Some might argue the president’s grievances about the Gordie Howe International Bridge are simply an attempt to distract from the global discussion about his racist post featuring former president Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as monkeys

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 16, 2026.

OTTAWA—If you build it, they will come. Except if opponents are friends of United States President Donald Trump.

Trump’s latest foray into Canadian politics is a false claim that a new bridge about to be opened at the Windsor-Detroit border should be delayed because no American steel was used in the construction, which is not true. He also stated that the bridge would not open unless the U.S. was compensated for everything it has given to Canada.

The irony of Trump’s complaints is that the U.S. government refused to participate in the initial cost of the bridge construction, which was fully financed by the Government of Canada. It is hard pressed to make labour or content demands on the project.

The president’s last-minute intervention is another example of how corrupt the American political system has become.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge has been in consideration for more than two decades.

The Ambassador Bridge, built in 1929, is North America’s No. 1 international border crossing. It is privately owned, and multiple attempts to build a new bridge beginning at the turn of the century have been blocked by the current owners, the American Moroun family.

Despite the obvious need for a second bridge, the Morouns’ political influence and lawsuits delayed the process for years.

In a newspaper column in 2012, journalist David Frum characterized the dispute as a conflict between private and public infrastructure where the monopoly led by the Moroun family used influence in Washington, D.C., to derail a proposed public sector bridge for decades.

Finally, in frustration, the Canadian government agreed to fully fund the joint bridge on the condition that the investment be recouped through tolls.

The proposed bridge was ultimately named after Gordie Howe, the popular Canadian hockey player who spent most of his NHL career with the Detroit Red Wings. The bilateral agreement was signed by the Canadian and Michigan governments, and both parties are joint owners of the bridge scheduled to open early this year.

The construction has taken more than eight years, and the project was led by the “Building North America” consortium which was selected in July 2018 to design, build, operate and maintain the bridge.

The $6.4-billion cost of the project was fully financed by the Government of Canada, a fact that seemed to be missing from Trump’s latest Truth Social grievance taking aim at the bridge’s ownership structure and claiming that Canada has “treated the United States unfairly for decades.”

Washington did not put out a penny for the project, so it is hard to claim that the U.S. has been treated unfairly.

Michigan politicians were quick to point out the second bridge will facilitate commerce and trade between the two countries. Governor Gretchen Whitmer weighed in to support the opening, saying that the bridge agreement was approved by her Republican predecessor.

The only people who seem to be benefitting from threats to stall the bridge opening are the family members who own the Ambassador Bridge.

As Frum pointed out in 2012, the move to block a second bridge is a perfect example of how public policy is stymied by private interests. In the end, it is the trade between the two countries that suffers.

That may fit with Trump’s agenda as he is obviously not interested in a seamless transportation network between Canada and the U.S.

But it certainly hurts his own country’s economic agenda, which is why Michigan politicians are all lining up in favour of opening the Gordie Howe bridge as soon as possible.

U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra has been assigned to manage the file for the president. Hoekstra is a former Michigan congressman.

Some might argue the bridge kerfuffle was simply an attempt by Trump to distract from the global discussion about his racist post featuring former president Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as monkeys.

The meme on Trump’s personal account on Truth Social stayed online for 12 hours, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt characterizing reaction as “fake outrage.” She claimed: “This is from an internet meme video depicting President Trump as the king of the jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King.”

Even Republicans chimed in to attack the post, with U.S. Senator Tim Scott “praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I have seen from this White House.”

Other Republicans condemned the post, but the president insisted he did nothing wrong, and was not about to apologize.

In most jurisdictions, such a racist publication would likely spark calls for resignation.

In this case, presidential filters, accountability, and respect are non-existent. Trump celebrates racism and inflames hatred.

It is just another crazy week at the White House.

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

Conservative MP Jamil Jivani pleaded to Liberals for inter-party unity, but said the ‘timing and spectacle of recent floor-crossings appears to many Canadians as an effort from you (PM) to demoralize Conservatives and the millions of Canadians who voted for us.’

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 5, 2026.

OTTAWA—Mr. Jivani went to Washington.

The relationship that Conservative MP Jamil Jivani has with American vice-president JD Vance is unique.

They met in university at Yale and became fast friends, with Jivani serving in Vance’s wedding party.

So, naturally, his visit to the American capital is garnering a lot more attention than that of a simple MP.

Jivani reached out to the Prime Minister’s Office, but was surprised when his invitation for the prime minister to join him was declined.

Jivani said he went to Washington to help negotiate a free trade agreement, a goal that has eluded the government this far.

Dominic LeBlanc, minister responsible for Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade negotiations, confirmed that his office briefed Jivani, but the government declined to send a representative.

For his party, Jivani criticized the Liberals for not accepting his offer to be a direct conduit to the team at the White House.

He also emphasized in multiple communications with LeBlanc, the PMO, and the Liberal caucus chair that his intention was to provide a Team Canada approach to the challenge.

But on the Conservative side, Jivani appears to be going it alone. Which begs the question: why did his leader not join him in the Vance arm-twisting initiative?

The timing of Jivani’s trip was also interesting.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has just come off a very successful party convention in Calgary where his approval rating by delegate attendees was even larger than that of former prime minister Stephen Harper.

One would think that this past week should have been one where the leader basks in the glory of his unprecedented party popularity. Instead, he appeared to be playing second fiddle to Jivani’s Washington orchestra.

To be fair, Jivani’s timing was likely guided by his attendance at the annual Washington National Prayer Breakfast.

At that gathering, all the key players in cabinet trade negotiations, Washington lobbyists and high-profile Christian influencers are present. Any issue they embrace is sure to have an effect on Canada-U.S. relations.

Conservatives are working hard to solidify their relationship with the Trump administration.

At the convention, Poilievre’s wife Anaida was referred to as the First Lady, a title that does not exist in this country.

Alberta separatists have recently revealed that they have been meeting with senior Washington officials in an attempt to work on their separation from Canada.

A Trump cabinet official recently pitched in, suggesting that Alberta would be a welcome 51st state.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has avoided any criticism of the separatists and is not even able to get members of her caucus to support Canadian unity.

She also worked to lower the bar for a referendum, and to make it easier for separatists to launch their campaign.

What she didn’t expect was the blowback from other Albertans. Former Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk beat the separatists to the punch with a petition seeking a referendum to stay in Canada. His petition has already been signed by more than 496,000 Albertans, far ahead of the required 293,000 signatures for a vote. The petition has already been certified as successful by Elections Canada.

Things have gotten so divisive in that province that Harper and former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien discussed the issue when they got together last week for a fireside chat in Ottawa.

Both reflected on the fact that another separatist threat looms in Quebec with the potential fall election predicting a return to power of the Parti Québécois.

Well-loved former premier Lucien Bouchard has already stated publicly that, if elected, the PQ should promise there will not be a referendum in the first term.

But the separatists’ drum rolling across the country is causing a stir in political circles across party lines.

In an event sponsored by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, both Chrétien and Harper stressed the importance of a united front when it comes to trade negotiations and Canadian unity.

Harper said that “I think the reality is if the federal government manages the country right, puts the stress on unity and not on ideological tangents there’s no reason why we can’t pull the country together at this moment.”

Jivani pleaded for inter-party unity in his outreach email to Liberals, but at the same time said the “timing and spectacle of recent floor-crossings appears to many Canadians as an effort from you (PM) to demoralize Conservatives and the millions of Canadians who voted for us.”

Jivani may not be able to turn things around in Washington. His first plea for unity should be to Alberta Conservatives who want to join the U.S.

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

U.S. President Donald Trump’s negative response to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos declaration has mobilized the majority of Canadians—including premiers—in unity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 2, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney has a new moniker: Captain Canada.

At the meeting with premiers in Ottawa last week, leaders across the country seemed prepared to work together to grow inter-provincial trade.

The negative response of United States President Donald Trump to Carney’s Davos declaration has had the effect of mobilizing the majority of Canadians—including premiers—in unity.

British Columbia Premier David Eby was positively effusive in his praise for Carney’s Davos speech.

“It’s been a while since I have felt that much pride in being Canadian.”

Trump has started calling Carney “governor” again, and the White House was claiming that the prime minister walked back his Davos speech in a private conversation with the president.

Carney absolutely denied that claim, and the only Canadian party that gave any credence to the president was the federal Conservative Party.

In a statement released after Carney’s Davos speech, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre started with praise for prime minister’s “well-crafted and eloquently delivered” speech, but went on to characterize the approach with a chuckle. “If Liberal words and good intentions were tradeable commodities, Canada would already be the richest nation on Earth.”

Timing in politics is everything, and in this instance, Poilievre’s timing was off.

Carney had a great January, setting the stage with Chinese movement on canola and fish products, and a Davos speech positioning this country as a leader in creating a new world order.

This is a time where the leader of the official opposition should merely be offering praise and support.

When premiers are characterizing Carney as Captain Canada, any comments to the contrary run the risk of putting Conservatives offside with most Canadians.

The last time we saw this kind of federal-provincial harmony was at the height of the pandemic when no party nor political structure had any idea about the path forward to save lives.

During COVID, premiers and the prime minister all sang from the same hymnbook.

This time, they are harmonizing on trade, which can be a lot more politically troublesome than deciding on a medical vaccinations and securing protective medical supplies for hospitals and nursing homes.

Even Eby and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith stated publicly that they were willing to try and work together on issues with the prime minister and other premiers.

The separatist movement in Alberta is still working hard. It was reported last week that the American state department had been in touch with separatist leaders to exchange information.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed publicly that Albertans are very independent people, and the U.S is a natural partner. ”People want sovereignty. They want what the U.S. has got.”

On Jan. 28, Bessent upped the rhetoric warning the prime minister that picking a fight with the president could put the trilateral trade negotiations at risk.

Most global observers don’t believe that Canada has been the one picking international fights.

But Conservatives were quick to follow Bessent’s line of thinking. In an opinion piece written for the American-owned National Post, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner characterized Canada as a “vulnerable, sclerotic, decadent nation from which talent, intellectual property and financial capital continue to flee.”

The more Bessent and Trump attack Carney, the more Canadians from coast to coast to coast will unite.

The most recent Ipsos poll said the number of Albertans and Quebecers wishing to enter a separation discussion with Canada was 29 and 31 per cent, respectively.

But when the same poll respondents were queried on the real-world consequences, support in both provinces was cut in half. Possible downsides include standard of living declines, pension, or trade renegotiations.

The reality of an October election in Quebec is not lost on anyone. With the Parti Québécois leading in the polls, the possibility of a total Team Canada is definitely at risk.

But, in the meantime, it appears as though the disrespect continually shown by Trump and his officials for our country is driving Canadians into the government’s arms.

Meanwhile, reports surfaced last week that the MP who resigned his seat to Poilievre will get the Tory nomination. Damien Kurek has been approved to return as the candidate in Battle-River-Crowfoot, Alta., while the party has no news on where Poilievre would run in the next election.

Maybe the Conservatives are thinking that Poilievre won’t be around to lead the party into the election.

With Trump’s help, that is becoming increasingly likely.

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

Canadians are waiting to see how Donald Trump retaliates, but Davos proved one thing: America is alone.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 26, 2026.

OTTAWA—Going along to get along is over.

Prime Minister Mark Carney made it clear at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week that the time for appeasement of a major power is dead.

Carney’s speech resonated around the world, as the Davos audience responded with a standing ovation.

The call for middle powers to work together was not lost on other countries with whom the prime minister hopes to cooperate. Nor was it lost on United States President Donald Trump.

Carney was careful not to specifically mention Trump in his speech, but the message about the end of the current world order could not have been clearer.

Carney appealed to middle-power cooperation as the only antidote to balance out the hegemonic mentality of the stronger, major powers including the U.S. “If we are not at the table we are on the menu,” was how Carney bluntly put it.

Trump was quick to respond, claiming in his own Davos speech the next day that “Canada lives because of the United States.”

He also characterized Canadians as ungrateful, and caustically reminded “Mark” to remember that in the future.

Trump did not start calling Carney “governor,” which was the moniker he constantly used to describe former prime minister Justin Trudeau. But he made no bones about his belief that Canada does not appreciate American’s help in defence.

Canada does not appreciate being treated as a future 51st state. Recent polling showed that almost one-third of Canadians believe Trump could invade our country.

As Trump was speaking, leaders from Nordic countries were gathering in Canada’s North to discuss how the Arctic region might defend itself from invaders, including the threat that the president has made to invade Greenland.

In the past 200 years, Canadians and Americans have not feared each other. We have lauded the fact that we share the longest undefended border in the world. That hasn’t stopped Trump from claiming that he wants to take over Canada.

A few days ago, an image of a map of North America with Canada under the American flag was posted on Trump’s media feed as a photo of the presidential cabinet.

British Columbia Premier David Eby said last week he was at a complete loss for words to express how angry he was about the post. He encouraged British Columbians and other Canadians to continue their boycott of American booze and travel.

Americans are getting that kind of pushback from countries around the world. In contrast to Carney, the American president’s rambling message—which went on for more than an hour—was greeted with tepid applause. A number of listeners simply left the room while the president strangely kept mixing up the names of Greenland and Iceland.

At Davos, Trump repeated a statement made earlier in the week by two of his cabinet members, that he would always put “America first, but not America alone.”

But his words do not match his actions. Everything he has done as president is making enemies of former friends. Instead, he reached out to enemies like North Korea and Russia. Europe is on edge, and Latin America is wondering who could be next for military takeover.

Trump’s insistence that America needs to take over Greenland—and his threat to use military action—has prompted North Atlantic Treaty Organization colleagues to plan defence of Greenland against a NATO member.

The stock market responded negatively to Trump’s Greenland threats, and that may be why he told Davos he would not use military force to take over Greenland.

Shortly after, Trump issued a statement claiming he would not invade Greenland by force because the Americans were working with NATO on a solution that would satisfy everyone.

He also backed off imposing tariffs by Feb. 1 on all European countries opposed to his Greenland takeover. The climb down was clear recognition that America is rapidly becoming isolated because of Trump’s unpredictable and illegal threats.

The global political landscape has been unravelling ever since Trump’s re-election in November 2024.

Carney’s global message is that we can’t count on nostalgia to fix the problem. The old word order is gone. Anyone who wants a rules-based international system,has got to respond to the realpolitik that the U.S. under Trump is no longer a trusted ally.

Trump knows that Carney has already been working with other leaders on a new way to establish rules that bullies cannot override.

Canadians are waiting to see how Trump retaliates, but Davos proved one thing.

America is alone.

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

The long-term outcome of Mark Carney’s trade mission is unclear. What is clear is that the two countries have been working hard to repair the relationship.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 19, 2026.

OTTAWA—It is hard to believe that almost a decade has passed without a Canadian prime minister setting foot on Chinese soil.

There was a time when Canada and China were close.

Back in 1970, then-Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau became one of the first Western leaders to recognize the People’s Republic of China.

As a private citizen, Trudeau had travelled to China in 1949. He undertook a subsequent visit in 1960 with fellow traveller and future Senator Jacques Hebert. After the visit, the pair authored a book sympathetically chronicling their experiences Two Innocents in Red China.

The book was relatively positive toward the communist regime and paved the way for Trudeau’s future Sino-vision as prime minister.

In Trudeau’s first political campaign, his platform included recognition of the PRC and a promise to promote its membership in the United Nations. He fulfilled both promises with China joining the UN in 1971.

Canada was also on the receiving end of the friendship, based on the relations between a Canadian doctor and the revered leader of the Chinese revolution.

Dr. Norman Bethune was a communist and frontline trauma surgeon who served in the Spanish Civil War, and then served in China as a frontline medic of the Chinese Communist Party’s Eighth Route Army in the Sino-Japanese War.

Bethune is honoured in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame, but his notoriety in China is much greater. Chairman Mao Zedong, delivered a eulogy for the doctor, who died of septicemia on a battlefield after performing surgery on a wounded soldier. The eulogy was subsequently published as a chapter in Mao’s Red Book Essays.

Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong was mandatory reading in all Chinese elementary schools, so every Chinese student knows the story of Bethune.

The Red Book lauded Bethune’s “utter devotion to others without any thought of self.” The Mao essay portrayed Bethune as a model of communism and medicine, a legacy which remains today.

The strong ties established by Bethune and formalized by Trudeau put Canada in an excellent position to build business and personal relationships with Chinese counterparts.

Most expected that Trudeau’s son, prime minister Justin Trudeau, would build upon his father’s legacy.

Instead, early in his mandate, Canadian-Chinese relations reached a new low when Canada acceded to a provisional American extradition request, accusing the Huawei deputy board chair Meng Wanzhou of “conspiracy to defraud multiple international institutions.”

The irony of the arrest was that Wanzhou was simply transiting via the Vancouver airport from Mexico when Canada arrested her in keeping with our extradition agreement with the United States.

It would have been so simple for Canadian officials to warn their Chinese counterparts in advance to avoid the airport, and the whole issue of her detention would have been moot. That kind of diplomatic backdoor discussion takes place all the time, and many observers could not understand why this country became the focus of Chinese ire because of an American extradition request.

At the time, the American allegation was that Wanzhou cleared money actually destined for Skycom, but transmitted illegally through Huawei. It was alleged that Skycom was doing business with Iran, which violated U.S. sanctions.

To make matters worse, the Chinese government arrested and imprisoned two Canadians. The case of the Two Michaels—Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig—made headlines in Canada, further straining relations between the two countries.

In the end, the U.S. and China negotiated an agreement to free Wanzhou and the political damage was largely meted out to Canada.

It was that fiasco that left Canada in political limbo as far as the Chinese were concerned.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s objective in his historic visit last week was to reboot the relationship politically and economically.

On the economic front, there were high hopes for a resolution to the 76-per-cent canola tariff imposed on Canada by the Chinese.

Global Affairs Minister Anita Anand stated last week that it is Canada’s intention to move away from American trade dependency and increase other international trade by 50 per cent in the next decade.

She also downplayed existing this country’s foreign policy labelling China an “increasingly disruptive” global force.

The long-term outcome of Carney’s trade mission is unclear.

What is clear is that the two countries have been working hard to repair the relationship.

A change on Canadian treatment of Chinese electrical vehicle sales is also under discussion. A collapse of the current Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade negotiations could open that door.

China is definitely a door worth opening.

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

If you parse Marco Rubio’s statement from last weekend, anyone who is even a competitor of the U.S. in our hemisphere is a potential target of American foreign policy attention. No wonder Prime Minister Mark Carney has muted his comments on the Nicolás Maduro takedown. We could be next.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 12, 2026.

OTTAWA—The American military move to arrest Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has put the world on edge.

By invading Ukraine, Russia was the only state actor to ignore international law, but not anymore. The People’s Republic of China can point to the move by United States President Donald Trump as a template to take out the Taiwanese leadership.

Trump has not ruled out sending in the U.S. military to Venezuela, but insists that he wants to work with the president who was sworn in as soon as Maduro was spirited out of the country.

In his hour-long press conference extolling the Maduro capture, Trump left the distinct impression that he had a deal with the new president, Delcy Rodriguez. Meanwhile, she was on Venezuelan state television decrying the move and saying that never again would Venezuelans be enslaved by others.

As the world waits for what comes next, countries in the Americas are girding for more moves by Trump to establish his dream country.

Colombia has summoned thousands of its military force to prevent any spillover on its 2,219-kilometre shared border with Venezuela.

Mexico and Canada are breathing hard because Trump will not stop until he is stopped. Even in Washington, the Democrats are confused in their political response. Some have accused Trump of breaking the law while others point to the fact that Maduro has had a warrant out for his arrest since 2020.

Canada’s response has been equally confusing. While the prime minister lauded the fact that Maduro is out of the picture, he did little to dissuade the president from exercising future takeover powers on Canadian soil.

Trump is exercising a power he claims derives from the Monroe Doctrine. He has renamed it the “Donroe Doctrine,” citing the authority of the United States to exercise influence throughout the Western Hemisphere based on an 1823 declaration. According to Donroe, the U.S. has the right to do pretty much anything it wants if it feels under threat in the region. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeated the “Donroe Doctrine” last weekend, stating “This is the Western Hemisphere. This is where we live—and we’re not going to allow the Western Hemisphere to be a base of operation for adversaries, competitors and rivals of the United States.”

If anything, the Maduro capture will embolden Trump when it comes to his plans for Greenland and Canada.

Realistically, if he thought he could get away with annexing both, he would.

The president has already made statements about how the United States needs Greenland for security reasons.

In this instance, we are witnessing the reality of life imitating art.

Trump has been slumping badly domestically because of challenging economic times and rising costs.

One of Canada’s greatest comedic actors, John Candy, participated in a film, Canadian Bacon, where the U.S. president convinced blue-collar workers to invade Canada.

The war strategy was designed to take attention away from woes at home. Released in 1995, the film was Candy’s last and was directed by Michael Moore, a well-known documentary filmmaker. The plot of Canadian Bacon is that the invasion led to a series of crazy encounters with polite Canadian Mounted Police and much ado about maple syrup and moose. In the case of Candy, the invasion was a comedic success.

Trump could be imitating art in this case. A successful Maduro seizure could embolden him to reach out to other areas that he would like to annex, including Greenland and Canada.

In the case of Greenland, it is getting elbows up with Denmark in an effort to protect its sovereignty while Trump is claiming that the U.S. needs to own it because of the strategic location in the North Atlantic.

As for Canada, we all know that the president has already said he would like to weaken us economically, and he is doing everything in his power to do so. He has ruled out an invasion, but if you parse Rubio’s weekend television statement, anyone who is even a competitor of the U.S. in our hemisphere is a potential target of American foreign policy attention.

Where does that put our country if the Canada-U.S.-Mexico is not renewed and we become competitors in many former areas of free trade?

No wonder Prime Minister Mark Carney has muted his comments on the Maduro takedown. We could be next.

And the only way to prevent that is to make sure that Trump’s sights are focused elsewhere and not on his neighbour to the North.

Canadian Bacon was funny. This is not.

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

Peter Mazereeuw speaks with former deputy prime minister Sheila Copps about Mark Carney’s big speech at Davos, China, Trump and Greenland, a 2026 election, floor crossing, and more.

The more Pierre Poilievre focuses on his claim that Canada is broken, the more citizens will reflect on who is the best fixer. Six months is a lifetime in politics. Six months from now, the story could be quite different.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 23, 2025.

OTTAWA—Christmas came early for the government.

The caucus Christmas party on Dec. 11 was abuzz with news that another Conservative MP had crossed the floor to the Liberals, leaving them one seat short of a majority.

Markham-Unionville MP Michael Ma issued a statement saying that, after listening to his constituents, “This is a time for unity and decisive action for Canada’s future.”

Ma’s floor-crossing followed the defection in November by Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont, who left the Conservatives to join the Liberal government.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said publicly that both came to the Liberals, expressing their interest in joining. But that didn’t stop Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre from characterizing the defections as “dirty backroom deals.”

Poilievre did not rule out the possibility that others may leave, fuelling rumours that 2026 would deliver a majority Liberal government.

In year-end interviews, Poilievre accepted no responsibility for the turmoil within his party. He continued to repeat the same thing he has been saying for the past six months. Under his leadership, the party received the largest number of votes in its history.

That is true. But that number was subject to two factors. First, Canada’s population is growing, so more voters are registered. Second, Poilievre’s domination in Saskatchewan and Alberta creates voter inefficiency. Many votes do not translate into many seats when they are all focussed in one or two provinces.

The only way Poilievre can win is if he pivots in order to reach out to centrist voters who currently consider the Conservative party too right-wing for their taste.

His popularity seems to be holding within Conservative ranks, and many expect him to sweep through a party review process scheduled in Calgary next month. But even there, trouble spots are appearing and party defections won’t help a leader in descent.

An Angus Reid poll published Dec. 11 found that 58 per cent of recent Conservative voters would like Poilievre to stay on the job. That represents a drop of 10 per cent from a similar poll taken in August.

More troubling for the Conservatives is that the same survey found that 63 per cent of “centrist” Canadians would like to see him replaced as Conservative leader.

It is the same group the Conservatives need if they are to finally break through and form government.

The scenario that seems to be unfolding is perfect for the governing Liberals. If an election were to happen within a year, and that is a possibility even with a razor-thin majority, Carney facing Poilievre is the best possible matchup for the Liberals.

Poilievre is not popular, and his recent comments eschewing any responsibility for the floor-crossers will not help.

What he actually needs, to get voters to give him another look, is to park the slogans and say he is sorry.

Sorry that he led the party to defeat. Sorry that some of his caucus members have lost confidence. Sorry that, six months after the election, he has not made any changes to his campaign strategy.

And while he has made some staffing changes, even they point to a narrow cast of support.

His new federal campaign manager, Steve Outhouse, ran Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis’ leadership campaign in 2022. Lewis was a virtual unknown at the time, but carried the majority of votes in Saskatchewan.

She did that by enlisting the support of those who are opposed to abortion.

But that targeted support comes with a price, including building the party strength on the right.

But that is exactly what the party should not do if it has any hope of forming government in the next federal election.

Poilievre plans to build his campaign on affordability. And that message will resonate with middle-class Canadians struggling with the rising cost of food and housing.

But when these same Canadians are asked whom they have confidence in to lead us through the maelstrom, they definitely prefer the current prime minister.

So the more Poilievre focuses on his claim that Canada is broken, the more citizens will reflect on who is the best fixer.

Six months is a lifetime in politics. Six months from now, the story could be quite different.

But at the moment, it appears Poilievre’s six-month post-election hiatus has left him frozen in time and message.

If he doesn’t change the channel, Poilievre is done.

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

The last budget was silent on NAFC funding which is scheduled to sunset because the existing 10-year funding agreement ends in 2026

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

OTTAWA—The minister of Canadian culture and identity has an almost impossible job. The idea of a monolithic Canadian culture is a challenge in itself.

Marc Miller is also responsible for official languages, minority language English support in Quebec, and French outside Quebec.

The focus on official languages overshadows support for Indigenous Peoples. When I became Canadian heritage minister in 1995, almost all funding was directed to activities promoting the languages of Shakespeare and Molière.

Indigenous applicants for cultural funding were redirected to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, even though that department had no funding for culture.

The government claimed to be supporting Canadian culture, but was really financing European-based culture.

When it came to First Nations, there was no investment in promoting Indigenous identities though books, television, film, live performances, or any other artistic medium that supported self-identity.

In the last budget, the vast majority of Indigenous funding targeted infrastructure and investment within Indigenous territories.

It is very popular these days to open every ceremony with an acknowledgement that we, as colonizers, live on the ceded or unceded territory of various First Nations. Ceded territory signifies those lands where successive governments signed treaties with First Nations. Unceded territories includes lands where a treaty on land ownership was never concluded.

The Parliament of Canada was built on Algonquin land that has not been ceded to the Crown.

Most of today’s governance policies involve engagement of Indigenous Peoples living on those territories.

But the reality is that 60 per cent of Indigenous Peoples do not live on the lands that their ancestors inhabited. They migrate to cities, and are expected to be served via the same services available to all other citizens.

The recent budget outlined more than $16-billion in funding initiatives largely focused on Indigenous territorial investments.

But it was silent on any future funding for the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC).

The last budget under then-prime minister Justin Trudeau allocated $27.5-million in 2024 to the NAFC which administers more than 100 centres in small and large communities across the country.

When you compare the friendship centre budget to the investment on Indigenous territories, the contrast is already very stark.

For the majority of Indigenous Peoples living away from their homes, friendship centres are the first places of welcome that can help in their transition.

The centres offer housing, job-search assistance, mental-health programs, and addiction support.

Most provide a much-needed medical and social service link to the outside community.

The Nov. 4 budget was silent on NAFC funding which is scheduled to sunset because the existing 10-year funding agreement ends in 2026.

Leaders from dozens of friendship centres across the country descended on Ottawa last week for a summit on their continued existence.

Speaker after speaker made the case that survival is crucial to the reconciliation process that the government has committed to.

Miller attended the event, joined by Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty. Both spoke positively in support of funding friendship centres.

If anyone understands that the key to Canadian identity is Indigenous, it’s Miller.

He is still held in high regard for his work as minister responsible for Indigenous services, and minister of Crown-Indigenous relations.

On a personal basis, Miller was the first MP in history to make a statement in the Mohawk language, studying a community-based program developed by the Six Nations of the Grand River near Brantford, Ont.

Miller recently faced some criticism for his reaction to a question on the decline of French-language speakers in Quebec. Miller said he was “fed up” with the language debate, raising the ire of Quebec Premier François Legault, who called him a “disgrace.”

Miller’s exasperation stemmed from the fact that language is constantly used by politicians as a political weapon.

He won’t face that issue with Indigenous Peoples. But he will be challenged to put his historic support for them to the test by returning full funding to friendship centres from coast to coast to coast.

Meanwhile, centres are scrambling because they literally do not know what will happen in three months.

The NAFC’s interim CEO advised the government that March 31, 2026, layoffs are being contemplated because that is when budget certainty ends.

Deputy minister of Indigenous Services, Algonquin Gina Wilson, has confirmed that funding will be renewed, but no one knows by how much and when.

Millions of Indigenous Peoples are hoping Miller and Gull-Masty will deliver more than a lump of coal this Christmas.

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’s refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy did not get him a single vote. Nor did the abolition of an ambassadorship. But women are taking notice.

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

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney was elected this past April thanks to an estrogen wave.

That was what a key female Liberal organizer had to say about his victory. She said that wherever she travelled, knocking on doors for the Grits, women had confidence in him, and they were the ones reversing the Liberal electoral fate.

Only a few months ago, Liberals were expecting to hold their next Christmas party in a phone booth. Instead, the party is flooded with requests from people who want to join the winning team in this seasonal celebration.

All has been going well. But there are some clouds on the horizon that the leader should be taking seriously.

Words matter—especially when you are in politics. A single comment can be parsed to death.

How many articles were written when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1997 downplayed the police use of pepper spray during a protest against a G20 meeting in British Columbia?

“For me, pepper, I put it on my plate,” was Chrétien’s comical way of minimizing the confrontation.

More recently, Prime Minister Mark Carney declined to characterize Canada’s foreign policy as “feminist” during a press conference following the recent G20 summit in South Africa.

Some saw this as wordsmithing.

Others saw it as a pivot away from the Justin Trudeau government’s 2017 Feminist International Assistance Policy, intended to focus on foreign aid that supports women’s empowerment and gender equality.

The policy was a rebuttal of the previous Stephen Harper Conservative government, which instructed officials to remove gender-based analysis from all cabinet documents.

Carney’s international admission that Canada’s feminist foreign policy was dead has sent ripples throughout the domestic foreign aid community.

Last week, a group of 92 organizations headed by Oxfam addressed an open letter to the prime minister, complaining of foreign aid cuts, and confusion around gender equality.

The organization also called for the re-establishment of an ambassador for women, peace, and security, a post that was folded into the foreign affairs department last March.

Most of us have probably never heard of this envoy, but according to Global Affairs Minister Anita Anand, Jacqueline O’Neill will continue to advocate in that area, sans official ambassadorial designation.

Carney’s statement in South Africa reinforced his initial cabinet decision to eliminate the department of Women and Gender Equality, arguing it could responsibly be included in the ministry for culture and identity.

That faux pas was reversed two months later because of the political backlash it caused.

Similar opposition is quietly brewing internally on feminist foreign policy issues.

A group of senior Liberal women, united on social media, have made it very clear they would be lobbying colleagues at the Christmas party next week.

There is also work within the Liberal women’s caucus, headed by Quebec MP Linda Lapointe, to have the issue referred to the main caucus.

The women’s caucus was crucial in getting Carney to reverse his position and reinstate WAGE as a full ministry.

The open letter from many groups that work internationally on women’s issues will definitely have some effect, but the angst of Liberal women will be even more crucial.

Carney probably thought his rebuttal of a feminist foreign policy would be understood.

He said he wanted gender equality to be a part of the government’s funding mechanisms.

But his focus on defence spending and identifying major projects for national funding means the majority of mega-financing will be focused on men’s jobs.

Like it or not, fewer than 20 per cent of the jobs in the energy sector go to women.

Less than 20 per cent of the Canadian military is also made up of women, and similar numbers apply to defence industries supplying the military.

If only one in five of the big jobs created goes to women, it will be felt in our employment numbers.

More importantly, Carney’s election to the top job was largely dependent on the women’s vote. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was able to secure support from young and middle-aged men in numbers big enough to form government.

But it was women who made sure that Carney got the nod.

No wave lasts forever. An estrogen wave is just as vulnerable to destruction as any other wave.

But surely the loss of support from women should not be based on misspoken messages.

Carney’s refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy did not get him a single vote. Nor did the abolition of an ambassadorship. But women are taking notice.

The prime minister needs estrogen to win. A feminist agenda reset is in order.

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