The internal bickering has increased over the summer, but the reality is there is very little chance of ousting Pierre Poilievre unless the caucus decides to turn on him.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 3, 2026.

OTTAWA—Polls are for dogs.

That famous phrase was originally coined by then-prime minister John Diefenbaker when he was questioned about lagging personal popularity.

Diefenbaker was originally elected with the largest majority in the history of Canadian politics. In 1958, the Progressive Conservative Party swept to power under his leadership with 208 out of 265 seats.

That remained the largest majority in Canadian history until 1984, when prime minister Brian Mulroney secured 211 seats out of 282 seats. Diefenbaker was also the only Tory leader to form government between 1935 and 1979.

But after securing the first majority, he managed only minority governments in two subsequent elections after which his own party turned their guns inward. The Conservatives subsequently secured his resignation at a leadership convention including Diefenbaker. He received a humiliating rebuff by members of his own party, coming in fifth in a vote that selected Robert Stanfield as leader.

Diefenbaker’s famous phrase is used by politicians when they are facing popularity issues with the public. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has used the phrase recently.

With the polling numbers presented to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre this week, he may want to repeat the phrase. But the leadership convention held by his own party last January gave Poilievre an overwhelming mandate.

The public has been less kind. In the Nanos monthly poll released on July 29, Poilievre is literally slipping into the teens when it comes to the number of Canadians who want him as prime minister. Only 18.2 per cent want him, while 54 per cent favour current Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carney’s personal popularity is pulling the Liberals up while Poilievre is dragging his party down. Liberal popular vote stands at 44.7 per cent while Conservative support stands at 29.5 per cent.

The Conservative base is solid at almost 30 per cent, but the other problem the party is facing is the inefficient distribution of its vote. With overwhelming support in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the party needs a lot more than 30 per cent to win an election. The last time the Conservatives outstripped the Liberals in popular vote was during the 2021 race between then-leaders Erin O’Toole and Justin Trudeau.

O’Toole’s 34.1 per cent of the popular vote managed to secure 121 seats while Trudeau’s 31.8 secured 156 seats. The gap between popular vote and electoral success is much wider for the Conservatives, so the dip below 30 per cent must concern Conservative supporters.

The internal bickering has increased over the summer, but the reality is there is very little chance of ousting Poilievre unless the caucus decides to turn on him.

Unlike all other federal parties, the Conservatives have agreed to an internal mechanism which allows a caucus majority to get rid of the leader without a party vote. The Reform Act triggers a secret caucus vote when a majority of members have signed a resignation demand letter.

It is a similar process to that in the United Kingdom which seems to go through leaders like toilet paper. The country has lived under six prime ministers during the last decade. During the same period, Canada had one.

Internal party pressure forced five of them to resign while David Cameron, the author of the Brexit fiasco, quit when the country decided to leave the European Union.

In Poilievre’s case, he has a better chance of keeping the caucus onside because, unlike O’Toole, he is politically aligned with the large majority of pro-convoy, pro-Trump backers.

In O’Toole’s case, he was too liberal for many in the caucus. But it was that centrist approach that could have helped the Conservatives form government by attracting the rest of the population.

Poilievre still has the caucus but, if current numbers hold, his path to prime minister is fraught with problems.

Carney has called three byelections for the end of August. The outcome of those elections may well be a trigger for tiring Tories to pull the plug on Poilievre.

The Conservative Party currently held one of the three seats, in Quebec. But that MP quit to join the Senate. If the numbers in this byelection are as bad as some are predicting, concern will be building in the caucus in areas where a comfortable Tory majority doesn’t exist.

If the Ontario and Quebec byelections go big for Carney, it could be a catalyst for Tory leadership change.

Some Liberals are secretly hoping that does not happen as Poilievre’s national unpopularity is working in their favour.

On the Tory side, the leader must keep going. But the adage, “Polls are for dogs” has some people barking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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