Unity in the country and unity in the Conservative Party work in the leader’s favour. His edges are softening and, if he can keep that up, it could help reshape his image. But ‘hissy fit’ claims launched by his own members won’t help

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 23, 2026.

OTTAWA—The Tumbler Ridge tragedy in British Columbia did what no political manoeuvre could. It united the country and the parties.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre shared a podium. Even Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet made a special effort to speak English to reach those touched by the tragic school shootings that were too close to the memory of the femicides at École Polytechnique.

Death knows no language. It knows no politics.

So, every leader parked their partisan trappings and opted to work together to try and heal the country.

With the self-inflicted death of the shooter, we will probably never really understand the reason behind this horrendous attack on innocent students.

No reason can explain the decision of a child to kill their parent and a sibling. But the further attack on others who apparently had no connection to the shooter is simply impossible to comprehend.

All party leaders rose to the occasion. Conservative Leader Poilievre parked his usual blame-laced crime vitriol, and replaced it with a sensitive observation that mirrored what every parent in Tumbler Ridge and across the country is feeling.

He spoke about love and concern for his own children, and the parental responsibility to protect.

The prime minister also spoke gently and thoughtfully, reinforcing the impression that, in a moment of national tragedy, he was the person best placed to guide us all through it.

Tears flowed freely in the House of Commons. They were real tears, not simply a reflection of a moment of drama.

The same unity was evident when the leaders of all political parties attended a commemoration in Tumbler Ridge.

It was a reflection of what politics could be if parties worked together on big issues.

The same unity was felt during the pandemic when the prime minister and premiers parked their differences and managed to work together to save Canadian lives, no matter what their political stripe.

Some have attacked the unified approach to masking, vaccines, and distancing. But to put it in perspective, Canada saved 40 per cent more lives on a per capita basis than the United States.

The U.S. had no mask mandate and most Republicans were vigorously opposed to any limitations on personal freedom that could save lives, including vaccines and distancing.

Americans lost 1.23 million people to COVID-19. In Canada, 60,871 people perished from the same virus.

Canada also has had a unified position in relation to the U.S.’s tariff attack and the renegotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement.

That unity was spoiled last week when Conservative MP Jamil Jivani went on a right-ring American media outlet to accuse Canada of suffering an “anti-American hissy fit.” Jivani told Breitbart News that “we are shooting ourselves in the foot” with our negative reaction to the tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Poilievre stepped in quickly to say that he did not agree with the member’s comments, stating “Jivani speaks for himself, and I speak for the party.”

Poilievre is right on that, but he does face an internal problem within the Conservatives.

While the vast majority of Canadians do not support the way that Trump has treated this country, those who do support him are largely aligned with the Conservative Party.

Two separate polls earlier this year show that 50 per cent of Conservatives support Trump. In the Ekos poll, the number of Liberals who support the American president is two per cent, while only three per cent of New Democrats support him.

The polls suggested a civil war in the Tory party on this issue. Such a war has not erupted yet, but given Jivani’s comments in the U.S., the Conservatives will definitely be seized with the issue.

The greatest support for Trump is in Alberta, and that aligns nicely with the support for Poilievre.

Jivani is already working to build a national list of supporters, which he could use to organize a future Conservative leadership.

Even though Poilievre has the support of the country, he may experience some opposition in his party.

His huge victory in the recent leadership review gives him comfort that the party supports his vision and direction.

But politics is a fickle business.

Right now, unity in the country and unity in the party work in Poilievre’s favour. His edges are softening and, if he can keep that up, it could help reshape his image.

But “hissy fit” claims launched by his own members won’t help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quebec Conservatives are now privately speaking out against their leader to the media. Whether these MPs are worried enough to organize their delegations to get to Calgary in January remains to be seen.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 27, 2025.

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre cannot pivot.

The official opposition leader’s attack on the RCMP left his own party members shaking their heads.

His claim that the scandals of the previous Justin Trudeau government should have resulted in jail time has raised many eyebrows. It prompted Dimitri Soudas, who was once the communications director to then-Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, to publicly question Poilievre’s leadership capability.

In a Toronto Star op-ed on Oct. 22, Soudas didn’t pull any punches. “Leader Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative Party Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity and integrity. …In a rule of law democracy, no opposition leader should ever call for a prime minister or any political rival to be jailed. It undermines confidence in our justice system, our federal police and ultimately the Crown.”

Harper dissociated himself with a statement posted on X from the chief of staff at his consultancy, Harper and Associates. Anna Tomala posted on Oct. 17 that “Mr. Soudas does not speak for Mr. Harper.”

But that denial did not stop the rumour mill from churning overtime.

Harper’s refusal to personally denounce the Soudas op-ed has left some observers wondering where he really stands.

CBC/Radio-Canada carried a story that five members of the Conservative caucus had confirmed privately that they were unhappy with Poilievre’s performance since the election. None of the members would be publicly identified, but four who had supported Poilievre before told Radio-Canada they were rethinking their support.

The controversy has raised questions about the level of opposition the Conservative leader will face at his leadership review in January 2026.

Most pundits have been predicting it will be an easy ride, with the date and the Calgary, Alta., location a definite plus for the leader who now represents an Alberta riding.

Soudas’ background is in Quebec, and if there is a real anti-Poilievre movement percolating there, it could definitely upend the current predictions on Poilievre’s party popularity.

Quebecers like winners. And if they think Poilievre is not prime minister material, they will definitely look elsewhere.

Publicly, caucus members were supportive of the leader when entering the weekly meeting last Wednesday.

But public support doesn’t necessarily mean that they are privately positive.

Outgoing Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie had the unanimous public support of her caucus going into her leadership review this past September. But even as members were visibly rallying behind her, some of the same people were privately campaigning to unseat her.

In Crombie’s case, she was also facing vigorous opposition by others who wish to replace her, including Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith.

They were signing up their own delegates to the Ontario Liberal convention in Toronto, hoping to force Crombie out after a weak vote of support.

Crombie did not crack the 60-per-cent mark, and when the final number was tallied, only 57 per cent of the party membership at the convention supported her leadership.

Crombie resigned. She has recently been privately polling members to see whether she should re-enter the next leadership race, but that would be a very unlikely reversal of fortunes.

In Poilievre’s case, it would take a huge effort in Eastern Canada to unseat him because his support in Alberta and Saskatchewan is so deep.

It’s even been speculated that his attack on Trudeau and the RCMP was a strategy designed to increase support among the right wing of the party that prefers a Donald Trump-like approach to politics.

Some even described Poilievre’s intervention as Trumpian, because the American president is constantly ruminating about sending his opponents to jail. Trump is now asking the justice department to refund his US$230-million legal bill via an administrative claims process.

Unlike supporters of other parties, there is a significant minority in the Conservative Party that think Trump is doing a good job.

So, anything that mimics his approach will actually get Poilievre some internal support.

But it comes at the risk of losing the rest of the country. That is why some Quebec Conservatives are now privately speaking out against their leader to the media.

Whether these members are worried enough to organize their delegations to get to Calgary in January remains to be seen.

Poilievre’s gaffe last week will not be enough to unseat him. But public spats with senior party members in the months leading up to the vote are not a good sign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 19, 2025.

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre’s people say they want him to soften his edges.

It doesn’t seem like he is listening.

In his press conference following the appointment of the new cabinet last week, Poilievre said a few nice words in the beginning, but then he could not refrain from individually attacking almost everything about the new Liberal cabinet.

His attacks were all very personal. He went so far as to accuse new Justice Minister Sean Fraser of being responsible for the housing crisis.

Poilievre despises Chrystia Freeland, and was positively vitriolic when referencing her contributions to the previous government.

Poilievre still hasn’t figured out that the best way to succeed in politics is to be hard on issues and soft on people.

He needs to understand why women, in particular, do not support him.

His style of politics—using nasty, personal vitriol mixed in with simple sloganeering—does not sit well with women.

Some men like the vitriol. They are up for a good fight. Poilievre got a roar from the crowd when his presence was announced at the Montreal Ultimate Fighting Championship last week.

But the crowd was mostly the same group who are already part of his core voting supporters. If he wants to grow, he has to reach out beyond them and try for the softer side.

The audience at the Bell Centre was mostly young men, and even though there was a women’s bout, not many were visible in the audience.

Why? Because most women don’t like fighting. And the nasty personal nature of the Poilievre attacks during the election did not win him many female supporters.

Some might argue I am being too harsh. When former prime minister Justin Trudeau participated in a boxing match, his victory was hailed as a political stroke of genius. But Trudeau was trying to reverse his image as a softy drama teacher. When he did manage to beat down Senator Patrick Brazeau, everyone was shocked at how easily it happened.

Then he moved on.

In Poilievre’s case, he seems stuck in fighting mode, even when the times dictate a change in tone.

Canadians awarded a near-majority mandate to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s team, and, like it or not, Poilievre is going to have to at least pretend that he wants to work with the government.

Instead, conspiracy theories about how he lost his seat are being used as fundraising tools for his party.

Contrary to the rumour mill, the redistribution that happens every decade is carried out by the non-partisan Federal Election Boundaries Commission. The chair of the commission in each province is named by the chief justice of each province, and other members are named by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is also chosen by an all-party vote.

Poilievre actually gained more Conservatives in his new riding after redistribution.

But he lost by more than 4,000 votes because people were upset about how he backed the anti-vaxxer occupiers who took over the streets of Ottawa for almost a month in 2022.

Poilievre picked his side, bringing donuts and coffee to people who blasted truck horns 24 hours a day in residential communities. As for his constituents, they were on the other side.

And his Liberal opponent Bruce Fanjoy spent two years knocking on every door in the riding.

Now Poilievre is being shuffled off to Alberta to run in what is arguably one of the safest Conservative seats in the country.

He will be confronted with separatists who have already begun their campaign to take Alberta out of the country. Premier Danielle Smith has loosened the rules to get a referendum on the ballot by lowering the threshold and allowing businesses to fund referenda efforts.

Not sure why a business should have a say in a vote on the future of the country, but Smith has admitted publicly the changes were allowed in an effort to keep her United Conservative Party from splitting into two factions, and opening the door to the election of Alberta New Democratic Party Leader Naheed Nenshi.

Poilievre will not be able to avoid that fight, and the whole country will be watching him.

If he does plan to win the next election, Poilievre needs to focus on the real fight ahead.

The country is in a tariff war with United States President Donald Trump, and we need all hands deck to save Canadian jobs and industries. If he insists on continuing the election fight against the Liberals, Poilievre is never going to increase his base or get women back.

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

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston did not confirm a leadership bid in his CTV interview, but did respond ‘in French’ that he was studying the language, a sure sign of national interest. Two million views of Houston’s video have Conservatives across the country talking.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 5, 2025.

OTTAWA—”Many shades of blue” is how Nova Scotian Premier Tim Houston characterized Conservatives in an interview with CTV News in the aftermath of last week’s federal election.

Houston said the federal party needs to do some soul-searching after four consecutive losses to the Liberals.

The Progressive Conservative premier also stated that Pierre Poilievre’s team is very good at pushing people away, but not very good at bringing people in.

The premier confirmed details of a Globe and Mail article which stated that senior Poilievre official Jenni Byrne sent multiple texts threatening the premier after he distanced himself from the federal Conservatives during the last provincial election.

Poilievre did not set foot in the province for six months following the spat, but arranged a major rally hosted by Conservatives Peter MacKay and his father, Elmer, in Central Nova during the dying days of the federal campaign.

Houston did not attend the rally. Instead, he concurrently sent out a two-and-a-half-minute video introducing himself to the rest of the country. The pitch was widely seen as the launch of a potential future leadership bid.

Both Peter and Elmer MacKay have long histories in the party as national Progressive Conservative ministers. Peter was the final leader of the Progressive Conservatives. He merged the party with the more right-wing Canadian Alliance. That merger resulted in the elimination of the word “Progressive” in the official party name. It also prompted the departure of high-profile Red Tories like Nova Scotians Scott Brison and Bill Casey to the Liberals.

The split may have been one reason why Conservatives won only one seat there on April 28.

Houston did not confirm a leadership bid in his CTV interview, but did respond “in French” that he was studying the language, a sure sign of national interest.

Two million views of Houston’s video have Conservatives across the country talking.

“To promote Nova Scotia” was the premier’s explanation for releasing his video.

The premier also admitted he did not have a relationship with the Conservative federal leader. That was a surprising admission given Poilievre has been campaigning for the past three years for the top political job in the country. One would think that meeting Conservative premiers would be top of mind for Team Poilievre.

Apparently not: Ontario Premier Doug Ford also revealed that he had not even met with Poilievre in the several years leading up to the campaign.

Internal tensions were obvious when re-elected federal Conservative Member of Parliament Jamil Jivani unloaded on Ford during an interview on CBC the evening of the Tories’ defeat.

Jivani blamed the Ontario premier for sabotaging the Conservatives’ march to victory in the election and attacked the provincial government’s plans for education and health care.

He also insisted that during the provincial election, the federal Conservatives kept their mouths shut, and expected provincial leaders to return the favour.

Jivani was no doubt expressing the view held by many Ontario Conservatives. They did not appreciate public interventions in the middle of the campaign by Kory Teneycke, blaming Poilievre for refusing to pivot from his tax message to address the Canadian fear of Trump’s annexation threats.

Teneycke was Ford’s campaign manager, and when the premier was asked about his comments, Ford doubled down with a confirmation, saying “sometimes, the truth hurts.”

But by airing his grievances on the national news, Jivani simply ensured the animosity would continue. And after Poilievre lost the election and even failed to win his own seat, he doesn’t need surrogates to pick fights with provincial premiers.

Poilievre needs all hands on deck, including public expressions of support from successful provincial premiers.

He gets kudos from Alberta premier Danielle Smith, but her first action after the election was to introduce simplified rules for a provincial referendum on exiting from Canada.

Smith described the timing as coincidental, but that did not ring true. In the middle of the campaign, she and former Reform Party leader Preston Manning both threatened a referendum if the Liberals were to win.

Manning was instrumental in the death of the Progressive Conservative party. Houston and Ford both achieved political success in parties that are still Progressive Conservative.

Houston’s message may fall on deaf ears when it comes to the Poilievre team’s inner circle. The major question is whether the rest of the party is feeling the same pain. Poilievre will have to go into listening mode and should fire campaign manager Byrne.

Otherwise, many shades of blue in the Conservative Party could make that decision for him.

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

Had Donald Trump not weighed in with his threat to annex Canada, and had Justin Trudeau decided to remain and fight this election, the outcome would definitely be quite different.

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

OTTAWA—They used to say that six months is a lifetime in politics.

Two months is a lifetime in Canadian politics these days.

Two months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was headed to a majority government.

Liberals had been languishing 20 points behind in the polls, and incumbents were voting with their feet.

Cabinet ministers were leaving politics (for family reasons), and Liberal party organizers were scrambling to simply fill the nominations across the country.

Because it looked as though the Liberals were potentially headed for third-party status, nobody wanted to step up and offer themselves as sacrificial lambs at the altar of a Poilievre government.

Organizers muttered privately that nothing could avert impending disaster, and Members of Parliament should batten down the hatches and just kept working their ridings in the hopes they might survive the oncoming storm.

Then the impossible happened. Less than two months ago, the Liberals elected Mark Carney in a landslide.

Even though Carney had been serving as economic adviser to then-prime minister Justin Trudeau for some time, he was seen as an agent of change, a political newcomer who actually had experience fighting the international shock waves that American President Donald Trump was sending around the world.

He was also fiscally conservative enough to focus his election promises on operational changes. Where the previous prime minister had increased operational spending by nine per cent annually, Carney has committed to a two per cent increase.

Former Conservative deputy leader Lisa Raitt characterized it this way on CTV last week, “They like the Conservative policies, but they want Mark Carney to implement them.” That was her conclusion after canvassing in Ontario and Cape Breton, N.S., where she reinforced the notion that people just don’t like Poilievre.

She is right on that count. The gender and age gap in voting preferences is startling, with women supporting Carney by a margin of 20 per cent. The so-called Boomer generation is also largely supportive of the Liberals.

To counter that message, the Conservatives used the last week of the campaign to run an ad of two older men on a golf course chatting about how they had to get rid of the Liberals. They also trotted out a very sombre ad of former prime minister Stephen Harper intoning on his reasons for supporting Poilievre.

In the first instance, if the Conservatives are trying to appeal to women voters, the last thing they need to see is two men on a golf course. The tone-deaf nature of that ad was equivalent to a late-campaign corporate endorsement for Poilievre led by Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa and entitled, “Friends of Free Enterprise in Canada.” The group ran full-page ads in newspapers across the country the weekend before before the first leaders debate.

Again the message bombed. Among the 33 leaders who signed on, 32 were men. Any woman reading the advertisement would simply ask “if the Tory leader had that little support among women, why would I bother voting for him?”

So Carney moved enough to the right to convince lifelong Tories to vote for him, and his ‘Elbows Up’ approach to Trump convinced many New Democrats to park their vote with the Liberals.

Just this week, I was chatting with a former labour leader and lifelong New Democrat who was celebrating his 100th birthday.

On the call, he confessed to me that he had voted Liberal for the first time in his life, and he convinced a couple of friends to do the same.

So even though Poilievre had enough resources to throw lots of money at late-campaign advertising, even that effort struck the wrong note, and merely reinforced the decision of many people who were leaning towards Carney.

At the end of the day, the Liberals also need to send a thank-you note to Donald Trump, whose insulting behaviour to Trudeau in particular and the country in general prompted a complete redrawing of the Canadian political map.

Had Trump not weighed in with his threat to annex Canada, and had Trudeau decided to remain and fight this election, the outcome would definitely be quite different.

As it is, the Poilievre anti-Trudeau/carbon tax campaign did not survive the test of time. He could not or would not pivot his message, and as a result, he will probably have to pivot right out of politics after this election.

Raitt underscored Poilievre’s personal unpopularity as one of the reasons the party was failing badly.

What a difference two months makes.

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

Peter Mazereeuw and Sheila Copps dig into the return of Parliament, how Mark Carney might handle Question Period, whether the Liberals should elect a Conservative House speaker, and more.

Liberals are positioned to fight Donald Trump. Thanks to Alberta’s premier, the Conservatives seem to be ‘in sync’ with him.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 31, 2025.

OTTAWA—With friends like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre needs no enemies.

In the first week of a very short federal election campaign, Smith managed to solidify the ballot question in the Liberals’ favour.

Her major gaffe involved an intervention with the White House, asking American officials to delay tariffs until after the election because that would help Poilievre. Smith stated Poilievre was “in sync” with U.S. President Donald Trump.

All this was recorded in an interview Smith gave to Breitbart, a right-wing podcast that’s been advocating a constitutional amendment to make Trump president for life.

Instead of apologizing for foreign interference in an election, when confronted, Smith simply doubled down and claimed this was her lobbying effort for Canada.

The Alberta New Democrats did not agree, organizing the unveiling of a Canada flag in front of the Alberta legislature to underscore their belief in our country.

Smith added insult to injury by flying to Florida on March 27 to headline an extremist American fundraiser for an Islamophobic group that, according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, denies the history of slavery.

Smith was set to share the stage with Ben Shapiro, who has called Canada “a silly country” and the “Puerto Rico of the North.” Shapiro believes that Canada should be annexed as the 51st state without the right to vote.

Despite multiple requests to cancel her trip, Smith spoke in the Alberta legislature where she blamed the controversy on Liberals because the federal government had asked premiers to join in an all-in tariff lobbying effort.

Smith claimed the opposition to her Florida fundraiser came from eastern Canadian media elites, and the Liberals and New Democrats. She insisted that Albertans supported her.

The more she speaks out, the more Canadians learn about the deep ties between Canada’s Conservatives and MAGA supporters south of the border.

With the American vice-president joining his wife on an uninvited trip to Greenland, Canadians are taking the annexation threat very seriously.

Trump has refused to rule out the use of force to take over the island, but the local appetite for annexation is close to zero.

In the recent election, only one per cent of Greenland voters supported a party that promoted unification discussions. That party was the only one that did not get a single seat in parliament.

Back in this country, the ballot question for the April 28 election appears to be a vote on which leader is best placed to fight American tariffs and annexation.

Poilievre is trying to portray himself as the person with the chops to fight Trump’s tariffs, but quisling Smith’s cosy relationship with extremist Trump supporters is killing that narrative. Smith’s position is not lost on Canadian voters, and has helped to send Tory polling numbers downward.

The turnaround for the Liberals has been nothing short of astonishing. It is so positive that even a former Nova Scotia minister who left politics for “family reasons” made a surprise decision to return. Sean Fraser said last week it was a personal request from the leader that made him reverse his retirement decision, even though a successor for his riding nomination had already been chosen.

Other star candidates like a former mayor of Vancouver, the former acting mayor of Toronto, and well-known journalists Evan Solomon and Anthony Germain have jumped into the fray for the Liberals as the party’s popularity continues to rise.

The first week of the campaign has Liberals on a high.

Polling numbers across multiple platforms show that Prime Minister Mark Carney has eliminated Poilievre’s lead, and has moved to top spot.

The NDP has felt the pain of this Liberal swing because polls show leader Jagmeet Singh moving to single digits.

As Trump continues to threaten more tariffs and annexation, Liberal numbers continue to rise. Carney is viewed as the best choice to stare down the American president.

When it comes to the question of affordability, the Conservative leader fares best.

But it looks as though the ballot question will be who is best equipped to fight the United States. Carney’s massive resumé beats Poilievre’s by a mile.

Trump just added 25-per-cent tariffs to the automobile sector, and that is a huge blow to the Canadian economy.

As a pre-emptive strike, Carney announced a plan to fight the tariffs with a $2-billion auto industry fund the morning before Trump’s announcement. Poilievre was campaigning on tax cuts for seniors.

Liberals are positioned to fight Trump. Thanks to Smith, Tories seem to be in tight with him.

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