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.

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.

While Philippe Léger and others beat the drum to reopen questions around federal interference in the 1995 vote, nobody is asking how provincial agencies and Crown corporations received cash to spend on Parti Québécois propaganda in the year leading up to the vote.

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

OTTAWA—”Operation Citizenship” was all the buzz in Quebec last week. Former immigration minister Sergio Marchi was quoted in a Quebec newspaper saying he was instructed by then-prime minister Jean Chrétien to speed up citizenship applications in advance of a potential referendum vote.

That article followed a revelation by Marchi in the Journal de Quebec coinciding with the referendum’s 30th anniversary.

It was the first time that “Operation Citizenship” was confirmed by any federal cabinet minister although reports of a potential surge in citizenship were originally noted by journalist Chantal Hébert almost 30 years ago.

Marchi has recently written a book, Pursuing a Public Life: How to Succeed in the Political Arena.

The book, published by Dundurn Press, was published on Nov. 4, and launch parties are being held to get some attention.

Two weeks ago, a presentation was held at Library and Archives Canada, and next week, Conservative MP Michael Chong and Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi will co-host a reception with the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians.

Marchi does not write about the citizenship issue in his book, and thought the journalist’s interview would be about his tome.

He spoke freely about the prime minister’s intention to make sure that the right to vote was not denied anyone who had applied for citizenship.

Journalists reported a spike in application processing in the month leading up to the October 1995 referendum, but the confirmation of a citizenship strategy after 30 years exploded like a bombshell in Quebec media circles.

Journal de Montreal columnist Philippe Léger, no fan of the former prime minister, had this to say about the revelation: ”In the pantheon of Canadian history of deception and anti-democratic manoeuvres, Jean Chrétien holds a prominent place … if there is one political constant for Chrétien, he has always put Canada first, at the cost of cheating and undermining the democratic will of Quebecers.”

Newly-elected Quebec Liberal Leader Pablo Rodriquez downplayed the revelation, saying that Quebecers were tired of going back 30 years to debate an old question.

Most people believe Rodriquez is right. But there is a cadre of disappointed separatists who will never accept the fact that Quebecers want to stay in Canada.

While Léger and others are beating the drum to reopen questions around federal interference in the vote, nobody is shining a light into how provincial agencies and Crown corporations were funded with pro-separation budgets to spend hard cash on Parti Québécois propaganda for a year leading up to the referendum.

For example, at the time, Tourism Quebec was providing paper placemats to all restaurants, stating “Welcome to my country, Quebec” with a flourishing fleur-de-lis flag. Those menus were primarily used by small mom-and-pop restaurants who couldn’t afford tablecloths and personalized menus.

That was exactly the demographic the Parti Québécois was looking to influence.

In a radio interview more than 20 years later, I debated Jean-Francois Lisée on the issue. Lisée, a former Radio Canada journalist, became leader of the Parti Québécois from 2016 to 2018. He confirmed in the interview that government agencies were funded in the year leading up to the 1995 referendum with a budget specifically designed for independence.

His rationale was that the funding stopped before the referendum was called, so it did not need to be included in referendum spending documents.

On the show, he admitted that Hydro Québec and other Crown corporations were financed to develop separatist promotions in their work for the year before the vote.

However, for some reason, there has been lots of interest in federal involvement in the referendum, but zero interest in covering actions that favoured the separatists.

One that stands out was the decision by a trucking convoy to block the road to Montreal’s West Island on the day of the referendum. That was a definitive strategy to snarl traffic in areas where the vote was expected to be almost 100 per cent pro-Canada.

Not surprisingly, neither public officials nor police did anything to get cars moving, but that has never been investigated. Thousands were denied the right to vote on the West Island because of the illegal blockade.

So while “Operation Citizenship” may get separatists’ hackles up, there are plenty of unanswered questions about dirty tricks on the other side.

Just before the referendum, then-premier Jacques Parizeau told a group of diplomats that if Quebecers were to vote ‘no’ in the referendum, they would be like “lobsters in boiling water.” The lobster gaffe was widely denied, even though Parizeau was caught on tape.

In politics there are usually no saints on either side.

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

While current popular support trends remain close between the two parties, Mark Carney’s personal popularity is in the stratosphere relative to Pierre Poilievre’s.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 24, 2025.

OTTAWA–The drama of a budget vote had every political animal in the country on the edge of their seat.

And in the end, it was a cliffhanger. But in reality, the outcome should not have been a surprise to anyone.

Having just come off an election this past spring, there was zero appetite to go back to the polls for most political parties.

The only leader who could have benefited from an election is Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. A ‘no’ vote would have meant that his mandated January 2026 party review would be cancelled.

Poilievre is probably feeling fairly comfortable, given the party review vote will be held in the middle of winter in Calgary. That is the basis for his strength, and much of his support is from Members of Parliament whose purpose in politics is ideological.

Approximately 40 members of the Conservative caucus are rabidly anti-choice, while another three dozen have expressed their opposition to abortion during the election.

Politicians who are elected because of an ideology are less likely to care about winning.

The party members who do care about winning are circling the wagons in anticipation of the January opportunity to replace the leader.

Former party insider Dimitri Soudas has been openly critical of Poilievre, and as last week’s events proved, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is also no friend of the official opposition leader.

When Ford was asked about a potential federal election, he basically threw his federal cousins under the bus. The premier said so many nice things about Prime Minister Mark Carney that an observer would have thought they shared a party.

Some have even written that Carney’s budget is progressive conservative in nature.

Ford is obviously well-organized in Ontario, and Soudas’ political roots in Quebec are deep. Both of these provinces are pivotal to winning any federal election. While Conservatives in Quebec and Ontario are not ideologues, they are used to winning at the provincial and federal levels.

If they have decided that Poilievre is not a winnable candidate, they could cause problems for him in the January vote.

Hence a federal election would have allowed Poilievre to focus on the external opposition to the government, not the internal opposition within his own ranks.

The New Democrats are in the middle of their own leadership race, so the potential of an election would be unthinkable for them.

Even though they publicly opposed the budget, they allowed it to survive by securing two abstentions. NDP abstainers included Lori Idlout and Gord Johns. Idlout did not want to vote against the budget because it included a major investment in her riding of Nunavut.

Interim NDP leader Don Davies told the media after the vote that his party did not want for force an election; therefore, he approved the two abstentions.

As for the Tories, one of the abstainers, Shannon Stubbs, said she acting on doctor’s orders while the other, Matt Jeneroux, has already disclosed his dissatisfaction with his party by announcing he will not be seeking re-election.

Some thought he might cross the floor to the Liberals, following the example of Nova Scotian Chris d’Entremont who left the Conservative caucus on Nov. 4 because he said he didn’t feel represented there. Rumours swirled about other potential floor crossings, but none have materialized to date.

The Liberals will have to hope that some occur because, in minority government, there could be similar, but unsuccessful votes in the next budget, or on a supply motion in the fall.

Poilievre isn’t the only one hoping that he wins his leadership review in the New Year.

Most Liberals believe he is their ticket to remain in government.

While current popular support trends remain close between the two parties, Carney’s personal popularity is in the stratosphere relative to Poilievre’s.

If the budget vote had failed on Nov. 17, there was a good chance that the current polling numbers could have led to a Liberal majority government.

Carney looked cool, calm, and collected on the day of the cliffhanger, probably because he was in a no-lose situation.

Had the election been called, his personal popularity would definitely have outstripped that of the leader of the opposition.

A budget win gives him a few more months to prove to the Canadian people that he is the leader best positioned to pivot away from dependence on economic integration with the United States.

Carney’s global view, and business experience have helped capture the confidence of Canadians.

As long as Poilievre is leading the Tories, Carney has good reason to smile.

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

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has not said much recently, but the number of Canadians visiting his state has hit a post-pandemic low. The drop was 26 per cent. The Canadian travel boycott is hitting Florida where it hurts: in the pocketbook. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 17, 2025.

OTTAWA—Canadians are voting with their feet. And America is not on the ballot.

Ten months into the mandate of United States President Donald Trump, the number of Canadians who visit the U.S. has slumped dramatically.

Just last week, the United States Travel Association reported a 3.2 per cent decline in international tourism spending in their country, for a loss of $5.7-billion compared to the previous year.

Canadians account for approximately 30 per cent of all foreign travel to the U.S., but we are not the only country that is putting the brakes on American tourism.

Canadians have good reason to boycott. In the last 10 months, the American president has threatened our economy, insulted our prime minister, backtracked on trade agreements, and continuously repeated he wants to annex our country.

As for other foreign travellers, the crackdown on migrants carried out by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has sent a global message that people can be rounded up at will.

A Canadian died while in ICE custody recently. Unfortunately, his sad story reflects that of hundreds of others who have been arrested without due process and thrown into detention centres hundreds of kilometres from where they were located.

Canada and the U.S. used to be very proud that we shared the world’s longest open border, defended only by smiles and a few border crossings. Those smiles are gone.

Canadian snowbirds who still visit the U.S. now have to be fingerprinted and registered as aliens.

Likewise, the cost of visiting the U.S. has jumped dramatically for some other international visitors with the introduction of the new $250 “visa integrity fee,” making America one of the most expensive destinations in the world.

When Canadians originally threatened a boycott, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis treated it as a joke, saying that with 3.3 million Canucks visiting his state in 2024, it wasn’t much of a boycott.

During an address to lawmakers in Tallahassee, DeSantis joked that Canadians were all coming down “to get a glimpse of what a Stanley Cup winning hockey team actually looks like.”

But the joke is now on him.

For the first time this year, the U.S. is going to move from a surplus to a deficit when it comes to how much travel money is spent in the country.

The United States Travel Association is predicting a total travel deficit of nearly US$70 billion. Canadians represent almost one-third of the travellers to the U.S., so our boycott is definitely not worth laughing at.

The projected deficit is caused by a 3.2 per cent decline in international tourism spending in the country, a loss that the association attributes largely to the drop in Canadian visitor numbers.

In the latest data from October, the number of Canadians travelling to the states by air dropped 24 per cent, and by land it decreased 30 per cent.

A recent Angus Reid poll surveyed 1,607 Canadians. Some 70 per cent said they were not comfortable travelling to the U.S. Their primary explanations were to stand up for Canada, oppose America’s political climate, and avoid border security concerns.

I was invited a few months ago to participate in a bilateral trade panel at the University of Southern California.

When I declined, citing security reasons, the organizing committee said it was not surprised as other Canadians had bowed out for the same reason.

The refusal to travel to the U.S. has opened up opportunities elsewhere. Statistics Canada recently reported a seven per cent increase in travellers heading to Europe.

Just recently, KLM/Air France announced a 30 per cent hike in their bookings.

Meanwhile, American politicians are doing their best to encourage an end to the boycott.

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently participated in a “California loves Canada” promotional campaign designed to encourage Canadians to reconsider the boycott.

Several governors joined in a recent Canadian tourism trade mission. Some states are offering promotions and “Welcome Canada” rebates in an effort to bring Canadians back.

Meanwhile, American visits to Canada are rebounding. In October, there was a one per cent reduction from 2024 travel in the same time period.

Florida’s DeSantis has not said much recently, but in the second quarter of this year, the number of Canadians visiting his state hit a post-pandemic low. The drop was 26 per cent.

Miami-Dade County has reported that spending by Canadians fell almost 13 per cent.

The Canadian travel boycott is hitting Florida where it hurts: in the pocketbook.

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