, it is because they think their chances of losing are greater than winning.

Of course, they usually cite family or personal reasons for resigning, but in the end, a party on its way out loses more incumbent members than a party in the ascendancy.

Ford’s saving grace at the moment is that the New Democrats and Liberals are in a virtual tie as to who the replacement should be.

That being said, the Liberals have the edge as the NDP polls heavier in certain urban constituencies like Hamilton and Windsor, but it’s presence in rural Ontario is much weaker. That skews the numbers because an equal vote actually means more seats for the Liberals, in the same way that an equal federal Conservative/Liberal vote means more seats for the grits.

By October, we will likely have at least two new premiers in Alberta and Ontario, which also has federal repercussions.

In Ontario’s case, voters like to have political bookends at the federal and provincial scene. So, if the Liberals win the provincial election, it will open more doors for a Tory federal victory in the next election.

In Alberta, it is a Tory/NDP dance, and a provincial win for the New Democrats would provide energy and workers for the next federal election.

The only certainty in Canadian politics this year is change.

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

Alberta believes the best way to tackle climate change is to appoint a minister who knows nothing about it. How else to explain the chorus of criticism levelled at the prime minister for appointing Steven Guilbeault to the post?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 1, 2021.

OTTAWA—Alberta believes the best way to tackle climate change is to appoint a minister who knows nothing about it.

How else to explain the chorus of criticism levelled at the prime minister for appointing Steven Guilbeault to the post?

By all accounts, the minister knows his stuff.

Prior to joining the Liberal government in 2019, Guilbeault founded Quebec environmental organization Equiterre in the aftermath of the 1993 Rio Earth Summit.

Rio was meant to be a political and populist call to arms, encouraging governments and citizens to begin the enormous work of saving the planet from self-imposed destruction.

Guilbeault, along with five other Quebecers, took the call to heart and founded an organization rebranded as Equiterre three years after receiving status as a not-for profit organization dedicated to sustainable and socially equitable living.

Guilbeault remained as a director after joining Greenpeace Canada in 1997. A quick study, he became Greenpeace’s Quebec bureau chief in 2000 and three years later organized their international climate campaign.

When all is said and done, Guilbeault has devoted most of his adult life to tackling climate change so it is certainly disingenuous for both Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and NDP Leader Rachel Notley to claim he is unsuited for the job, with the premier accusing him of a “radical agenda that would lead to mass unemployment.”

The electorate certainly gave the Liberals a mandate for radical action, with more than two-thirds voting for parties which promised major action on climate change.

Trudeau reinforced his intention to move aggressively on the climate file with Guilbeault’s appointment, and that of Jonathan Wilkinson to the energy portfolio. By naming Wilkinson as natural resources minister, Trudeau is creating a powerful duo to lead the way on Canada’s commitment to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

It is not going to be an easy task. If anything, the one risk Guilbeault faces is trying to do too much too soon with the possibility of losing cabinet support.

Guilbeault came into politics because of his commitment to environmental change, but governments never move as quickly as activists would like them to.

In the end, Guilbeault will have to swallow some of his ambition if he is to move on the agenda.

The fact that he has a committed environmentalist in the Natural Resources portfolio will be a huge asset. Historically, these energy and environment priorities have always clashed in the federal government.

But with the support of the prime minister as well, the trio will be able to chart the legacy piece that Trudeau is looking for.

The focus for Wilkinson will be on moving his department toward cleaner and more sustainable energies. That will be no small task, as NRCan has always seen itself as an oil and gas supporter.

I can speak from personal experience that the biggest block to our climate change commitments in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol did not come from other governments. They came from other ministries, with the natural resources minister lining up with the former finance minister to block any calls for a simple single digit reduction in greenhouse gases.

That was more than 25 years ago, and the political climate has changed dramatically.

With the exception of a few recalcitrant premiers, most Canadians are itching for real change to meet our climate change obligations.

So, Justin Trudeau can safely tell the world at COP 26 in Glasgow that Canada actually has a domestic plan to meet our reduction targets.

And with two committed ministers in the right portfolios, the chances of achieving those targets are possible.

Already scientists from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are calling on governments to do more.

A commitment to keep the hike in world temperature to l.5 degrees is only a starting point, and there will be pressure to do more.

However, it is still unclear whether China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia will even attend the conference. All three, and Australia, have refused thus far to increase their commitments to accelerate fossil fuel reduction targets.

Another anti-climate politician, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, continues to aggressively log the country’s rainforest, even though it is acting as a natural carbon sink, swallowing up global carbon dioxide emissions.

Even if Canada does its part, the chance for the world to come to grips with climate change really depends on many other major emitters.

Negotiators in Glasgow have two weeks to conclude a renewed set of global targets.

With Guilbeault and Wilkinson, the planet’s chances look brighter.

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

All signs are pointing to a Liberal government, with the only question being whether it will be minority or majority.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 16, 2021.

OTTAWA—Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

Political failure is even more solitary as Erin O’Toole will likely discover on Monday night.

Insiders will blame his loss on Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who allegedly broke a promise not to make any announcements for the duration of the campaign.

Others will finger the media for the defeat. That is quite bizarre, considering most major media outlets have shifted so far to the right that they make O’Toole look centrist.

A third group will blame the People’s Party of Canada, whose rise in popularity came from disaffected right-wing Tories who opposed O’Toole’s gamble to move to the centre.

But in the end, the best autopsy of a failed campaign is to look inward and figure out why a great start to a Conservative majority government sputtered at the mid-way point and limped across the finish line.

I realize that I am taking some risk in writing this autopsy four days before the vote. But all signs are pointing to a Liberal government, with the only question being whether it will be minority or majority.

And the slide in Conservative support proves that not only do campaigns matter but debates matter even more.

It has been a historical truism to say that debates only serve to solidify the pre-conceived positions of voters who have already chosen their preferred leader.

This election turned that truism on its head. The first French debate, on TVA, opened up the question of gun control, with Justin Trudeau pointedly asking O’Toole about his platform promise to end the ban on assault weapons.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of the campaign was the Conservative organizers’ decision to follow up the debate with a presser the following day in Quebec on the party’s strategy to fight crime.

His people should have realized that dumping an assault ban and then promoting crime issues in Quebec would not be a smart idea.

While the debate opened the wound, the press conference made the situation worse. O’Toole spent the following week backpedalling and prevaricating. The slide got so bad that he ended up saying that he would no longer respect the promise in his vaunted action plan.

That stopped the stall, but O’Toole never seemed to regain the momentum experienced by the Conservatives at the beginning of the campaign.

The O’Toole endorsement from Quebec Premier François Legault looked as though it might be able to move Tory numbers again, but another debate killed that momentum.

The questioning by moderator Shachi Kurl was indelicate to say the least. But she handed the separatists a gift when she tagged all Quebecers with the accusation of racism.

Kurl may have thought she was exposing a bad law, but she ended up giving a huge boost to the flagging campaign of Bloc Québécois leader François Blanchet.

And in so doing, delivered a death blow to O’Toole’s chances of forming government.

In sheer numbers alone, it is just about impossible to get to 24 Sussex, without passing through and securing support in Quebec.

O’Toole’s strategy was to focus on Quebec nationalists, who have historically voted blue, moving between the Conservatives, and the old Union Nationale, and the Bloc.

O’Toole’s promise of unconditional cash transfers for health was one of the reasons Quebec’s premier endorsed him.

But the uproar in the province after the English debate killed that endorsement and four days before the election, the Conservative Party is polling at 18 per cent. As Quebecers like winners, with the Liberals polling at 33 per cent in Quebec and the Bloc at 28, Tory chances in the province wane daily.

In the end, the O’Toole loss came because he was on the wrong side of most election issues.

On childcare, his promise to tear up provincial agreements to offer 10-dollar a day care in return for tax crediting individual families was complicated and unpopular.

The leader also was also on the wrong side of the climate change debate, promising to push Canadians back to the targets set by former prime minister Stephen Harper that are 15 per cent lower than Liberal targets.

His flip-flop on gun control and confusion around abortion and health care universality created further questions about the agenda of a Conservative majority government.

O’Toole’s ongoing pitch that the election should not have happened and his personal attacks on Trudeau did not help. When people got to the urns, they voted on issues.

In the end, Canadians decided O’Toole was simply not worth the risk.

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 hard to understand how conservative values align with putting people’s health at risk in a global pandemic.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 16, 2021.

OTTAWA—Inoculate but keep it secret.

That seems to be the vaccination position of the premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.

It is hard to understand how conservative values align with putting people’s health at risk in a global pandemic.

But in the tug-of-war between collective and individual rights, for Doug Ford, Scott Moe, and Jason Kenney, it is pretty clear that the collective doesn’t count.

It is no surprise that Quebec was the first to mount an aggressive plan to protect the collective. The province moved quickly to announce a vaccination passport and it is developing strict rules covering any non-essential activity, requiring Quebecers to certify their vaccination status.

Quebecers have always supported collective engagement over individual rights. In language laws, that has caused pushback in other parts of the country.

But when it comes to health, the vast majority of Canadians are on their side.

A recent survey showed almost 80 per cent support for an international vaccination travel passport.

That number drops to a slight majority when it comes to proof of vaccination for admission to non-essential public places in Canada.

Next month, Quebec will implement a requirement for vaccination proof by any citizen attending non-essential public places like bars and restaurants.

But Alberta takes the opposite viewpoint. Premier Kenney has gone so far as to state that the province would not “facilitate or accept vaccine passports.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally made a move on the issue last week when the government announced it would be working with all provinces on the provision of an international travel passport.

Federal Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino said the passport would be available early in the fall. Canada is already lagging behind several jurisdictions on the passport question.

The European Union has a common vaccine passport. The United Kingdom uses a National Health Service verification.

Canada plans to work with provincial health ministries to verify the vaccination information of Canadians. But with three provinces offside, it seems dubious that the passport will come quickly.

A vaccination passport is the kind of wedge issue that Liberals would love to test in an election.

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole is encouraging all Canadians to get vaccinated, but some members of his caucus have muddied his message.

Former colleague Derek Sloan last year sponsored a petition questioning the safety of a coronavirus vaccine before he was tossed from caucus for other reasons.

Alberta Conservative MP David Yurdiga said it was “tyrannical” for the government to consider mandatory vaccines for employees under federal jurisdiction. Yurdiga said “Canadians deserve the right to liberty … mandating the vaccine … would be a slippery slope.”

That position is widely praised by hard-core libertarians in his party.

But that viewpoint is opposed by the vast majority of Canadians.

With more than 80 per cent of eligible Canadians already vaccinated at least once, their concerns for their own health override liberty.

As long as an unvaccinated Canadian can prevent herd immunity, the issue is broadly understood as one of collective health safety, not individual freedom.

Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna gave us a foretaste of what the campaign might look like when she reflected on the similarities between anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and misogynists in a tweet last Thursday. “Quite a club,” she said.

The Conservative Party is the only one being accused of climate change denial. It is also the only party where the majority of caucus members voted to restrict a woman’s right to abortion in a parliamentary vote on June 2.

The upcoming election narrative is becoming clearer, and the refusal by three Conservative premiers to embrace a COVID passport will give oxygen to the Liberal campaign.

Instead of a vote to simply secure a majority, the Liberals now have an issue to put to the people.

Do you believe that Canadians’ protection against the coronavirus is worth a national vaccine passport? Do you think the value of everyone’s health and safety is more important than individuals right to refuse vaccinations?

Within hours of the government’s announcement of a travel passport, business leaders from retail, restaurant and tourism sectors lauded the decision.

They expressed concern that a fourth wave would further damage an already-embattled economy and anything that can be done to prevent that is worth doing.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is even asking the premier to follow the lead of Quebec by developing a vaccine passport for those who want to attend public events and non-essential destinations like dining establishments and cinemas.

Ford will likely refuse. But voters won’t.

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