The U.S. president has piqued the wrath of Canadians. We will govern ourselves accordingly. The boycott of American products and travel will continue.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 7, 2026.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” It is that old saying that could apply when it comes to the modern name-calling emanating from the president of the United States and his team.

Some argue the saying is no longer valid as name-calling can be emotionally damaging, especially for young people.

From “Lake America” to body-shaming a young teenager, U.S. President Donald Trump and his associates seem to think there is nothing wrong with trashing their northern neighbour in whatever way possible.

The latest insult involved a posting by U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who took a break from bombing the Strait of Hormuz to trash two Canadian female cadets through a reshared social media post, which he captioned, “This is real.”

The picture was of a cadet and a training officer. The cadet program is for Canadian youth between the ages of 12 and 18, and it teaches them about the military’s contributions.

Canada’s military leadership has not sought an apology from Hegseth, saying that it would be working with those photographed to decide on a course of action.

Prime Minister Mark Carney did weigh in, saying the “post was beneath their office.”

“When Americans stop doing memes, stop throwing shade, stop trying to be tough and start being serious about having the discussions, we can have those discussions. But it’s not constructive, but that’s their democracy.”

Canadians weren’t the only ones insulted by the post. Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, who had served in the Marine Corps, said while visiting Ottawa that the post was “deeply disrespectful to the men and women of Canada who have died fighting with us.”

Next week will mark a quarter century since the horrific attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, resulting in a massive loss of life and forever changing the security landscape for the world.

Canada was there to support the U.S. during this devastating time. More than 100,000 people gathered in a memorial service on Parliament Hill organized by the government of Canada.

The residents of Gander, N.L.—a community of 9,651 people—sheltered almost 7,000 people for several days while American airspace was closed because of the attacks.

Most of the stranded passengers were Americans, and some were so appreciative of the hospitality that they returned to establish permanent friendships and even scholarship funds to recognize the relationships. Come from Away, a musical that captures the spirit of Gander, has enjoyed success on Broadway and beyond.

From that period of friendship to today, the anti-Canadian name-calling has left our relationship with the U.S. in tatters.

Last week, Trump unilaterally changed the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America, and Google’s map service quickly followed suit even though the renaming has no international geographic standing.

But just north of that lake, thousands of people at a Blue Rodeo concert in Toronto on Aug. 29 sang loudly “out in the middle of Lake Ontario,” a lyric in the legendary Canadian band’s song, Hasn’t Hit Me Yet. The fans and the band took ownership of the name and its history.

Indigenous leaders pointed out the name existed before the beginning of Canada and cannot be abolished by presidential fiat. But Trump obviously doesn’t care what Canadians think. He doesn’t even seem to care what Americans think.

Canada is not the only recipient of Trump’s capricious renaming claims. After moving on Lake America, Trump is now suggesting that the Strait of Hormuz be renamed Trump Strait.

This past Wednesday, he posted a map showing the Strait as part of U.S. territory, even though navigation of the body of water is marred by the war started by Trump.

“Now that we have it under U.S.A. control, should we change the name to TRUMP STRAIT??? Like America itself, it would be ‘hotter’ than ever before!” posted Trump on his own social media site.

Trump has not moved officially on renaming the strait, and he has since suggested he wasn’t serious. Still, the president isn’t opposed to floating an idea on social media and then following it up with an executive order initialled with the flourish of his full-page signature.

The cascade of insults and braggadocio that has followed the collapse of the trade talks only serves to underscore that the Americans were never actually negotiating in good faith.

The president has piqued the wrath of Canadians. We will govern ourselves accordingly. The boycott of American products and travel will continue.

Trump’s name-calling only serves to strengthen our resolve.

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

The cancellation of the tax was originally a concession to the U.S., with Ottawa promising to protect Canadian content through government funding. But those dollars would be taxpayer money, and their future uncertain depending on budgetary needs.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 31, 2026.

OTTAWA—Culture is on the front burner for the first time in modern trade negotiations.

In the aftermath of the breakdown of talks between Canada and the United States, Prime Minister Mark Carney cited attacks on the French language as a major reason for why the country walked away from the deal.

U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the prime minister’s claim with a bizarre statement on his social media platform claiming he loves French Canadians: “This lie was made up by a weak and ineffective prime minister in an attempt to gain political support, which he has totally lost, from the people of Quebec.”

Trump says he has no problem with people speaking French, but his negotiators signalled that Canada’s requirement for bilingual labelling was an irritant. The Canadian government also rejected an American demand to eliminate streaming requirements that make French and Quebec cultural content easily discoverable. Such requirements currently exist in the streaming sector.

Since the breakdown of talks, the U.S. government—through an interview provided by its Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to CBC News on Aug. 26—has indicated that discoverability was not a “red line.” In an X post on Aug. 27, Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said, “Canada is pleased that the United States is now reversing its positions regarding discoverability,” and that his government is looking forward to other “contructive clarifications” on American positions on proposed free trade terms.

Carney’s decision to leave the negotiating table on Aug. 21, and promise dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs has been widely applauded by Canadians, but his strong defence of the French culture came as a surprise.

It also spawned new demands on the culture front from the Bloc Québécois. In the lead up to the current round of negotiations, the Liberal government eliminated the implementation of a digital services tax.

The proposed tax was seen as an irritant to the Americans. The three-per-cent levy was cancelled in the 11th hour before its implementation, as the prime minister said it would not be worth implementing a tax that may be abolished in the upcoming trade discussions. He also defended cancelling the tax as a way of protecting affordability for families that are struggling with rising household costs.

At the time, Carney announced the tax revenue would be replaced by an annual direct investment of $600-million for Canadian content.

With the collapse of negotiations, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet is asking Carney to implement the digital tax that was originally introduced by the previous Liberal government. Blanchet says the replacement of the tax by a multi-million-dollar government investment is shifting financial responsibility from entertainment multinationals to taxpayers.

He also says the cancellation of the tax threatens the survival of French-language cultural production and Quebec jobs.

In outlining the government’s counter-tariff strategy, Industry minister Mélanie Joly specifically cited risks to the cultural sector, which she said employs 900,000 people across Canada.

Blanchet is also asking the prime minister to cancel the procurement of fighter jets from the U.S. as part of the Canadian response.

British Columbia Premier David Eby publicly reinforced the Bloc’s request to cancel jet procurement. He said the government needs to reinforce its plan to implement retaliatory tariffs with other measures, including the power of purchasing boycotts such as the fighter jet purchase.

For Carney, it was the first time that culture was front and centre in a positive way.

When the government cancelled the implementation of the digital tax, most Canadians were happy or neutral, assuming it would limit any digital streaming cost increases.

The Conservative Party had opposed the digital tax and lauded the cancellation.

But the move prompted major concern in the cultural sector that defends those 900,000 jobs.

The $600-million commitment by Ottawa would replace the tax, but it could also be subject to potential uncertainty as future budgets could reduce the payment.

More importantly, the change means that global web companies contribute nothing to the CRTC-mandated system that requires domestic broadcasters to pay their fair share.

Several European countries have implemented a digital services tax in amounts ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 per cent.

Carney’s call for Canadian cultural protection has awakened the sleeping cultural giant.

In the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada vigorously defended a cultural exemption. The government of then-Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney insisted on a cultural carveout.

The second free trade deal, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) Agreement—signed in 2018 and revised in 2019—involved the same exemption.

In the more recent CUSMA negotiations, culture was not a major issue in the discussion. The decision to cancel the digital tax preceded the talks, leaving the impression that the Canadian government would be willing to sacrifice culture in favour of a trade agreement.

Carney insists that one of the main reasons for the talk’s breakdown was Canada’s vow to protect French language and culture.

Digital tax implementation would strengthen his position.

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

Instead of dealing with the boycott by meeting consumer demands for non-American products, grocery stores are trying to trick us into buying U.S. goods. And the sad news is, there is no national law forcing these stores to visibly advertise the origin of their products.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 24, 2026.

OTTAWA—Buy local: it used to be an environmental imperative. The closer a product is to market, the less carbon has been used to deliver it.

Not everyone bought into that argument. But buy local has now become a political imperative. With the ongoing bullying from the White House, Canadians are shopping with their eyes on America.

Grocery products made in the United States are remaining on the store shelves. It is easy enough to witness. When you pass through the fresh fruit and vegetable section, American-grown produce languishes and produce from Canada and other countries is selling.

So how are grocery chains accommodating this? They are not. Instead, some seem to be making it more difficult to determine the origin of produce.

At the Adonis store in Ottawa, a recent signage change in the produce section mixes origins. It reads that produce is from Canada and the United States, making it impossible for the consumer to determine which piece of lettuce is which. Adonis is owned by Metro. Another grocer giant, Loblaws, has gone so far as to remove origin signage from the shelves.

It’s explanation for doing so does not hold water. Customers are being told to read the fine print on apples to determine whether they are from Canada or the United States. Loblaws says the reason for the change is the changing nature of produce provenance, making local signage difficult.

Poppycock! The local signage has been fine for years, until Canadians decided to boycott American products, which has led American-grown fruits and vegetables to be left rotting on the shelves.

Instead of dealing with the boycott by meeting consumer demands for non-American products, grocery stores are trying to trick us into buying U.S. goods.

And the sad news is, there is no national law forcing these stores to visibly advertise the origin of their products. That should be on the governmental to-do list in the fall. The provenance of items in the grocery store should be easily identifiable to the customer.

Some grocery stores have made it their business to advertise local produce in very large letters as a customer magnet.

Just like Canadians have been voting with their feet and refusing to visit the United States, so consumer habits have been influenced by this incessant and ongoing trade war.

No one is winning. The president of the United States is deliberately using Canada as a whipping boy while remaining silent on some of our common enemies, like Russia.

Thus far, Prime Minister Mark Carney has escaped the wrath of Canadians because most understand that this trade uncertainty emanates from Washington, and even more specifically, from the White House.

But the country’s patience is growing thin. We are witnessing massive ministerial efforts deployed in Washington, but thus far, there have been no results.

While Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and chief negotiator Janice Charette are mum about the progress, policy makers in Ottawa should be working on ways to shore up Canada’s resolve and assist Canadians who want to do their part in support of our country.

Grocery signage may be a small item, but it is obviously affecting the bottom line of chains like Loblaws and Metro. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be working to fudge the identity of American-grown produce that is not selling well here at home.

Western Canada’s Save-On-Foods has gone in the other direction, offering signage that marks the prominence of local produce. Primary focus is on plentiful and tasty British Columbian fruits and vegetables.

With no national visible labelling law, it becomes more difficult for consumers to avoid spending on American-grown goods.

At least liquor is legislated. Even after booze returns to Canadian shelves, there will be millions who simply won’t buy it.

Carney is working hard to solve the trade disputes, but the rift in Canada-U.S. relations is not going away with a simple tariff signature.

The number of Canadians who are petitioning Parliament to toss the American ambassador out of the country because of his seditious comments continues to grow. At last count, it had exceeded 238,909.

And even if bourbon is back on Canadian shelves, many simply will refuse to buy it, as a personal protest of the ignominious treatment this country has received from Donald Trump.

The on-again-off-again trade threats are only one part of Canadians’ disgust with the behaviour of the American president. The fact that Trump still garners so much electoral MAGA support simply reinforces our desire to boycott America.

Canadians will not be buying anything American any time soon.

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

If the United States wants to sell its liquor to Canadians, or encourage them to travel south of the border, the White House needs to stop bullying us.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 17, 2026.

The call to dump American Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra is growing. E-7531 is a House of Commons online petition, which had more than 106,000 signatures on Aug. 13.

The petition, launched by a Calgary woman, is slated to be presented to Parliament by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May when the House of Commons reconvenes in the fall.

According to a weekly rolling average, almost 3,000 people were signing the petition daily before it made the national news and momentum grew.

The petition calls on the government to declare Hoekstra persona non grata and secure his removal from the country. It accuses the ambassador of making statements that undermine the relationship between Canada and the United States, and “making repeated interventions in Canadian political discourse inconsistent with diplomatic protocol.”

The ambassador has criticized what he characterized as an “anti-American tone” in the last election.

The Canadian government does have the power to expel diplomats, but it is a tool used very infrequently. Past diplomats have been expelled for allegations of spying, foreign interference, and criminal acts.

Hoekstra claims he is simply representing the views of U.S. President Donald Trump, and in that respect he is correct.

The petition also states that before Hoekstra became ambassador, he was linked to a Michigan-based voter identification app which was recently used by Alberta separatists to collect signatures for the Centurion project.

The Alberta Prosperity Project, a separatist group, says it has held multiple meetings with the U.S. State Department, although Hoekstra says the Trump administration has not met with those individuals.

The petition is claiming that the actions of Hoekstra, in promoting the annexation of Canada and working with separatists, is a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

It was Trump who continually raised the issue of annexing Canada, so the petition to kick Hoekstra out of the country reflects Canadians’ discontent with the political positions taken by the U.S. president.

Hoekstra has stated he is upset over the lack of American liquor on Canadian sales shelves, and by the decision of many Canadians to boycott travelling to the U.S.

Those positions are also a reflection of his government’s current position. Like it or not, Hoekstra is generally repeating the inane ruminations of his president.

But if we kick out the American ambassador for saying bad things, what about the status of other countries that do bad things?

Russia is currently involved in an illegal attack on Ukraine, but Ambassador Oleg Stepanov is still functioning in his office on Charlotte Street in Ottawa.

What would be the repercussions of removing the American ambassador?

You can rest assured that if Hoekstra were to be kicked out of Canada, our ambassador would not remain in Washington for long. Mark Wiseman’s tenure would be terminated, as well, leaving Canada in a very difficult position when it comes to negotiating the bilateral trade agreements that are currently under discussion.

Tabling a parliamentary petition can be done by any Member of Parliament, and it does not even mean the MP is in support of the document.

House of Commons rules require members to table valid petitions, but they are usually tabled by the MP in the constituency where the petition originated. In this case, tradition dictates that it should have been a Calgary parliamentarian since petition originator Leanne Walker lives in Calgary.

The petition itself does not require a vote of the House, but the document is also calling for the creation of a parliamentary committee to examine American interference in Canadian politics.

That may happen because it is something that could be of interest to representatives in every political party. It will also shine a light into the links between Alberta separatists and American supporters of Canadian annexation.

There is little likelihood that Hoekstra will be declared persona non grata. The legal and political ramifications would simply be too great to justify such a move. With a trade agreement hanging in the balance, the dismissal would be seen by the Americans as a direct slap in the face to the president.

But the fact that so many Canadians would support removal should send a message to Washington—if anyone is listening: if you want to sell your liquor to Canadians, or encourage them to visit your country, you need to stop bullying us.

Hoekstra may be a blunt messenger, but his message is directed by the Oval Office.

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

Former CTV National News anchor Lloyd Robertson, who led the nightly newscast for 35 years, managed to cover huge political scandals and the greatest stories of his lifetime without alienating those whose stories he shared.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 10, 2026.

OTTAWA—Sixty years in broadcasting was a Canadian record. Lloyd Robertson, who died last week at 92, had spent 35 years as CTV’s chief anchor.

Roberston stepped down with the admiration of, not only fellow members of the press gallery, but also those politicians he covered on a regular basis.

He managed to cover huge political scandals and the greatest stories of his lifetime without alienating those whose stories he shared.

Why? Because Robertson was fair and balanced and always ensured his audience heard both sides of every story.

In those days, “gotcha” journalism had not yet emerged.

News ran on a 24-hour cycle, but journalists were not required to file story updates every hour on the hour. Instead, the normal rhythm of reporting would be a morning read of major national newspapers.

Often the major investigative offerings would dive deep into the details of a national story. Television had a full day to review new material and come up with an update to the story on the evening news that night.

On the evening show, a senior news editor like Robertson would likely interview the subject of the story as well as someone who had a different perspective.

It could be a minister and a member of the opposition, but in every case, there was balance to the story. The news network did not have 24 hours of time to fill so there was no need to have talking heads filling the hours between morning and night. There was also no need to have an hourly update as the main news was carried simply twice a day.

Robertson covered main world stories, including the 1969 landing on the moon, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the aerial attack on the World Trade Centre Twin Towers in 2011. Every story was fully explained, with context and appropriate interviewees. There was also much more attention paid to local and national news stories.

Reporters in different regions of the country would be available to add context to stories. Since Robertson retired a decade ago, many of those reporters have been fired. The absence of local news is obvious when you turn on a news channel.

In the last century, most major Canadian newspapers had reporters on Parliament Hill whose job it was to cover stories in their home communities.

The Hamilton Spectator had a reporter who was expert in steel, and issues related to the steel and auto industry. The reporter was constantly on the lookout for the local angle, so when a national budget was released, the first story they filed would have a Hamilton angle.

Most those local reporting positions have been abolished in the name of news efficiency.

Instead, most news items usually come from other countries, especially south of the border. What now passes as a Canadian news story is often a rehash of what is happening in the political scene in the United States. And most of the time, the journalist covering the story is an employee of an American network.

Is it any wonder that Canadians seem to be more knowledgeable about what is going on in Washington than in a neighbouring province?

As for reporting, in the golden days, journalists and politicians on the national level were friends with each other. The Hot Room on Parliament Hill also included an area with a pool table and a vending machine that dispensed beer. MPs and members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery would get together for beer and pool on a regular basis, forming relationships that stood the test of the news.

In addition, the Parliamentary Press Gallery ran a bar/restaurant across from Parliament Hill where both would get together. Friendships developed and reporters would get a first-hand look into the workings of a particular parliamentary session. Members of parliament also developed relationships where they felt comfortable sharing information which could form the basis of major stories.

Brown envelopes would often make their way to opposition MPs, and they would be shared with journalists. Nowadays, the official opposition treats the media as an enemy, instead of working with journalists on issues that they would like to draw attention to.

The challenges of news gathering today are very different from the six decades of Lloyd Robertson. Robertson, and other journalists of renown like Barbara Frum and Peter Mansbridge who could all ask the tough questions. But they also asked questions that were balanced, insightful, and respectful.

Too bad we can’t turn back the clock.

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

The internal bickering has increased over the summer, but the reality is there is very little chance of ousting Pierre Poilievre unless the caucus decides to turn on him.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 3, 2026.

OTTAWA—Polls are for dogs.

That famous phrase was originally coined by then-prime minister John Diefenbaker when he was questioned about lagging personal popularity.

Diefenbaker was originally elected with the largest majority in the history of Canadian politics. In 1958, the Progressive Conservative Party swept to power under his leadership with 208 out of 265 seats.

That remained the largest majority in Canadian history until 1984, when prime minister Brian Mulroney secured 211 seats out of 282 seats. Diefenbaker was also the only Tory leader to form government between 1935 and 1979.

But after securing the first majority, he managed only minority governments in two subsequent elections after which his own party turned their guns inward. The Conservatives subsequently secured his resignation at a leadership convention including Diefenbaker. He received a humiliating rebuff by members of his own party, coming in fifth in a vote that selected Robert Stanfield as leader.

Diefenbaker’s famous phrase is used by politicians when they are facing popularity issues with the public. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has used the phrase recently.

With the polling numbers presented to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre this week, he may want to repeat the phrase. But the leadership convention held by his own party last January gave Poilievre an overwhelming mandate.

The public has been less kind. In the Nanos monthly poll released on July 29, Poilievre is literally slipping into the teens when it comes to the number of Canadians who want him as prime minister. Only 18.2 per cent want him, while 54 per cent favour current Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carney’s personal popularity is pulling the Liberals up while Poilievre is dragging his party down. Liberal popular vote stands at 44.7 per cent while Conservative support stands at 29.5 per cent.

The Conservative base is solid at almost 30 per cent, but the other problem the party is facing is the inefficient distribution of its vote. With overwhelming support in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the party needs a lot more than 30 per cent to win an election. The last time the Conservatives outstripped the Liberals in popular vote was during the 2021 race between then-leaders Erin O’Toole and Justin Trudeau.

O’Toole’s 34.1 per cent of the popular vote managed to secure 121 seats while Trudeau’s 31.8 secured 156 seats. The gap between popular vote and electoral success is much wider for the Conservatives, so the dip below 30 per cent must concern Conservative supporters.

The internal bickering has increased over the summer, but the reality is there is very little chance of ousting Poilievre unless the caucus decides to turn on him.

Unlike all other federal parties, the Conservatives have agreed to an internal mechanism which allows a caucus majority to get rid of the leader without a party vote. The Reform Act triggers a secret caucus vote when a majority of members have signed a resignation demand letter.

It is a similar process to that in the United Kingdom which seems to go through leaders like toilet paper. The country has lived under six prime ministers during the last decade. During the same period, Canada had one.

Internal party pressure forced five of them to resign while David Cameron, the author of the Brexit fiasco, quit when the country decided to leave the European Union.

In Poilievre’s case, he has a better chance of keeping the caucus onside because, unlike O’Toole, he is politically aligned with the large majority of pro-convoy, pro-Trump backers.

In O’Toole’s case, he was too liberal for many in the caucus. But it was that centrist approach that could have helped the Conservatives form government by attracting the rest of the population.

Poilievre still has the caucus but, if current numbers hold, his path to prime minister is fraught with problems.

Carney has called three byelections for the end of August. The outcome of those elections may well be a trigger for tiring Tories to pull the plug on Poilievre.

The Conservative Party currently held one of the three seats, in Quebec. But that MP quit to join the Senate. If the numbers in this byelection are as bad as some are predicting, concern will be building in the caucus in areas where a comfortable Tory majority doesn’t exist.

If the Ontario and Quebec byelections go big for Carney, it could be a catalyst for Tory leadership change.

Some Liberals are secretly hoping that does not happen as Poilievre’s national unpopularity is working in their favour.

On the Tory side, the leader must keep going. But the adage, “Polls are for dogs” has some people barking.

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

Pierre Poilievre should know better than to get into a public pissing match with senior members of his own party. He is a pugilist by nature. He is also a purist, which is a very dangerous combination in politics.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 27, 2026.

OTTAWA—Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre must be tearing his hair out.

No matter what happens, Poilievre doesn’t seem to be able to get any traction. With all the issues facing Prime Minister Mark Carney, he doesn’t seem to be suffering any political damage.

Every day, United States President Donald Trump comes up with a new “Hate Canada” reference, and most people are blaming him for the mess of our bilateral relationship.

Imagine having the gall to joke that you are going to add a “smoke” tariff to Canada while our country’s largest province is facing the worst wildfire season in history.

When California was burning, Canada sent in trained aerial firefighters to help save lives and property. So why does the American president have such a short memory?

If he thinks Americans are upset about the lack of their liquor on Canadian sales shelves, imagine how Canadians feel about the barrage of insults levelled by the president against our country on a regular basis.

Carney is not facing the ire of the voters because our anger is currently directed to the man causing all these trade problems: Trump.

After more than a year in office, Carney is still receiving popular support for his approach, even though we continue to suffer increasing tariff threats from south of the border.

Polls are consistently showing that people are willing to cut Carney some slack, which must infuriate Poilievre to no end.

Meanwhile, Poilievre is busy stoking fires internally within his own party.

Most of the flames are of his own making. In a speech at the Calgary Stampede, Poilievre lauded the victory of Kerry-Lynne Findlay in the British Columbia Conservative leadership race. He characterized her triumph as a “big win against Liberal lobbyists from out East.”

The “Liberals” he was referring to were actually Conservatives who had worked on the campaign of Findlay’s main opponent, Caroline Elliott. Her team included Kory Teneycke, former adviser to then-prime minister Stephen Harper and to Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Two other well-known Tory organizers for Elliott were Nick Kouvalis and Anthony Koch.

Poilievre fired the first salvo. And therein lies the problem. If the man truly wants to be prime minister, he needs to start turning his guns outward. He certainly cannot afford to start a fight with some of the key organizers from winning Conservative campaigns both federally and provincially.

Elliott produced a video in which she urged the leader to “unite, not divide.” Conservative columnist Brian Lilley wrote a scorching piece publicly questioning whether Poilievre actually wanted to be prime minister.

Lilley also reported that after Poilievre won the party’s leadership in 2022, he spurned multiple attempts by Ford to reach out and congratulate him. The bottom line for Lilley is that Poilievre must decide whether he wants to be right, or to be prime minister.

There is no love lost between Poilievre and Teneycke. But the leader should know better than to get into a public pissing match with a senior member of his own party. Poilievre is a pugilist by nature. He is also a purist, which is a very dangerous combination in politics. As a purist, he is not willing to bend to meet the moment. As a pugilist, he savours the knockout punch in the ring, instead of looking at the long game.

At the very least, if Poilievre wants to send a message to his internal adversaries, he should use a surrogate. Most leaders keep their negative comments about colleagues to themselves, focusing instead on being the glue that keeps different factions of a party from coming apart.

If there is a public message that needs to be delivered, it should NEVER be coming from the lips of the leader. Instead, he should be taking the high road.

Poilievre’s Stampede sortie reignited an internal party fight that started back when Teneycke and others vocally attacked the leader’s “Trumpy” approach and his perceived alignment with the MAGA factions of the Republican Party.

Poilievre has definitely softened those edges. When it comes to criticism, he is making an effort to modify his pro-Trump approach.

But if he is ever going to form government, Poilievre needs to enlist the best and the brightest in his party. Instead, his public attacks have only served to weaken his position, as even ardent supporters are frustrated with his standing in the polls.

When the Toronto Sun’s Lilley attacks Poilievre, it underscores how deep the wounds in the party really area.

Poilievre needs a tourniquet, not a knife.

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 the president can do whatever he wants whenever he wants, with little political backlash back home. Keep a bridge closed—no problem. Make a red card disappear—no problem. Bomb a country—no problem.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 20, 2026.

OTTAWA—Gordie Howe must be turning over in his grave. The political football attached to the bridge bearing the legendary hockey player’s name has made a laughing stock of signed agreements.

It seems the president of the United States has the power to unilaterally shut down bridges and revoke red cards in international sporting events.

And no one in his party appears ready to challenge him.

Just look at the trajectory of the American senator felled last week by an aortic dissection.

In the eulogies following Lindsey Graham’s death, we were reminded that he was best friends with John McCain in the early days of his political career.

When McCain passed, Graham said, “America and Freedom have lost one of her greatest champions, and I have lost one of my dearest friends and mentors. I will need some time to absorb this, but I want Cindy and the entire McCain family to know they are in our prayers.”

His support for McCain ran counter to the view expressed by U.S. President Donald Trump who constantly attacked McCain’s record as a renowned prisoner of war.

Graham characterized Trump as “unfit for office” after the president said, “I like people who aren’t captured.”

Trump often used social media postings to characterize a prisoner of war as “dummy” and “loser.”

There was a time when Graham stood up against the president. After the infamous Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill, Graham said he had finally had enough of Trump. “Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way. Oh my God, I hate it. From my point of view he’s been a consequential president. All I can say is count me out. Enough is enough.”

But just four months after that statement, Graham came to the conclusion that the Republican Party could not move forward without Trump.

As the president used his political heft to overthrow Republican politicians who did not align with his viewpoint, Graham reversed his position and became one of Trump’s most loyal backers.

Some could argue that is the nature of political survival. But if that is the case, it is hard to see how the United States can ever get beyond the harm that has been caused by the president in multiple areas beyond his jurisdiction.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino’s decision to overturn a referee’s decision to issue a red card to an American player caused massive opposition in the sporting community and beyond.

European lawmakers are demanding an investigation in the affair. Trump has admitted reaching out to Infantino for a reversal of the red card which would have kept American striker Folarin Balogun out of the next game.

Infantino said the decision was made by a committee.

His intervention followed a decision made by Infantino last December when he honoured Trump with the first FIFA Peace Prize.

Apparently, there was no committee and zero process for the recognition which also prompted attacks on the political neutrality that FIFA is supposed to observe.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been asked to review the red card withdrawal by Fairsquare, a British non-governmental organization.

Fairsquare also filed a complaint with FIFA last December. Backed by more than 50 European parliamentarians and the Norwegian Football Federation, the NGO complained that the Peace Prize awarded by FIFA to Trump broke the soccer organization’s political neutrality rule.

When Infantino became an IOC member in 2020, he swore a pledge of political neutrality. If found in breach, he could be expelled from the IOC.

The complaint also alleges that a 2026 World Cup fan site was used for data harvesting to link fans to another Trump website.

The IOC will have no choice but to fully investigate the complaint with consequences.

In the meantime, there doesn’t seem to be much of an outcry in Washington from Republicans.

Like Graham, most have decided to stay in Trump’s good books or face his political wrath in Republican nomination battles.

The upcoming November midterm elections may change that perspective, but, in the meantime, the president can do whatever he wants whenever he wants, with little political backlash back home.

Keep a bridge closed—no problem. Make a red card disappear—no problem. Bomb a country—no problem.

It seems the American president is simply outside the law.

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

With two provinces now publicly debating secession, it makes sense to nominate Senators who know something about politics.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 13, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney has put the politics back in the Senate. And it couldn’t come a moment too soon.

With two provinces now publicly debating secession, it makes sense to nominate Senators who know something about politics.

Many experienced political people across party lines simply shook their heads when then-prime minister Justin Trudeau decided to name only “non-partisan” Senators in 2015.

That decision led him to kick Liberal Senators out of the caucus, some of whom had been heavily involved in the party for decades.

It also meant that the public process forfeited the talent of political operatives who could be very helpful in the workings of government.

Then-Liberal Senator Keith Davey—dubbed “the rainmaker” for his direction of multiple winning campaigns—headed a mass media inquiry by the Senate which stood the test of time.

Former Conservative Senator Donald Oliver served as legal counsel to his party for years, and then went on to become the first Black man named to the Senate. It was his drive that introduced the first code of conduct for Senators.

Trudeau’s non-partisan directive was designed to end criticism of the Senate, which had been plagued by spending allegations and attacks on the Sente composition by the previous government.

Then-Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper headed a party created by the merger of the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. In order to accommodate Reformers, the party dropped its progressive label and continued to support some key Reform policies, which included the creation of a triple-e, elected Senate where each province would have equal numbers of Senators.

Five Albertan Senators who had been symbolically elected have been subsequently appointed to the Senate.

But spending issues continued to create challenges for which Trudeau believed the best solution would be to appoint Senators who were well-informed in their fields and political non-partisans.

Trudeau did appoint a couple of former New Democratic politicians to the Senate, but it was a standing joke in the Liberal Party that if you were recommending anyone for the Senate, make sure they weren’t Liberals.

If you look at the composition of the Senate today, there are multiple Senators who are absolute experts in their fields of endeavour, including medicine, science, and demography. But those same Senators have very little knowledge of Canada, or how to deal with political issues that could tear the country apart.

The last referendum in Quebec led to the Clarity Act, which was a pivotal piece of legislation designed to ensure that future separation questions had to be clear and concise.

The role of the Senate historically has been to serve as the Chamber of sober second thought. The reference to sober was not a reflection on the dipsomaniacal nature of Members of Parliament. Rather, Senators were supposed to provide sober-minded reflection on legislation proposed by the House of Commons.

It could not introduce legislation of its own, a nod to the elected nature of the House of Commons. But it could return or delay legislation that it deemed bad for the country. Senators needed some political wherewithal and understanding.

That doesn’t mean that all Senators were partisans. Some of the most effective were former political assistants who ended up working as non-partisan civil servants. Names like Peter Harder spring to mind.

The point being that most Senators had some knowledge of the country and the system of governance, so they could legitimately add something to a debate on national issues like secession.

Trudeau wiped out the possibility for political participants to be involved in the Senate. In doing so, he used a hammer—instead of a flyswatter—to reform the Senate.

By naming a prominent Liberal and well-known Conservative to top the Senate as well as two nominees without political experience, Carney has beefed up the Senate in a way that will be invaluable in the face of any national crisis.

He will face some criticism from those who don’t believe in the existence of the Senate. But with the Conservative appointment, that criticism will be blunted.

It will also prompt a Quebec byelection which could open up another seat in the House for the Liberals.

At the end of the day, the Senate should include a group of elder statespersons who can offer political advice based on real-life experience.

If I were going in for major surgery, I would trust my fate to the hands of a medical doctor. The same is true in politics.

When the country’s future is at stake, go with the pros.

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