The message from the Newfoundland and Labrador election is loud and clear: Rural voices will not be silenced. The Canadian government needs to listen.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 20, 2025.

OTTAWA—The result of the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election on Oct. 14 should serve as a wake-up call for the federal Liberals.

Of course, the appetite for change is always present when a government has been in power for a decade. But it would be a mistake to think the majority government delivered to the Progressive Conservatives was simply a result of voter fatigue.

Instead, there was an urban/rural split that went undetected in the multiple polls that predicted another Liberal majority.

The polls were wrong. It was quite obvious that the Liberal messaging resonated in the greater St. John’s area, but fell pretty flat in the rest of the province.

The Liberals held their own in the provincial capital, which is the heart of Newfoundland media coverage. That strength led pollsters to misread the appetite for change that was rolling across the rest of the province.

Liberal Health and Community Services Krista Lynn Howell was defeated by Andrea Barbour, even though Progressive Conservatives were joking that there were more road-paving announcements than icebergs in her Great Northern Peninsula district before the vote.

Howell lost by 595 votes, which does not seem like a lot. But considering the district included only 4,703 voters, that is more than a 10 per cent margin.

Her job as health and community services minister did not help because one of the main issues promoted by the Progressive Conservatives was major new investment in health care.

The Tory party platform called for an improved patient-nurse ratio, and promised the addition of 50 more nursing education spaces at Memorial University. The party also pledged to tackle government spending, all the while reducing taxes.

On the affordability front, the Progressive Conservatives offered the highest personal-tax exemption in Atlantic Canada, raising the threshold to $15,000 below which no taxes would be paid.

It also promised to increase seniors’ benefits by 20 per cent, all the while claiming to reduce government spending.

The Tory platform was only released a few days before the election which meant there was little to attack, but its general focus on health, affordability, and safety appeared to resonate across the province.

Compare that platform to the proposals of the Liberals, who promised hundreds more child care spaces. Child-care spaces are much more popular in urban areas, where an extended family is often not as available to pitch in. The Tories promised to increase the Child Tax Benefit, which goes to every child, not just those whose parents both work outside the home.

Outgoing premier John Hogan tied most of his promised spending increases to the revenue that would be generated from Newfoundland and Labrador’s agreement to sell hydroelectric energy to Quebec.

Hogan claimed that most of his promises would be funded by the cash coming from the 2024 memorandum of understanding penned with Quebec by then-Liberal premier Andrew Furey.

The PCs are advocating changes to the MOU, but premier-elect Tony Wakeham insisted throughout the campaign that the MOU was not the biggest issue. Obviously, voters agreed.

In his victory speech, Wakeham suggested he would launch an independent review of the deal, while Quebec Premier François Legault confirmed his government is open to renegotiation.

At the end of the day, the PC’s platform dealt with pocketbook and health issues for all parts of the province. The Liberals are the urban party, which wasn’t enough to carry them over the finish line.

That same challenge faces the federal Liberals when the lifespan of this minority government is cut short in the next couple of years.

This past spring, Prime Minister Mark Carney was able to present himself as a new face in Parliament, with plenty of experience in the business and international communities.

His triumph was driven, in part, because of the wedge that United States President Donald Trump generated from his incessant calls to annex Canada, and his rude treatment of then-prime minister Justin Trudeau.

But as Carney’s own newness wears off, and the bitter effects of Trump’s anti-Canada campaign wear the country down, the prime minister will have to put something new on the table.

More attention definitely needs to be paid to rural regions that have been painted a deep swath of blue for the past two decades.

They do not represent the majority, but in a tight election, the votes of rural Canadians could well decide who forms government.

The message from the Newfoundland and Labrador election is loud and clear: Rural voices will not be silenced.

The Canadian government needs to listen.

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

This one-off is much more than it appears to be. Along with finalizing the fall date on a permanent basis, the government is also restructuring how it determines spending.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 13, 2025.

OTTAWA—Elections and budgets seem to stall governments. When it comes to an election, no one knows the outcome, so the bureaucracy must go into a holding pattern while they await the outcome.

As for budgets, bureaucrats are loath to make new commitments or policy changes until they know what impact the budget will have on their operating costs.

Last week’s announcement that future budget dates will be moved from the spring to the fall was met with a yawn by most Canadians.

While the business world needs financial certainty to make investment decisions, ordinary people don’t really care whether the work is announced in the spring or the fall.

In the current circumstance, the government had to change the date this year to accommodate the delay caused by the April election, and the change in cabinet.

A new finance minister needs time to be briefed on all the issues, and to make financial decisions.

But this one-off is much more than it appears to be. Along with finalizing the fall date on a permanent basis, the government is also restructuring how it determines spending.

The intention is to make it clearer that long-term capital investments are a different line item than regular operational costs.

The Conservative finance critic Jasraj Hallan immediately attacked the announcement of this new approach. He claims that what the government calls “Modernizing Canada’s Budgeting Approach” is merely another way of “cooking the books.”

But the government is insisting that the new financing mechanisms are consistent with international guidelines. The autumn budget means that the bulk of the government spending decisions will happen after the April fiscal year end, which should bring spending habits closer to actual financial reality.

The insistence that the government differentiate between operational costs and long-term capital investments will help Canadians understand why, in some instances, current deficits build up long-term equity.

To the ordinary person, the analogy would be a mortgage. If you hold debt in order to build equity, such as in the owning of a house, you are investing in the future, not simply spending.

If the same amount of money is spent on disposable items like clothing or coffee purchases, they are obviously not appreciating assets and need to be viewed differently.

Just as a mortgage is worth holding for a family, national investment in housing stock, public transit, and major infrastructure projects can easily be understood as capital expenditures for long-term Canadian economic stability.

If we don’t spend on capital expenditures, like housing, we find ourselves in a housing crisis like the one that has thrown the country into turmoil.

For the past 30 years, the federal government transferred housing dollars to the provinces with no guarantee that housing would be built. And when it wasn’t, we landed in a crisis of social housing that will take a decade to overcome.

A plan to treat that investment separately from general government-service spending may be better understood by the public, but not everyone agrees.

The interim parliamentary budget officer Jason Jacques says that the definition of capital expenditures is too broad, going beyond international standards. The former parliamentary budget officer disagrees, saying the new accounting is additional information to what will continue to be provided to Canadians.

Conservative MP Pat Kelly also attacked the changes, saying “Debt is still debt at the end of the day—doesn’t matter how many columns you try to present to Canadians.”

With the fall budget date, most departments will likely be changing the way they manage year-end spending. In the current climate, most departments try and spend all the money in their budgets before the end of March, which is the fiscal year-end. If surplus funding lapses, their next budget could be reduced as a consequence.

With the government plans to reduce operational spending, the appetite to accelerate year-end spending will be blunted.

At the end of the day, most Canadians will pay little attention to these changes. In general, people don’t even fully understand the difference between an economic statement and a budget. Departments will be following closely, as will the business world.

The separation between operational spending and capital investment will provide a better snapshot of government priorities, like mega-projects meant to stimulate the economy, or capital investments in public infrastructure.

The Finance Department is characterizing these decisions as generational investments.

But governments generally only get credit for what is happening in the short term. Long-term planning has never been a political strong suit.

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

Mark Carney needs something to show that Liberals don’t just care about mega-projects. No tax on food could be a good place to start.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 6, 2025.

OTTAWA—Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is good at retail politics. Other parties may decry his slogans and three-word mantras, but a note of caution needs to be sounded.

KISS is the basic mantra of any successful politician. It may sound a little condescending because in long form, it reads ‘keep it simple, stupid’. For marketing reasons, the last ‘s’ needs to be replaced because voters are definitely not stupid.

But a simple message is one that resonates. When Poilievre coined the phrase “Axe the Tax” in relation to carbon pricing, it mattered little that the fiscal instrument was supposed to be a price on pollution.

He marketed it as an unfair tax, and in the absence of any reply from the previous Liberal government, it was the first thing that Prime Minister Mark Carney did axe.

That move was politically necessary because in order for Carney’s “elbows up” message to be heard, he didn’t need an unpopular carbon pricing system to muddy the waters.

It went, and he won.

Poilievre was unable to pivot in the federal election, and with the help of United States President Donald Trump, Carney convinced Canadians that he was best positioned to offer a path forward by forging new international allegiances without the support of the U.S.

The prime minister is still reaching out internationally, with some success. In the meantime, the leader of the official opposition is sharpening his message on another matter: the cost of food.

Last week, Poilievre launched an attack on the government based on the increasing cost of groceries for Canadians.

A Conservative motion in the House of Commons tabled on Oct. 1 identified four factors involved in taxing food including deficits, the ban on single-use plastics, the carbon tax application to agriculture, and the federal clean-fuel standard.

It is fairly difficult to claim that dirtier fuel would reduce the price of food, and there were plenty of critics ready to attack the Conservative motion.

But the fact remains, any attack on the cost of groceries resonates with Canadians who are suffering the effects of increased prices for most food basics.

While some say the government has little influence on supply-chain issues or international instability affecting food prices, the bottom line is that Poilievre’s message resonates.

“Elbows up” has also resonated with Canadians, which is why the prime minister still has enough public support to withstand the Poilievre attacks at this point. But he shouldn’t assume it will always be this way.

When the November budget is tabled, the finance minister needs to include some deliverables for ordinary Canadians.

It is wonderful to work on interprovincial trade barriers and big projects. But at the end of the day, people vote based on their own personal interests. And if their pocketbooks are being strained by the cost of food, they will be asking whose elbows are up for them.

There is a solution for Carney to blunt this issue immediately.

While food purchased in grocery stores is not generally taxed, the reality is that the meals eaten by Canadians outside the home are all subject to tax.

Restaurants Canada CEO Kelly Higginson was in Ottawa last week lobbying finance officials to announce an end to the tax on all food in the Nov. 4 budget.

Their slogan is “Food is food. Stop taxing what we eat.” It is a simple message, and one that is very similar to that of the opposition leader.

Last year, the previous Liberal government offered a pre-Christmas tax holiday on a number of items, including restaurant eating.

Restaurants Canada is asking the government to make that exemption permanent. In a survey for the group, 84 per cent of Canadians said food should not be taxed, no matter where it is purchased.

A food tax exemption would also serve to buttress youth employment. The restaurant industry employs more than half a million young people, representing one in five jobs for that demographic. It is also the number one source of employment for young people.

The move to cut all food tax would be a big hit for the government. It currently collects $5.4-billion in taxes on non-grocery food. But Restaurants Canada says an end to the tax would result in the creation of 64,500 new service jobs, with 2,680 new restaurants opening and 15,686 spinoff jobs also being created.

Poilievre is getting traction with his focus on food prices. Carney needs something to show that Liberals don’t just care about mega-projects. No tax on food could be a good place to start.

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

How can you convince Americans that Tylenol is safe when the president says it isn’t? Again, the world is left wondering whether America is ruled by a madman who doesn’t believe in science, and would easily shut down all free and fair reporting if he could.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 29, 2025.

OTTAWA—The decision by United States Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr to threaten ABC following late-night comments by comedian Jimmy Kimmel was even derided by Senator Ted Cruz.

Cruz is a well-known supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump, but he characterized the Carr threat as a page straight out of a Goodfellas book and called the comments “dangerous as hell.”

Even as Kimmel’s suspension by ABC’s parent company Disney Entertainment was lifted due to public outcry, Trump was moving to muzzle more critics.

In a harsh rebuke to a question from an ABC reporter at the White House, Trump attacked the journalist, ABC, and media in general, bragging that he was now suing The New York Times and would win.

The lawsuits should come as no surprise, since, even during his time in the private sector, Trump delayed paying many creditors by simply dragging out the court process when sued for payment.

But the fact that the FCC, which is supposed to be an impartial licensing body, would threaten retribution because of a late-night comedic attack mirrors life in a dictatorship.

Trump doubled down when the Kimmel suspension was short-lived. “I think we’re going to test ABC out on this one. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16-million. …This one sounds even more lucrative.”

Then he and the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services went off on another tangent, claiming that women who take Tylenol during childbirth could be responsible for causing autism in the fetus.

Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. bears a family name known globally, but the vast majority of his own family does not support him.

Only one cousin endorsed him in the last presidential campaign, and 50 other family members, including all his siblings, lined up with then-U.S. president Joe Biden to oppose Kennedy’s independent bid for election.

Along with being a well-known anti-vaxxer, Kennedy has stated that COVID was “ethnically targeted” to spare Jewish and Chinese people. According to a Vanity Fair article, Kennedy has also stated that anti-vaxxers suffered worse persecution than German Holocaust victim Anne Frank. He also believes that an alternate shooter killed his own father, and after interviewing the convicted perpetrator, Sirhan Sirhan in prison, proclaimed Sirhan’s innocence.

One of Kennedy’s first actions was to pull the U.S. out of the World Health Organization, and deny the current measles epidemic, despite medical evidence showing the greatest hike in outbreaks since the virus was officially declared eliminated in 2000.

Now Kennedy’s focus, and that of the president, is on Tylenol. Despite zero evidence to back up the pair, both men held the press conference to decry the use of the pain-killing acetaminophen.

To many, the move was simply viewed as another channel changer. To overshadow the Kimmel return to the airwaves, the Tylenol move was designed to get people talking about something else.

It has also thrown Johnson and Johnson, one of America’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, into a public-relations frenzy.

How can you convince Americans that Tylenol is safe when the president says it isn’t?

Again, the world is left wondering whether America is ruled by a madman who doesn’t believe in science, and who would easily shut down all free and fair reporting if he could.

The tongue lashings regularly administered by the president to those who oppose him have been replicated by multiple of his appointees.

U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra recently had the nerve to claim at a Halifax Chamber of Commerce event that he was “disappointed … that it is very, very difficult to find Canadians who are passionate about the American-Canadian relationship.”

What planet has the ambassador been living on? The only person responsible for the meltdown in Canada-U.S. relations is his boss. It was Trump who belittled our former prime minister, constantly referring to Justin Trudeau as “governor,” and it is Trump who has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada by using economic levers rather than military ones.

Trump has followed up with the threat via a constantly-moving target of tariffs that is costing both his country and Canada dearly.

As ambassador, Hoekstra’s job is to try and smooth over differences between the two countries. He should be acting as a quiet go-between working to solve problems. Instead, Hoekstra is burning his Canadian bridges.

Like many Trump appointees, the ambassador has made it very obvious that his job to kiss the president’s buttocks.

King Charles discreetly smirked when the president went off-script at the recent royal banquet in London. The world is smirking, too.

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

Those of us who were ignorant of Charlie Kirk expected that his background would back up the posthumous honorifics. Instead, what we see is the story of a man who went out of his way to sow division based on race, gender, and religion.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 22, 2025.

OTTAWA—Until just recently, the only famous Kirk I knew was Captain Kirk from Star Trek, which first launched on the CTV network in Canada in 1966.

But on Sept. 10, the murder of American Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, on the campus of Utah Valley University reverberated around the world.

The president of the United States ordered all government flags to be lowered in mourning, and announced the posthumous provision of the Presidential Medal of Freedom for the slain political activist.

Those of us who were ignorant of Kirk expected that his background would back up the honorifics.

Instead, what we see is the story of a man who went out of his way to sow division based on race, gender, and religion.

Media Matters for America, a not-for-profit that tracks conservative media statements, published the following direct quotes from Kirk’s appearances and podcasts.

He had this to say about Black people: “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

On former First Lady Michelle Obama, he had this to say: “If we said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama … were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us. …You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.” Not sure how Obama stole a white person’s slot as her partner was elected by a majority vote, but it was this kind of racist vitriol that attracted attention to Kirk.

As for women, in a discussion of musician Taylor Swift’s engagement to footballer Travis Kelce, Kirk said: “reject feminism. Submit to your husband Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

Kirk also said that if he had a 10-year-old daughter who was raped, he would force her to carry the fetus to term: “Yes. The baby would be born.”

He also promoted access to guns, suggesting that “it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

On religion, Kirk said he believed “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” He also did not support the separation of church and state, claiming the concept is “a fabrication, a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

As for his views on the LGBTQ+ communities, “We need to have a Nuremburg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.”

On immigration, he said he believed that “America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever.”

So why are so many people being excoriated—even fired—for criticizing Kirk after death? And why is Donald Trump trying to convince the country and the world that Kirk is a patriot, and that his assassin was a crazed liberal?

Why was Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre upset that Prime Minister Mark Carney did not post a condolence message quickly enough after the murder?

All party leaders eventually posted messages, generally referencing Kirk’s family and the fact that differences in political perspective should not be met with violence.

Of course, that is self-evident, but in the case of Kirk, he deliberately provoked reactions by the nature of his absurd racist, homophobic, and misogynistic statements.

Kirk on the former president: “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled, Alzheimer’s-corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.”

There is never an excuse for politicians to solve problems with a weapon. That is one of the reasons why the majority of Americans want the government to promote gun control.

While innocent people—including children—are slaughtered almost every week in America by crazed individuals, Kirk spent his life lobbying against limiting that access.

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

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.