U.S. President Donald Trump’s negative response to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos declaration has mobilized the majority of Canadians—including premiers—in unity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 2, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney has a new moniker: Captain Canada.

At the meeting with premiers in Ottawa last week, leaders across the country seemed prepared to work together to grow inter-provincial trade.

The negative response of United States President Donald Trump to Carney’s Davos declaration has had the effect of mobilizing the majority of Canadians—including premiers—in unity.

British Columbia Premier David Eby was positively effusive in his praise for Carney’s Davos speech.

“It’s been a while since I have felt that much pride in being Canadian.”

Trump has started calling Carney “governor” again, and the White House was claiming that the prime minister walked back his Davos speech in a private conversation with the president.

Carney absolutely denied that claim, and the only Canadian party that gave any credence to the president was the federal Conservative Party.

In a statement released after Carney’s Davos speech, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre started with praise for prime minister’s “well-crafted and eloquently delivered” speech, but went on to characterize the approach with a chuckle. “If Liberal words and good intentions were tradeable commodities, Canada would already be the richest nation on Earth.”

Timing in politics is everything, and in this instance, Poilievre’s timing was off.

Carney had a great January, setting the stage with Chinese movement on canola and fish products, and a Davos speech positioning this country as a leader in creating a new world order.

This is a time where the leader of the official opposition should merely be offering praise and support.

When premiers are characterizing Carney as Captain Canada, any comments to the contrary run the risk of putting Conservatives offside with most Canadians.

The last time we saw this kind of federal-provincial harmony was at the height of the pandemic when no party nor political structure had any idea about the path forward to save lives.

During COVID, premiers and the prime minister all sang from the same hymnbook.

This time, they are harmonizing on trade, which can be a lot more politically troublesome than deciding on a medical vaccinations and securing protective medical supplies for hospitals and nursing homes.

Even Eby and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith stated publicly that they were willing to try and work together on issues with the prime minister and other premiers.

The separatist movement in Alberta is still working hard. It was reported last week that the American state department had been in touch with separatist leaders to exchange information.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed publicly that Albertans are very independent people, and the U.S is a natural partner. ”People want sovereignty. They want what the U.S. has got.”

On Jan. 28, Bessent upped the rhetoric warning the prime minister that picking a fight with the president could put the trilateral trade negotiations at risk.

Most global observers don’t believe that Canada has been the one picking international fights.

But Conservatives were quick to follow Bessent’s line of thinking. In an opinion piece written for the American-owned National Post, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner characterized Canada as a “vulnerable, sclerotic, decadent nation from which talent, intellectual property and financial capital continue to flee.”

The more Bessent and Trump attack Carney, the more Canadians from coast to coast to coast will unite.

The most recent Ipsos poll said the number of Albertans and Quebecers wishing to enter a separation discussion with Canada was 29 and 31 per cent, respectively.

But when the same poll respondents were queried on the real-world consequences, support in both provinces was cut in half. Possible downsides include standard of living declines, pension, or trade renegotiations.

The reality of an October election in Quebec is not lost on anyone. With the Parti Québécois leading in the polls, the possibility of a total Team Canada is definitely at risk.

But, in the meantime, it appears as though the disrespect continually shown by Trump and his officials for our country is driving Canadians into the government’s arms.

Meanwhile, reports surfaced last week that the MP who resigned his seat to Poilievre will get the Tory nomination. Damien Kurek has been approved to return as the candidate in Battle-River-Crowfoot, Alta., while the party has no news on where Poilievre would run in the next election.

Maybe the Conservatives are thinking that Poilievre won’t be around to lead the party into the election.

With Trump’s help, that is becoming increasingly likely.

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

Pete Hoeskstra says Donald Trump thinks Canadians are mean and nasty for boycotting American booze and travel. But for the first time in my lifetime, the federal and provincial leaders seem committed to work together in securing long-term solutions for Canada. If we can exert monetary influence simply by using our won purchasing power, there is nothing mean or nasty about that.

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

OTTAWA—Canadians are mean, nasty people, according to the new American ambassador to Canada.

Why does he say we are nasty? Because we insist on exercising what little personal power we have to send a message to the government of Donald Trump.

If we can exert monetary influence simply by using our won purchasing power, there is nothing mean or nasty about that.

The fact the American liquor purchases to Canada are down by 66 per cent is a result of individual decisions by Canadian consumers to purchase from countries that support us, not those that punish us.

According to a June report by Statistics Canada, Canadian travel to the United States was down in May by 38.1 per cent compared to a year earlier.

British Columbia Premier David Eby countered the ambassadorial attack last week, saying that the efforts made by individual Canadians are having an effect.

“If you’re a mean and nasty Canadian for standing up for our sovereignty and our jobs, well, I think most Canadians would be proud to be considered mean and nasty.”

American ambassador Pete Hoekstra was speaking to a group of Americans gathered at the Pacific Northwest Economic Summit. He told them President Trump shared the view of Canadians being nasty for not stocking American alcohol and refusing to travel to the states.

The ambassador then joked that he had no trouble getting personal alcohol into Canada as long as his car was not checked at the border.

Normally, an ambassador is supposed to be someone who smooths differences between his or her home country and his or her ambassadorial posting. The ambassador isn’t usually the one tossing insults about Canadians.

But these are not ordinary times and Hoeskstra is no ordinary ambassador.

As the country edges closer to a date on the imposition of more tariffs from the United States, we can certainly not count on the American ambassador to be promoting a reconciliation with Canadians. Instead, he is making things worse, and Canadians will continue to dig in with their own personal boycott of American goods and travel.

The prime minister and premiers are working together to soften the deadline and broaden the benefits of the outcome. Prime Minister Mark Carney has had to back down from his self-imposed aggressive time frame for completion of the tariff negotiations.

He is learning quickly that sometimes a political compromise is the only solution. Elbows up can be a good hockey metaphor. But in politics, elbows in may sometimes be required.

And given the mixed messages emanating from Washington, the Canadian government will have to count on the continued support of individual Canadians to put pressure on the United States.

We know the citizen boycott is working because multiple governors from American states are reaching out to try and convince us to change our minds.

Their argument is that they are not the enemy. And they are right. But in the absence of any logical negotiation by the Trump team, Canadians have no choice but to continue with our personal elbows up.

That means refusing to allow American alcohol to be sold in Canadian liquor outlets and continuing to travel anywhere in Canada or elsewhere in the world. But not America.

Carney’s decision to reach out to other jurisdictions, including Europe and Mexico, with agreements that may simply bypass the United States is definitely the way to go.

And businesses looking for opportunities to repurpose their supply chains or secure raw materials from new markets must continue doing so.

But if Canadian individual decisions to stop buying American piqued the ire of the White House, we know that now is not the time to stop.

Will we succeed in negotiating the tariff agreement with the United States that will meet our needs? Only time will tell.

The good news is that for the first time in my lifetime, the federal and provincial leaders seem committed to work together in securing long-term solutions.

The country is also working quickly to break down trade barriers between provinces, which will generate economic growth and more inter-provincial commerce.

We do not have the geopolitical heft of our neighbours to the south. But if we stick together, our efforts can shake things up in Washington.

In the past, Canada was always seen as the friendly neighbour to the North. The most prominent word in our vocabulary was sorry.

The attack on our country by President Trump has changed all that. If Trump thinks that we are mean and nasty now, he ain’t seen nothing yet.

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

It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 25, 2024.

OTTAWA–The World Meteorological Organization had grim news for the globe last week.

In every climate indicator, temperatures were the highest on record in 2023.

And for the past nine years in a row, the planet has been getting hotter.

For the first time ever, Canada’s air quality was worse than the United States, largely because of the effect of massive wildfires across the country.

Evidence is mounting for all but the most obtuse that action needs to be taken to reverse the climate crisis. Zombie fires that started last year are still continuing in parts of British Columbia. New wildfires are starting at an unbelievably early time of the year with 90 fires burning there last week.

But the man who would be prime minister, Pierre Poilievre, is running advertisements attacking British Columbia Premier David Eby because he refuses to pile in with other premiers who are attacking the April increase in the price on carbon established by the federal government.

Instead of focusing on climate solutions, Poilievre is trying to bully provinces into reversing the federal action plan to reduce our carbon footprint.

Politicians should be focused on climate solutions instead of reversing our work on climate action.

Eby was not one to be bullied. British Columbia, arguably Canada’s greenest province, was the first to adopt a price on carbon. That happened a decade before the federal government introduced its 2018 plan.

The B.C. experience has been used as a model for other jurisdictions. Their carbon pricing has had a beneficial impact on the environment with little impact on the economy.

Eby characterized Poilievre’s “axe the tax” as a “baloney office” campaign. Poilievre responded by accusing Eby of forcing British Columbians to eat baloney because of carbon pricing.

What nobody seems to be including in the discussion is how the country will fight forest fires and floods by abolishing the national climate action strategy.

Poilievre has put nothing in the window in his axe campaign, and is deliberately conflating a world inflationary trend with a made-in-Canada carbon plan.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made it very clear that the government has no intention to reverse its climate plan, even after Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Premier Andrew Furey joined six Conservative premiers in his request to cancel the proposed carbon price hike.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has vowed not to collect the carbon price, which could prove rather costly to his residents.

In the national plan, carbon rebates actually go out to approximately 80 per cent of the population based on their reduced carbon footprint.

If Moe refuses to collect, the average family of four in his province will miss out on an annual rebate of $1,800 according to the federal Department of Finance.

Trudeau is committed to the federal action plan, and vows to keep fighting for pollution pricing, despite the claim by Ontario Premier Doug Ford that the federal Liberals could be “annihilated” in the next election because of the pricing policy.

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie last week distanced herself from her federal counterparts by saying if she were elected, her party would not impose a provincial tax.

The party could fall back on the federal program, but has not committed to doing so as an internal committee studies the issue.

Suffice to say, across the board, the country is gripped with the issue of climate pricing and nobody is particularly engaged in the challenge of doing nothing.

Poilievre is framing the issue as another Liberal gas tax, and spending millions of dollars to get Canadians on his side.

Meanwhile, the federal government has spent nothing in explaining to Canadians what is actually involved in carbon pricing, and why it is so necessary to help the country fight climate change.

At a heated press conference in Calgary recently, Trudeau said it was not his job to be popular when pressed on whether he should ditch the carbon tax.

But to win elections, and carry out his climate plans, he does need to secure the popular vote.

His climate plan is worth fighting for. It is also worth spending some money explaining to Canadians just what is involved in the fight on climate change.

If the country wants to hang on to the progress we have made on climate change, we need to increase the price on carbon so consumption patterns will change.

We are experiencing the hottest decade in history and we owe it to our grandchildren to push ahead on carbon pricing.

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

If members choose the leader in the first place, why don’t they do the firing?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 24, 2022.

OTTAWA—What do British Tories and British Columbian New Democrats have in common?

They both moved with dispatch last week to get rid of leaders or potential leaders of their respective parties.

In the case of the British prime minister, Liz Truss’s resignation—after just six weeks in office—marks the end of a tumultuous term during which a massively unpopular mini-budget saw the party’s numbers plummet.

The party elected the leader but, in the end, it was a loss of caucus confidence that cost her the job.

Even after sacking the finance minister and rescinding the millions of pounds in tax cuts, Truss was unable to right her sinking ship. One vitriolic British newspaper headline characterized the Tory governance as a clown car.

Truss will suffer the fate of having the shortest prime ministerial tenure in British history. The next leader will be chosen by the party, but given the capacity to dump a leader after six weeks, it must be hard for members to believe their participation really counts.

Another leadership will not be facing the New Democrats in British Columbia because, as a result of an internal report, the party has chosen a coronation.

In either case, the leader is much less dependent on party support and much more dependent on caucus support.

Is that necessarily a good thing?

In the British system there is absolutely no room for error. If an unpopular move is made by the prime minister, he or she has no time to rebuild support and confidence.

To use a Canadian example, when the Liberals came to power in 1993, the country was deemed a financial basket case by certain financial institutions.

There was no choice but to cut, and cut deeply. The government laid off thousands of employees, and cut budgets across the board by between 15 and 25 per cent.

The only budget that then-prime minister Jean Chrétien refused to cut was spending for Indigenous services. But that financing normally increases with a hike in population, so even a standstill amounts to the equivalent of a cut.

The reduction process took a year as every minister had to present their budget cut proposals to a cabinet committee. I sat on one that was nicknamed “the Star Chamber.”

Some ministers could not agree on what the cuts should be. For example, when the department of foreign affairs recommended meeting its target by ending its funding of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the minister of finance vetoed that move. The foreign minister was sent back to the drawing board.

During this period, there was a fair bit of internal grumbling about the shape of the cuts, and it was particularly difficult for Ottawa-area members of Parliament to explain the job reductions to their constituents.

How easy it could have been to organize a group within caucus to dump the leader, and end the cost-cutting exercise before it even began.

The Brits are facing a fifth Conservative leadership in six years.

In British Columbia’s case, current Premier John Horgan enjoyed longevity.

But what would have been a party election for leader has been replaced by a coronation, since the elections committee has disallowed the candidacy of the only other opponent.

The decision to refuse the candidacy of Anjali Appadurai was based on an internal report which found that, “Ms. Appadurai engaged in serious improper conduct by co-ordinating with third parties” to recruit new members.
Anjali Appadurai was disqualified from the NDP leadership race on Oct. 20—the same day that Liz Truss stepped down as British prime minister. Photograph courtesy of Twitter

The candidate vigorously denied the claims, suggesting instead that the party introduced a mid-campaign interpretation of the membership rules which was applied retroactively.

Appadurai, an environmentalist, had little caucus support, but was said to have sold many more memberships than her leadership rival and former Attorney General David Eby.

Eby automatically becomes the premier as a result of the coronation. When Eby announced his candidacy last summer, he had the support of 48 colleagues.

That support was likely what caused several other caucus colleagues to stay out of the race.

A coronation may be the simplest route forward for the party, but it may not enhance New Democrat chances with the general public.

Leadership campaigns provide an opportunity to recruit new members. Many stay, even after the race is over. Appadurai supporters, who joined the party for the race, are already leaving in despair.

The British decision to dump a leader after six weeks, or the B.C. NDP move to dump a candidate, may both cause members of each respective party to quit.

If members choose the leader in the first place, why don’t they do the firing?

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