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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A ceasefire would end the British pledge for recognition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre is riding the wrong horse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is where Poilievre should be focussing his attention.

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

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

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

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

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

It is one thing for the Liberals to have won the election. It is another thing to confront the onslaught of misinformation that is being fed to Albertans regularly by their own government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 14, 2025.

The French have it right: Les absents ont toujours tort. The absent are always wrong.

If Prime Minister Mark Carney needs proof, just review the recent messaging coming out of the Calgary Stampede.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was given a hero’s welcome, with massive coverage of his pro-Alberta Stampede event speech.

In contrast, the prime minister was filmed flubbing a pancake flip. And that flub circulated through social media in case anyone missed the missed pancake toss. Apparently being able to flip a flapjack is a sine qua non for being an Alberta member of Parliament.

Carney can expect more of that one-sided coverage whenever he visits Alberta.

So, if his government intends to legitimately tackle Alberta’s alienation, it needs to be present and active in the province on a daily basis.

That means a resourced federal cabinet communications committee focused on telling the Canadian story to Alberta.

After Canada almost lost the last Quebec referendum in 1995, much was invested in figuring out what went wrong.

Surveys showed that almost 70 per cent of francophone Quebecers who knew an anglophone voted to stay in Canada. The conclusion is that the most alienated are often also the most isolated.

In Alberta, support for separation is higher in rural than in urban areas. Obviously, many farmers and ranchers have little idea of the benefits of belonging to Canada.

Again, that disillusionment is definitely present in other rural areas across the country. But the national government, secure in its power structure and identity, has never spent political or financial capital in selling the benefits of Canada to anyone with the exception of doing so after the near-death Quebec experience.

That job is left to the politicians. They fly in, host a press conference, drop a cheque, and then move on. That strategy does not work when you have a whole provincial government devoted to proving the federation is broken.

The Alberta government’s public relations department, with 288 employees, was moved into the premier’s office earlier this year.

In an April 29 order-in-council, the responsibility for communications and public engagement (CPE) was moved from the treasury board and finance departments into the premier’s office.

With an annual budget of $38-million, the CPE is supposed to promote “non-partisan” government advertising. Some recent examples include a campaign to “Tell the Feds,” and another to promote an Alberta pension fund to replace the Canada Pension Plan.

Not political? Hardly.

The province is spending millions of dollars, and the feds expect ministers alone to manage the onslaught of negativity coming daily from Alberta.

It is not enough for the prime minister to fly in and flip a pancake. The federal government needs a massive communications and strategic presence in Alberta to treat the separation question as the existential threat that it is.

Forty years ago, the federal budget to fight disinformation by the Quebec separatists was $25-million annually.

With the modern fragmentation of media, that number should be quadrupled. It should also fight the general malaise in other rural and remote parts of Canada.

To be fair, the vast majority of Albertans are Conservative, so it is not surprising that the Tory leader gets the most applause at any public event.

But it is one thing to win an election. It is another thing to confront the onslaught of misinformation that is being fed to Albertans regularly by their own government.

If the Canadian government does not fight back, it will see further fragmentation of the country caused by disinformation and misinformation.

While Carney’s Alberta provenance—the prime minister grew up in Edmonton—certainly helped him in the election, he could soon be faced with an Alberta-based Opposition leader in Poilievre.

Poilievre is expected to be buoyed by a significant win in the most Conservative riding in the country.

Meanwhile, the country will be dealing with a wave of Alberta separatism fanned by the premier, whose own political future depends on her support from separatists.

Canada has experienced decades of complaints about Western alienation. In reality, it is not Western alienation: it is Alberta alienation with a dose of Saskatchewan disillusionment.

Two other Western provinces—Manitoba and British Columbia—have a completely different perspective.

But Canadian politicians have never pushed back against the notion of western alienation and, as a result, the country is now facing the possibility of Alberta playing the separatist card.

It is about time the national government got into the game.

Otherwise, Alberta’s one-sided vision of Canada will continue.

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

Trump will definitely be pushing hard for dairy concessions but Carney cannot afford to cave on supply management.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 7, 2025.

To cave or not to cave, that is the question.

According to Karoline Leavitt, the White House’s press secretary, Canada caved.

According to Prime Minister Mark Carney, his administration cancelled a tax initiative of the previous government in order to get trade negotiations back on track.

Carney knew there would not be too much push back in Canada since the tax was opposed by Conservatives and poorly understood by Canadians.

The trade-off of continuing negotiations in lieu of taxing American high-tech companies in the short term seems like a fairly easy call.

Many workers in the steel, aluminum, and auto industries are already seeing their jobs affected by American tariffs, so the sooner an agreement can be reached between Canada and the United States, the better.

But Leavitt’s crowing from the podium did allow Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre to claim that the government has its elbows down in the fight for Canadian jobs.

To be fair, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s announcement of the cancellation of the Digital Services Tax was met with a major yawn by the public.

But those in the know understand that the tax mimicked a similar levy already imposed by the European Union, with countries like France and Spain already imposing a three-per-cent tax on companies providing certain digital services. In France, the tax is levied on firms with global revenues in excess of 750-million euros and in excess of revenues of 25-million in France.

Turkey has a DST more than double that of EU countries, with the levy weighing in at 7.5 per cent.

Canada has been a leader in finding ways to fund local content via the tax system, and it was fully expected in the streaming world that the digital tax passed last year was untouchable. It was not widely debated and as late as last week, Champagne confirmed the tax would be going ahead.

That was then and this is now. Carney obviously took a look at the big picture and decided he could afford to cancel the tax with little political punishment.

But there are other elements facing much more opposition if Carney plans to meet the deadline of July 21 for a trade agreement with the U.S. That was the timeline tentatively established by the American president and the Canadian prime minister at their G7 meeting in Kananaskis, Alta.

Trump keeps reinforcing his government’s opposition to Canada’s supply management system in our dairy industry.

That is one issue that is widely understood and broadly supported by all political parties.

It has even been subject to the provision that no government could eliminate supply management without a parliamentary vote.

The government and all opposition parties support the Canadian supply management system that limits imports of dairy products including milk and cheese, and adds heavy tariffs to some dairy items.

In reality, the heavy fees that Trump keeps referring to have never actually been applied because no American companies have imported enough dairy products into Canada to trigger the fee.

But on every occasion, Trump keeps referring to how “nasty” Canadian negotiators are, and how he would like to see the dairy system released from any agreement on supply management.

This is one hurdle that Carney will not be able to bypass as easily as he did with the DST.

The Bloc Québécois and the Tories have already indicated their support for retaining supply management. The only party that opposes it is the People’s Party, led by Maxime Bernier, which has no seats in Parliament. In fact, it was Bernier’s opposition to supply management that cost him the Conservative Party leadership in 2017. He was leading in 12 rounds of voting against Andrew Scheer and eventually lost the Tory leadership because of the support Scheer received from dairy farmers in Quebec.

Carney is committed to the July deadline for a trade agreement, but the pursuit of a deal will definitely put supply management on the line.

And this is one area where “elbows up” is required on the Canadian side. Carney cannot afford to cave on supply management ,and Trump will definitely be pushing hard for dairy concessions.

The political damage Carney would suffer from giving up on supply management is equally as important as the fight for steel, autos, and aluminum.

If Leavitt was crowing about Canada caving on the digital tax, she would be absolutely ecstatic if supply management were sacrificed to the larger trade agenda.

Carney’s elbows up strategy has worked so far. But the stakes are getting higher.

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

In this tense global environment, people around the world look to Canada as a country where people have learned to celebrate their differences, not revile them. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 30, 2025.

OTTAWA—It’s hard to believe that this Canada Day marks a quarter century since the millennium.

It is even more incredible that our country’s population has more than tripled since I was born 72 years ago.

The face of the country has also changed dramatically, for the good.

Just last week, I attended the 60th anniversary of my Grade 9 class at Bishop Ryan High School in Hamilton, Ont.

The gathering was attended by more than 50 former students, some of whom I had not seen in almost 60 years.

My classmates represented the Canada we knew when I was growing up. Multicultural, yes. Multi-racial no.

The returnees were all Caucasians, but speaking many languages as they hailed from eastern and western Europe.

The new Canada we know today was missing in action.

In the latter years of high school, we welcomed two brothers from China, but this is about as far as it went for racial diversity in my time.

Compare that to today when, on any given street in major metropolitan centres, there are citizens whose families come from every corner of the globe.

With all of the economic and political stresses facing the country, some are now questioning our willingness to welcome refugees and immigrants enjoying multiple religions, languages, and races.

United States President Donald Trump has used race as a successful wedge issue to promote MAGA as a watchword for progress.

That notion invokes turning the clock back to the way things were because it was so good.

But was it?

Speaking as a person born in the 1950s, it wasn’t all that great.

Girls were taught from a very early age that it was our job to support men, nurture children, and generally keep house and keep quiet.

Even our high school sports teams faced discrimination. My first organized strike was picketing the principal’s office to get court time for girls’ basketball practice.

The junior boys were already out of the playoffs, but we were still in contention. Nonetheless, the gym teacher who controlled court bookings refused to award female practice time in advance of crucial playoff games.

This may not seem like much, but it sent the message that girls’ sports were simply not as valuable as boys.

Our principal saw the light and made sure we got practice time, so progress was being made.

Girls were also expected to dress modestly and stay away from all forms of contact with boys until we were ready to get married. That, too, happened at a very young age.

Today’s Canada is a far more open and inviting place for girls than it ever was during my childhood.

Diversity means that we can be exposed to the world’s cultures without leaving our own communities.

According to multiple studies, immigrants are less likely to end up on social assistance, and more likely to create their own job than Canadian-born citizens.

They are not drains on the economy; they are actually contributing to the growth that makes this country an attractive destination for newcomers.

If the olden days were tough for women, imagine what it was like to be an Indigenous person.

I lived 30 kilometres from the largest Indigenous territory in Canada, Six Nations, and there wasn’t a single word about their story in any history book.

The modern move to reconciliation has only just started. But it does mean that Indigenous People are finally getting the recognition they deserve.

In the 1950s and 1960s, religious fights were rampant between Catholics and Protestants. I would get beaten up regularly on my way to school by Protestants who referred to us as “cat-lickers” while we shouted back at them that they were “proddy-dogs.”

In today’s world, those religious differences have been mostly buried, especially in Canada. Some new Canadians are clinging to religious battles that should have been left behind in their home countries. But that will take time.

But in this tense global environment, people around the world look to Canada as a country where people have learned to celebrate their differences, not revile them.

That modern embrace of Canadian cultural diversity is what makes our country great.

Canadians need to resist the temptation to blame all the country’s problems on new arrivals.

Instead, we should recognize that the country we are celebrating this week has learned how to incorporate religious, racial and linguistic differences into the common thread of a great country. We can be a model for the whole world.

Happy Canada Day!

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

As well as preparing for his own future in an Alberta byelection, Pierre Poilievre will be using the season to reinforce his level of support among the rank and file in preparation for a review vote at the party’s national convention next January in Calgary. It’s going to be a long, hot summer.

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

OTTAWA—The summer barbecue circuit will take on new meaning for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre this year.

As well as preparing for his own future in an Alberta byelection, Poilievre will be using the season to reinforce his level of support among the rank and file in preparation for a review vote at the party’s national convention next January in Calgary.

On the surface, it appears as though Poilievre’s survival should be a no-brainer. In the last election, his party increased popular support and elected more members, which is usually the measure of any leader’s success.

But in this instance, the lead held by the Conservatives had been so large for so long that most party members were expecting to be celebrating their return to government.

The dramatic drop in support during the campaign, in addition to the leader’s loss of the riding he had held for two decades, put Poilievre in double jeopardy.

Battle River-Crowfoot MP Damien Kurek resigned last week to pave the way for the re-entry of Poilievre into Parliament. The MP had to be installed for a minimum of 30 days before he could resign.

After a member’s resignation, the Speaker must inform the country’s chief electoral officer about the vacancy. Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised to move quickly to call a byelection. But the chief electoral officer must wait 11 days before any move can be made.

If the prime minister moves quickly, Poilievre could be facing an August byelection.

Meanwhile, Poilievre remains in the Stornoway digs that were offered up by Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer.

Some senior Conservatives privately questioned why the leader didn’t simply move out for a few months to avoid the controversy of remaining in Stornoway without status as official opposition leader.

Instead Poilievre was offered the house after he appointed Scheer to take over as official opposition leader. There appears to be no prohibition in Scheer’s decision to offer the official opposition residence to Poilievre and his family. If the offer were made in return for Scheer’s nomination as the interim official opposition leader, that could definitely be a problem.

Neither the outgoing Alberta MP Kurek nor Scheer can be offered anything from Poilievre in return for their sacrifices.

Likewise, Poilievre has been facing more negative polling numbers in the weeks following the election.

That is to be expected as the Carney government has been enjoying the usual honeymoon period.

But the sharp 10-point drop in numbers has left some Tories speechless.

In a scrum following a Tory caucus meeting, Scheer ran away from a CTV News reporter, claiming an urgent phone call.

As for phones, Poilievre has been working them himself to shore up support, particularly reaching out to social media influencers who were actively promoting the Conservatives during the election.

Members of Parliament have rallied around Poilievre, but they have not had much time to process the negative post-election numbers facing the party leader.

Back home to their ridings this week, they will be getting lots of feedback from constituents about the party’s future.

Hardcore Conservatives are still staunchly behind Poilievre, but those who are more progressive will be telling the party to move toward the centre if they have any hope of defeating the Liberals in an election that could potentially happen within the next two years.

A deeper dive into those numbers will also remind people that Poilievre himself is less popular than his party, which could create further pressure on his survival.

When the party votes on the leader next January, people will be looking at the margin of victory.

In past reviews by the Progressive Conservatives, the leader was expected to get more than two-thirds of the vote or resign. In 1983, former prime minister Joe Clark got two-thirds of party support at a second leadership review. The number was virtually identical to a previous vote two years earlier, but Clark felt the mandate was not strong enough and he launched a leadership race.

The race he provoked, ended up costing his job, with Brian Mulroney defeating him at a party convention Clark called later that year.

Poilievre won’t be making that mistake. But there will definitely be some backroom players making the case for change.

The party’s poor showing in Atlantic Canada and Quebec haunts Poilievre. Quebecers hate to lose, so expect local organizers to drum up anti-Poilievre sentiment.

It will be a long, hot summer for the Conservative leader, campaigning across the country for his survival.

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

The world needs to be seized of the emergency at hand. With thousands of hectares of our own country burning, we need to reignite global interest in finding an energy solution. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 16, 2025.

OTTAWA—While the world fiddles, Canada is burning.

Air quality report IQAir reported that, as of June 10, smoke was descending to lower European altitudes and impacting air quality across the continent.

The impact ranged from “unhealthy to sensitive groups” in some cities to “very unhealthy” in parts of France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy.

Lyon was listed as the third most polluted city in the world while Munich was ninth. It was reported that a plume of smoke crossed the Mediterranean reaching Greece on May 18 and 19, while another plume arrived in northwestern Europe on June 1. All thanks to our country’s summer fires.

Canadians were feeling the effects directly, with air advisory warnings in most eastern communities. It was reported at one point that Montreal was suffering the worst air quality in the world.

In the midst of massive evacuations of Indigenous communities and other northerly settlements, it almost seems as though fire season is the new harbinger for summer.

Everyone is expecting more and earlier fire eruptions. But our political focus has moved from climate change to the financial havoc being wreaked by United States President Donald Trump on the world economy.

The lack of focus on climate action has environmentalists frustrated. They are trying to figure out how to get the issue of global warming back on the global agenda.

Some of them have gone elsewhere.

The other big news last week was that renowned Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was arrested by the Israeli military for entering a no-go zone in an attempt to bring food and medical supplies to Gaza.

Thunberg and 11 others were sailing on the Madleen in an effort to get supplies to Palestinians. The Israeli government reported that the group had few supplies on board, and this was instead a “selfie yacht of celebrities” carrying out “Instagram activism.”

Gazans who have been reporting massive food and medicine shortages would have appreciated the efforts of the sailors who were part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition.

As it stands, Thunberg was deported and, as a result, will be prevented from returning to Israel or Gaza.

But the strange twist to this story is that Thunberg used to be the voice for global warming.

As a teenager back in 2019, Thunberg got the attention of world leaders, calling them out at climate gatherings for the “Blah, blah, blah” approach of talking while doing nothing.

Now she seems to have moved on to other issues, with her ongoing focus on the politics of the Middle East.

COVID forced the world into small personal bubbles, but it also meant a slowdown of global warming because house confinement prompted a world drop in fossil fuel consumption.

The pandemic resulted in an immediate decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution literally within a few weeks of the shutdown.

It also changed some habits forever, permitting employees to work at home more frequently, thereby reducing their environmental footprint permanently.

But the gains made by the pandemic and the former public interest in environmental changes appear to be lagging badly.

Thunberg doesn’t seem engaged.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first political action was to cancel the cost of carbon pricing to consumers. It had been effectively labelled by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as a carbon tax, and was seen to be politically toxic on the eve of an election.

Carney definitely took the wind out of Poilievre’s sails, and he is now speaking about Canada’s capacity to be an energy and environmental powerhouse globally.

The prime minister has experience marrying the two. In his previous life at Brookfield, his company focused on sustainable practices with a view to creating current and future value for investors.

He was part of an international group promoting solutions for global warming, which he hopes to apply to Canadian government environmental policies.

The call for a major national energy corridor has certainly impressed Canadians, especially Albertans, who seem to have taken a new shine to the prime minister.

His promise to achieve it with full Indigenous and provincial consensus is more than ambitious.

Meanwhile the environmental interest that we experienced before the pandemic has disappeared. Even the sale of electric cars has stalled, in part as a backlash to Trump adviser Elon Musk. But time is running out.

The world needs to be seized of the emergency at hand. With thousands of hectares of our own country burning, we need to reignite global interest in finding an energy solution.

Otherwise, Canada will keep on burning.

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

Target three things you want to achieve for your riding, and three things you want to achieve for the country. And make sure all your work in committees and in Parliament is focused on moving to achieve those objectives.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 9, 2025.

OTTAWA—First day on the Hill. For most Members of Parliament, it is even more exciting than your first day at school.

But there are many parallels.

You are a newbie in a world that you don’t completely understand. You may even be in a new city for the first time.

Not all MPs have even stepped foot in Ottawa before being elected.

Your first visit brings shivers up the spine. I still remember my first day on the Hill.

I walked from an apartment I had sublet a few streets away from Centre Block.

When I arrived at the foot of the Hill, I stood in front of the Centennial Flame and looked up to the Peace Tower in awe.

I could see my Centre Block office from there and I spent a moment just marvelling that I would be working in this place.

That first day for me was followed by 21 years. But the first day was the most innocent, the most frightening, and also the most uplifting.

Fright and hope seem to be contradictory.

Every Member of Parliament starts off wanting to do good for their riding and their country. They are also a little scared about whether they will fit in to this huge institution, with thousands of employees in the bureaucracy and literally more than 300 other colleagues in the House of Commons.

These days, members are onboarded, with information and a few hours of guidance about what to expect as an MP.

But none of what is in the documents or briefings can prepare you for how to use your time wisely. In most instances, you are coming to Parliament with no previous experience and very little direction.

In the current Parliament, because the same party was re-elected to government, there is an opportunity for mentorship among the members.

It is even tougher for new ministers, because even though former ministers may still be in caucus, they might be fairly upset about being dropped from cabinet. So they are not the most likely to step in and help new colleagues.

Other caucus members are hoping that if someone in cabinet does not perform well, they will be in line as a replacement. So they are not necessarily rooting for ministers either.

I had lunch in the Parliamentary Dining Room with an MP last week.

It was my first time in the new venue, even though it opened in 2019.

It was great to see some of the same staff still serving more than 20 years since I left Parliament. They came over to say hello, and it felt like “old home week.”

The food was much better than I remember, but the site was smaller, as it is only designed to house parliamentarians while Centre Block is under renovation.

I saw some senior members, former ministers meeting with staff and colleagues. And I also observed some young new members, their brand new shiny parliamentary pins giving away their brief tenure as elected members.

All were smiling, and enjoying this first real week of work as the business of the House of Commons began in earnest.

Some will make their mark, and others will fade into the background. At one point, the average shelf life of a Member of Parliament was six years, so they have to work quickly to achieve their goals in politics.

If I were to offer some free advice, it is a political mantra that has passed the test of time. KISS, or keep it simple, stupid. That is not to say voters are stupid, but the message of politics must be understood by people.

Target three things you want to achieve for your riding, and three things you want to achieve for the country.

And make sure all your work in committees and in Parliament is focused on moving to achieve those objectives.

Enlist allies, and not just in your own party. Be good to the bureaucracy. They can help you achieve your objectives or they can make your life miserable.

Work your committees. Committees are one place where you can make your mark on policy, and make an impression on your team. It is also the best place to get local issues brought to the forefront.

As for Question Period, that is full-throttle theatre. And you should treat it accordingly. Practice your questions in front of the mirror and, for heaven’s sake, do not read from a printed answer.

Much to learn. And the work starts now.

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

Pierre Poilievre’s decision to select Andrew Scheer as the interim opposition leader shows that he does not want any competition in the temporary job that he would like to fill permanently following an Alberta byelection.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 2, 2025.

OTTAWA—Conservative deputy leader Melissa Lantsman did not look very happy when she rose to applaud her new opposition leader Andrew Scheer last week.

Who can blame her? She has done a lot of the heavy lifting as Pierre Poilievre’s deputy leader. Instead of rewarding her with the opposition leader appointment, he chose a failed former leader.

The decision certainly reinforced the image of the Conservative party as an old boys’ club. The choice is in keeping with the party’s demographic in the House of Commons.

The Tories didn’t even reach 20 per cent mark when it came to the success of women in the election. The 26 women in the caucus represent less than 19 per cent of the total team.

The choice of Lantsman would have sent a message that women play an important role in the party.

Instead, the selection of Scheer shows that Poilievre does not want any competition in the temporary job that he would like to fill permanently following an Alberta byelection.

Scheer has already been replaced as leader in a previous time, so is not likely to present any danger to the status of Poilievre as head honcho.

That status is not so solid as some would have us believe. The Conservative caucus is the only group to vote in favour of a proposed system proposed by MP Michael Chong where a majority of members can kick a leader out without the bother of having to go to a party convention.

In an effort to shore up support, Poilievre named a shadow cabinet that was three times larger than the government cabinet.

In that instance, he also ignored the principle of gender parity that was embraced by Prime Minister Mark Carney in the formation of his new cabinet.

Poilievre’s shadow cabinet includes 21 per cent women in a 74-person roster of official party critics.

A notable star that was not included in the group was Jamil Jivani. Jivani was billed as one of Poilievre’s personal choices when Jivani ran to replace Erin O’Toole in a byelection.

Jivani has previously advised Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and is well-connected to the United States administration via his former university friend, American Vice-President JD Vance.

On the night of the election, Jivani emerged from defeat to attack Ford and blame the Ontario Conservatives for the federal loss.

That didn’t sit well with colleagues who felt that the knives should not be pointed inward.

Jivani’s absence from the 74-person shadow cabinet raised some eyebrows, as did his decision to table a private member’s bill banning all temporary foreign workers from entering Canada.

Jivani has also launched a petition, which could be a tool to identify future leadership supporters.

Chances are that we will be seeing Jivani’s name on a future Conservative leadership ballot.

When Poilievre opted for Scheer instead of Lantsman as Opposition leader in the House, he opened the door to her defection, as well. His caucus now holds his future in their hands.

The process to replace a leader is entitled the Reform Act, and empowers the majority of caucus to remove a leader by a secret-ballot vote.

Each party must vote on whether to employ the act at the beginning of every new Parliament.

The Liberals declined to adopt the process at their caucus meeting last week, preferring to solve challenges in private through internal discussion.

A caucus vote would likely have seen then-prime minister Justin Trudeau leave much sooner than he did, but it also means that the party membership has no say in what happens.

In Britain, the system has led to a leadership revolving door for successive governments.

Poilievre will now be subject to constant internal caucus review. The leader’s survival until the next federal election is not guaranteed.

Meanwhile, Jivani is working hard to build his own political identity.

Lantsman may not follow in Jivani’s footsteps, but she could view Scheer’s appointment as enough of a snub to nurture her own future leadership ambitions.

She has proven her capacity both in the House of Commons, and on the campaign trail.

Poilievre is definitely riding a Conservative popularity wave today, but six months is a lifetime in politics.

Poilievre may not be leading the Conservatives into the next election.

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