Mark Carney needs something to show that Liberals don’t just care about mega-projects. No tax on food could be a good place to start.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 6, 2025.

OTTAWA—Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is good at retail politics. Other parties may decry his slogans and three-word mantras, but a note of caution needs to be sounded.

KISS is the basic mantra of any successful politician. It may sound a little condescending because in long form, it reads ‘keep it simple, stupid’. For marketing reasons, the last ‘s’ needs to be replaced because voters are definitely not stupid.

But a simple message is one that resonates. When Poilievre coined the phrase “Axe the Tax” in relation to carbon pricing, it mattered little that the fiscal instrument was supposed to be a price on pollution.

He marketed it as an unfair tax, and in the absence of any reply from the previous Liberal government, it was the first thing that Prime Minister Mark Carney did axe.

That move was politically necessary because in order for Carney’s “elbows up” message to be heard, he didn’t need an unpopular carbon pricing system to muddy the waters.

It went, and he won.

Poilievre was unable to pivot in the federal election, and with the help of United States President Donald Trump, Carney convinced Canadians that he was best positioned to offer a path forward by forging new international allegiances without the support of the U.S.

The prime minister is still reaching out internationally, with some success. In the meantime, the leader of the official opposition is sharpening his message on another matter: the cost of food.

Last week, Poilievre launched an attack on the government based on the increasing cost of groceries for Canadians.

A Conservative motion in the House of Commons tabled on Oct. 1 identified four factors involved in taxing food including deficits, the ban on single-use plastics, the carbon tax application to agriculture, and the federal clean-fuel standard.

It is fairly difficult to claim that dirtier fuel would reduce the price of food, and there were plenty of critics ready to attack the Conservative motion.

But the fact remains, any attack on the cost of groceries resonates with Canadians who are suffering the effects of increased prices for most food basics.

While some say the government has little influence on supply-chain issues or international instability affecting food prices, the bottom line is that Poilievre’s message resonates.

“Elbows up” has also resonated with Canadians, which is why the prime minister still has enough public support to withstand the Poilievre attacks at this point. But he shouldn’t assume it will always be this way.

When the November budget is tabled, the finance minister needs to include some deliverables for ordinary Canadians.

It is wonderful to work on interprovincial trade barriers and big projects. But at the end of the day, people vote based on their own personal interests. And if their pocketbooks are being strained by the cost of food, they will be asking whose elbows are up for them.

There is a solution for Carney to blunt this issue immediately.

While food purchased in grocery stores is not generally taxed, the reality is that the meals eaten by Canadians outside the home are all subject to tax.

Restaurants Canada CEO Kelly Higginson was in Ottawa last week lobbying finance officials to announce an end to the tax on all food in the Nov. 4 budget.

Their slogan is “Food is food. Stop taxing what we eat.” It is a simple message, and one that is very similar to that of the opposition leader.

Last year, the previous Liberal government offered a pre-Christmas tax holiday on a number of items, including restaurant eating.

Restaurants Canada is asking the government to make that exemption permanent. In a survey for the group, 84 per cent of Canadians said food should not be taxed, no matter where it is purchased.

A food tax exemption would also serve to buttress youth employment. The restaurant industry employs more than half a million young people, representing one in five jobs for that demographic. It is also the number one source of employment for young people.

The move to cut all food tax would be a big hit for the government. It currently collects $5.4-billion in taxes on non-grocery food. But Restaurants Canada says an end to the tax would result in the creation of 64,500 new service jobs, with 2,680 new restaurants opening and 15,686 spinoff jobs also being created.

Poilievre is getting traction with his focus on food prices. Carney needs something to show that Liberals don’t just care about mega-projects. No tax on food could be a good place to start.

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

How can you convince Americans that Tylenol is safe when the president says it isn’t? Again, the world is left wondering whether America is ruled by a madman who doesn’t believe in science, and would easily shut down all free and fair reporting if he could.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 29, 2025.

OTTAWA—The decision by United States Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr to threaten ABC following late-night comments by comedian Jimmy Kimmel was even derided by Senator Ted Cruz.

Cruz is a well-known supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump, but he characterized the Carr threat as a page straight out of a Goodfellas book and called the comments “dangerous as hell.”

Even as Kimmel’s suspension by ABC’s parent company Disney Entertainment was lifted due to public outcry, Trump was moving to muzzle more critics.

In a harsh rebuke to a question from an ABC reporter at the White House, Trump attacked the journalist, ABC, and media in general, bragging that he was now suing The New York Times and would win.

The lawsuits should come as no surprise, since, even during his time in the private sector, Trump delayed paying many creditors by simply dragging out the court process when sued for payment.

But the fact that the FCC, which is supposed to be an impartial licensing body, would threaten retribution because of a late-night comedic attack mirrors life in a dictatorship.

Trump doubled down when the Kimmel suspension was short-lived. “I think we’re going to test ABC out on this one. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16-million. …This one sounds even more lucrative.”

Then he and the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services went off on another tangent, claiming that women who take Tylenol during childbirth could be responsible for causing autism in the fetus.

Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. bears a family name known globally, but the vast majority of his own family does not support him.

Only one cousin endorsed him in the last presidential campaign, and 50 other family members, including all his siblings, lined up with then-U.S. president Joe Biden to oppose Kennedy’s independent bid for election.

Along with being a well-known anti-vaxxer, Kennedy has stated that COVID was “ethnically targeted” to spare Jewish and Chinese people. According to a Vanity Fair article, Kennedy has also stated that anti-vaxxers suffered worse persecution than German Holocaust victim Anne Frank. He also believes that an alternate shooter killed his own father, and after interviewing the convicted perpetrator, Sirhan Sirhan in prison, proclaimed Sirhan’s innocence.

One of Kennedy’s first actions was to pull the U.S. out of the World Health Organization, and deny the current measles epidemic, despite medical evidence showing the greatest hike in outbreaks since the virus was officially declared eliminated in 2000.

Now Kennedy’s focus, and that of the president, is on Tylenol. Despite zero evidence to back up the pair, both men held the press conference to decry the use of the pain-killing acetaminophen.

To many, the move was simply viewed as another channel changer. To overshadow the Kimmel return to the airwaves, the Tylenol move was designed to get people talking about something else.

It has also thrown Johnson and Johnson, one of America’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, into a public-relations frenzy.

How can you convince Americans that Tylenol is safe when the president says it isn’t?

Again, the world is left wondering whether America is ruled by a madman who doesn’t believe in science, and who would easily shut down all free and fair reporting if he could.

The tongue lashings regularly administered by the president to those who oppose him have been replicated by multiple of his appointees.

U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra recently had the nerve to claim at a Halifax Chamber of Commerce event that he was “disappointed … that it is very, very difficult to find Canadians who are passionate about the American-Canadian relationship.”

What planet has the ambassador been living on? The only person responsible for the meltdown in Canada-U.S. relations is his boss. It was Trump who belittled our former prime minister, constantly referring to Justin Trudeau as “governor,” and it is Trump who has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada by using economic levers rather than military ones.

Trump has followed up with the threat via a constantly-moving target of tariffs that is costing both his country and Canada dearly.

As ambassador, Hoekstra’s job is to try and smooth over differences between the two countries. He should be acting as a quiet go-between working to solve problems. Instead, Hoekstra is burning his Canadian bridges.

Like many Trump appointees, the ambassador has made it very obvious that his job to kiss the president’s buttocks.

King Charles discreetly smirked when the president went off-script at the recent royal banquet in London. The world is smirking, too.

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

Those of us who were ignorant of Charlie Kirk expected that his background would back up the posthumous honorifics. Instead, what we see is the story of a man who went out of his way to sow division based on race, gender, and religion.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 22, 2025.

OTTAWA—Until just recently, the only famous Kirk I knew was Captain Kirk from Star Trek, which first launched on the CTV network in Canada in 1966.

But on Sept. 10, the murder of American Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, on the campus of Utah Valley University reverberated around the world.

The president of the United States ordered all government flags to be lowered in mourning, and announced the posthumous provision of the Presidential Medal of Freedom for the slain political activist.

Those of us who were ignorant of Kirk expected that his background would back up the honorifics.

Instead, what we see is the story of a man who went out of his way to sow division based on race, gender, and religion.

Media Matters for America, a not-for-profit that tracks conservative media statements, published the following direct quotes from Kirk’s appearances and podcasts.

He had this to say about Black people: “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

On former First Lady Michelle Obama, he had this to say: “If we said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama … were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us. …You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.” Not sure how Obama stole a white person’s slot as her partner was elected by a majority vote, but it was this kind of racist vitriol that attracted attention to Kirk.

As for women, in a discussion of musician Taylor Swift’s engagement to footballer Travis Kelce, Kirk said: “reject feminism. Submit to your husband Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

Kirk also said that if he had a 10-year-old daughter who was raped, he would force her to carry the fetus to term: “Yes. The baby would be born.”

He also promoted access to guns, suggesting that “it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

On religion, Kirk said he believed “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” He also did not support the separation of church and state, claiming the concept is “a fabrication, a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

As for his views on the LGBTQ+ communities, “We need to have a Nuremburg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.”

On immigration, he said he believed that “America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever.”

So why are so many people being excoriated—even fired—for criticizing Kirk after death? And why is Donald Trump trying to convince the country and the world that Kirk is a patriot, and that his assassin was a crazed liberal?

Why was Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre upset that Prime Minister Mark Carney did not post a condolence message quickly enough after the murder?

All party leaders eventually posted messages, generally referencing Kirk’s family and the fact that differences in political perspective should not be met with violence.

Of course, that is self-evident, but in the case of Kirk, he deliberately provoked reactions by the nature of his absurd racist, homophobic, and misogynistic statements.

Kirk on the former president: “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled, Alzheimer’s-corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.”

There is never an excuse for politicians to solve problems with a weapon. That is one of the reasons why the majority of Americans want the government to promote gun control.

While innocent people—including children—are slaughtered almost every week in America by crazed individuals, Kirk spent his life lobbying against limiting that access.

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

Trump is truly delusional enough to believe he could end the war in a single day. He has repeated that enough times. But in reality, if he sells out Ukraine and rewards Russia with a land deal derived from illegal attacks on another country, he will be setting the stage for a larger war. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 18, 2025.

OTTAWA—How can Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin negotiate a deal on Ukraine minus Ukraine?

How could the American president even think about hosting a meeting with Russia’s president in Alaska? The message is baked in. Trump will reward Russia for launching an attack on its neighbouring country.

What would an agreement between Putin and Trump mean for the rest of Europe?

So many countries in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics despise the memory of their time under the thumb of Russian leadership.

They are not anxious to return to those days, and will very likely oppose any one-sided agreement reached by the Americans and Russians.

Major players in Europe, including France and Germany, still want to be able to massage their relationship with Trump, however challenging that may be.

As the American president continues to pursue bizarre and unpredictable projects, like taking over Washington, D.C., and replacing the Rose Garden with a golden “Mar-a-Lago” style ballroom, allies need to either manage their relationships, or get out of the way.

Perhaps that is why the mayor of Washington, D.C., did not condemn the Trump promise to bring in the National Guard to control crime in America’s capital city.

Like Ottawa, Washington, D.C., has a unique position as the city which houses the nation’s major political bodies like the Congress, the Senate, and the White House.

Trump has also signalled his intention to move into other cities (with Democrat mayors), although the authority for a Washington intervention is clearer.

The president is also unwilling to produce statistics buttressing his claim that the actions are prompted by a hike in crime. Crime statistics in the capital city last year were at a 30-year low.

Facts don’t matter to Trump. He is guided by his own feelings, hence the decision to meet privately with Putin, to the exclusion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

In virtual meetings with Trump earlier last week, European leaders and Zelenskyy warned against the trap that Putin may be laying. The Russian leader is expecting to be rewarded by annexing some of the lands he attacked.

Zelenskyy and European allies have ruled out any land swap, and all are calling for a focus on ceasefire.

Many are questioning the strange choice of Alaska as a meeting ground.

The territory used to belong to Russia until it was sold to the Americans in 1867. Some Russians believe the sale approved by Tzar Alexander was a mistake, and the territory should return to them.

Most observers think the decision to meet in America is already a win for Putin, who has not been invited for an official visit to the U.S. in the past decade.

Trump characterizes the meeting as a “listening session,” giving him a chance to feel out the willingness of Putin to agree to a ceasefire.

But European and Canadian leaders are worried about the nature of concessions that Trump may agree to in Alaska.

Suffice to say, it is difficult to trust a leader who will set up a meeting about the future of Ukraine without the leadership of Ukraine even being present.

Trump is truly delusional enough to believe he could end the war in a single day. He has repeated that enough times. But in reality, if he sells out Ukraine and rewards Russia with a land deal derived from illegal attacks on another country, he will be setting the stage for a larger war.

Europe won’t escape this one.

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

The prime minister is playing defence, by making sure that tariff-affected industries have cushions in place to protect Canadian jobs. Various ministers are travelling the world to reinforce relationships that may prove crucial in the trade war with Trump. But time is also on our side.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 11, 2025.

OTTAWA—The dog days of summer are upon us. That means barbecues and beaches, as Canadians make every effort to soak up some of those soon-to-be-forgotten rays of sunshine.

This summer, it is a little harder to see some of those rays, as the smoke plumes from multiple wildfires blanketing most of the country, reminding us that Mother Nature holds the upper hand in all things.

Some political leaders may not care about global warming, but they have to pay attention when the results require Canadians to stay inside in order to breathe clean air.

But even with the climate challenges, summer is a chance to reconnect with the things that can really bring us together. One of those things is sport.

When ‘elbows up’ became a political rallying cry against unfair tariffication by American President Donald Trump, every Canadian knew exactly what that meant.

Hockey is part of our winter DNA. Even those who don’t play understand what it means to play defence and offence in the sporting world.

And those same analogies can be very useful in politics. Much is being written these days about why Canada has been one of the few countries unable to achieve a trade deal with the United States.

Questions have also been posed about why Prime Minister Mark Carney has not spoken recently to Trump in an effort to secure such a deal.

Instead, the prime minister is playing defence, setting the stage for an increase in tariffs by making sure that affected industries have cushions in place to protect the Canadians whose jobs are at stake.

A good sportsperson knows that while playing defence, you need to keep offence in mind, as well.

So various ministers are travelling the world to reinforce relationships that may prove crucial in the trade war that Trump seems intent on launching.

Canada and Mexico have reinforced their intention to build trade routes that can bypass the U.S. if necessary. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne flew to the Mexican capital last week to solidify that relationship, and to repair some damage caused in the early days of the Trump administration when Canadians pointed the fentanyl finger at Mexico in an effort to avoid sanctions.

There is a significant amount of anxiety in this country because of the uncertainty in Trump’s trade machinations. But that is not going to end anytime soon, so the approach taken by the federal government means having elbows in motion, but not necessarily always up.

Trump’s trade agenda is likely going to be most affected by politics at home. The American courts have not been supportive of a number of his measures, including the decision to deport American permanent residents without any due process.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to implement tariffs via the invocation the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act.

Although Trump seems unfazed by court rulings, he is starting to feel the political pain at home. Hikes in price for beer and automobiles, and loss in profits for their companies, are hitting Americans in their pocketbooks. Coupled with the cuts to social security and Medicare, the results of Trump’s policies are starting to hurt him domestically.

Republican Senators are getting booed at their summer town hall gatherings and the news cycle is awash with stories about the president’s longstanding friendship with child predator Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump has backed off his promise for a full release of the Epstein files, and appears intent on trying to change the channel by accusing his predecessor of fabricating the Russian interference allegations that tainted recent elections.

As time goes on, Trump may have to face internal pressure to back off his unorthodox trading strategies.

For Canada, that means time could be on our side. And the more pressure the president faces from his own base, the more chance that his current tariff campaign of terror won’t work.

Better no deal at all than a deal that is going to be as one-sided as what the Europeans signed.

As many have pointed out, agreements that have been penned are largely framework accords, with the devil in the details. As for the Europeans, they may never actually conclude the details of the framework that was signed.

The French government is not very happy with what is in the framework, and has publicly said so.

We can tuck in our elbows for now. Time is Canada’s friend.

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.

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.

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.

If the Liberal leader keeps his cool and avoids attack mode, he can reinforce the impression that he is calm, thoughtful, and fully prepared to deal with future White House bullies. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 21, 2025.

OTTAWA—Only in Canada would a hockey game trump a federal election debate.

The Montreal Canadiens had one last chance to make the playoffs last week, and their game was in conflict with the national leaders’ debate in French.

The simple solution was to move the debate forward to an earlier time. The move probably helped the front-runner more than anyone else.

Liberal Leader Mark Carney struggles more in French than the rest, but the move may have meant fewer Quebecers watched the debate in person. Some were likely still en route from work, and others were preparing dinner for their families. Six o’clock is probably the worst time for a political debate.

But there’s also a school of thought to say that debates really don’t change much.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had better hope that they are wrong because he needs a major boost to have any chance of beating the Liberals on April 28.

In reality, there are very few occasions when a knockout punch decides an election.

Most people remember Brian Mulroney’s response when then-prime minister John Turner was asked to defend a series of appointments forced upon him by predecessor Pierre Trudeau.

Turner’s response, “I had no option,” caused Progressive Conservative leader Mulroney to jab him with a pointed finger. “You, sir, had an option.” That knockout punch led the PCs to a historic victory of 211 seats in the September 1984 election.

Many have compared that debate scenario to this year’s campaign. Both campaigns saw unpopular Trudeaus leaving their positions as prime minister.

Both saw a new leader take over who had been outside the previous prime minister’s direct orbit. In Turner’s case, he left government after a disagreement with the prime minister, and returned when the leadership position opened up anew.

In Carney’s case, he is brand new to politics. But his previous work as an adviser to Justin Trudeau meant that he was not completely separated from the previous regime.

He, too, has experienced a post-leadership bump. That would likely have slumped in the rollout of a regular election campaign.

But United States President Donald Trump made sure that this was not an ordinary Canadian election.

He caused a pan-Canadian call to arms with his constant musings about annexing our country, and referring to our prime minister as “governor.”

Carney came out as the leader most likely to defend this country’s interests against American protectionism and against a president who seems to enjoy belittling allies and supporting former enemies.

It has been lost on no-one that the president exempted Russia and North Korea in the global tariff attacks that saw him turn his back on Europe, Canada, and other former allies recently.

The debates in French and English last week permitted Poilievre to exercise his acrid humour in a frontal attack on Carney. But he had to use caution because if he were to be seen as too nasty, that would simply reinforce the animus that Canadian women voters have already identified in him.

There is a reason that he is running 20 points behind when it comes to support from women. His nasty, three-word slogans get the anti-vaxxers motivated, but have the opposite effect on women who are concerned with issues like language and behaviour. They want to provide good examples to their children, and when it gets too nasty, politicians simply lose their support.

I was on the debate preparation team for Trudeau in his first election, and the whole group was encouraging him to hit hard. He refused to do so, saying he wanted to show that politics didn’t have to be dirty.

He was right. Running in third place, Trudeau took a nasty hit from then-NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, and in a calm voice, he reminded Mulcair that debate day was the anniversary of his father’s death. Mulcair melted and Trudeau vaulted to first place in an election victory that no one had seen coming.

All that to say that debates do count. But for the current Liberal momentum to be blunted, it would mean a direct hit from the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats. They are all fighting for their lives, so any onlooker can expect a full-frontal attack on the prime minister.

If he keeps his cool and doesn’t fall into attack mode, Carney can reinforce the impression that he is calm, thoughtful, and fully prepared to deal with future White House bullies.

That perception will be important since, if Carney is successful at the end of the month, his anti-bullying days may just be starting.

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

We are at the halfway point in the election, but much could happen in the yin and the yang of the campaign. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 14, 2025.

OTTAWA—Does size matter? Pierre Poilievre seems to think so.

In this regard, he is aligning himself closely with U.S. President Donald Trump, who claimed that his inauguration day crowds during his first term were bigger than anything posted by Barack Obama.

Poilievre has also claimed his crowds are the biggest in history, which, of course, is false.

Back in 1979, governing Liberals managed to organize a rally of more than 20,000 people in Toronto’s Maple Leaf Gardens and then went on to lose the election to the Conservatives.

Rallies definitely help to charge up the base, which serves to grow the ground game of local candidates, but they also chew up a lot of time that could be better used recruiting new supporters.

In Poilievre’s case, he has a solid group of core followers who will never waver. They also tend to be opponents of vaccinations, and the so-called “woke” world they are living in.

But the work to grow his base will actually decide the election. If he cannot do that, it doesn’t matter how many of the faithful line up to join his rallies, he won’t win.

As for organizers, most will tell you that the campaign focus should be on local organizational voter-identification. This is not getting done when people are busy getting supporters to rallies.

How is that relevant?

When prime minister Brian Mulroney won his second election back in 1988, his party managed to secure victory in 20 ridings by less than 1,000 votes. In a tight race, what matters most is who actually gets to the polls to vote.

If the current numbers hold, (and that is not likely) the Liberals will win a comfortable majority and the race will be called within an hour of the polls closing.

But if the gap narrows, the number of seats with a margin of less than 1,000 votes could actually decide the election.

We are at the halfway point in the election, but much could happen in the yin and the yang of the campaign.

The debates in French and English will be very important because if Prime Minister Mark Carney stumbles, he will definitely curb the enthusiasm of his campaign.

Poilievre’s support is obviously not as wide, but it is very deep. In the case of Carney, his supporter is much broader, but without the depth of loyalty that Poilievre is enjoying.

People like Carney’s background and think that he has the right financial chops to deal with the chaos caused by Trump’s tariffs.

He will need to reinforce that impression during the debates, with particular attention to his performance in the French language.

Most French speakers are satisfied that Carney’s capacity in Canada’s second official language is not a vote-loser. Carney is particularly popular in Quebec.

During the final days of prime minister Justin Trudeau’s time in office, Liberals were lagging badly, but the Conservatives were not much more popular. The Bloc benefited from those numbers, with leader Yves-François Blanchet looking to form a majority in Quebec. But the Quebec numbers now show that Blanchet could lose even in his own riding.

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh is facing the same possibility as his single-digit polling could mean a massive rout for his party, including the potential loss of his own seat.

Singh is focusing his message on convincing Canadians that minority governments work better for people, in an effort to stem the massive move of New Democratic voters to the Liberals.

As long as Trump keeps threatening the world order, Canadians who are seeing their cost-of-living rise and their bank accounts shrink, want to rally around a leader who will fight the American president.

A minority Parliament would not provide Canadians with certainty in the global crisis that Trump has created.

A tight race between the Liberals and the Conservatives will create even more challenges for the Bloc and the NDP. In the global crisis, Canadians will want a strong prime minister. Those dynamics mean that this election has become a two-party race. And if you look at crowd-size, it looks as though Poilievre has an edge.

Carney’s crowds are growing in size as well, but the Liberal party’s focus is on a tight, get-out-the-vote campaign in every riding. That means that, while Tory supporters are following their leader in rallies, Liberals are looking for new voters in canvassing, phoning and social media activities.

Both parties are obviously working their ground game, but Poilievre’s push for big crowds does not mean victory.

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