Changes to environmental legislation is the kind of under-the-radar political discussion that will not likely make front page news. But it is the kind of change that could alienate women who tend to focus more on environmental and health concerns.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 25, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney is even more popular with Progressive Conservatives today than he is with some Liberals.

At a meeting last week of the Ottawa Women’s Canadian Club, several high-profile Tories weighed in with how much they like the job he is doing. Carney’s decision to appoint the spouse of former PC prime minister Joe Clark to chair a search committee for the Supreme Court was lauded by all. Maureen McTeer has just been named chair of the Independent Advisory board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments.

The appointment was very popular with Women’s Canadian Club members, especially those of a certain age. We were recalling the thrashing McTeer took when she kept her own name back when Clark became the youngest elected prime minister at the age of 39 in 1979. It is hard to comprehend today, but so many people were livid at McTeer, claiming Clark was unfit to be prime minister because his wife would not take his last name.

The luncheon was held at the Ottawa Hunt and Golf Club, with the topic advertised as “Life After Politics.”

Former Ontario minister and MPP Lisa MacLeod joined me on the panel which was chaired by North Grenville Mayor Nancy Peckford.

The audience included a number of former government officials and bureaucrats who well remembered how hard it was for a woman to even choose to keep her own name back in the last century.

Subject matter for the event included questions about whether women are treated differently from men when they leave politics.

MacLeod said her male colleagues who retired landed immediately in jobs while she got no offers. Instead, she started her own company.

More than two decades ago, I had the same experience. When I left politics, I was not invited to sit on a single corporate board, even though my experience in government involved responsibility for a $3.2-billion budget and 15 Crown corporations. I also chose to set up my own job, incorporating a communications and government-relations business.

The political buzz at the meeting revolved primarily around Carney and how his moves are definitely appreciated by Progressive Conservatives. One former minister in the government of Stephen Harper went so far as to tell a whole table of women that there was no way that current Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre would ever be elected to the top job. Instead, those who had voted Conservative in the past were moving over to the Liberals as long as Carney was leading the country.

The crowd was primarily made up of older women, which is the demographic that has consistently kept Liberals in power for the past decade. That is also the demographic that tends to lean more to the left on environmental and social issues. The fact that their support for Carney appears strong should obviously be of concern to Poilievre’s team.

But the environmental issues that can move votes could also be plaguing the Liberals very shortly.

Respected Toronto Star journalist Althia Raj published an opinion piece last week that will cause many women to sit up and take notice. The headline read, “Mark Carney’s pesticide policy could put the economy ahead of your health.”

The new legislation, included in two omnibus financial bills, now includes economic considerations into the decision-making process for pesticide approval under the Pest Control Products Act. The legislation also allows cabinet to overrule the decision of a single minister who declares a pesticide dangerous.

According to Raj, the proposed legislation is aligning with changes currently being introduced in the United States to weaken control over pesticide approvals in that country.

But a number of environmental organizations have objected to the bill’s intentions to replace a stand-alone health decision with one factoring in economic considerations.

Likewise, cabinet power to override a single minister would likely be used to promote pesticide approvals even if there are health risks.

All in all, it’s the kind of under-the-radar political discussion that will not likely make front-page news. But it is the kind of change that could alienate women who tend to focus more on environmental and health concerns.

Right now, the prime minister can count on the support of these women. They know how much things have improved since the time when McTeer was attacked simply for keeping her own last name.

But women’s support should not be taken for granted.

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

Working Families, an anti-Conservative coalition of public and private-sector unions and individuals, failed to overturn legislation reining in third-party capacity to advertise.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 13, 2021.

OTTAWA—An Ontario provincial court judgment just muzzled Doug Ford’s greatest opposition voice.

Working Families, an anti-Conservative coalition of public and private-sector unions and individuals, failed to overturn legislation reining in third-party capacity to advertise.

Previous restrictions on third-party advertising had been thrown out by the courts on the grounds that they violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ford government invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter in order to introduce legislation that knowingly violates the Canadian Constitution.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association joined unions and individuals in the unsuccessful appeal, claiming the law may “unreasonably chill people’s willingness to criticize the government or to engage in campaigns related to important policy issues of the day.”

In its factum to the court in November, CCLA argued that restrictions governing the right to vote, violated a Charter right that cannot be overridden by the application of the notwithstanding clause.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Ed Morgan disagreed with that interpretation, claiming third-party restrictions do not infringe on voters’ rights to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The same judge had previously ruled that the government restrictions on third-party advertising were a violation of the Charter.

The new legislation sets a $600,000 spending limit for advertising campaigns while extending the advertising restrictions from six months to one year before an election.

This further limit on ad spending, prompted unions to argue that the ruling would render third party campaigns toothless.

Union lawyer Paul Cavaluzzo was quoted as saying, “they don’t see how an election can be fair and legitimate when the government …violated their free speech … the court has found that independent third parties have the constitutional right to run ineffective campaigns.”

All this makes great fodder for lawyers on all sides. And in the end, it could have a profound impact on all future election outcomes.

Working Families spent more than $2-million in the campaign that brought Liberal leader Kathleen Wynne to power.

Polls were predicting a Tory win, but Canada’s first elected lesbian leader swept to power when forces opposing Conservative leader Tim Hudak combined to give Wynne the edge.

Wynne moved the Liberals from minority to majority in 2014, marking the fourth successive Grit election victory.

That win was the result of a call by Working Families to vote strategically against the Conservatives, whose campaign promises included a pledge to fire 100,000 public servants.

The third-party campaign was backed up by advertising targeted to let voters know what impact firings would have on teachers and nurses.

Wynne won because most voters who opposed Tory cuts voted for the candidate in their riding who could best defeat the Conservatives.

In previous Ontario elections, centre-left voters often split their ballots between the Liberals and the New Democrats.

The Progressive Conservatives managed to govern in Ontario for 42 years straight by effectively splitting the opposition down the middle.

Until 2014, union help generally went to the New Democrats, but Working Families changed that dynamic as well.

By joining forces in favour of workers, the organization managed to bridge the divide that has always existed between Liberals and New Democrats.

That bridge has definitely worked in favour of the Liberals, as it has been the party best positioned to defeat the Conservatives in an election.

The same strategic vote at the federal level has permitted the Liberals to remain in power for three terms. Progressive voters in Canada definitely outnumber conservatives.

Ford’s court victory last week will definitely change that dynamic.

In this instance, the change will affect the New Democrats most, since in sheer numbers, they are currently best positioned to replace the Tories if progressive voters unite.

If progressives splinter, as is likely the case in the absence of an effective third-party coalition like Working Families, the biggest political winner will be Ford.

Last week’s decision will probably be appealed, with the final ruling in the hands of Canada’s Supreme Court.

Whether that esteemed group will be prepared to validate a court-recognized violation of the Canadian charter remains to be seen.

Whatever their decision, Ontario is heading to the polls in less than six months.

Any definitive court ruling will likely not be heard before that date.

In the absence of effective third-party voices, the current government has definitely strengthened its chance for re-election.

However, current issues like the ragged handling of the pandemic, may outweigh the absence of a strong third-party Working Families information campaign.

In any case, Ford breathes easier today.

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