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

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

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

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

Death knows no language. It knows no politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But politics is a fickle business.

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

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

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

Some might argue the president’s grievances about the Gordie Howe International Bridge are simply an attempt to distract from the global discussion about his racist post featuring former president Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as monkeys

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 16, 2026.

OTTAWA—If you build it, they will come. Except if opponents are friends of United States President Donald Trump.

Trump’s latest foray into Canadian politics is a false claim that a new bridge about to be opened at the Windsor-Detroit border should be delayed because no American steel was used in the construction, which is not true. He also stated that the bridge would not open unless the U.S. was compensated for everything it has given to Canada.

The irony of Trump’s complaints is that the U.S. government refused to participate in the initial cost of the bridge construction, which was fully financed by the Government of Canada. It is hard pressed to make labour or content demands on the project.

The president’s last-minute intervention is another example of how corrupt the American political system has become.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge has been in consideration for more than two decades.

The Ambassador Bridge, built in 1929, is North America’s No. 1 international border crossing. It is privately owned, and multiple attempts to build a new bridge beginning at the turn of the century have been blocked by the current owners, the American Moroun family.

Despite the obvious need for a second bridge, the Morouns’ political influence and lawsuits delayed the process for years.

In a newspaper column in 2012, journalist David Frum characterized the dispute as a conflict between private and public infrastructure where the monopoly led by the Moroun family used influence in Washington, D.C., to derail a proposed public sector bridge for decades.

Finally, in frustration, the Canadian government agreed to fully fund the joint bridge on the condition that the investment be recouped through tolls.

The proposed bridge was ultimately named after Gordie Howe, the popular Canadian hockey player who spent most of his NHL career with the Detroit Red Wings. The bilateral agreement was signed by the Canadian and Michigan governments, and both parties are joint owners of the bridge scheduled to open early this year.

The construction has taken more than eight years, and the project was led by the “Building North America” consortium which was selected in July 2018 to design, build, operate and maintain the bridge.

The $6.4-billion cost of the project was fully financed by the Government of Canada, a fact that seemed to be missing from Trump’s latest Truth Social grievance taking aim at the bridge’s ownership structure and claiming that Canada has “treated the United States unfairly for decades.”

Washington did not put out a penny for the project, so it is hard to claim that the U.S. has been treated unfairly.

Michigan politicians were quick to point out the second bridge will facilitate commerce and trade between the two countries. Governor Gretchen Whitmer weighed in to support the opening, saying that the bridge agreement was approved by her Republican predecessor.

The only people who seem to be benefitting from threats to stall the bridge opening are the family members who own the Ambassador Bridge.

As Frum pointed out in 2012, the move to block a second bridge is a perfect example of how public policy is stymied by private interests. In the end, it is the trade between the two countries that suffers.

That may fit with Trump’s agenda as he is obviously not interested in a seamless transportation network between Canada and the U.S.

But it certainly hurts his own country’s economic agenda, which is why Michigan politicians are all lining up in favour of opening the Gordie Howe bridge as soon as possible.

U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra has been assigned to manage the file for the president. Hoekstra is a former Michigan congressman.

Some might argue the bridge kerfuffle was simply an attempt by Trump to distract from the global discussion about his racist post featuring former president Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as monkeys.

The meme on Trump’s personal account on Truth Social stayed online for 12 hours, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt characterizing reaction as “fake outrage.” She claimed: “This is from an internet meme video depicting President Trump as the king of the jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King.”

Even Republicans chimed in to attack the post, with U.S. Senator Tim Scott “praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I have seen from this White House.”

Other Republicans condemned the post, but the president insisted he did nothing wrong, and was not about to apologize.

In most jurisdictions, such a racist publication would likely spark calls for resignation.

In this case, presidential filters, accountability, and respect are non-existent. Trump celebrates racism and inflames hatred.

It is just another crazy week at the White House.

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

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.

If you parse Marco Rubio’s statement from last weekend, anyone who is even a competitor of the U.S. in our hemisphere is a potential target of American foreign policy attention. No wonder Prime Minister Mark Carney has muted his comments on the Nicolás Maduro takedown. We could be next.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 12, 2026.

OTTAWA—The American military move to arrest Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has put the world on edge.

By invading Ukraine, Russia was the only state actor to ignore international law, but not anymore. The People’s Republic of China can point to the move by United States President Donald Trump as a template to take out the Taiwanese leadership.

Trump has not ruled out sending in the U.S. military to Venezuela, but insists that he wants to work with the president who was sworn in as soon as Maduro was spirited out of the country.

In his hour-long press conference extolling the Maduro capture, Trump left the distinct impression that he had a deal with the new president, Delcy Rodriguez. Meanwhile, she was on Venezuelan state television decrying the move and saying that never again would Venezuelans be enslaved by others.

As the world waits for what comes next, countries in the Americas are girding for more moves by Trump to establish his dream country.

Colombia has summoned thousands of its military force to prevent any spillover on its 2,219-kilometre shared border with Venezuela.

Mexico and Canada are breathing hard because Trump will not stop until he is stopped. Even in Washington, the Democrats are confused in their political response. Some have accused Trump of breaking the law while others point to the fact that Maduro has had a warrant out for his arrest since 2020.

Canada’s response has been equally confusing. While the prime minister lauded the fact that Maduro is out of the picture, he did little to dissuade the president from exercising future takeover powers on Canadian soil.

Trump is exercising a power he claims derives from the Monroe Doctrine. He has renamed it the “Donroe Doctrine,” citing the authority of the United States to exercise influence throughout the Western Hemisphere based on an 1823 declaration. According to Donroe, the U.S. has the right to do pretty much anything it wants if it feels under threat in the region. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeated the “Donroe Doctrine” last weekend, stating “This is the Western Hemisphere. This is where we live—and we’re not going to allow the Western Hemisphere to be a base of operation for adversaries, competitors and rivals of the United States.”

If anything, the Maduro capture will embolden Trump when it comes to his plans for Greenland and Canada.

Realistically, if he thought he could get away with annexing both, he would.

The president has already made statements about how the United States needs Greenland for security reasons.

In this instance, we are witnessing the reality of life imitating art.

Trump has been slumping badly domestically because of challenging economic times and rising costs.

One of Canada’s greatest comedic actors, John Candy, participated in a film, Canadian Bacon, where the U.S. president convinced blue-collar workers to invade Canada.

The war strategy was designed to take attention away from woes at home. Released in 1995, the film was Candy’s last and was directed by Michael Moore, a well-known documentary filmmaker. The plot of Canadian Bacon is that the invasion led to a series of crazy encounters with polite Canadian Mounted Police and much ado about maple syrup and moose. In the case of Candy, the invasion was a comedic success.

Trump could be imitating art in this case. A successful Maduro seizure could embolden him to reach out to other areas that he would like to annex, including Greenland and Canada.

In the case of Greenland, it is getting elbows up with Denmark in an effort to protect its sovereignty while Trump is claiming that the U.S. needs to own it because of the strategic location in the North Atlantic.

As for Canada, we all know that the president has already said he would like to weaken us economically, and he is doing everything in his power to do so. He has ruled out an invasion, but if you parse Rubio’s weekend television statement, anyone who is even a competitor of the U.S. in our hemisphere is a potential target of American foreign policy attention.

Where does that put our country if the Canada-U.S.-Mexico is not renewed and we become competitors in many former areas of free trade?

No wonder Prime Minister Mark Carney has muted his comments on the Maduro takedown. We could be next.

And the only way to prevent that is to make sure that Trump’s sights are focused elsewhere and not on his neighbour to the North.

Canadian Bacon was funny. This is not.

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

Jean Chrétien belled the Alberta cat in a way that everyone can understand: ‘They never sold as much oil as they have today and they’re complaining as if they are going bankrupt?’ 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 10, 2025.

OTTAWA—Jean Chrétien spent more than 40 years in public life. Upon taking his leave, he still maintains a rabid interest in politics, and has often joked about returning to help the Liberal Party when it has been in need.

Prime Minister Mark Carney thought so much of Chrétien that he invited him to the government’s first swearing in on March 14 at Rideau Hall. At that point, Chrétien revealed a little historical gem. Carney’s father had run for the Liberals in an Edmonton riding back in the 1980 federal election.

Carney’s invitation to Chrétien was an abrupt departure from his predecessor’s government’s treatment of the former prime minister.

Justin Trudeau liked to reach out across the aisle to enlist former Conservatives like Rona Ambrose to work with cabinet on files. But his government was loathe to involve former prime ministers or former senior Liberal cabinet ministers in any policy or political development.

At one point, business leaders across the country and former prime minister Brian Mulroney reached out to Trudeau to convince him that Chrétien could negotiate a peace agreement with the Chinese after the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou in 2018.

The offer was leaked to the media before it had been accepted by the Prime Minister’s Office. Then-foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland went ahead to publicly snub Chrétien by stating that if she needed his help, she would be in touch.

Trudeau was probably worried about working too closely with his father’s generation, since Chrétien had been a minister with Pierre Trudeau, working closely on the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution and the establishment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As political offspring, younger Trudeau obviously wanted to chart his own course, but in bypassing Chrétien, his government ignored wisdom that could have helped.

Trudeau’s fight with the Chinese went on for two years. Even after the telecom executive had been freed in a deal crafted with the Americans in 2021, Canada continued to suffer the ire of a Chinese government insulted by the government’s treatment of a senior business leader.

Chrétien could easily have gotten the Canadian government out of this mess because he also had a deep personal relationship with members of the Chinese government, and that history would have resulted in a solution.

Instead, political neophytes like Freeland kept repeating the promise to uphold “law and order,” all the while doing the Americans’ dirty work.

The United States government used Canada as a stand-in, and then cut a deal with Wanzhou that made our southern neighbours look good while this country suffered.

Chrétien’s wisdom shone through again last week when he weighed in on current Canadian politics and the peculiar stance of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

His simple “I put pepper on my plate” logic applied in many areas. And as he said about Smith, she is flirting with the separatists on the one hand, while on the other hand, she wants Canada to intervene in the provincial politics of neighbouring British Columbia.

Chrétien also pulled no punches when recently referring to U.S. President Donald Trump as a leader who is posing a threat to democracy.

The former prime minister, who learned to speak English in his thirties, possesses the gift of straight talk in both official languages.

Some Quebec elites in his day criticized him because they felt his use of the French language was not sophisticated enough for their crowd. They believed his vocabulary could be subjected to ridicule.

On the contrary, people love his ability to take a complex question and boil it down to the truth.

The truth for Smith is that she is talking out of both sides of her mouth. While loosening the rules and numerical requirements for a referendum, Smith is sending a signal to her supporters that separation is positive.

She also continues to threaten separation if her government’s proposed pipeline project is not immediately endorsed by the rest of Canada. She can’t convince a private sector company to invest in the project, but, nonetheless, she keeps repeating that this is a test for the country.

Chrétien belled the Alberta cat in a way that everyone can understand: “They never sold as much oil as they have today, and they’re complaining as if they are going bankrupt?”

Chrétien always mixes wisdom with humour.

When his beloved wife Aline was alive, the former prime minister joked that she was only one stopping him from jumping back into politics.

He still weighs in periodically, and reminds all of us that to be good in politics, funny trumps nasty.

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

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

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

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre cannot pivot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.