It seems like every press conference is similar to a hot mic stream of consciousness. In a presser on the American-Iranian ceasefire, Trump bragged that he personally dropped all the bombs that led to an Iranian capitulation, claiming credit for ‘kicking Iran’s ass.’

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 22, 2026.

OTTAWA—The hot mics in France last week were not that hot.

What they showed was our prime minister making best use of his time to convince United States President Donald Trump to sign onto the trilateral trade agreement set to expire July 1.

A real hot mic usually involves scandal. Someone says something that puts someone else in a bad light, and heads roll.

Perhaps one of the most famous was a hot mic incident at a NATO meeting in Prague in 2002, where the prime minister’s communications director Françoise Ducros was overheard calling then-U.S. president George W. Bush “a moron.”

Journalist Bob Fife heard the remark and immediately reported it. All hell broke loose. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to fire Ducros, and simply repeated that he was good friends with the president and did not think he was a moron.

But the pressure was too great and Ducros eventually offered her resignation, saying it was impossible for her to do her job because of the controversy.

Another “hot mic” story wasn’t exactly a hot mic. It was a hot seat on an Air Canada flight between Ottawa and New Brunswick in 1998. Then solicitor-general Andy Scott was chatting with his seatmate about the circumstances surrounding the use of police pepper spray on protesters at a meeting of the leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.

Canada hosted the 1997 meeting, and Chrétien defended the use of pepper spray with the famous comment, “For me, I put it (pepper) on my plate.”

A public inquiry was held the following year into the whole affair, but during the infamous plane ride, the solicitor-general told his seat-mate that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would take the fall for the spray.

Little did Scott know that New Democratic Party MP Dick Proctor, a former sports reporter, was sitting right near him, and transcribing the whole conversation.

When the contents were released in the House of Commons, Scott was forced to resign from his post. After his resignation, whenever I was in conversation with someone in a public place, and voices got louder, I would simply make a plea for silence by saying ‘A.S.’ That immediately reduced the volume on any discussion.

The third, relatively famous hot mike conversation was again, not on a mic.

Instead, a former Conservative minister in the government of Stephen Harper accidently left a tape recorder in the office of a radio station which ended up hitting the national news. As natural resources minister, Lisa Raitt was responsible for the production of nuclear isotopes at the government lab in Chalk River, Ont. At the time, there were radioactive leaks at the lab, for which Raitt believed she had a solution.

In the tape, she claimed it was a good issue because “it’s sexy … radioactive leaks. Cancer,” and she said she would score political credit for fixing it.

When the recording was exposed, a tearful Raitt offered her resignation, but it was turned down by the prime minister. Instead, she was demoted in the next cabinet shuffle.

A more recent Canadian hot mic incident was experienced by then-prime minister Justin Trudeau during a NATO anniversary celebration at Buckingham Palace.

In a conversation with several leaders, including Britain’s Boris Johnson, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte and Princess Anne, Trudeau generated a chuckle when he commented on why Trump was late to the celebration, saying, “He was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference off the top. … You just watched his team’s jaws drop to the floor.”

Trump countered with his own hot mic experience. After publicly calling Trudeau “two-faced,” he went on to privately say this own attack on Trudeau was funny.

These days, Trump doesn’t need a hot mic. It seems like every press conference is similar to a hot mic stream of consciousness. In a presser on the American-Iranian ceasefire, Trump bragged that he personally dropped all the bombs that led to an Iranian capitulation, claiming credit for “kicking Iran’s ass.”

Trump has repeatedly promised that the United States would never sign an agreement to send money to rebuild Iran, but the agreement calls for a $300-billion reparation package for reconstruction.

Trump claims nothing will come from the American public purse, but he said the same thing about the construction of the White House ballroom.

The Washington Post reported last week that approximately half of the $600-million in contractors’ invoices would be paid by the public. Private donors would cover the balance.

Trump doesn’t need a hot mic to expose his own contradictions.

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

Current polling shows Prime Minister Mark Carney wins on global leadership. But support for the Conservatives remains strong on domestic issues. And at the end of the day, Canadians usually vote on pocketbook issues.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 4, 2026.

OTTAWA—Former prime minister John Diefenbaker would often claim: “Polls are for dogs.”

In his first election, in 1957, Dief the Chief was elected in a minority government, but his second election in 1958 resulted in the largest Progressive Conservative majority in the history of Canada. Winning 208 of 265 seats, Dief’s record was unparalleled to this day.

Even during the Brian Mulroney sweep of 1984, the percentage in seat numbers could not rival that of Diefenbaker.

So why was Dief so disdainful of polls?

Diefenbaker personally experienced the fragility of political popularity. He went from being wildly popular in the 1958 sweep to being drummed out of the leadership at a bitter national convention only nine years later.

Diefenbaker learned the hard way that polls can be as fickle as the Canadian voter.

The polling numbers tracking Prime Minister Mark Carney today are eerily similar to those of a popular Dief.

With a first minority election under his belt, one year later, Carney could arguably be swept to a large majority if a general election were held today.

Instead, the Liberals’ new majority means that the prime minister will have three more years to build the “Canada Strong” theme that he has promoted in his first year of office.

Polling numbers greatly favour Carney when viewed in comparison to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

In the Nanos poll published last week, overall support for the Liberals stood at 45 per cent with Conservatives polled at 32 per cent.

When it comes to personal popularity, Carney outstrips Poilievre by 22 per cent.

Carney is also ahead of Poilievre in every demographic except that of younger men between the ages of 35 and 54. In that group, Poilievre enjoys a three per cent advantage at 45 per cent favourability.

Despite politicians’ claim that they don’t watch the polls, most do. There are a few reasons why the prime minister should take note of those numbers.

The group that Poilievre manages to win over is the group most closely aligned with issues Canadians are concerned about.

Canadians’ biggest concern these days is job jitters, and that is a shift from previous Nanos numbers which identified the Trump factor as No. 1.

Both are interrelated. Obviously, concerns about Canadian jobs stem from the decision by American president Donald Trump to close off northern borders and threaten key Canadian industries with punishing tariffs.

Carney’s economic announcement of more than $6-billion in skilled trades and apprenticeships last week will definitely seek to assuage job concerns.

Not coincidentally, the target group of weaker support for Carney, those younger men, will also benefit from the combination of mega-project investment and skilled-trade opportunities.

Like Poilievre, Carney has been pretty good at sloganeering. The promotion of a “Team Canada Strong” serves a dual purpose. It connotes strength in the national government, and addresses the simmering separation questions that will be coming to the fore in an upcoming Alberta referendum.

Unlike Poilievre, Carney’s personal popularity has not yet taken a hit. In another Angus Reid poll last week, 30 per cent of past Conservative voters want to replace Poilievre.

His caucus has been publicly supportive with recent sorties of support from Members of Parliament. But that could change quickly if his party rejects him. While 60 per cent of Canadians have a negative view of Poilievre, 57 per cent of Tories think he should stay on as leader.

But dissident numbers rose from 18 per cent last August to 30 per cent in April. If that trend continues, Poilievre could see his own job at risk.

If Poilievre were no longer the Conservative leader, numbers for Carney would definitely be affected.

Current polling shows Carney wins on international leadership. But support for the Conservatives remains strong on domestic issues.

And, at the end of the day, Canadians usually vote on pocketbook issues.

Perhaps the most relevant number in the Nanos polling is the move away from concern about Trumpian international uncertainty to worries about personal pocketbook issues.

Poilievre scores well when it comes to which leader is most focused on these issues.

If the Tories own the affordability question, and they decide to replace Poilievre with another leader, the halo currently worn by Carney could definitely be tarnished.

The deep dive into polling numbers is being done by all politicians, especially those who say they don’t care about polls.

Carney’s need to work on his standing with younger men has already been acknowledged. Expect more Liberal news on affordability and jobs to come.

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

In a post-Trump political scenario, Mark Carney will need to build his bona fides on the left. Liberal Marilyn Gladu will make that harder.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 20, 2026.

OTTAWA—Marilyn Gladu’s gift to the Liberal Party may turn out to be a Trojan horse.

It moved the dial one seat closer to a majority for the government, but the crossover was not essential to the equation.

Four previous floor-crossers over the past several months did not evoke the privately negative response of some Liberals in the way that Gladu’s did earlier this month.

Previous floor-crossers were on the moderate side of their parties, so the only controversy was floor-crossing itself.

When floor-crossers are moving in the wrong direction, the political party experiencing divorce is vocal in its demand to outlaw the practice.

But when the parliamentarians are choosing to join a party, most are welcomed with open arms.

Such was not the case with Gladu.

Liberal circles were abuzz with questions about whether the Sarnia-Lambton-Bkejwanong MP’s arrival was a good thing or a bad thing for the party.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is riding a political high. Some of his support is coming from former Conservatives who like his economic prowess and international experience.

By watering down the Liberals’ perceived environmental agenda, Carney has less fulsome praise from those on the party’s left.

And with Gladu now on Team Liberal, the New Democrats were quick to trot her out as the reason why the government cannot be trusted on issues of social justice and equality.

NDP Leader Avi Lewis attacked the coherence of the Liberals for accepting her. “She ran for the leadership of the Conservative party six years ago on an anti-abortion platform, opposing conversion therapy, a stance many viewed as blatantly homophobic,” he told a media scrum.

Pro-conversion therapy and opposition to abortion were two major planks in her platform when she ran in the Conservative leadership against Pierre Poilievre.

But while some Liberals may have been quietly raising their eyebrows, the prime minister was quick to point out that Gladu promised to support the government on major social questions.

His team was successfully spinning the notion that this floor-crossing was an example of “big-tent politics” hearkening back to the days of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien when there was a significant Liberal caucus rump opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

But that was then, and this is now.

The abortion question was settled in a court judgment almost 40 years ago. And the degree of unanimity on gay rights today is literally a complete sea change from that time.

Gladu would have been happily welcomed into the Liberal government in 1993 because she would join at least a dozen members who shared her viewpoint.

Such is not the case today, so she is going to be a very lonely soldier.

Carney focused on Gladu’s business experience as an engineer when he introduced her as the newest Liberal caucus member.

If she is put to work on projects that can use her economic skills, that may be enough to keep her happy.

But if she is not happy, that can come with its own challenges.

Now that the Liberals have secured a majority government, it will be much more difficult to exercise caucus discipline and keep everyone singing from the same hymnbook.

The prime minister’s popularity was underscored with the size of his byelection victory in Terrebonne, Que., on April 13. Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet visited the BQ stronghold nine times during the campaign, but was not able to defeat the triple crown Grit juggernaut that ushered three new women into Parliament last week.

That popularity will continue at least until the American midterms when the presidential threat may be neutered.

Without Donald Trump as a foil, Carney will have to deliver on the economic U-turn that he is attempting to orchestrate away from dependence on America.

If Carney’s popularity wanes, he will need a strong left wing to carry him over into the next election.

At the moment, he doesn’t need anybody. His own vision and unique, apolitical charm are doing it for him.

But when the tide turns, he will need to strengthen both wings of the party.

Proportional representation was a popular item with some on the left. That was killed at the convention.

Former cabinet minister and fellow leadership candidate Karina Gould was excluded from Carney’s first cabinet. That should change. At the convention, Gould once again proved what an able communicator she is.

If Liberals want a winning team, Gladu should not be front and centre.

In a post-Trump political scenario, Carney will need to build his bona fides on the left.

Liberal Gladu will make that harder.

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 complains that allies did not join America in the fight, but neglects to mention that he launched the war without involving any other country except Israel.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 13, 2026.

OTTAWA—Easter is supposed to be the holiest day on the Christian calendar.

It is the day when the Son of God rises from the dead in an effort to free all men from sin, and open the doors to the gates of Heaven.

United States President Donald Trump secured his presidential victory by enlisting religious leaders and their congregations with his promise to stack their Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges, and to ensure that his political team would promote Christian principles.

So it was a little hard to swallow Trump’s Easter Sunday, profanity-laced message of “Praise be to Allah,” and a vow to eradicate the Iranian civilization.

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

The post on his social media outlet prompted a swift reaction from some unusual corners.

Tucker Carlson, a conservative pundit and Trump supporter, called the post “vile on every level.” In a Carlson podcast, he retorted “How dare you speak that way on Easter morning to the country? Who do you think you are? You’re tweeting out the f-word on Easter morning.”

Carlson also accused Trump of mocking the religion of Islam, stating, “no decent person mocks other peoples’ religion. You may have a problem with the theology …but to mock another person’s faith is to mock the idea of faith itself.”

Carlson has joined a growing group of former Trump supporters who are unhappy with the president’s decision to launch military attacks across the Middle East.

Many MAGA supporters were attracted by Trump’s claim that the U.S. did not have to be involved in world conflict. In fact, he promised he would focus on home-grown issues like the economy.

Instead, gas prices have been rising globally throughout the war that Trump started, and the American economy is suffering from tariff-based supply-chain problems and increasing energy costs.

His personal popularity is now lower than at any point in the administration of then-president Joe Biden.

And with the November mid-term elections looming, the president is obviously feeling the heat.

His Easter ‘f**k’ tweet was one of 70 that he apparently posted that day. You wonder who can actually stop him? It appears that he won’t follow the advice of anyone he doesn’t agree with.

Just last week, the U.S. Army chief of staff leading the war effort mysteriously retired.

The New York Times subsequently reported that the reason for Gen. Randy George’s departure was that he refused a request from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to delete two women and two black officers from a promotion list.

Hegseth fired two other officers on the same day, and the retirement notice posted by remaining military personnel was clearly aimed at backing their military leadership and not their political masters.

“Since 1988, General George and his family have consistently answered the nation’s call with honour and dedication. We are profoundly thankful to General George and his wife, Patty, for their many years of sacrifice and devotion to those who serve. As they graduate from this distinguished chapter of service and look toward the future, we wish them both continued happiness and success in all that lies ahead.”

That statement was widely interpreted as a major show of support for the ousted general, and a slap in the face to Hegseth and his political boss.

Meanwhile, the date and time of the hellfire that was supposed to be visited on Iran keeps changing.

While Trump was announcing a ceasefire, Iran was striking Kuwait and Israel was attacking Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon.

Oil prices plunged and stock markets rose upon word of the ceasefire, but as details fail to be confirmed, global uncertainty continues.

Trump’s press secretary confirmed the possibility that the U.S. could leave NATO. When referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “They were tested. And they failed,” was Karoline Leavitt’s direct quote from the president.

Trump continues to complain that allies did not join America in the fight, but neglects to mention that he launched the war without involving any other country except Israel.

He also keeps saying that the U.S. has achieved the regime change it was seeking.

On the Iranian side, there is no evidence of such. Some believe the Iranian position has actually been strengthened as a result of Trump’s war.

The Strait of Hormuz now appears to be within their military and financial control, and that is a definite gain.

Trump has to craft a winning storyline to support his exit. The damage inflicted by the war is simply too harmful to Republicans. The November reckoning awaits.

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

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.