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.

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.

Performing arts groups have been lobbying the government to create a new live performance tax credit. Let’s hope the finance minister mentions this proposal in his economic statement because it truly is an investment for all, not just one gender or one region.

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

OTTAWA—A little-known study published last year by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce laid to rest the myth that cultural spending is a drain on federal finances.

On the contrary, the report, entitled Artworks: The Economic and Social Dividends from Canada’s Arts and Culture Sector, reported that, in 2024, the arts and culture sector contributed $65-billion in direct gross domestic product to the Canadian economy.

Conducted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Business Data Lab, and commissioned by Business/Arts along with the Canada Council for the Arts, Artworks also pointed out that, from 2022 to 2025, spending in arts and culture increased at a rate almost double the general Canadian sectoral growth.

On the international scene, this country sold almost $25-billion in goods and services globally.

According to the report, since 2011, arts-sector spending growth has outpaced all other sectors, including oil and gas, construction, wholesale and retail trade and manufacturing.

Most important for the Department of Finance is that the sector generates $17-billion in federal and provincial taxes.

So why is it, that when the conversation turns to the economy, our attention is focused not on this growth sector, but on other sectors like fossil fuels, auto, and construction?

Principal economist for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce Andrew DiCapua had this to say about government investment in the sector: “The arts and culture sector generates $29 in economic activity for every dollar in federal investment—that’s an extraordinary return in addition to the social benefits that the sector generates. Yet, we’re seeing concerning trends in both public and private funding. If we want to maintain Canada’s cultural competitiveness and harness this sector’s full economic potential, we need sustained, strategic investment.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney has a chance to advance cultural investment in the economic update that his government will be tabling this week.

The Build Communities Strong funding is definitely intended to boost jobs and grow the economy in infrastructure projects with a budget of $27.8-billion over the next decade. Those jobs will primarily go to men.

These investments tie in with Canada Strong, which was the government’s mantra until a new logo was launched at the recent Liberal national convention in Montreal.

The new mantra is Canada for All. This vision ties in beautifully with the Chamber of Commerce call for more investment in arts and culture.

Unlike other investments, government spending in arts and culture reaches out to almost every community in the country.

Festivals and Major Events Canada, the national organization representing everyone from Carnaval de Quebec to the Calgary Stampede, represents more than 500 festivals in communities across the country. That doesn’t include live theatre and music performances that multiply across the country during the summer season.

A coalition of performing arts organizations have been lobbying the government to create a new live performance tax credit. The credit is modelled after the wildly successful Canadian Film or Video Tax Credit which was launched by the government of Jean Chrétien back in 1995.

That 25-per-cent credit on the hiring of Canadian talent was the first of its kind in the world. It has been so successful that similar models have been launched in more than 40 countries around the world. It generates $3.40 in revenue for every dollar spent by the government.

A similar performing arts credit would generate $23 in local economic impact, so its accelerator value is huge. Why? Because when people attend performances, they often spend money in the community, with dinner or drinks before or after.

The government price-ticket on this live performance accelerator tax credit is $100-million annually over three years.

Government officials at multiple levels have been reviewing the proposal, but say it is too rich.

In comparison, the government uptick in military spending to meet NATO targets is $81-billion over five years.

A price tag of $300-million over three years is modest in comparison to the jobs and spending impact it will have on every community in the country.

Canada for All should mean that jobs are not happening only be in male-dominated sectors like the military and infrastructure construction.

A modest arts investment would reach out to every region and every community, with jobs for youth and women who are underrepresented in Canada Strong investments.

In the 10 years of conservative economic statements, the word ‘culture’ rarely appeared.

Let’s hope the finance minister mentions this modest tax credit proposal in his economic statement because it truly is an investment for all, not just one gender or one region.

If the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is promoting cultural investment, the government should be listening.

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