Young architects and designers will be able to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The decision to save 24 Sussex and engage the country in its restoration was courageous and timely.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 6, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered Canadians a wonderful gift on the eve of Canada Day.

After years of indecision and neglect, the historical home of the prime minister will finally be properly renovated.

His background in building led him to make a number of good decisions in advance of the announcement.

First, he decided to engage the country by seeking restoration proposals from heritage architects. That decision will spawn an increase in heritage architecture, something that is badly needed in a country where approximately 1.3 million homes are empty and unused because they are in a serious state of disrepair. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, almost eight per cent of Canadians currently live in houses with major structural issues, including lack of electricity.

In the past number of years, when the housing crisis reached a zenith, little attention was paid to the fact that we have more than a million existing homes across the country that could be restored and made available for social housing.

The national “Design and Build” competition is open to Canadian architectural firms and will seek innovative solutions on energy efficiency and use. The proposal also involves a potential crowdfunding and fundraising element, to be managed by the Rideau Hall Foundation.

The jury for the proposals is chaired by Moshe Safdie, acclaimed architect behind the glorious construction of Canada’s National Gallery. Most significant, Carney applied a one-year timeline to the process that will be overseen by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.

The building, which dates back to 1866, has been vacant for more than a decade. Prime minister Stephen Harper was the last head of government to live in the residence, and when he moved out in 2015, it was vacated for restoration. But no decision was made on the restoration until last week.

Some proposals included simply abandoning the building in favour of a new build with banquet facilities at the edge of Rockcliffe Park. That proposal sounded eerily familiar to the current decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to install a baroque banquet hall on the White House property. The Trump monstrosity is supposed to house 999 people and is to be built at a cost up to $600-million. Trump has publicly promised that no taxpayers’ money will be used in the construction, but in a recent media leak, it appears that approximately half of the cost will be paid by the public purse, allegedly to enhance security.

In the lead up to last week’s decision, the government received a report from our own security force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In that report, it claimed that simply upgrading security at the current address would cost upwards of $32-million, making the restoration too expensive to consider. That figure, in a report subcontracted by the RCMP, was subsequently discredited.

Back in 2025, Harper joined former prime minister Jean Chrétien in an offer to raise money to replace the ailing edifice. Chrétien approached the Prime Minister’s Office with the proposal, but was quickly rebuffed. The PMO believed a fundraising campaign would be too politically controversial and declined the offer.

But times have changed and so has the prime minister. Carney is not afraid to take the risk of fundraising, and the idea of crowdfunding through social media venues is another way to engage Canadians in support of the process.

There will, no doubt, be some naysayers, led last week by the leader of the opposition, who claimed that the prime minister should not move on his own housing while millions of Canadians are facing housing and affordability crises themselves.

But former New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair pointed out that Poilievre cannot say much because he lives in Stornoway, another official residence paid by the taxpayers. In Poilievre’s case, he stayed at Stornoway after he lost his seat, even though he had no association with Parliament.

So, he will not be leading the charge against the restoration.

By launching a national competition, Carney has managed to focus attention away from himself and in favour of a whole new generation of Moshe Safdies.

For the next year, the country will be directly engaged in the discussion about possible design plans. They will also be able to contribute to the restoration of the prime minister’s residence.

Young architects and designers will be able to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The decision to save 24 Sussex and engage the country in its restoration was courageous and timely.

After all, 24 Sussex is Canada’s home.

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

To date, an anti-Ottawa political perspective has transformed into an anti-Canada movement. Those of us who love this country need to understand that survival is not guaranteed. If we are not willing to fight hard for the survival of our country, Canada could be lost.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 29, 2026.

OTTAWA—Canada Day is usually an opportunity for people to weigh in on how much they love this great country.

But given the state of realpolitik in Alberta and Quebec, maybe it is time we thought about a new approach to nation building.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is rolling out major national projects as part of his campaign for “Canada Strong.” In the lead-up to Canada Day on July 1, three major projects were announced.

All were in northern parts of this country, and two involved transportation.

The Nunavut project is a 230-kilometre all-season road from the border of the Northwest Territories to the Arctic Ocean.

The second is another all-season road completion from Yellowknife to Inuvik, providing year-round access to remote northern areas.

The third is the construction of a deep underground nuclear waste storage facility in the Ignace/Wabigoon Lake area of northern Ontario.

Roads and rail link Canadians.

This country’s first prime minister saw the benefit of national transportation links, promising to link eastern Canada to the Pacific Coast by the way of a series of railway lines which ultimately became the government-owned Canadian National Railways.

Big infrastructure projects marked the beginning of Canada, and Carney obviously thinks they can revitalize the ties that bind us.

From high-speed rail to northern all-season roads, all are designed to grow the economy by building interregional links.

But the challenges faced by Sir John A. Macdonald pale in comparison to the global and regional tensions facing the current prime minister.

Big projects may be part of the answer. But the country needs to realize that we cannot simply take Confederation for granted.

In Alberta, separatists have followed a roadmap already drawn up for them by two referendums in Quebec.

In the last Quebec referendum, a convoluted question asked voters to give the government a mandate to negotiate a new deal with Canada and if they didn’t get it, start a new country.

The federal government needs to start making the case for Canada in Alberta.

Of course, there are some very strong supporters of Canada, including the “Forever Canada” team led by former Alberta minister Thomas Lukaszuk. In a few short months, he has been able to collect more than 400,000 signatures in a petition for Alberta to remain in Canada.

Canadians can take comfort from the number of people who signed the petition, but it would be a mistake to think the battle is over. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is using those very signatures to claim that she needs to have a referendum, a position which is not supported by the facts.

The pro-Canadian current messaging is falling into the same trap that almost cost us the last referendum.

The “No” campaign against leaving Canada made an economic argument while the “Yes” campaign ran an appeal of the heart.

Just this past week, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce published a survey making a strong economic argument in favour of Canada. Some 63 per cent of respondents said the discussion of separation is already costing them business, and almost half said they would relocate their businesses elsewhere if separation were to occur.

The chamber published a study which predicted that the Alberta economy would take a $62-billion annual hit, based on predicted job losses and reduction of business with other provinces.

The money argument makes sense.

But if we learned one thing from the Quebec referendum it is that voters don’t always listen to major macroeconomic arguments. At the time, the separatists claimed they would keep the Canadian dollar, the military, and even negotiate a passport.

The real story behind the last Quebec referendum was a survey done post facto which showed that 67 per cent of francophones who knew an anglophone who voted to remain in Canada. Some 92 per cent who did not know an anglophone who wanted to separate.

The main issue is not the economy; it is personal connection.

If Alberta feels isolated and belittled, the move to separate becomes that much easier.

The misinformation circulated by pro-separatist Albertans needs to be countered locally and aggressively.

The federal government needs to take the separation question seriously. Cabinet needs to develop an Alberta-based communications strategy that reaches into every rural Albertan community.

The story of Canada needs to be told in Alberta. To date, an anti-Ottawa political perspective has transformed into an anti-Canada movement.

Those of us who love this country need to understand that survival is not guaranteed.

If we are not willing to fight hard for the survival of our country, Canada could be lost.

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

It seems like every press conference is similar to a hot mic stream of consciousness. In a presser on the American-Iranian ceasefire, Trump bragged that he personally dropped all the bombs that led to an Iranian capitulation, claiming credit for ‘kicking Iran’s ass.’

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 22, 2026.

OTTAWA—The hot mics in France last week were not that hot.

What they showed was our prime minister making best use of his time to convince United States President Donald Trump to sign onto the trilateral trade agreement set to expire July 1.

A real hot mic usually involves scandal. Someone says something that puts someone else in a bad light, and heads roll.

Perhaps one of the most famous was a hot mic incident at a NATO meeting in Prague in 2002, where the prime minister’s communications director Françoise Ducros was overheard calling then-U.S. president George W. Bush “a moron.”

Journalist Bob Fife heard the remark and immediately reported it. All hell broke loose. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to fire Ducros, and simply repeated that he was good friends with the president and did not think he was a moron.

But the pressure was too great and Ducros eventually offered her resignation, saying it was impossible for her to do her job because of the controversy.

Another “hot mic” story wasn’t exactly a hot mic. It was a hot seat on an Air Canada flight between Ottawa and New Brunswick in 1998. Then solicitor-general Andy Scott was chatting with his seatmate about the circumstances surrounding the use of police pepper spray on protesters at a meeting of the leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.

Canada hosted the 1997 meeting, and Chrétien defended the use of pepper spray with the famous comment, “For me, I put it (pepper) on my plate.”

A public inquiry was held the following year into the whole affair, but during the infamous plane ride, the solicitor-general told his seat-mate that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would take the fall for the spray.

Little did Scott know that New Democratic Party MP Dick Proctor, a former sports reporter, was sitting right near him, and transcribing the whole conversation.

When the contents were released in the House of Commons, Scott was forced to resign from his post. After his resignation, whenever I was in conversation with someone in a public place, and voices got louder, I would simply make a plea for silence by saying ‘A.S.’ That immediately reduced the volume on any discussion.

The third, relatively famous hot mike conversation was again, not on a mic.

Instead, a former Conservative minister in the government of Stephen Harper accidently left a tape recorder in the office of a radio station which ended up hitting the national news. As natural resources minister, Lisa Raitt was responsible for the production of nuclear isotopes at the government lab in Chalk River, Ont. At the time, there were radioactive leaks at the lab, for which Raitt believed she had a solution.

In the tape, she claimed it was a good issue because “it’s sexy … radioactive leaks. Cancer,” and she said she would score political credit for fixing it.

When the recording was exposed, a tearful Raitt offered her resignation, but it was turned down by the prime minister. Instead, she was demoted in the next cabinet shuffle.

A more recent Canadian hot mic incident was experienced by then-prime minister Justin Trudeau during a NATO anniversary celebration at Buckingham Palace.

In a conversation with several leaders, including Britain’s Boris Johnson, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte and Princess Anne, Trudeau generated a chuckle when he commented on why Trump was late to the celebration, saying, “He was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference off the top. … You just watched his team’s jaws drop to the floor.”

Trump countered with his own hot mic experience. After publicly calling Trudeau “two-faced,” he went on to privately say this own attack on Trudeau was funny.

These days, Trump doesn’t need a hot mic. It seems like every press conference is similar to a hot mic stream of consciousness. In a presser on the American-Iranian ceasefire, Trump bragged that he personally dropped all the bombs that led to an Iranian capitulation, claiming credit for “kicking Iran’s ass.”

Trump has repeatedly promised that the United States would never sign an agreement to send money to rebuild Iran, but the agreement calls for a $300-billion reparation package for reconstruction.

Trump claims nothing will come from the American public purse, but he said the same thing about the construction of the White House ballroom.

The Washington Post reported last week that approximately half of the $600-million in contractors’ invoices would be paid by the public. Private donors would cover the balance.

Trump doesn’t need a hot mic to expose his own contradictions.

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

Fast-tracking projects has definitely been the priority. But weakening regulations, ranging from pesticide approvals to project environmental assessments, risks tarnishing Mark Carney’s well-earned reputation as an environmental advocate.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 15, 2026.

OTTAWA—The government’s environmental agenda has faced some scrutiny, and there is definitely pushback from within the Liberal Party.

Prime Minister Mark Carney must be aware of the criticism because at the annual funders’ Laurier Club party last week, he devoted a large part of his speech to the subject of Canadian protected areas.

He pledged to pursue a 30 per cent set-aside of Canada’s vast landscape as protected areas that can never be developed.

Born in Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, the prime minister understands the value of wide open spaces.

For anyone who knows the area, Fort Smith is a town on the edge of one of the only existing wild buffalo runs in the world.

Wood Buffalo National Park straddles the Northwest Territories and Alberta, and is Canada’s largest park, an area larger than Switzerland.

It is home to the world’s biggest free-roaming wood bison herd, and is the only breeding ground for the endangered whooping crane.

It also includes the world’s largest dark sky preserve, a sky free of manmade illumination pollution, which supports animal and bird habitat and survival.

Carney’s move to set aside these lands is extremely important, but the attention paid to this promise last week made it clear that the prime minister is conscious of his current fragile standing in the environmental community.

With more than a dozen caucus members internally lobbying on the environmental front, and former environment minister Steven Guilbeault’s recent announcement that he will resign his House seat have highlighted a potential rift.

Carney has been lauded across the country by business communities because he is focusing the government on moving quickly to surmount regulatory hurdles blocking major projects.

But, behind the scenes, many long-standing Liberals are asking why Carny appears to be backing off on historical environmental commitments.

Former Quebec minister and federal MP Clifford Lincoln was in town last week as the guest of House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia.

Lincoln was a key partner in regulatory legislation passed by the Liberal government at the end of the last century.

Full disclosure: he was my parliamentary secretary, and was the main reason why we were able build opposition support for tough legislation in four key areas.

As a team, we created the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development, attached to the Office of the Auditor General. We also introduced the strongest environmental assessment legislation in the world.

He personally spearheaded toxic substances legislation, which prompted every factory in the country to modify emissions or face regulatory consequences.

Lincoln also helped to establish the Pest Management Regulatory Agency under the authority of Health Canada.

That involved battling Agriculture Canada, as it did not want to give up authority on fertilizer approval.

Lincoln worked closely with former minister and House Environment Committee chair Charles Caccia and myself to beef up the regulatory side.

Several of those regulations are now being reviewed in the name of speed.

The fight against greenhouse gases must minimize pesticide use. Up to five per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from fertilizers.

Carney got elected with broad support from the environmental community. He had a stellar reputation as an environmental leader in the business community, as founding member of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.

But since Carney’s time in government has been focused on getting results, the green shine is beginning to dull.

Last week was a wonderful chance to reminisce about Lincoln’s influence on public policy.

He is widely respected in Quebec as a minister who gave up his post when the Liberal government decided to limit anglophone rights with the introduction of Bill 178.

Lincoln is not afraid to call a spade a spade. At 97 years of age, he is still a regular contributor to the Montreal Gazette on environmental and language issues. Green Party leader Elizabeth May attended the lunch in his honour, and lauded his environmental contribution.

The current House Speaker started on Parliament Hill as Lincoln’s assistant, and they have stayed in close touch ever since.

Lincoln can be a port in a storm, providing valuable advice. He understands that saving the planet is not just about protecting natural spaces.

It involves thoughtful, rigorous enforcement of regulations designed to protect Canadians and reduce our production of greenhouse gases.

Fast-tracking projects has definitely been the priority.

But weakening regulations, ranging from pesticide approvals to project environmental assessments, risks tarnishing his well-earned reputation as an environmental advocate.

Net zero cannot be achieved solely by wilderness protection. It also involves regulating predatory human pollution.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 8, 2026.

OTTAWA—Do Canadians deserve clarity on the separation question?

Separatists don’t think so.

Last week, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to repeal the 26-year-old Clarity Act.

Ironically, they tabled the bill in the very Parliament that they would like to exit.

Motivation for the move was a decision by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to promote a referendum on a potential secession process in her province.

At least the Bloc is consistent.

Along with its provincial counterpart, the Parti Québécois, the Bloc has never wavered in its commitment to leave Canada. However, referendum fatigue has kept the issue on the back burner.

As recently as last August, former separatist premier Lucien Bouchard called on the current PQ leader to drop his plan for a first-term referendum. Paul St.-Pierre Plamondon agreed to disagree with the PQ icon.

Meanwhile, Smith met with Quebec Premier Christine Frechette last week, ostensibly to discuss economic ties and strategies to create more provincial autonomy.

Frechette is opposed to another Quebec referendum, but Smith claimed the two provinces are so aligned that their names should be changed to Alberbec or Queberta.

Their brief discussion did not include any talk about the federal clarity rules.

Prime Minister Mark Carney made it clear that a single vote does not meet the conditions for separation.

The Clarity Act requires a clear question and a clear majority, but the Bloc thinks a simple majority of 50-per-cent-plus-one is enough. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien said a simple majority was so ridiculous that if a voter forgot their glasses, they could accidentally vote to leave Canada.

The Alberta premier claims support for Canada, but has used her powers to encourage the referendum. She has intervened on three occasions to promote the separation question.

Her party’s claim, included in a bill passed by the Alberta legislature, promotes a “Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada.”

Bill 1, passed in 2022, sets out the legal framework for the province to stop enforcing federal initiatives.

Smith is facing a political pickle. The majority of Albertans want to remain in Canada, but the same cannot be said for the members of the premier’s United Conservative Party.

The Republican Party of Alberta lists 18 separatist UCP members of the legislature.

Multiple polls place the percentage of UCP members who want to separate at about 60 per cent.

Smith has to satisfy those members to keep her job, but in doing so, she risks losing the rest of Alberta.

Smith’s plan to campaign in favour of Canada is based on the high costs of separation.

But her actions tell a different story.

Smith lowered the threshold for the number of signatures needed to launch a referendum. She also launched grievance panels, touring the province, and providing separatists with an official platform to air their complaints about the country.

Her party president, Rob Smith, has publicly stated the UCP would remain neutral on the separation question, while the premier has contradicted him.

She also defends the referendum by repeating that 700,000 Albertans asked for this vote. That statement is disingenuous at best, as 404,000 of the signatories signed the Forever Canada Petition, whose organizers explicitly opposed the holding of a referendum on the question.

The second problem with the 700,000 number is that the signatures to separate have not been verified by Elections Alberta because of a court decision that the push for separation violates Indigenous rights.

Smith’s government has appealed that decision, opposing the initial court judgment that cited a failure of the legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples as a reason to block the referendum.

She claims the duty to consult comes after a referendum triggers a separation process.

But Indigenous leaders have been clear that there was a failure by Smith to consult with the Athabaska Chipewyan First Nation, Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, and Siksika First Nation.

Siksika chief Samuel Crowfoot was clear, “the Alberta government would do well to change their course in dealing with First Nations and engage with us in a respectful and meaningful way … we want to be part … (of) improving Alberta, not roadblocks in their efforts to appease a fringe majority.”

Smith knows her government has failed to consult First Nations and Métis before the referendum.

She will have a tough time convincing Albertans she believes in Canada since she has been the main proponent of her party’s path to departure.

New Democratic Leader Naheed Nenshi’s best chance of victory in next year’s Alberta election is the fight for Canada.

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

After seven years in government, Steven Guilbeault has come to the conclusion that politics is not the place for his environmental contribution. He is right. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of perfection.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 1, 2026.

OTTAWA—Steven Guilbeault’s departure from politics is the best of a bad scenario for the Liberals.

Had he decided to leave the caucus and join another party, Guilbeault’s presence would be a continuing reminder of the government’s backpedalling on climate change initiatives introduced during his time as minister. As an opposition spokesperson for the environment, he would certainly have had a platform for his passion, the global fight against climate change.

Had he decided to sit as an Independent, Guilbeault would have been a favoured spokesperson for any comment on government environmental changes. As such, he would no doubt have been a very visible thorne in the government’s side.

An exit will likely put him back in the non-governmental environmental arena. Dozens of environmental activists weighed in with statements of support for Guilbeault, some of whom will likely offer him post-political work.

But in reality, standing on the outside looking in, he will not be as visible or effective as he would have been by remaining in Parliament and simply leaving the Liberals.

Guilbeault was originally recruited as an environmental star and founder of environmental movement ‘Equiterre’ and former Greenpeace activist.

He spent only seven years in government, four of those as environment minister which was his true passion.

Even when he was replaced at Environment minister and minister of Canadian identity and culture, Guilbeault was often more engaged in environmental than cultural issues.

His life’s work has largely been devoted to the fight against global warming with relatively brief political involvement.

Guilbeault was also faced with his own diminishing influence when Prime Minister Mark Carney dismantled some of the elements of his work, including the carbon pricing abolition that was the new government’s first bill in office.

Guilbeault joins another former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who left politics to carry on her crusade for global environmental changes. McKenna departed after only six years, with the intention of making change externally. She has founded an advisory firm on climate solutions and works with the United Nations, including chairing the UN High Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emission of Non-State Entities in 2022.

Guilbeault may be moving in the same direction. He has certainly garnered the respect of environmentalists and even some opposition leaders.

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet thought so much of Guilbeault’s resignation that he used his lead-off spot in Question Period to laud Guilbeault’s environmental credentials.

Blanchet also knows that the summer vacancy in the riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Que., provides an opportunity for the Bloc to gain a seat.

Until the New Democratic Party’s Orange Wave flipped the seat in 2011, the Bloc had held Laurier-Sainte-Marie for 18 years.

In a tight race, a Bloc victory would challenge the slim Liberal majority and create momentum for the separatists. With the separatist movement getting premier attention in Alberta, the issue is on the front burner again.

Blanchet also underscored Guilbeault’s reputation as a strong environmentalist long before he entered politics.

But after seven years, Guilbeault has come to the conclusion that politics is not the place for his environmental contribution.

He is right.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of perfection.

One of the challenges faced by any environment minister is the fact that oil and gas royalties strengthen the Canadian economy and, even as alternatives arrive to displace fossil fuel use in transportation, industry and elsewhere, we still have a current need for consumption of fossil fuels.

If we are consuming—and we are—why should the government turn its back on the potential for clean production?

Electrification of the transportation sector has not developed as rapidly as expected because the infrastructure to support electric cars, buses, and trucks has not been implanted as broadly as required.

Then-prime minister Justin Trudeau would not entertain projects involving liquefied natural gas export to Europe.

Last week, the federal government announced an export agreement with Germany to export one million metric tonnes of LNG from northern British Columbia.

The proposed $10-billion facility is on Nisga’a Nation territory north of Prince Rupert.

The deal would replace LNG that Germany was previously receiving from Russia.

Would we rather see Russia or Canada benefitting from the exploitation of this resource?

To quote project proponent and Nisga’a Lisims government president Eva Clayton, “We’re managing poverty. We now want to manage prosperity.”

Environmentalists will oppose the LNG initiative as well. But at the end of the day, the moderate approach is to diversify energy options, but keep petroleum in play.

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

Changes to environmental legislation is the kind of under-the-radar political discussion that will not likely make front page news. But it is the kind of change that could alienate women who tend to focus more on environmental and health concerns.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 25, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney is even more popular with Progressive Conservatives today than he is with some Liberals.

At a meeting last week of the Ottawa Women’s Canadian Club, several high-profile Tories weighed in with how much they like the job he is doing. Carney’s decision to appoint the spouse of former PC prime minister Joe Clark to chair a search committee for the Supreme Court was lauded by all. Maureen McTeer has just been named chair of the Independent Advisory board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments.

The appointment was very popular with Women’s Canadian Club members, especially those of a certain age. We were recalling the thrashing McTeer took when she kept her own name back when Clark became the youngest elected prime minister at the age of 39 in 1979. It is hard to comprehend today, but so many people were livid at McTeer, claiming Clark was unfit to be prime minister because his wife would not take his last name.

The luncheon was held at the Ottawa Hunt and Golf Club, with the topic advertised as “Life After Politics.”

Former Ontario minister and MPP Lisa MacLeod joined me on the panel which was chaired by North Grenville Mayor Nancy Peckford.

The audience included a number of former government officials and bureaucrats who well remembered how hard it was for a woman to even choose to keep her own name back in the last century.

Subject matter for the event included questions about whether women are treated differently from men when they leave politics.

MacLeod said her male colleagues who retired landed immediately in jobs while she got no offers. Instead, she started her own company.

More than two decades ago, I had the same experience. When I left politics, I was not invited to sit on a single corporate board, even though my experience in government involved responsibility for a $3.2-billion budget and 15 Crown corporations. I also chose to set up my own job, incorporating a communications and government-relations business.

The political buzz at the meeting revolved primarily around Carney and how his moves are definitely appreciated by Progressive Conservatives. One former minister in the government of Stephen Harper went so far as to tell a whole table of women that there was no way that current Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre would ever be elected to the top job. Instead, those who had voted Conservative in the past were moving over to the Liberals as long as Carney was leading the country.

The crowd was primarily made up of older women, which is the demographic that has consistently kept Liberals in power for the past decade. That is also the demographic that tends to lean more to the left on environmental and social issues. The fact that their support for Carney appears strong should obviously be of concern to Poilievre’s team.

But the environmental issues that can move votes could also be plaguing the Liberals very shortly.

Respected Toronto Star journalist Althia Raj published an opinion piece last week that will cause many women to sit up and take notice. The headline read, “Mark Carney’s pesticide policy could put the economy ahead of your health.”

The new legislation, included in two omnibus financial bills, now includes economic considerations into the decision-making process for pesticide approval under the Pest Control Products Act. The legislation also allows cabinet to overrule the decision of a single minister who declares a pesticide dangerous.

According to Raj, the proposed legislation is aligning with changes currently being introduced in the United States to weaken control over pesticide approvals in that country.

But a number of environmental organizations have objected to the bill’s intentions to replace a stand-alone health decision with one factoring in economic considerations.

Likewise, cabinet power to override a single minister would likely be used to promote pesticide approvals even if there are health risks.

All in all, it’s the kind of under-the-radar political discussion that will not likely make front-page news. But it is the kind of change that could alienate women who tend to focus more on environmental and health concerns.

Right now, the prime minister can count on the support of these women. They know how much things have improved since the time when McTeer was attacked simply for keeping her own last name.

But women’s support should not be taken for granted.

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

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith has worn a target on his back for the last several months. Now a new frontrunner will be under attack and the Ford team is already working hard to build attack ads against whomever wins the race.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 18, 2026.

OTTAWA—The leaderless Ontario Liberal Party is currently polling ahead of Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives.

That is tough news for the provincial government, but even tougher news for the Ontario New Democratic Party. The Liberals have landed in third place in the last two elections with NDP leader Marit Stiles performing well in the legislature as the leader of the official opposition.

One election loss was considered a fluke. Two elections is a trend. So the prevailing wisdom was that the NDP would replace the Liberals as the government in waiting.

But for many reasons, that has not happened. Instead, the Liberal brand is holding steady in Canada’s most populous province, and even without a leader, looks poised to potentially form government.

Ford’s stumbles have been rare, but the latest reversal of his decision to purchase a $29-million jet to travel to Timmins and the north seems to have caught voters’ attention.

The explanation of the plane purchase was dubious as the premier claimed that he would use it to move more efficiently across the province and get more work done.

The runway length required by the Bombardier Challenger 650 meant the plane could only land in 19 of the province’s 179 operational airports.

The purchase reversal came quickly, with Ford’s usual statement that he was simply listening to the voters, but the fiasco hurt. The Liberals quickly shot two points ahead in the polls.

And then a Liberal leadership candidate shot himself in the foot.

In a pitched nomination battle, Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith lost the race in Scarborough-Southwest by 19 votes to Ahsanal Hafiz.

Erskine-Smith took a huge chance in running in a riding across town from the seat he currently holds in the House of Commons. He has been elected in Beaches-East York since 2015, and announced last week he would be stepping down at the end of the session.

Had he followed the example of NDP Leader Avi Lewis, he would have waited for a seat that was much safer, but Erskine-Smith has always been a risk-taker.

He plans to contest the nomination results, which saw more than 1,000 members ruled ineligible to vote. But he has also said the outcome has forced him to reconsider his ambitions.

Only one current sitting provincial member has announced her intention to run for the Liberal leadership race which has been called for November.

Last week, Ontario MPP Lee Fairclough announced her candidacy. The rookie MPP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore was a surprise victor in Ford’s home area in the last election, and has a deep background in medicine, including managing a hospital during COVID.

In her youth, she was a member of Canada’s national women’s rugby team, so she knows how to fight.

Fairclough already has the support of three senior Liberals: MPP’s Lucille Collard, Ted Hsu, and former deputy leader Deb Matthews. She is the only current MPP who has declared her candidacy although Ajax MPP Rob Cerjanec has been actively organizing behind the scenes.

Other names being bandied about include Navdeep Bains, a former minister in the federal government with strong organizational ability. It is widely believed within the Ontario Liberal Party that Bains is one of the two people, along with Erskine-Smith, who organized an active campaign to damage former leader Bonnie Crombie at the leadership review convention last fall.

Lacklustre support prompted Crombie to step down back in January, citing the new year as a chance for new beginnings.

Some believed she should have had another shot at electoral victory, and they blame Erskine-Smith and Bains for her exit.

Until the weekend, Erskine-Smith was widely viewed as the frontrunner in the leadership.

But the Scarborough nomination battle was filled with acrimony, with last week’s defeat capping off a month of negative headlines for Erskine-Smith.

He questioned the results, and blamed party brass for smoothing the way for his opponent. But he also faced criticism for a last-minute endorsement from Prime Minister Mark Carney that ruffled local feathers.

Even leaderless, the provincial Liberals are ahead. But once a leader is chosen, that could quickly change.

A frontrunner starts with a target on their back. Erskine-Smith has worn that target for the last several months. Now a new frontrunner will be under attack. Candidates for the Ontario Liberal leadership must enter the race before July 31.

The Ford team is already working hard to build attack ads against whomever wins the race.

Bains has experience, but that comes with baggage. Cerjanec and Fairclough have no experience. In politics, that could actually work in their favour.

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

There is a record number of 53 MPs from minority backgrounds in the Commons, representing 15.7 per cent of the total number of seats. That percentage is still below the 26.3 percentage of visible minorities in the general population. But the increase in the last election was outstanding.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 11, 2026.

OTTAWA —May is Asian Heritage Month in Canada. And in a speech last Tuesday to a diverse audience at the National Gallery of Canada, Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller revealed a surprising number.

He celebrated the reality that one in five Canadians is of Asian background. The country is aware of a large Asian presence in the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Vancouver.

But our diversity has spread across the country.

What was exciting at the gallery celebration was the presence of more than two dozen MPs and Senators who hail from Asian background.

They join dozens of other MPs who are defined as visible minorities.

In the current Parliament, there is a record number of 53 MPs from minority backgrounds, representing 15.7 per cent of the total number of seats.

That percentage is still below the 26.3 percentage of visible minorities in the general population.

But the increase in the last election was outstanding.

Almost 10 per cent of the House of Commons is comprised of South Asian members who occupy 31 seats.

The number of visible minorities has increased in every one of the last four elections, so equivalency should be happening soon.

Compare that figure to the number of Asian Americans serving in their Congress. At this time, only 24 Congresspeople self-identify as Asian, representing 4.4 per cent of the House of Representatives. The Asian presence in the United States figures in at only 6.7 per cent.

The first Canadian breakthrough in diverse parliamentarian elections occurred in 1993 when 13 minority MPs were elected.

According to a paper published by retired McGill professor Jerome H. Black, “this was the first time that more than a handful of such individuals had found their way into Parliament and thus, constitutes significant early development in the racial diversification of the legislature.”

That breakthrough did not happen by accident. The Liberal Party won a majority government that year, and part of its pre-election strategy for recruiting candidates was to establish a 25-per-cent minimum nomination of women and minorities.

That strategy continued while the Liberals in government.

The establishment of Asian Heritage Month was carried out by an official declaration of the government. At the time, then-Senator Vivienne Poy and I worked together on the subject. She introduced a private member’s bill into the Senate in the fall of 2001, and I issued an official government declaration the following February, setting the stage for the first celebration of May 2002.

We used the same strategy to introduce Black History Month in 1995. Parliament’s first Black woman, Jean Augustine, introduced the resolution in the House that was subsequently adopted as official government policy under the leadership of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The decision to adopt an inclusive nomination process was also reflected in other government policies.

In 1999, as minister, I issued a directive to the CRTC demanding a rewrite of television and radio licensing renewal guidelines to require applicants to hire women, minorities, and Indigenous Peoples.

Funding guidelines were also modified for all 15 Crown corporations under the authority of the minister of Canadian Heritage. This group included the CBC and Parks Canada.

The directive ensured that every organization develop a plan to increase the hiring of women and minorities. In the case of Parks Canada, their action plan resulted in an immediate 17-per-cent hike in the hiring of Indigenous employees.

The government also announced the first-ever National Aboriginal Day under the leadership of Ron Irwin, then-minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We also established National Multicultural Day.

Both days of recognition were included in the celebrations of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and Canada Day.

The first Asian Heritage month celebration involved coffee and cookies in one of the parliamentary reception rooms with a few dozen representatives.

Last week, it was standing-room only, and the theatre at the National Gallery was filled with hundreds of participants.

Most important were the numbers of parliamentarians who joined the minister in the presentations. The face of the country is changing, and the face of government is—thankfully—changing along with it.

From Liberal MPs Chi Nguyen to Jean Yip, from Rechie Valdez, to Fares Al Soud, the presenters were dynamic, bright and bilingual. Each had their own story, sharing their family struggles of immigrating to a new country.

Each also has experienced unique struggles in securing nominations or electoral success.

They are the new faces of Canada.

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

Current polling shows Prime Minister Mark Carney wins on global leadership. But support for the Conservatives remains strong on domestic issues. And at the end of the day, Canadians usually vote on pocketbook issues.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 4, 2026.

OTTAWA—Former prime minister John Diefenbaker would often claim: “Polls are for dogs.”

In his first election, in 1957, Dief the Chief was elected in a minority government, but his second election in 1958 resulted in the largest Progressive Conservative majority in the history of Canada. Winning 208 of 265 seats, Dief’s record was unparalleled to this day.

Even during the Brian Mulroney sweep of 1984, the percentage in seat numbers could not rival that of Diefenbaker.

So why was Dief so disdainful of polls?

Diefenbaker personally experienced the fragility of political popularity. He went from being wildly popular in the 1958 sweep to being drummed out of the leadership at a bitter national convention only nine years later.

Diefenbaker learned the hard way that polls can be as fickle as the Canadian voter.

The polling numbers tracking Prime Minister Mark Carney today are eerily similar to those of a popular Dief.

With a first minority election under his belt, one year later, Carney could arguably be swept to a large majority if a general election were held today.

Instead, the Liberals’ new majority means that the prime minister will have three more years to build the “Canada Strong” theme that he has promoted in his first year of office.

Polling numbers greatly favour Carney when viewed in comparison to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

In the Nanos poll published last week, overall support for the Liberals stood at 45 per cent with Conservatives polled at 32 per cent.

When it comes to personal popularity, Carney outstrips Poilievre by 22 per cent.

Carney is also ahead of Poilievre in every demographic except that of younger men between the ages of 35 and 54. In that group, Poilievre enjoys a three per cent advantage at 45 per cent favourability.

Despite politicians’ claim that they don’t watch the polls, most do. There are a few reasons why the prime minister should take note of those numbers.

The group that Poilievre manages to win over is the group most closely aligned with issues Canadians are concerned about.

Canadians’ biggest concern these days is job jitters, and that is a shift from previous Nanos numbers which identified the Trump factor as No. 1.

Both are interrelated. Obviously, concerns about Canadian jobs stem from the decision by American president Donald Trump to close off northern borders and threaten key Canadian industries with punishing tariffs.

Carney’s economic announcement of more than $6-billion in skilled trades and apprenticeships last week will definitely seek to assuage job concerns.

Not coincidentally, the target group of weaker support for Carney, those younger men, will also benefit from the combination of mega-project investment and skilled-trade opportunities.

Like Poilievre, Carney has been pretty good at sloganeering. The promotion of a “Team Canada Strong” serves a dual purpose. It connotes strength in the national government, and addresses the simmering separation questions that will be coming to the fore in an upcoming Alberta referendum.

Unlike Poilievre, Carney’s personal popularity has not yet taken a hit. In another Angus Reid poll last week, 30 per cent of past Conservative voters want to replace Poilievre.

His caucus has been publicly supportive with recent sorties of support from Members of Parliament. But that could change quickly if his party rejects him. While 60 per cent of Canadians have a negative view of Poilievre, 57 per cent of Tories think he should stay on as leader.

But dissident numbers rose from 18 per cent last August to 30 per cent in April. If that trend continues, Poilievre could see his own job at risk.

If Poilievre were no longer the Conservative leader, numbers for Carney would definitely be affected.

Current polling shows Carney wins on international leadership. But support for the Conservatives remains strong on domestic issues.

And, at the end of the day, Canadians usually vote on pocketbook issues.

Perhaps the most relevant number in the Nanos polling is the move away from concern about Trumpian international uncertainty to worries about personal pocketbook issues.

Poilievre scores well when it comes to which leader is most focused on these issues.

If the Tories own the affordability question, and they decide to replace Poilievre with another leader, the halo currently worn by Carney could definitely be tarnished.

The deep dive into polling numbers is being done by all politicians, especially those who say they don’t care about polls.

Carney’s need to work on his standing with younger men has already been acknowledged. Expect more Liberal news on affordability and jobs to come.

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