The centre is where the majority of Canadians would like to be. But there’s a big question as to whether Dominic Cardy’s party can become more than just a one-man show.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 19, 2024.

OTTAWA—Dominic Cardy registered a new party with Elections Canada this month, planning to field candidates in all upcoming federal byelections.

In an interview with The Toronto Star, the interim leader of the Canadian Future Party says he considers the current federal Conservative leader “terrifying.”

He says he plans to offer a centrist option to voters tired of electoral polarization, telling The Star: “Our tag line is saying we’re not left, not right, (we’re) going forward.”

Ironically, that was the same tag line that led the Liberals to form a minority government in 2021, with their slogan being, “Forward, for everyone.”

The former minister in the New Brunswick’s Progressive Conservative government is no stranger to new parties.

He served as the leader of that province’s New Democratic Party from 2011 until 2017.

He ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the legislature as a New Democrat, but won the same seat as a Progressive Conservative in 2018.

He endorsed Maxime Bernier for the federal Conservative leadership, so if Cardy needs advice on how to make a new party work, he can always reach out to Mad Max.

Both men must realize that in the current political system, building and sustaining a new party is almost impossible.

Just ask the Green Party that has been in existence since 1983.

In the 2004 election, the Green Party, under the leadership of Jim Harris, secured candidates in all ridings and received 4.3 per cent of the popular vote.

When Elizabeth May took the helm in 2006, she again moved the dial for the Greens, taking them to 6.8 per cent of the national popular vote in the 2008 election.

That was the party’s apex, followed by multiple elections which eventually saw the election of three Members of Parliament. May has held her seat in Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C., since 2011, and is the longest serving woman leader of a political party in Canadian history.

But despite a national showing in multiple elections, the Green Party has never been able to make a real breakthrough.

So how does the Canadian Future Party think it can do things differently?

It is targeting the centre, and claims a membership of former Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats, although Cardy has been coy on who those supporters are.

The party hopes to appeal to former Tories who are not happy with the shift to the right that has happened since the party dropped its progressive wing in order to merge with the former Reform Party.

Canadian Future also hope to attract Liberals who think their party has moved too far to the left in its alliance with the New Democratic Party.

The centre is certainly where the majority of Canadians would like to be. But there is a big question as to whether the Cardy party can become more than simply a one-man show.

The party’s standing in the upcoming byelections in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, Que., and Winnipeg-Transcona, Man., will be a bellwether of its possibilities.

The party has not managed to secure well-known candidates in either riding, which may be some indication of how uphill the climb will be.

The Liberals are unlikely to give up the coveted centre as it has spelled success for them in the majority of elections since the beginning of Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has moved the party to the left with programs like pharma care, childcare, and dental care. During the pandemic, that move has worked well for Canadians, especially those who were thrown out of work through no fault of their own.

But the chance of another party making any headway when the Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats are fighting for votes is unlikely.

The bigger question is: if they get any traction, from whom will the Canadian Future Party skim votes?

Most progressives have already left the Conservative Party, and Poilievre appears to be shaping his campaign far from the centre.

His promise to shut down the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is sure to scare off centrists, especially those in Atlantic Canada who depend on the public broadcaster for their only local coverage.

Poilievre’s new campaign attacking NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is also not attracting the centre. Instead, he is going hard after the left in order to encourage NDP voters to vault over the Liberals and join the Conservatives.

It is ironic but true that some blue-collar voters are more likely to switch from NDP to Conservative than to ever vote Liberal.

But the centre is still where political victory lies.

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

Increasing the minimum wage, hiking pensions, and supporting the disabled may not be as politically sexy, but those decisions make Canadian lives better. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 1, 2024.

OTTAWA—Canada’s lowest paid federally-regulated workers got a raise last week.

Their hourly rate will go from $16.65 to $17.30 as the result of a government decision four years ago to peg the wage to inflation.

Back in 2021, the federal minimum wage was $15. In Saskatchewan, the current minimum wage is $14 with an increase of one dollar slated for next October.

That is the lowest minimum wage in Canada. The second lowest minimum wage is in New Brunswick, with Alberta sharing the spot for the third lowest minimum. Three other provinces are slated to hike theirs this year.

Alberta currently has no plans to increase its minimum wage.

It is no surprise that three of the provinces at the bottom of the pay scale for Canada’s lowest-paid workers are Conservative.

Not coincidentally, British Columbia has the highest provincial minimum wage at $16.75, with no current plans to increase.

Tracking the minimum wage is probably one of the easiest ways to determine the politics of any province.

Those who care about increasing the wealth of our poorest citizens are usually called left-wingers.

But if you look at the World Happiness Index, countries that have done the most to support their vulnerable citizens are on top.

During Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s the time in office, his party has worked hard to lift people out of poverty.

According to Statistics Canada, from 2014 to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the speed of poverty reduction was palpable. There were fewer people living below the poverty line, and those who became poor exited poverty faster.

That changed during COVID, with current levels moving back to where they were before the Liberals took office in 2015.

The spike in poverty is one of the reasons that dozens of Liberal MPs have signed a letter asking the finance minister to include disability benefit cash in the upcoming April 16 budget.

Liberal MPs Pam Damoff and Ryan Turnbull made the letter public last week calling the potential move a “legacy social policy” for the government.

The potential benefit stems from an all-party resolution supporting the creation of a disability benefit.

The government has been working on regulations since the bill passed last June.

The proposed federal benefit is supposed to be added to funds already going to disabled citizens from provincial coffers. However, one area of concern is the fear that some provinces will simply use federal dollars to replace the meagre provincial funds that are currently being paid to disabled citizens.

The provinces received similar cash for housing and health over several decades, and in many instances, the money was simply rolled into provincial coffers with no increase in affordable housing or health care.

Hopefully, federal disability benefits will be protected in the regulatory process.

A new federal disability benefit is one more tool to lift Canadians out of poverty.

Another tool, which received little public attention, was the government’s decision to top up old age security benefits to those Canadians over the age of 75.

Liberals are currently using X to contrast their record to that of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

The Conservatives raised the retirement age to 67. The Liberals reversed that decision. Poilievre voted against increases to the old age pension, the Canada pension plan, and the Guaranteed Income supplement.

The government increased OAS for older seniors by 10 per cent, which lifted 187,000 seniors out of poverty.

According to the Liberals, if they had not reversed the Conservative plan to increase the age of pension eligibility to 67, some 100,000 seniors would be pushed below the poverty line every year.

Seniors’ pensions, disability benefits, and minimum wage are not top-of-mind issues for all Canadians. But they should be.

If history has taught us anything it is that society is stronger when the gap between the rich and the poor is smaller.

The fact that poverty reduction is top of mind to dozens of Liberals means something might be done in the next budget that will help lift the disabled out of poverty.

Few federally-regulated truckers will likely be sending thank-you notes to Trudeau for the increases in their paycheques.

But they should remember that political parties can make a difference.

If an opposition party votes against pension increases, it sends a clear signal of its priorities. Poverty reduction is not one of them.

Increasing the minimum wage, hiking pensions, and supporting the disabled may not be as politically sexy, but those decisions make Canadian lives better.

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

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

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

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

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

The numbers are impressive.

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

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

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

Most confused Canadians received the payment without any explanation.

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

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

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

Most Canadians don’t make money from a tax.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 14, 2023.

OTTAWA—While forest fires rage around the world, some Canadian leaders continue to deny climate change.

Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault launched regulations last week to build a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, as opponents lined up against him.

Canada’s official opposition leader continues his “Axe the Tax” campaign while premiers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba add their voices to those who want to get rid of carbon pricing.

National pollsters added fuel to the debate with findings that the majority of Canadians do not think the carbon pricing has actually positively influenced the environment.

A poll published last week by Nanos research said two-thirds of Canadians say it is a poor time to increase the cost of carbon, and a majority who said they believe the carbon price increase is ineffective at tackling climate change.

That result was not surprising. When is there ever a good time for a tax increase in most peoples’ minds?

To be fair, ordinary Canadians are not involved in the minute details of what needs to be done to tackle climate change.

But the notion that an increase in the cost of carbon will not affect carbon use is simply not logical, whatever the polling says.

It was the increase in the cost of gas during the climate crisis in the last century that encouraged the introduction of smaller vehicles and increased focus on reducing emissions.

Emissions are reduced when less carbon is burned. Less carbon is burned when vehicles are lighter, smaller and more fuel efficient.

The rise in the purchase of hybrid vehicles and electric cars is directly linked to the increasing cost of fuel.

One only has to travel to Europe or Asia to see how the high price of gasoline has encouraged people to move into smaller cars, and multiple means of lower-emitting forms of transportation.

A poll about taxation or carbon pricing does not delve deeply enough into the real problem.

The question should be comparative. Are you willing to pay more in energy costs to reduce fires and floods? That is the real cost-benefit analysis that must be done by governments, companies, and consumers.

According to Driving, most recent 2021 statistics show that one in four vehicles purchased in Canada is a pickup truck. The highest number of pickup truck users are in Alberta with the highest per capita usage of trucks in Saskatchewan.

Ontario’s population is more than three times greater than that of Alberta, but consumers in Canada’s most populous province don’t buy as many trucks. Ontario’s rural footprint is also much larger than Alberta’s.

The more it costs to fill up those vehicles, the more consumers will make decisions to move to smaller and more energy-efficient vehicles.

Carbon pricing will affect purchasing practices, but changes won’t show up immediately.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston was on the news last week attacking the federal carbon pricing program.

But he is also lined up looking for financial help in the wake of disastrous loss of life and property caused by fires and floods resulting from global warming in his province.

The federal government pays 90 per cent of the cost of disaster relief.

This year will likely be the most expensive for disaster relief payouts in history based on the number of forest fires and floods across the country.

Houston did not have a plan to tackle climate change. He did refer to the potential of ocean wind power, and blamed the lack of wind investment on the federal government.

Houston kept repeating that he believed in solutions to climate change, but had nothing specific to offer except opposition to increase the price of carbon.

Nobody likes to pay more for anything.

But if we are serious about tackling the reality of climate change, something has to give.

Not all carbon pricing opponents are in denial. Houston kept repeating that he realized there is a problem. But he seemed ill-equipped or unprepared to offer alternatives.

The only way to move consumers toward energy efficiencies is to increase the cost of pollution caused by burning carbon.

When the world was facing a growing hole in the ozone layer, the solution was a replacement to the chemical in use as a coolant in refrigerators and air conditioners.

The new coolant was vastly more expensive. Not surprisingly, wastage dropped dramatically solving the ozone layer problem.

When things cost more, people conserve. When energy costs more, they cut back on consumption.

When transportation costs more, people’s driving habits change.

Pricing pollution is key.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 3, 2023.

OTTAWA—Is Canada broken? Canadians celebrating our national day across the country don’t seem to think so.

And neither does the world.

Just last week, three of Canada’s cities ranked in the top 10 of world livability, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Our most livable city, Montreal, didn’t make the cut but Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary did.

Millions of Canadians who live in other places believe their community is best.

Newfoundland is known worldwide for its friendly people. CNN broadcaster Anderson Cooper made his way to St. John’s, N.L., to cover the tragic loss of the Titan submersible, but could not leave the city without a special shoutout to the generosity of the people.

Just last week, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to guarantee equality in professional sport payments.

Tennis Canada announced the change in a release which said it would fund increased women’s prize money via a hike in the number of days of competition and a revenue share increase with the Women’s Tennis Association.

The announcement means a huge financial boost for women’s tennis. In the 2023 Canadian tennis tournaments next month, men’s prize money is $7.623-million while the women’s purse is only $2.788-million.

It will take five years to reach equality, but women are ecstatic that Canada is taking the lead in an area that will have ripple effects around the world.

The tennis move should also send a message to other sports, where women’s participation is grossly underfunded.

Just last week, millions of Canadians joined in a celebration of our country’s LGBTQ-plus diversity.

From small communities to megacities, Canadians joined to celebrate the right to be who we want to be and love who we want to love.

In Caraquet, N.B., at the same moment New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs was making life more difficult for transgender teens, the community was repainting its crosswalks in pride colours.

Higgs’ obstinacy on transgender issues has cost him several cabinet ministers, and his job as premier is now on the line.

The Progressive Conservative party has already started a process to replace Higgs, largely because of his decision to ram through legislation where schools must inform parents if a student chooses to change the pronoun identifying their gender.

Higgs’ response to cabinet objections was to ignore complaints about his leadership style and simply dump dissenters.

In small and large towns across the country, people wore the pride colours positively in recognition of the fact that Canada is a country where we can embrace our differences.

When the wildfires hit in Nova Scotia, Canadians from across the country reached out to help with financial support and firefighting expertise.

As the smoke still filters across the land, we know that we are in this together.

Do we have problems? Yes, housing affordability is top of the list for young people who cannot pay the high price of housing in most parts of the country.

Homelessness and mental health challenges mean urban centres are magnets for those who have nowhere else to go. In a country like Canada, help for those most in need should be top of mind on our Canada Day to-do list.

The effects of colonization and deculturalization on Indigenous Peoples are only now being tackled in a serious way with financial reparation and collective recognition of the damage that has been inflicted.

Reconciliation is still a work in progress, as is the attempt to build a country where race and religion play no role in your capacity to grow as a person or community.

We are not there yet. But the fact that most Canadians can see equality of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation as a positive goal is something to celebrate.

The old saying that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence does not apply here.

The grass is already much greener on our side of the fence.

Canadians don’t need to win a lottery. We have already won in the lottery of life, either having been born or having migrated to a country that strives for success for all its citizens.

Individual rights are not paramount in Canada. And that is a good thing.

Instead, we understand to build a nation we need to strengthen communities, geographic and demographic.

There is much work ahead, but, on this Canada Day, we can say with certainty that our country is not broken.

Instead, we are a work in progress.

Happy Canada Day!

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.

Courageous, when she told the country that successive governments had neglected their responsibilities by not investing in pandemic preparation. Dangerous, because at the end of the day, Canadians will blame current governments when things go wrong.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 6, 2020.

OTTAWA—Health Minister Patty Hadju made a courageous and dangerous statement last week.

Courageous, when she told the country that successive governments had neglected their responsibilities by not investing in pandemic preparation.

Dangerous, because at the end of the day, Canadians will blame current governments when things go wrong.

The general strategy in politics is never complain, and never explain. That is based on the belief that the more information is out there, the more it can be twisted by political opponents to become disinformation.

The general rule of thumb in communication is that less is better.

But these are no ordinary times.

And Hajdu is no ordinary politician. In the daily briefings she is clear, concise, informed and not overly verbose. Like Dr. Theresa Tam, Hajdu transmits an aura of believability.

The Hajdu admission may be out of step with her political colleagues but it reflects what is happening out there in the real world of hospitals, nursing homes and health delivery across the country.

The overreaction to Hajdu’s admission also underscores why governments hesitate to publish modelling projections of worst-case scenarios. Those projections have not been available in all parts of Canada.

Ontario and British Columbia have promised or delivered modelling projections. Some other provinces have not. And the federal government is trying to synthesize disparate data from different provinces, as some experienced the virus onset earlier than others.

According to the premier of New Brunswick, all provinces should be collating the same information, but that is apparently not the current case.

Canada’s chief public health officer suggests that building projects too far in advance is not useful because it is simply not accurate.

Information is vital in the fight to engage all Canadians, but too much information could cause panic or complacency.

American President Donald Trump went from claiming we should all be out celebrating at Easter to suggesting that a quarter of a million Americans may die because of the virus. The American newscasts reported last week that their military has been tasked with securing 100,000 body bags for the dead.

The United States is also claiming that statistics from other countries, specifically China, have been underreported.

Hajdu debunked that claim during a press conference last week, saying that the World Health Organization is gathering all the pertinent data from multiple jurisdictions, and there is no evidence that China understated its deaths. According to Hajdu, the current numbers in that country are actually less than what was originally reported.

But each country is doing its best to reassure its own citizens and position its response to the pandemic as in keeping or superior to that of other jurisdictions.

For the past several weeks, Canadian politicians from all levels of government having been reassuring the country that we have enough supplies of masks, gowns, and ventilators to meet the upcoming crush facing hospital emergency departments.

Front-line workers are living a whole different situation.

A hospital in Ottawa recently told their medical staff that protective material would not be available in the delivery ward as the normal protective devices were being repurposed to fight the COVID-19 battle.

The federal and provincial governments have been pulling out all the stops to secure protective supplies for the medical front lines. With a $2-billion purchase order, Ottawa is locking down supplies, and provinces are even sending planes to secure materials that have been ordered from international sources.

Their efforts include public bulk purchasing and financial support for Canadian companies to replace their normal lines of business with COVID-19-fighting materials to join this war on the coronavirus.

Irving is retooling operations to make hand sanitizers. Bauer is switching from hockey masks to hospital masks.

Stanfields is making medical gowns and protective apparel where the company usually focuses on underwear.   Canada Goose has moved away from their iconic down filled jackets to medical gowns.

Canadian medical suppliers are partnering with auto companies to speed up production of desperately needed life-saving ventilators.

Transformations take time. Frontline workers are scrambling to protect themselves by recycling materials and seeking out any sources they can. Some make their own protective masks, and others are trying to source protective equipment in whatever way they can.

But they also face a race against time and a global hunt for similar products. The issue of supply is not just a Canadian problem.

“Many governments around the world are going to be reflecting on this issue,” Trudeau admitted last week.

Pandemic reflection yes, but flattening the virus comes first.

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

April 6, 2017

Join us for an unprecedented full-day gathering of New Brunswick women and men, coming together to commit to gender balance in elected office and encourage more women to run.

Guest speaker: Hon. Sheila Copps

Visit Women for 50% 2018’s Facebook page for more information on their campaign.

Event Coverage

CBC News. Onetime deputy PM Sheila Copps lends voice to N.B.’s Women for 50%, April 6, 2017.  (video)

CBC Information Morning. Sheila Copps interview with Terry Sequin, April 6, 2017. (audio)

New Brunswick Women’s Council. Un congrès sans précédent au Nouveau-Brunswick, April 7, 2017.

Pre-event news coverage to date:

Brunswickan. Women Pushing for Representation in Legislature, March 27, 2017.

Huddle Today. “Because in New Brunswick it’s still 1977.” January 11, 2017.

919TheBend. “High Profile N.B. Women Pushing For More Female Candidates In 2018 Election.” January 11, 2017

CBC News New Brunswick. “Work begins now to elect more women to legislature in 2018.” January 11, 2017.

Acadie Nouvelle. “Un mouvement pour 50% de femmes à l’Assemblée législative en 2018.” 11 janvier 2017

New Brunswick Women’s Council. “Women’s Council applauds growing movement to increase the number of women participating in New Brunswick politics, calls for changes to political process.” Français.