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.

It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 25, 2024.

OTTAWA–The World Meteorological Organization had grim news for the globe last week.

In every climate indicator, temperatures were the highest on record in 2023.

And for the past nine years in a row, the planet has been getting hotter.

For the first time ever, Canada’s air quality was worse than the United States, largely because of the effect of massive wildfires across the country.

Evidence is mounting for all but the most obtuse that action needs to be taken to reverse the climate crisis. Zombie fires that started last year are still continuing in parts of British Columbia. New wildfires are starting at an unbelievably early time of the year with 90 fires burning there last week.

But the man who would be prime minister, Pierre Poilievre, is running advertisements attacking British Columbia Premier David Eby because he refuses to pile in with other premiers who are attacking the April increase in the price on carbon established by the federal government.

Instead of focusing on climate solutions, Poilievre is trying to bully provinces into reversing the federal action plan to reduce our carbon footprint.

Politicians should be focused on climate solutions instead of reversing our work on climate action.

Eby was not one to be bullied. British Columbia, arguably Canada’s greenest province, was the first to adopt a price on carbon. That happened a decade before the federal government introduced its 2018 plan.

The B.C. experience has been used as a model for other jurisdictions. Their carbon pricing has had a beneficial impact on the environment with little impact on the economy.

Eby characterized Poilievre’s “axe the tax” as a “baloney office” campaign. Poilievre responded by accusing Eby of forcing British Columbians to eat baloney because of carbon pricing.

What nobody seems to be including in the discussion is how the country will fight forest fires and floods by abolishing the national climate action strategy.

Poilievre has put nothing in the window in his axe campaign, and is deliberately conflating a world inflationary trend with a made-in-Canada carbon plan.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made it very clear that the government has no intention to reverse its climate plan, even after Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Premier Andrew Furey joined six Conservative premiers in his request to cancel the proposed carbon price hike.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has vowed not to collect the carbon price, which could prove rather costly to his residents.

In the national plan, carbon rebates actually go out to approximately 80 per cent of the population based on their reduced carbon footprint.

If Moe refuses to collect, the average family of four in his province will miss out on an annual rebate of $1,800 according to the federal Department of Finance.

Trudeau is committed to the federal action plan, and vows to keep fighting for pollution pricing, despite the claim by Ontario Premier Doug Ford that the federal Liberals could be “annihilated” in the next election because of the pricing policy.

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie last week distanced herself from her federal counterparts by saying if she were elected, her party would not impose a provincial tax.

The party could fall back on the federal program, but has not committed to doing so as an internal committee studies the issue.

Suffice to say, across the board, the country is gripped with the issue of climate pricing and nobody is particularly engaged in the challenge of doing nothing.

Poilievre is framing the issue as another Liberal gas tax, and spending millions of dollars to get Canadians on his side.

Meanwhile, the federal government has spent nothing in explaining to Canadians what is actually involved in carbon pricing, and why it is so necessary to help the country fight climate change.

At a heated press conference in Calgary recently, Trudeau said it was not his job to be popular when pressed on whether he should ditch the carbon tax.

But to win elections, and carry out his climate plans, he does need to secure the popular vote.

His climate plan is worth fighting for. It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change.

If the country wants to hang on to the progress we have made on climate change, we need to increase the price on carbon so consumption patterns will change.

We are experiencing the hottest decade in history and we owe it to our grandchildren to push ahead on carbon pricing.

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.

No one prime minister can overturn more than a century of governance mistakes, but the legacy Justin Trudeau is building will make sure that Canadians are invested in the changes that need to happen for true reconciliation.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 8, 2024.

OTTAWA—The beginning of the new year also ushered in the second annual National Ribbon Skirt Day.

The first Ribbon Skirt Day was recognized by Parliament last year to honour Indigenous regalia, including the ribbon dress.

National attention was drawn to the importance of the ribbon dress after Saskatchewan schoolgirl Isabella Kulak was derided for wearing hers to a formal school event in 2020. According to media reports, a staff member told the 10-year-old that what she was wearing was not formal enough for “formal day” at the school in Kamsack.

The school district subsequently issued an apology. To mark the new year, in 2021, Isabella and a group of friends marched into their classrooms wearing ribbon dresses and shirts on the first day of school.

Kulak’s humiliation sparked an outcry and prompted Parliament to recognize National Ribbon Skirt Day on Jan. 4. Some may think this designation is frivolous, but in reality, it underscores the journey taken by Indigenous People over the past decade.

Whatever happens to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the future, he will definitely go down in history as the prime minister who devoted the most political—and financial—capital to reconciliation. I underscore financial because Trudeau is not the first leader to speak out about the challenges facing Indigenous Peoples, whether in urban, rural, or northern areas, but he is certainly the first to invest major cash in the solutions.

We won’t likely see the benefit of his government’s investments immediately. One of the first and little-noticed decisions was the move to increase education funding on reserve so that it matched what was happening in other parts of the country.

Before Trudeau, Indigenous education spending was only about 60 per cent of what was spent on average schooling in Canada. By insisting on parity, Trudeau prompted an increase in the quality of education in territories that will probably not yield results for at least a decade.

The same holds true for boil-water advisories. Previous governments—including my own—worked on a piecemeal basis to solve water issues, but there was never a published target or a focus on a complete end to advisories until Trudeau took office in 2015.

One of the key ways in which Trudeau managed to improve the water situation was his decision to break up the former Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and split it into two different ministries. One ministry is specifically focused on service delivery, while another is working to conclude governance agreements that solidify Crown-Indigenous relations.

By creating two departments and resourcing them, Trudeau has made sure that focus of work does not get stalled on one while officials work on the other.

Adequate running water and properly funded education will not make up for the years of damage done by separating families and underfunding communities. The residential school trauma has been multi-generational, and most Canadians didn’t even know it existed until recently.

The National Ribbon Skirt Day is more than a recognition of one girl’s courage. It is a celebration of culture and heritage that should instill a sense of pride and belonging in Indigenous children who have often been made to feel like second-class citizens in their own country.

No one really knows what kind of policies a Conservative prime minister would introduce to continue the work to overturn deeply rooted and racist governance, but in Pierre Poilievre’s round-the-clock social media postings, you don’t hear much about Indigenous People.

No one prime minister can overturn more than a century of governance mistakes, but the legacy Trudeau is building will make sure that Canadians are invested in the changes that need to happen for true reconciliation.

Most people vote on what is good for them, not necessarily what is good for their fellow citizens. So the work done on reconciliation will not likely yield too much support in the ballot box for the Liberals. But when the history books are written, Trudeau will definitely go down as the prime minister who made the greatest strides in overcoming colonialization and truly delivering on reconciliation.

Kulak—and every other Indigenous student—has reason to be proud of her regalia and her history. It is one of survival. resilience and celebration. In 2024, let’s hope governments continue the journey of reconciliation, in words and deeds.

Indigenous children in schools across the country should never be mocked because of what they are wearing or where they come from.

Instead, they should be celebrated every day.

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 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.

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.

And her success or failure could determine the fate of this minority government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 25, 2019.

OTTAWA—Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland may have just bitten off more than she can chew.

And her success or failure could determine the fate of this minority government.

The diminutive outgoing foreign minister has broad shoulders and proved that she could do the heavy lifting on tricky files like negotiating a free trade agreement with recalcitrant American President Donald Trump.

That foreign affairs success has paved the way for her accession to the role of federal fixer for interprovincial relationships. The theory is that if her persuasive skills were able to bring the Americans on board, the leap to interprovincial relations is not too great.

Kudos being sent Freeland’s way last week avoided the thorny question of Canada’s deteriorating relationship with China under her watch.

And the dynamics of managing foreign and domestic policy challenges are quite different. In Foreign Affairs, Freeland was supported by a cadre of trade experts, who paved the way to a successful agreement. And on the international stage, every provincial government joins the federal government in lobbying together for Canadian success.

On the provincial scene, that level of cooperation is non-existent. Regional and internecine warfare are brutal, and, unlike international negotiations, disagreements usually occur in public.

Disparate economic demands in varying parts of the country often set the stage for a win-lose outcome. When Canada signs an international trade agreement, everyone celebrates. But when the federal government invests in economic development in one part of our country, it is often perceived to be at the expense of another.

Likewise, the role of deputy prime minister can come with its own set of problems. When I was named Canada’s first female deputy prime minister back in 1993, I also chaired one of the two operational committees of cabinet and sat on the other one.

I had 31 hours of scheduled meetings in Ottawa every week before attending a single meeting with stakeholders in the environmental portfolio that I carried concurrently.

And working in the environment made me a target of oil patch abuse. Like Catherine McKenna, I was subject to threats and insults simply for doing my job. Thankfully, I did not have to face the cyber bullies who targeted McKenna.

Multiple media commentators claimed Prime Minister Trudeau had no choice but to remove McKenna, who had become a lightning rod for provincial premiers fighting climate change.

The bilateral cabinet move of McKenna, and the decision not to replace her with Quebec environmental superstar Steven Guilbeault are attempts to keep Alberta and Saskatchewan onside in an effort of national reconciliation.

But Alberta and Saskatchewan have made it clear that their political objective is to overturn Canada’s commitment to put a price on pollution. The possibility that Alberta and Saskatchewan will come on board with a national move to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions is slim to none. Meanwhile, Liberals run the risk of alienating other opposition parties and provincial governments by adhering to Prairie oil-producer demands. Meanwhile, Freeland is supposed to deliver this peace, in concert with colleague and Prairie interlocutor Jim Carr, and Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan. But the expectations facing Freeland and her available levers of pressures may not be as robust as those available in foreign negotiations.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who threatened the separation movement in his province would escalate if Trudeau was re-elected, is not about to exercise the same level of diplomacy as an American negotiator.

Kenney’s long-term goal will likely be to replace Andrew Scheer as the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, so he has little reason to want to cooperate with the Liberals. His objective is to defeat them. He also has such deep and strong support in the province that bullying or decrying Ottawa will likely burnish his political reputation at home.

Just last week, he fired the agency investigating his own party for political malfeasance and yet most Albertans appear unmoved by opposition calls to reverse that decision. Former premier Rachel Notley has been kicked out of the legislature and won’t be let back in until she apologizes. Kenney thinks he can weather the political fallout, because of his personal popularity and the predominance of his party in the province. ­He will be playing hardball politics.

By making Freeland the new bogey-woman, Kenney would be helping to solidify his narrative of Alberta as victim.

The deputy prime minister faces a bigger challenge in this domestic assignment than anything Donald Trump could deliver. Mission accomplished on the foreign scene would be a lot simpler.

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

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark had to know what kind of reaction her Throne Speech critique of Alberta would provoke. She planned it because nothing detracts from internal political problems like a good neighbourhood dustup.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 15, 2016.

OTTAWA—When the going gets tough, the tough get slagging.

It is a political game as old as the hills. Politicians play it for the simple reason that it works.

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark had to know what kind of reaction her Throne Speech critique of Alberta would provoke. She planned it because nothing detracts from internal political problems like a good neighbourhood dustup.

The late Calgary mayor Ralph Klein went on to become Alberta’s most popular premier after he bluntly coined the phrase “let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark.”

During the national energy program, the federal Liberal government was so despised that it was easy to paint all easterners with the same brush.

Alberta Conservative politicians have been dining for years on the offal of that 35-year-old energy decision, initiated in the aftermath of two world oil shortages.

Even Alberta kids who weren’t born during the last century know about the terrible eastern plague visited on their province by the national government.

The bottom line is that picking fights, and continuing them long after they are relevant, works for politicians.

Politicians of all persuasions understand the power of engaging your citizens in a fight against a common enemy. Just ask Donald Trump. But what is good for politicians can be economically counterproductive.

Alberta is in trouble now, and it behooves all of us as Canadians to step in and support the province.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to roll out the first major infrastructure investments in Alberta was recognition that governments should help those who need it most.

Contrary to past history, last week’s interprovincial fight was started by another western province taking direct aim at Alberta’s economic record.

On the heels of a stinging credit downgrade, the calculated attack on Alberta was unconscionable. Why kick another province while it’s down? Isn’t that the time when we are supposed to stick together? Or has the country become so deeply fragmented that there is no such thing as the national interest?

One thing is for certain. Clark’s calculated cheap shot blew apart any notion of western solidarity.

One should not be too surprised. This is the same premier who rejected federal Senate reform overtures within minutes of being asked to join a new process.

Sadly, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have both been working overtime to encourage Alberta businesses to relocate.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, in a bid to buttress federal leadership credentials within his own party, is ready and willing to fight all comers.

As Alberta is facing tough times, you would think neighbouring provinces could come together in aid of a friend in need. The country banded together to support Saskatchewan during the great drought of 2001-2002.

Today it appears that filial felicity is dead. There is a lot more ink to be spilled and political gains to be made in attacking our neighbours than in supporting them.

One lone voice reminded us how Alberta was there to support an unemployed workforce when the cod fishery collapsed in Newfoundland in the late nineties.

As the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Rex Murphy eloquently recalled, thousands of laid-off fellow Newfoundlanders found jobs in the Alberta oilfields. Some say Fort McMurray boasts more expats from The Rock than native Albertans.

Clark’s calculated attack left the door open for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to show some real national leadership.

By calling on provinces to come together in times of trouble, Trudeau could remind all of us of a greater Canadian value.

Quebec and Ontario have recently formalized their relationship, with joint cabinet meetings and ministers cooperating on common economic goals and environmental issues. Instead of fighting each other for a small piece of the pie, they are trying to figure out how almost 21 million citizens can better bake a bigger pie.

Quebec and Ontario are stronger when they work together. They avoid cannibalizing each other in the hunt for international investment. Alberta and British Columbia need to follow their example.

Individually, each province loses when it fails to engage its neighbours. The opportunities presented by abolishing interprovincial barriers and working together on pipeline, energy and other economic collaborations are much more promising than what can be accomplished by building walls.

Clark, a combative politician, is adept at talking out of both sides of her mouth. The same week that she deliberately introduced a nasty polemic into the government’s throne speech, the premier claimed at a fundraiser that Albertans were her province’s best friends in Canada.

With friends like that, bring on the enemies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to speak with one voice.

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

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

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

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

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

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