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.

The provinces want an increase from 22 per cent to 35 per cent of health-care costs. The feds are not likely to match the demand, but will certainly come close. But the most important element of the agreement is the fine print on the five priorities that the federal government has established.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 30, 2023.

OTTAWA—The first ministers’ upcoming health-care meeting will be trumpeted as the solution for Canada’s broken health-care system.

While it is certainly a start, the patient benefits may not be felt for years.

The first part of the agreement involves money. The provinces will get more, but it won’t be as much as they asked for.

All premiers are making positive noises.

Even Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe, who can usually be called on to trash the prime minister on command, has been publicly promoting the potential agreement.

New monies will start flowing immediately. But the heavy lifting on this agreement is likely going to take years to accomplish.

Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos has made it very clear that the increase in transfers will come with conditions.

The provinces want an increase from 22 per cent to 35 per cent of health-care costs, for a whopping transfer hike of $28-billion.

The feds are not likely to match the demand, but will certainly come close. A 10 per cent hike had already been planned in the previous transfer agreement with the provinces.

The parties will probably split the difference.

But the most important element of the agreement is the fine print on the five priorities that the federal government has established.

Those priorities include reduction of surgery waiting times, enhancement of access to primary care, national data-sharing and virtual care, long-term care improvements and more mental health services.

The list is not lengthy, but it certainly is meaty.

Millions of Canadians do not even currently have a family doctor, so when mention is made of enhancing access, that includes tackling the issue of getting foreign-educated immigrant health-care workers’ credentials officially recognized.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been running a campaign to poach health-care workers from other provinces with bonuses and quick accreditation.

But simply shifting health-care professionals from one province to another does not remedy the problem.

That is why we need a national approach. One of the critical pieces is recruiting nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from other countries as quickly as possible.

That means the country needs to get serious about fixing foreign accreditation issues.

When I was a provincial member of parliament in Ontario, I was promoting the issue of officially recognizing the credentials of foreign-educated immigrants back in 1982. That was more than 40 years ago and the problem still has not been adequately addressed.

At the time, the head of the Ontario Medical Association told me in a private meeting that his organization could not support foreign credential improvements because that would allow “too many brown doctors” into the country.

No one would dare say that today, but the organizations that can stand in the way of credentialling are numerous and only a national push could finally break the logjam.

As for strengthening mental health resources, that also requires recognizing psychologists as key to universal health, by including them in public health-care funding mechanisms.

Reduction of wait-times is also a key issue and it, too, is dependent on better information sharing.

The circuitous referral service where family doctors triage patients also needs an overhaul. At the moment, a patient with potential for skin cancer who has already had pre-cancerous lesions removed, often has to go back to the family doctor for referral when new lesions appear.

How redundant is that?

A properly integrated data-sharing system should allow patients to bypass the interminable delays that cost time and money to the system.

The federal government plans to sign individual bilateral agreements with provinces focusing on their priorities. But it is also laser-focused on a national agreement to strengthen the five priority areas.

That agreement will not likely kick in until the latter years of the proposed 10-year agreement. Is that too little too late?

The work on long-term care improvements has already begun. That is one area where provinces and the federal government are in agreement.

The fact that the prime minister has scheduled a first ministers’ meeting means that the parties are very close to an agreement on shared national priorities.

That agreement could turn out to be the saving grace of Canada’s universal health-care system.

The last time the federal government rolled out a real national plan was the introduction of the Canada Health Act by Monique Begin when Justin Trudeau’s father was the prime minister.

This agreement could become one of the great legacies of Justin Trudeau’s time in office.

But the results will likely take a decade to determine.

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.