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.

Conservative MP Jamil Jivani pleaded to Liberals for inter-party unity, but said the ‘timing and spectacle of recent floor-crossings appears to many Canadians as an effort from you (PM) to demoralize Conservatives and the millions of Canadians who voted for us.’

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 5, 2026.

OTTAWA—Mr. Jivani went to Washington.

The relationship that Conservative MP Jamil Jivani has with American vice-president JD Vance is unique.

They met in university at Yale and became fast friends, with Jivani serving in Vance’s wedding party.

So, naturally, his visit to the American capital is garnering a lot more attention than that of a simple MP.

Jivani reached out to the Prime Minister’s Office, but was surprised when his invitation for the prime minister to join him was declined.

Jivani said he went to Washington to help negotiate a free trade agreement, a goal that has eluded the government this far.

Dominic LeBlanc, minister responsible for Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade negotiations, confirmed that his office briefed Jivani, but the government declined to send a representative.

For his party, Jivani criticized the Liberals for not accepting his offer to be a direct conduit to the team at the White House.

He also emphasized in multiple communications with LeBlanc, the PMO, and the Liberal caucus chair that his intention was to provide a Team Canada approach to the challenge.

But on the Conservative side, Jivani appears to be going it alone. Which begs the question: why did his leader not join him in the Vance arm-twisting initiative?

The timing of Jivani’s trip was also interesting.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has just come off a very successful party convention in Calgary where his approval rating by delegate attendees was even larger than that of former prime minister Stephen Harper.

One would think that this past week should have been one where the leader basks in the glory of his unprecedented party popularity. Instead, he appeared to be playing second fiddle to Jivani’s Washington orchestra.

To be fair, Jivani’s timing was likely guided by his attendance at the annual Washington National Prayer Breakfast.

At that gathering, all the key players in cabinet trade negotiations, Washington lobbyists and high-profile Christian influencers are present. Any issue they embrace is sure to have an effect on Canada-U.S. relations.

Conservatives are working hard to solidify their relationship with the Trump administration.

At the convention, Poilievre’s wife Anaida was referred to as the First Lady, a title that does not exist in this country.

Alberta separatists have recently revealed that they have been meeting with senior Washington officials in an attempt to work on their separation from Canada.

A Trump cabinet official recently pitched in, suggesting that Alberta would be a welcome 51st state.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has avoided any criticism of the separatists and is not even able to get members of her caucus to support Canadian unity.

She also worked to lower the bar for a referendum, and to make it easier for separatists to launch their campaign.

What she didn’t expect was the blowback from other Albertans. Former Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk beat the separatists to the punch with a petition seeking a referendum to stay in Canada. His petition has already been signed by more than 496,000 Albertans, far ahead of the required 293,000 signatures for a vote. The petition has already been certified as successful by Elections Canada.

Things have gotten so divisive in that province that Harper and former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien discussed the issue when they got together last week for a fireside chat in Ottawa.

Both reflected on the fact that another separatist threat looms in Quebec with the potential fall election predicting a return to power of the Parti Québécois.

Well-loved former premier Lucien Bouchard has already stated publicly that, if elected, the PQ should promise there will not be a referendum in the first term.

But the separatists’ drum rolling across the country is causing a stir in political circles across party lines.

In an event sponsored by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, both Chrétien and Harper stressed the importance of a united front when it comes to trade negotiations and Canadian unity.

Harper said that “I think the reality is if the federal government manages the country right, puts the stress on unity and not on ideological tangents there’s no reason why we can’t pull the country together at this moment.”

Jivani pleaded for inter-party unity in his outreach email to Liberals, but at the same time said the “timing and spectacle of recent floor-crossings appears to many Canadians as an effort from you (PM) to demoralize Conservatives and the millions of Canadians who voted for us.”

Jivani may not be able to turn things around in Washington. His first plea for unity should be to Alberta Conservatives who want to join the U.S.

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

The boost in polling that Democrats have enjoyed since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the race would not be shared by the Liberals if Justin Trudeau were to do the same.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2024.

OTTAWA–The post-Biden bump for the Democrats in the United States has not passed unnoticed in Canada.

One of the first questions asked of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the summer cabinet meeting in Halifax last week was just that: Could the Liberals get a similar bump if the prime minister were to step down, and the voters were presented with a different face at the head of the party?

Trudeau sidestepped the question, and continued to insist that his job was to “be there to invest in Canadians.” But his close friend and cabinet colleague Marc Miller did say that robust conversations were taking place within the confines of the caucus, without public disclosure.

Other ministers, including potential leadership candidates Mélanie Joly and Chrystia Freeland, were quick to support the prime minister’s leadership. But the party is roiling, as ministers and Members of Parliament seek their own Canadian bump.

It has been a year since the Conservative lead entered into double-digit territory, and nothing the government does seems to narrow that gap. But the notion of a parallel result if Trudeau were to resign is misdirected.

First of all, the hike for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has resulted in an increase of three to four per cent for her party.

Three to four per cent in Canada would not be enough to return to government, as the current polling differential between the Liberals and the Conservatives is much higher.

The United States is essentially a two-party system, so a small shift can make or break a victory. Even an independent with the name recognition of Robert Kennedy Jr. managed only six per cent support at the apex of his campaign. It is doubtful that six per cent would even follow him into an election. Now that he has thrown his support behind Republican candidate Donald Trump, his supporters will probably split between the two main parties.

Also, a two-party system lends itself to a smooth transition. In the U.S. case, the Democrats were able to replace U.S. President Joe Biden with Harris without a full leadership convention because opponents were edged out by the current vice-president.

The fact that she would have replaced Biden in the event of a presidential illness or incapacity made it simpler to rally around her at a national convention less than three months from the election.

In Trudeau’s case, his succession would trigger a full leadership process. Contrary to some media reports, Mark Carney is not a putative leader in waiting. There are several current cabinet ministers who have been quietly setting the stage for their own leadership ambitions.

Pundits would suggest that it is better to have someone from outside the current crop of politicians, and Carney certainly has a polished Canadian and international pedigree. But the Liberal Party’s previous experience with global pedigree has not been positive.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant scholar with a renowned global reputation who was supposed to be the party’s saviour. Instead, he was quickly rejected as someone who came back to Canada only to run for office. Carney has declined multiple offers to run for office, and that doesn’t sit well with those working in the trenches.

While the public may be tired of Trudeau, the party’s volunteer base is actively working to explain why his leadership and the current government are worth supporting.

The checklist is long for Liberals. National childcare, dental care, pharmacare and school lunch programs send a message that the party is working for all the people.

But the government has been telling that story for several months, and so far, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Party members are ready for a leadership change, but also realize that the decision is in the hands of the prime minister.

Meanwhile, from François-Philippe Champagne to Dominic LeBlanc, many are weighing their future chances. Former parliamentarian Frank Baylis, who sold his heart-device business for $1.75-billion in 2021, is also actively assessing a potential campaign for the top job.

Baylis, son of a Barbadian immigrant, served in Trudeau’s government for one term, from 2015 to 2019, as the member of parliament for multicultural Pierrefonds-Dollard in Montreal, Que. If successful, he would be the party’s first non-white leader.

All of the foregoing means Liberals will not follow the American example and force out their leader. Multiple candidates are already planning their own robust campaigns, so there would be no shoo-in for Carney.

No huge bump, and multiple candidates rule out a smooth post-Trudeau transition in Canada.

Vive le Canada.

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

The fallout from the parliamentary foreign activity report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2024.

OTTAWA–The cloud of suspicion hanging over Members of Parliament was partly lifted by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week.

May spoke out at a lengthy press conference on June 11 after having read the classified document on parliamentary foreign activity produced by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP).

May said she was “relieved” to read that, in her opinion, none of the “few” Members of Parliament mentioned in the document are being disloyal to Canada.

There was one former MP who knowingly colluded with a foreign government, but their identity was not revealed. May stated that her reading of the report concluded that no current MPs were involved in any malfeasance.

May asked, “are there currently MPs sitting with us in the Chamber who would set out knowingly to sell Canada out for personal benefit? If there are, there’s no evidence of that in the full report.”

She urged other party leaders to read the report, and to draw their own conclusions.

Reports of the document state that “the committee has also seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.”

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh, who also read the report, said he was even more concerned after reading it, and urged Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to do the same. The current leader of the opposition refuses to seek the security clearance required to read the document.

Singh also questioned whether Poilievre was refusing to read the document because it included references to potential foreign influence in the Conservative leader’s own party leadership bid. The NSICOP report references interference by Indian and Chinese governments in the Conservative leadership race.

Singh said: “In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.” CBC News later reported that Singh’s office would not confirm if he was referring to current sitting MPs.

Meanwhile, with no specifics on which Members of Parliament have been named, the House of Commons agreed on June 11 to a Bloc Québécois motion to refer the parliamentary report to the public inquiry into foreign interference.

That inquiry, led by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, is already reviewing the issues surrounding foreign election-meddling allegations.

Hogue produced her interim report last month, which said there is evidence of foreign interference, but the integrity of Canada’s electoral system remains intact.

The commissioner also concluded that “vigorous measures” must be taken to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system after unveiling evidence that foreign governments did interfere in the elections of 2019 and 2021, leaving “a stain on our electoral process.”

The fallout from the NSICOP report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system. Instead, the report left the impression that there were multiple Members of Parliament knowingly sharing confidential information with foreign influencers.

Poilievre and his Alberta-based attack dog Michael Cooper both called on the prime minister to immediately release the names of all members cited in the document.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a parliamentary committee that it would be illegal to release names. “I am not going to violate the Security of Information Act, and risk prosecution for a political stunt,” he said.

He, too, encouraged Poilievre to get full security clearance so the Conservative leader could read the report, and decide for himself what level of foreign influence has affected our democracy and electoral process.

Poilievre refuses to read the report himself, claiming that to do so would prevent him from asking pertinent questions. The Conservative leader says clearance would limit his capacity to comment on issues, since top-secret material is usually only for the eyes of the security-cleared reader.

But his refusal to gather all the data begs the question: if Poilievre were to win the election, would he be able to become prime minister without a full security clearance? And if so, why would he want to make decisions without being in possession of all the facts?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for a leader to gather as much background as possible before deciding on what direction s/he would be taking on the foreign interference question?

Poilievre is simply demanding that the prime minister name names. He cares not for illegality, or due process.

His insouciance really makes you wonder what kind of prime minister he would be.

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

My point is that legal appointments in Canada are inherently political. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that in a province of 761,000 people, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has a personal connection to almost every legal appointment made during his time in government.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 8, 2019.

OTTAWA—Canada’s long-serving former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, almost didn’t get that job. The first woman in Canadian history to hold the position faced some pretty stiff competition.

The Canadian Italian Advocates Organization (CIAO for short) was founded back in 1984 to unite men and women who share a common profession and a common heritage.

Their candidate of choice was Frank Iacobucci, a respected Canadian jurist of Italian heritage who had previously served as dean of the law faculty at the University of Toronto, provost and deputy minister of justice.

Both had stellar credentials and would have been unassailable as nominees. But the best lawyers’ lobby group was the one supporting Iacobucci.

I remember getting a call from a life bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, promoting the merits of Iacobucci, including the positive reaction of Italians in my Hamilton riding.

The Liberals had a women’s caucus, and a loosely knit Italian-Canadian caucus. A vocal woman of Italian origin was promoting Iacobucci, along with numerous male colleagues, while the majority of women were hoping for a historic gender-based appointment.

In the end, it was then-prime minister Jean Chrétien who made the call, and lived with the consequences, which turned out to be pretty good.

McLachlin was a star on the bench for 17 years. Upon her retirement in Canada, she has been enlisted to serve as a non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.

My point is that legal appointments in Canada are inherently political. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that in a province of 761,000 people, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has a personal connection to almost every legal appointment made during his time in government.

LeBlanc is a lawyer; his wife has been a judge for more than a decade. His link to judicial appointments last week made national headlines when it was revealed that four of six appointees had donated to his leadership campaign when he ran against Justin Trudeau for the top job.

Each of them gave LeBlanc $400 to pay down leadership debts almost a decade ago. According to The Globe, that appears partisan enough to deem them ineligible for appointment.

Buried in the fine print was an acknowledgement that one of judges was actually appointed by Stephen Harper and donated to the Conservatives. The same admission included a quote from deputy Conservative leader Lisa Raitt, who said the nominations smacked of old-school patronage.

Raitt, who is also a lawyer, knows that no candidate in Canada can actually be considered for a judicial appointment unless they have passed a rigorous, non-partisan screening process set up by a panel of legal peers.

So the mortal sin committed by LeBlanc is not that he has promoted the appointment of incompetent people but rather that he has appointed people he knows. In a small province, local leaders usually support a local candidate for a party leadership, sometimes when it isn’t even their party.

I participated in a fundraiser to pay Ontario New Democratic leader Andrea Horwath’s leadership debt. Horwath was a high-profile leader from my hometown, and I was happy to help in a roast to raise leadership money.

That’s what people in communities do. The Globe’s suggested solution is to eliminate all political input into judicial appointments. It would turn everything over to the legal system; so lawyers with zero political experience would make the final decisions.

Lawyers lobby for candidates of choice, and they do not hesitate to have their input when the time for nominations arises.

One only has to Google national legal organizations in Canada, and dozens of organized groups emerge, each with their own perspective and favourite causes.

Once a lawyer’s competence for the job has been established, the decision is political.

I recommended several judges during my time in politics and they are all still competently serving on the bench. I never nominated someone that I did not know. They were not all Liberals.

As regional minister responsible for all Hamilton area appointments, it was my job to ensure candidates were not just competent. They had to be exceptional. Before I recommended a nomination, I wanted to make sure that I knew everything possible about any candidate.

The Globe has criticized the government for consulting the party donor Liberalist in their pre-screening. On the contrary, the list helps them understand what controversies might accompany any appointment.

The bottom line is that a judicial appointment is a political decision. And it should be.

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