Every September, for the past several years, I have been getting together with women who played on my high school basketball team a half-century ago. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 15, 2025.

OTTAWA—Fifty years of friendship, and still going strong.

Every September, for the past several years, I have been getting together with the women who played on my high school basketball team a half-century ago.

They were winners then, and they are winners now. Every couple of years, we take a longer trip than our usual three-day lake getaway.

Three years ago, we landed in Prince Edward Island on the eve of Hurricane Fiona. Our plans to see Rick Mercer at the Confederation Centre and to eat copious amounts of lobster were all blown away when the lights went out on the island for several days.

But like good former Girl Guides, when handed these lemons, we made lemonade.

During the storm, we huddled in the living room far away from the windows to avoid the possibility of any smashing glass hitting us.

A giant tree cracked in half in the backyard of our century-old holiday home, and we peered out the window to bear witness to the damage.

Thankfully, it fell perpendicular to residences in the area, and simply lay grounded in forlorn glory, a witness to the power of Mother Nature.

The next day, we roamed the streets, in awe of the massive damages left in the wake of the storm. But we sighed with relief as there was no loss of life.

We got T-shirts printed with “We survived Fiona,” and bragged to our friends back home about how brave we were.

Fiona was one of the many adventures we have shared together.

But the most important adventure is the chance to compare notes on our changing lives.

The changes are not just personal, they are also global.

As basketball afficionados, we get into discussions about how to deal with the gender issues facing sport, our favourite subject.

We are all thrilled to see the emergence of women’s professional sports teams, something that we could never have envisioned in the years we went undefeated as Bishop Ryan High School regional champions in Hamilton, Ont.

Unlike the boys, when we were young, there was no chance of actually making a career in the sport we loved because beyond college games, there was zero to look forward to.

Today, we have women competing in soccer, hockey, and basketball, and their audience reach—including television spectators—is enormous.

The rules have also changed.

When it comes to gender, much has been written recently about trans women competing in female sports.

Our coach, Cecilia Carter-Smith, didn’t have to worry about trans competition when she competed in the Commonwealth Games in Jamaica in 1966. Instead, she had to worry about proving that she was a woman.

There was no DNA testing in those days, so in order to qualify for her track events, she was ushered into a room, stripped down and made to cover her naked self with a sheet, while two men entered the room. Their assignment: to prove the existence of her breasts and vagina.

Without visual confirmation by men, she could not compete.

In the next Games, they developed a swab test. To this day, Coach (as we still affectionately call her) carries a card in her wallet that reads as follows: “On the occasion of The IX British Commonwealth Games held in Edinburgh (Scotland) in July 1970, Mademoiselle Cecilia Smith…from Canada…has had a buccal smear examined which was found to be sex chromotin positive. This satisfies the requirements for competition in women’s events.”

Chromosome tests ruled in those days, and as far as Coach is concerned, that should still be the case. She does not support transgendered women being allowed to compete with other females because their birth chromosomes as males give them an advantage.

Smith cited a famous swimming case in the United States when a young freshman competed as a man, transitioned to female, and then returned to university to swim as a woman. Lia Thomas won the national women’s freestyle 500-metre in 2022 before being banned from competing against other women by World Aquatics.

Thomas lost a legal challenge to the prohibition, but her case became a touchstone in the transgender debate.

Our coach supports the expulsion decision by World Aquatics, saying the capacity of Thomas’ lungs did not change when she changed her gender, therefore her body composition and size gives her an unfair gender-based edge in competition against other women.

Some of the rules that we faced 50 years ago are worth throwing out.

But when it comes to sport, the swab test affirming gender stands the test of time.

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

Improving the lives of Canadians didn’t reward the NDP, but instead benefitted the Liberals. New Democrats have a lot of thinking ahead of them.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 8, 2025.

The New Democratic Party officially launched the call for its new leader last week.

The result will be announced in Winnipeg at the party’s national convention March 29, 2026.

Thus far, there are a few names floating around as potential candidates. One is current Edmonton MP Heather McPherson, and another is recent federal candidate Avi Lewis. Party activist Yves Engler has made it known that he plans to run.

Lewis has a solid political name in New Democratic circles as the son of former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, and the grandson of federal leader David Lewis.

He is also married to Naomi Klein, an author and influencer in her own right. Klein and Lewis co-authored the “Leap Manifesto,” in 2015, proposing major changes to fight climate change, income inequality, racism and colonialism.

The NDP declined to endorse the manifesto at a national convention, punting the issue to local associations.

Lewis subsequently ran in two federal elections in different British Columbia seats. He came third in both races.

The situation facing the New Democrats is quite different today than it was a decade ago. At that point, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair had a shot at forming the government until he ended up going too far to the right and costing the party the 2015 election.

In the last Parliament, leader Jagmeet Singh tied his fortunes to building better social policy for the county, including the establishment of national dental care and a move toward more universal pharmacare.

His push for social equity actually ended up benefitting the Liberals, with their record achievements convincing some NDP voters to switch to the Liberals to prevent the election of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

Liberals benefitted from the NDP’s work on social policy, and it cost the New Democrats dearly—electorally and financially.

The party’s election results earlier this year were deemed “an unmitigated disaster” by long-serving former New Democrat MP Charlie Angus.

The party lost official status—being reduced to seven seats—and the number of ridings that garnered 10 per cent of the vote has been reported to be fewer than 50 out of 343.

That means that at least 293 ridings will not be eligible for any refund of some of their spending based on a formula set out by the Canada Elections Act.

Not only will the party be looking for new ways to raise money, it will not benefit from the riding rebate that keeps many local organizations alive when their party is not in government.

Money will be an issue in the leadership campaign, and not only because the party is in financial trouble.

The NDP historically receives support from unions across the country. But during the last election campaign, that relationship seemed to be frayed, with the Conservatives managing to secure some support from LiUNA, representing construction labourers, Canada’s Building Trades, and the Ontario wing of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council.

Those unions are not as close to the New Democrats as the public sector unions, but there will be an internal debate on whether the party should move away from its dependence on union support.

While the New Democrats carry on an internal debate, with candidates required to enlist at least 500 supporters from five regions of the country in order to run, other parties will also be following the race closely.

The Conservatives need the New Democrats to get stronger in order to cut into the Liberal vote. And Liberals need to be careful that if they move too far to the right under Prime Minister Mark Carney, their left flank could be exposed to poaching from the NDP.

The prime minister is currently making the right moves on big projects, and getting lots of support from the business community.

But, at the end of the day, he needs support from the “elbows up” crowd: ordinary Canadians who love their country and believe that we are all in this together.

Those Canadians would be more likely to shift over to the New Democrats if they feel the Liberals are getting too cozy with big business. Their move to the left could put the Conservatives in government by splitting the centre-left vote in tight riding fights.

For the Tories to win, they need the New Democrats to be stronger, so expect much positive spin about the NDP from the Conservatives.

Liberals need to keep the NDP weak. The sad story for Singh is that he aligned with the government on public policy that ended up enhancing Canada’s social policy underpinnings.

Improving the lives of Canadians didn’t reward him. Instead, it benefitted the Liberals.

New Democrats have a lot of thinking ahead of them.

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

Experienced MP and current Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia will have to use all his wiles to ensure the fall session does not descend into chaos.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 1, 2025.

The summer’s over, and the kids are going back to school.

The House of Commons will also soon return for the fall session.

The back-to-school period and the return to the House face some parallel challenges.

The first thing a teacher must do in the classroom is establish order and set themselves up for success by ensuring their students do not descend into chaos.

The Speaker of the House has the same challenge. Francis Scarpaleggia is a seasoned member of Parliament who has served his constituents in Lac–Saint–Louis, Que., for more than two decades. Prior to his first election in 2004, Scarpaleggia served for a decade as the assistant to Clifford Lincoln, the predecessor MP for the riding. Scarpaleggia also started volunteering for the federal Liberal Party more than 40 years ago. He knows his stuff.

But he is a newly-minted Speaker who needs to establish his authority in the chair very early.

The previous two House Speakers—both Liberals—were bounced for what could be considered rookie mistakes. Greg Fergus was censured when he appeared in his robes in a video that aired at the Ontario Liberal leadership convention in 2023, while Anthony Rota mistakenly invited a man who had fought alongside a Nazi unit to witness a speech to the House by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, also in 2023.

Scarpaleggia’s experience will prevent him from making those types of mistakes, but he will face a larger challenge.

Normally, the House of Commons remains calm and cordial for the first couple of years of a new government.

Most members of Parliament are exhausted from campaigning and certainly don’t relish the thought of going to the polls again. Nor do the voters.

But in this instance, the return of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre means all bets are off.

There are also a couple of new developments, which will make the management of the House much more challenging.

Thoughts of the upcoming Quebec election will be in the air since it has to be held before Oct. 5, 2026. If the results of a recent byelection are any indication, there is a good chance the Parti Québécois might form government.

PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon is promising to hold a referendum in his first term. Separatist icon Lucien Bouchard, also known for founding the Bloc Québécois, has publicly warned against that move.

In a Radio-Canada interview on Aug. 20, Bouchard said that if the referendum became a central element of the campaign, it would be a gift to the Quebec Liberals.

“From memory, there aren’t a lot of Quebec political formations from the Parti Québécois who have been re-elected with the promise of holding a referendum because it becomes an election issue. …The Liberals fuel themselves on that,” he said.

The separatist movement in Alberta will also cast a shadow on Parliament. Now that the opposition leader holds a seat in rural Alberta, he will have to carefully play this wedge issue to retain support from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and core members of their respective parties.

Poilievre has just come off his own personal re-election campaign and appears happy to continue the themes of his last unsuccessful election campaign.

According to Poilievre, Prime Minister Mark Carney is already worse than former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

The Conservative leader tends to keep his fangs sharpened in and out of the House, and his party will follow him in that regard. This makes Scarpaleggia’s job more difficult than it would normally be at the beginning of a new Parliament.

The House is also dealing with a prime minister who is relatively new to the rules of parliamentary process. Carney is obviously a quick learner, but sometimes in the heat of the moment, the notion of calm leadership goes out the window.

Carney has definitely developed a thick skin in serving as governor of the central banks of both Canada and the United Kingdom. In those roles, he was on the receiving end of many political barbs when MPs were unhappy with interest rates or monetary policy.

But in the House of Commons, one has little time to react to an insulting question.The instinct to attack in return has to be tempered by the public expectation that a prime minister should be calm and measured.

The same holds true for the Speaker. Scarpaleggia has a calm demeanor, but a raucous House will also demand a strong voice in the chair.

The Speaker will have to use all his wiles to ensure the fall session of the House does not descend into chaos.

Like the teacher managing a new classroom, the Speaker needs to have a good first week.

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

If Pierre Poilievre does not soften his sharp edges and move to the centre, he stands zero chance of gaining support of most Canadians, especially women. His partner, Anaida, is the person who can help him soften that edge.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 25, 2025.

He’s back! And with a bang.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre sailed back into the House with more than 80 per cent of the vote in one of Canada’s most Conservative ridings.

Some 200-plus opponents were only able to garner close to 20 per cent of the vote in Battle River-Crowfoot, Alta. With a voter turnout of almost 60 per cent, this byelection had a lot more national attention than most.

By rights, the Poilievre family should be celebrating this victory and planning their triumphant return to the House of Commons this fall.

However, all is not as it appears to be. In the hours following the victory, Anaida Poilievre posted on social media about the “up and down” and the “ugly side” of political life, claiming that “friendships come and go as if dictated by the polls. Just like the weather, people come and go.”

She also announced that she was moving to Montreal, Que., for a month to write a book. She was asking for tips on housing as Montreal does not permit short-term rentals like Airbnb.

Anaida may have a housing problem, but she could also have a writing problem.

I’m skeptical about anyone being able to write a real book in a month, unless it’s ghostwritten.

And why would she move to Montreal to write a book unless she is planning a political love-letter to Quebecers in an effort to win them over on her husband’s behalf?

This coming January, Poilievre is facing an internal party review, and he must be feeling some undercurrent of concern. That could explain his wife’s social postings on the “ugly side” of political life.

She is right. There is an ugly side to politics.

When a leader is on the way out, the majority of caucus members migrate to the next leader to protect their own interests and positions within the group.

When a leader is rock solid, they usually don’t have a problem with loyalty. But when one’s leadership is under attack internally, former friends can quickly abandon the boss in favour of a future leadership hopeful.

Even when a leader is not under attack, there can be an internal political opponent who will quietly fan the flames of dissent, while publicly declaring support for the leader.

In the last federal election, provincial Progressive Conservative premiers like Doug Ford in Ontario and Tim Houston in Nova Scotia were openly critical of Poilievre.

Houston even stated publicly that he was studying French himself, giving a possible hint of future leadership ambitions.

Both premiers are aware of what happened to another former premier, Jean Charest, who was humiliated in his bid to beat Poilievre during the last Conservative leadership race.

The progressive party Charest left years ago was quite different from the party that Poilievre is now leading.

Now that Poilievre is a member of Parliament for rural Alberta, his Conservative base must loom large in determining his future.

He will have to work hard to get along with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has her own base amongst the party’s right-wing.

Poilievre will also have to reinforce his support for Canada while Smith appears quite ready to provide legal support for Alberta separatists.

That influence runs counter to the move he needs to make if he plans on winning a general election. If Poilievre does not soften his sharp edges and move to the centre, he stands zero chance of gaining support of the majority of Canadians, especially women.

His partner, Anaida, is the person who can help him soften that edge. So her move to Montreal is likely an effort to set the stage for a French seduction operation.

When the book comes out, she will probably tour the province and the country with a message about the softer side of her partner. By doing so, she will try to move the dial on Poilievre’s numbers with women and francophones in Quebec.

All this work to save his job must be completed before the January leadership review in Calgary.

The location, chosen by the national executive, favours Poilievre because of the strength of his support in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Supporters from those provinces will be able to drive to the convention. Instead, flights will be required from Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and Ontario, which hikes the personal cost to party members.

Poilievre will need big numbers to survive. His wife is a key element to his survival because she is a solid campaigner and can highlight his softer side.

But Operation Seduction has not happened yet. And the Alberta base may just not like it.

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

Trump is truly delusional enough to believe he could end the war in a single day. He has repeated that enough times. But in reality, if he sells out Ukraine and rewards Russia with a land deal derived from illegal attacks on another country, he will be setting the stage for a larger war. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 18, 2025.

OTTAWA—How can Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin negotiate a deal on Ukraine minus Ukraine?

How could the American president even think about hosting a meeting with Russia’s president in Alaska? The message is baked in. Trump will reward Russia for launching an attack on its neighbouring country.

What would an agreement between Putin and Trump mean for the rest of Europe?

So many countries in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics despise the memory of their time under the thumb of Russian leadership.

They are not anxious to return to those days, and will very likely oppose any one-sided agreement reached by the Americans and Russians.

Major players in Europe, including France and Germany, still want to be able to massage their relationship with Trump, however challenging that may be.

As the American president continues to pursue bizarre and unpredictable projects, like taking over Washington, D.C., and replacing the Rose Garden with a golden “Mar-a-Lago” style ballroom, allies need to either manage their relationships, or get out of the way.

Perhaps that is why the mayor of Washington, D.C., did not condemn the Trump promise to bring in the National Guard to control crime in America’s capital city.

Like Ottawa, Washington, D.C., has a unique position as the city which houses the nation’s major political bodies like the Congress, the Senate, and the White House.

Trump has also signalled his intention to move into other cities (with Democrat mayors), although the authority for a Washington intervention is clearer.

The president is also unwilling to produce statistics buttressing his claim that the actions are prompted by a hike in crime. Crime statistics in the capital city last year were at a 30-year low.

Facts don’t matter to Trump. He is guided by his own feelings, hence the decision to meet privately with Putin, to the exclusion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

In virtual meetings with Trump earlier last week, European leaders and Zelenskyy warned against the trap that Putin may be laying. The Russian leader is expecting to be rewarded by annexing some of the lands he attacked.

Zelenskyy and European allies have ruled out any land swap, and all are calling for a focus on ceasefire.

Many are questioning the strange choice of Alaska as a meeting ground.

The territory used to belong to Russia until it was sold to the Americans in 1867. Some Russians believe the sale approved by Tzar Alexander was a mistake, and the territory should return to them.

Most observers think the decision to meet in America is already a win for Putin, who has not been invited for an official visit to the U.S. in the past decade.

Trump characterizes the meeting as a “listening session,” giving him a chance to feel out the willingness of Putin to agree to a ceasefire.

But European and Canadian leaders are worried about the nature of concessions that Trump may agree to in Alaska.

Suffice to say, it is difficult to trust a leader who will set up a meeting about the future of Ukraine without the leadership of Ukraine even being present.

Trump is truly delusional enough to believe he could end the war in a single day. He has repeated that enough times. But in reality, if he sells out Ukraine and rewards Russia with a land deal derived from illegal attacks on another country, he will be setting the stage for a larger war.

Europe won’t escape this one.

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

The prime minister is playing defence, by making sure that tariff-affected industries have cushions in place to protect Canadian jobs. Various ministers are travelling the world to reinforce relationships that may prove crucial in the trade war with Trump. But time is also on our side.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 11, 2025.

OTTAWA—The dog days of summer are upon us. That means barbecues and beaches, as Canadians make every effort to soak up some of those soon-to-be-forgotten rays of sunshine.

This summer, it is a little harder to see some of those rays, as the smoke plumes from multiple wildfires blanketing most of the country, reminding us that Mother Nature holds the upper hand in all things.

Some political leaders may not care about global warming, but they have to pay attention when the results require Canadians to stay inside in order to breathe clean air.

But even with the climate challenges, summer is a chance to reconnect with the things that can really bring us together. One of those things is sport.

When ‘elbows up’ became a political rallying cry against unfair tariffication by American President Donald Trump, every Canadian knew exactly what that meant.

Hockey is part of our winter DNA. Even those who don’t play understand what it means to play defence and offence in the sporting world.

And those same analogies can be very useful in politics. Much is being written these days about why Canada has been one of the few countries unable to achieve a trade deal with the United States.

Questions have also been posed about why Prime Minister Mark Carney has not spoken recently to Trump in an effort to secure such a deal.

Instead, the prime minister is playing defence, setting the stage for an increase in tariffs by making sure that affected industries have cushions in place to protect the Canadians whose jobs are at stake.

A good sportsperson knows that while playing defence, you need to keep offence in mind, as well.

So various ministers are travelling the world to reinforce relationships that may prove crucial in the trade war that Trump seems intent on launching.

Canada and Mexico have reinforced their intention to build trade routes that can bypass the U.S. if necessary. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne flew to the Mexican capital last week to solidify that relationship, and to repair some damage caused in the early days of the Trump administration when Canadians pointed the fentanyl finger at Mexico in an effort to avoid sanctions.

There is a significant amount of anxiety in this country because of the uncertainty in Trump’s trade machinations. But that is not going to end anytime soon, so the approach taken by the federal government means having elbows in motion, but not necessarily always up.

Trump’s trade agenda is likely going to be most affected by politics at home. The American courts have not been supportive of a number of his measures, including the decision to deport American permanent residents without any due process.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to implement tariffs via the invocation the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act.

Although Trump seems unfazed by court rulings, he is starting to feel the political pain at home. Hikes in price for beer and automobiles, and loss in profits for their companies, are hitting Americans in their pocketbooks. Coupled with the cuts to social security and Medicare, the results of Trump’s policies are starting to hurt him domestically.

Republican Senators are getting booed at their summer town hall gatherings and the news cycle is awash with stories about the president’s longstanding friendship with child predator Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump has backed off his promise for a full release of the Epstein files, and appears intent on trying to change the channel by accusing his predecessor of fabricating the Russian interference allegations that tainted recent elections.

As time goes on, Trump may have to face internal pressure to back off his unorthodox trading strategies.

For Canada, that means time could be on our side. And the more pressure the president faces from his own base, the more chance that his current tariff campaign of terror won’t work.

Better no deal at all than a deal that is going to be as one-sided as what the Europeans signed.

As many have pointed out, agreements that have been penned are largely framework accords, with the devil in the details. As for the Europeans, they may never actually conclude the details of the framework that was signed.

The French government is not very happy with what is in the framework, and has publicly said so.

We can tuck in our elbows for now. Time is Canada’s friend.

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

The world cannot turn a blind eye to the struggle for survival that has been faced by ordinary Palestinians who were not involved in the attacks

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 4, 2025.

OTTAWA—The Carney cabinet was right to follow the lead of France and Great Britain in recognizing the state of Palestine.

Canada followed the lead of Great Britain in announcing a conditional recognition based on the calling of free and fair elections by the Palestinian Authority, effectively granting the long-promised two-state solution.

The United States and Israel were not happy with the announcement by Prime Minister Mark Carney. They both claimed recognition rewards terrorism.

Hamas should never be rewarded for the horrific massacre carried out on Oct. 7, 2023, that took the lives of 1,195 people, including 736 civilians and 36 children. Many of them were doing nothing more than attending a music festival when the largest incursion into Israeli territory began with a barrage of more than 4,300 rockets.

Two hundred fifty people were taken hostage and the majority of global democratic nations decried the invasion as an act of terrorism.

They were right.

But almost two years have passed and there appears to be no end in sight as the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to carry out his plan for a single-state in Gaza.

He attacked the British announcement through social media, accusing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer of setting up a “jihadist state on Israel’s border TODAY which will threaten Britain TOMORROW.”

But the world cannot turn a blind eye to the struggle for survival that has been faced by ordinary Palestinians who were not involved in the attacks. Approximately 90 per cent of the population has been displaced and continued military incursions by the Israeli defence forces have resulted in the death of more than 60,000 Palestinians, according to their health authority.

The health ministry also reported that 145,870 people were injured. On the Israeli side, some 887 soldiers have been killed since the war began and 18,500 have been injured.

But the images of children facing starvation because of a lack of food being allowed into Gaza has moved world opinion in a way that sets the stage for the establishment of a two-state solution.

For years, Canada and allies including the United States have supported the political construct of two states.

In that context, our country could not sit idle while the Israeli prime minister seeks to simply impose the single state of Israel.

Obviously both sides will have to recognize each other’s right to exist. That includes the Palestinian leadership agreeing to the existence of the state of Israel and vice versa.

Canada will no doubt face repercussions from Netanyahu and the American president, who has also warned against rewarding terrorists. Trump also acknowledged that he did not discuss the Middle East conflict with Starmer during a five-day visit to Scotland which included a private meeting between the two leaders.

Strange that global affairs were not on the agenda, but apparently the president was preoccupied promoting his Scottish golf course and real estate interests. His final day on the trip was devoted to a ribbon-cutting on a new golf course, carrying his name in northern Scotland.

Most of the presidential agenda was tied to promoting a golfing trifecta that is the brainchild of his son, Eric. The younger Trump designed what is being billed as “the greatest 36 holes in golf.”

It is rather incredible that Trump is able to use his office as a platform to promote the family business with virtually no public pushback. According to news reports, he has his assets in trust. But surely using a public international trip to promote them should be seen as the conflict of interest that it is.

Former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau was politically excoriated because his mother was paid less than $1,000 per appearance by the now-defunct We Charity. The payments totalling $250,000 over four years became such a political tsunami that the organization ended up folding.

Apparently, the conflict bar is not as high in the United States. Trump was so busy golfing that he had no time to bring up the touchy subject of Gaza. Notwithstanding multiple reports of starvation, Trump says he is working with Israel toward a ceasefire.

The British, French and Canadian moves put pressure on Israel. For the Brits, recognition of nationhood only happens if Netanyahu continues to attack Gaza.

A ceasefire would end the British pledge for recognition.

But the French have already made it very clear that no matter the outcome of the ceasefire condition, they are prepared to recognize Palestine. As for Canada, recognition involves a free election. The creation of two states is the only path to peace. Countries like France, Great Britain and Canada need to make it happen.

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

Pete Hoeskstra says Donald Trump thinks Canadians are mean and nasty for boycotting American booze and travel. But for the first time in my lifetime, the federal and provincial leaders seem committed to work together in securing long-term solutions for Canada. If we can exert monetary influence simply by using our won purchasing power, there is nothing mean or nasty about that.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 28, 2025.

OTTAWA—Canadians are mean, nasty people, according to the new American ambassador to Canada.

Why does he say we are nasty? Because we insist on exercising what little personal power we have to send a message to the government of Donald Trump.

If we can exert monetary influence simply by using our won purchasing power, there is nothing mean or nasty about that.

The fact the American liquor purchases to Canada are down by 66 per cent is a result of individual decisions by Canadian consumers to purchase from countries that support us, not those that punish us.

According to a June report by Statistics Canada, Canadian travel to the United States was down in May by 38.1 per cent compared to a year earlier.

British Columbia Premier David Eby countered the ambassadorial attack last week, saying that the efforts made by individual Canadians are having an effect.

“If you’re a mean and nasty Canadian for standing up for our sovereignty and our jobs, well, I think most Canadians would be proud to be considered mean and nasty.”

American ambassador Pete Hoekstra was speaking to a group of Americans gathered at the Pacific Northwest Economic Summit. He told them President Trump shared the view of Canadians being nasty for not stocking American alcohol and refusing to travel to the states.

The ambassador then joked that he had no trouble getting personal alcohol into Canada as long as his car was not checked at the border.

Normally, an ambassador is supposed to be someone who smooths differences between his or her home country and his or her ambassadorial posting. The ambassador isn’t usually the one tossing insults about Canadians.

But these are not ordinary times and Hoeskstra is no ordinary ambassador.

As the country edges closer to a date on the imposition of more tariffs from the United States, we can certainly not count on the American ambassador to be promoting a reconciliation with Canadians. Instead, he is making things worse, and Canadians will continue to dig in with their own personal boycott of American goods and travel.

The prime minister and premiers are working together to soften the deadline and broaden the benefits of the outcome. Prime Minister Mark Carney has had to back down from his self-imposed aggressive time frame for completion of the tariff negotiations.

He is learning quickly that sometimes a political compromise is the only solution. Elbows up can be a good hockey metaphor. But in politics, elbows in may sometimes be required.

And given the mixed messages emanating from Washington, the Canadian government will have to count on the continued support of individual Canadians to put pressure on the United States.

We know the citizen boycott is working because multiple governors from American states are reaching out to try and convince us to change our minds.

Their argument is that they are not the enemy. And they are right. But in the absence of any logical negotiation by the Trump team, Canadians have no choice but to continue with our personal elbows up.

That means refusing to allow American alcohol to be sold in Canadian liquor outlets and continuing to travel anywhere in Canada or elsewhere in the world. But not America.

Carney’s decision to reach out to other jurisdictions, including Europe and Mexico, with agreements that may simply bypass the United States is definitely the way to go.

And businesses looking for opportunities to repurpose their supply chains or secure raw materials from new markets must continue doing so.

But if Canadian individual decisions to stop buying American piqued the ire of the White House, we know that now is not the time to stop.

Will we succeed in negotiating the tariff agreement with the United States that will meet our needs? Only time will tell.

The good news is that for the first time in my lifetime, the federal and provincial leaders seem committed to work together in securing long-term solutions.

The country is also working quickly to break down trade barriers between provinces, which will generate economic growth and more inter-provincial commerce.

We do not have the geopolitical heft of our neighbours to the south. But if we stick together, our efforts can shake things up in Washington.

In the past, Canada was always seen as the friendly neighbour to the North. The most prominent word in our vocabulary was sorry.

The attack on our country by President Trump has changed all that. If Trump thinks that we are mean and nasty now, he ain’t seen nothing yet.

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

The Conservative leader is having trouble getting support, especially from women, partly because he is seen to be too much of an attack dog. If he is going to be successful, that approach must soften. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 21, 2025.

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre is riding the wrong horse.

The Conservative leader’s press conference last week attacking the prime minister for putting his holdings into a blind trust continued to personalize Poilievre’s political agenda.

He is now recommending that anyone who is elected to public office in Canada must sell off their holdings or they should not be allowed to remain in office.

Poilievre himself defended the notion of a blind trust when then-prime minister Stephen Harper hired Nigel Wright as his chief of staff.

Like Prime Minister Mark Carney, Wright had deep roots in the private sector. Other political notables like former prime minister Paul Martin faced a similar challenge while in office. Martin owned a major Canadian steamship company and, like Wright and Carney, placed his assets in a blind trust upon entering cabinet.

Poilievre knows full well that if divestiture were the only option for political office holders, many current and former politicians would never have sought the job.

He also knows that the screens being established for Carney’s trust, including oversight by the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, and screening by the clerk of the privy council and his own chief of staff, make it impossible for the prime minister to influence decisions that would personally benefit him. The fact that Carney’s holdings are in a blind trust also means that the trustee could divest all his holdings without Carney’s consultation or approval. Given the nature of these assets that likely is not going to happen, but the notion that one should sell off everything they own to get into politics is unsustainable, and Poilievre knows it.

What is even more strange about the attacks is how personal they appear to be. There is no love lost between the two men but, if only for public consumption, Poilievre needs to appear more friendly.

The Conservative leader is having trouble getting support, especially from women, partly because he is seen to be too much of an attack dog. If he is going to be successful then that approach must soften.

There is only one way to do that. Poilievre should go hard on issues, but he must be softer on people. The personal nature of his animus doesn’t sit very well with the general public.

Most Canadians don’t know—or care—that much about the rules governing ministerial and prime ministerial financial holdings. They do know about the price of eggs, housing, and the cost of the American tariff war.

Those are the issues that Poilievre should be focusing on if he intends to become a reasoned and reasonable alternative to the current prime minister.

With the Liberals in a minority situation, it is quite possible that another election could be called within the next two years. In that time frame, Carney must prove that his leadership capacity extends beyond the private sector.

A key element in that proof is how Canada emerges from the tariff war imposed by American President Donald Trump.

Carney ran an aggressive election campaign, promising “elbows up” in any fight with the Americans.

Canadians are doing their part in this fight. Land crossings to the United States are down by almost a third, and American tourism destinations are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to lure them back. Yankee produce is rotting on store shelves in this country

Some U.S. destinations are aggressively wooing Canucks with advertising, while others have even renamed streets in honour of Canada. Governors have gone on Canadian airwaves to apologize for the president, and to ask for absolution and tourism.

But Trump continues to publicly threaten our nation at every step of the negotiation.

Carney will have to be very careful not to drop his elbows. He cannot afford to look as though he is playing second fiddle in these talks.

Carney has to come up with a win. Chances are any agreement will be tempered by some sacrifices that could be problematic.

That is where Poilievre should be focussing his attention.

If Carney is going to have to water down Canadian supply management, there will be a huge political opening for the Conservative leader in Quebec. A cogent, sustained support for dairy farmers would be a good place to start.

By continuing personal attacks, Poilievre appears unchastened by his party’s electoral loss and his riding defeat.

In an interview last week, Poilievre blamed his loss in Carleton, Ont., on his decision to publicly promise a public service cut.

In the circumstances, a little humility would serve him better than personal attacks.

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