With two provinces now publicly debating secession, it makes sense to nominate Senators who know something about politics.

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

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney has put the politics back in the Senate. And it couldn’t come a moment too soon.

With two provinces now publicly debating secession, it makes sense to nominate Senators who know something about politics.

Many experienced political people across party lines simply shook their heads when then-prime minister Justin Trudeau decided to name only “non-partisan” Senators in 2015.

That decision led him to kick Liberal Senators out of the caucus, some of whom had been heavily involved in the party for decades.

It also meant that the public process forfeited the talent of political operatives who could be very helpful in the workings of government.

Then-Liberal Senator Keith Davey—dubbed “the rainmaker” for his direction of multiple winning campaigns—headed a mass media inquiry by the Senate which stood the test of time.

Former Conservative Senator Donald Oliver served as legal counsel to his party for years, and then went on to become the first Black man named to the Senate. It was his drive that introduced the first code of conduct for Senators.

Trudeau’s non-partisan directive was designed to end criticism of the Senate, which had been plagued by spending allegations and attacks on the Sente composition by the previous government.

Then-Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper headed a party created by the merger of the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. In order to accommodate Reformers, the party dropped its progressive label and continued to support some key Reform policies, which included the creation of a triple-e, elected Senate where each province would have equal numbers of Senators.

Five Albertan Senators who had been symbolically elected have been subsequently appointed to the Senate.

But spending issues continued to create challenges for which Trudeau believed the best solution would be to appoint Senators who were well-informed in their fields and political non-partisans.

Trudeau did appoint a couple of former New Democratic politicians to the Senate, but it was a standing joke in the Liberal Party that if you were recommending anyone for the Senate, make sure they weren’t Liberals.

If you look at the composition of the Senate today, there are multiple Senators who are absolute experts in their fields of endeavour, including medicine, science, and demography. But those same Senators have very little knowledge of Canada, or how to deal with political issues that could tear the country apart.

The last referendum in Quebec led to the Clarity Act, which was a pivotal piece of legislation designed to ensure that future separation questions had to be clear and concise.

The role of the Senate historically has been to serve as the Chamber of sober second thought. The reference to sober was not a reflection on the dipsomaniacal nature of Members of Parliament. Rather, Senators were supposed to provide sober-minded reflection on legislation proposed by the House of Commons.

It could not introduce legislation of its own, a nod to the elected nature of the House of Commons. But it could return or delay legislation that it deemed bad for the country. Senators needed some political wherewithal and understanding.

That doesn’t mean that all Senators were partisans. Some of the most effective were former political assistants who ended up working as non-partisan civil servants. Names like Peter Harder spring to mind.

The point being that most Senators had some knowledge of the country and the system of governance, so they could legitimately add something to a debate on national issues like secession.

Trudeau wiped out the possibility for political participants to be involved in the Senate. In doing so, he used a hammer—instead of a flyswatter—to reform the Senate.

By naming a prominent Liberal and well-known Conservative to top the Senate as well as two nominees without political experience, Carney has beefed up the Senate in a way that will be invaluable in the face of any national crisis.

He will face some criticism from those who don’t believe in the existence of the Senate. But with the Conservative appointment, that criticism will be blunted.

It will also prompt a Quebec byelection which could open up another seat in the House for the Liberals.

At the end of the day, the Senate should include a group of elder statespersons who can offer political advice based on real-life experience.

If I were going in for major surgery, I would trust my fate to the hands of a medical doctor. The same is true in politics.

When the country’s future is at stake, go with the pros.

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

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.

This is not simply a test of construction and security issues. It is a test of whether the Canadian government actually respects history.

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

OTTAWA—U.S. President Donald Trump can tear down the White House Rose Garden to build a banquet hall with barely a peep from the American people.

Three prime ministers have not been able to move into Canada’s prime ministerial residence, and nobody can make a decision on how to fix it.

What is wrong with this picture? Presidential authority can go too far. We are currently on the brink of a global war started by the president without any support from the U.S. Congress or the majority of allies.

But a decision on the fate of 24 Sussex Dr. has been lagging for more than 15 years and the political class will not tackle it.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is not a traditional politician. Maybe he will have the guts to save the place that has been home to multiple prime ministers for more than 75 years. In making his decision, hopefully he will establish a process to ensure that no prime minister is ever faced with this Hobson’s choice again.

If Carney agrees to spend the money, he will be seen as self-serving, and simply building a home for himself. If he doesn’t spend money, Canada will be the only country in the G7 that refuses to properly house its leader.

Full disclosure: I was hired by Historic Ottawa Development Inc. to press for the preservation of the prime minister’s residence at 24 Sussex, and I lobbied the previous government on this issue. My contract with HODI ended almost a year ago.

I have no insider information, but I am hoping that Carney will finally bite the bullet and save 24 Sussex.

Previous prime ministers, including Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper, have already offered to raise money for the project.

To involve private donations would not be unprecedented. When former Conservative minister Ray Hnatyshyn became governor general, his wife Gerda was appalled at the state of the residence. Peeling wallpaper and shoddy furniture were what greeted visitors to the home of Canada’s head of state. Determined to change that, she was involved with the establishment of the Friends of Rideau Hall, whose mandate was to augment public funding for restoration work to the building and gardens of the magnificent home of the governor general.

After her husband left office, Gerda continued her philanthropic endeavours, working with the Canadian Heritage Garden Foundation to develop a heritage garden on the grounds.

Pierre Trudeau, who was a great believer in personal fitness, had a swimming pool installed on the grounds of 24 Sussex, funded by private donors. Designed by Stig Harvor, the indoor pool cost $275,000 and was paid for by donations from those who were promised anonymity. Trudeau initially wanted public funding for the site, but was convinced by advisers that would be too controversial. In the end, the anonymous donations were just as controversial, and the fundraising effort headed by Senator Keith Davey became a political albatross.

That controversy likely explains why his son, prime minister Justin Trudeau, was unwilling to make a decision on the site during his 10 years in office. His personal time at 24 Sussex must have been bittersweet, as his parents’ marriage failed during his youth at the residence.

But Carney does not have any of that personal baggage to deal with. At his one-year anniversary last week, the most notable observation was that he is a non-political politician. Perhaps his private sector experience will make a business case for the restoration of 24 Sussex as the prime minister’s home.

In the end, this is an affair of the heart. The heart of a nation that respects history and values heritage. The heart of a nation that doesn’t tear memories down, it builds them up. The heart of a nation that honours 24 Sussex as a home for all Canadians.

This is not simply a test of construction and security issues. It is a test of whether the Canadian government actually respects history.

The restoration of 24 Sussex as the national home of our prime minister is definitely the decision Carney should make.

For those who believe in sustainable living, it makes no sense to build a behemoth in Rockcliffe when we have a perfectly suitable government precinct including Rideau Hall, Rideau Cottage and 24 Sussex. The lifespan of most buildings in Europe is more than a century. In Canada, we are quick to tear things down after thirty years. Material from building demolitions and renovations is a major contributor to our landfills.

Canada would be an international laughing stock if we decided to abandon 24 Sussex for a new build.

Let’s hope our prime minister believes that the story of Canada, expressed through built heritage, is worth saving.

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

The last budget was silent on NAFC funding which is scheduled to sunset because the existing 10-year funding agreement ends in 2026

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 15, 2025.

OTTAWA—The minister of Canadian culture and identity has an almost impossible job. The idea of a monolithic Canadian culture is a challenge in itself.

Marc Miller is also responsible for official languages, minority language English support in Quebec, and French outside Quebec.

The focus on official languages overshadows support for Indigenous Peoples. When I became Canadian heritage minister in 1995, almost all funding was directed to activities promoting the languages of Shakespeare and Molière.

Indigenous applicants for cultural funding were redirected to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, even though that department had no funding for culture.

The government claimed to be supporting Canadian culture, but was really financing European-based culture.

When it came to First Nations, there was no investment in promoting Indigenous identities though books, television, film, live performances, or any other artistic medium that supported self-identity.

In the last budget, the vast majority of Indigenous funding targeted infrastructure and investment within Indigenous territories.

It is very popular these days to open every ceremony with an acknowledgement that we, as colonizers, live on the ceded or unceded territory of various First Nations. Ceded territory signifies those lands where successive governments signed treaties with First Nations. Unceded territories includes lands where a treaty on land ownership was never concluded.

The Parliament of Canada was built on Algonquin land that has not been ceded to the Crown.

Most of today’s governance policies involve engagement of Indigenous Peoples living on those territories.

But the reality is that 60 per cent of Indigenous Peoples do not live on the lands that their ancestors inhabited. They migrate to cities, and are expected to be served via the same services available to all other citizens.

The recent budget outlined more than $16-billion in funding initiatives largely focused on Indigenous territorial investments.

But it was silent on any future funding for the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC).

The last budget under then-prime minister Justin Trudeau allocated $27.5-million in 2024 to the NAFC which administers more than 100 centres in small and large communities across the country.

When you compare the friendship centre budget to the investment on Indigenous territories, the contrast is already very stark.

For the majority of Indigenous Peoples living away from their homes, friendship centres are the first places of welcome that can help in their transition.

The centres offer housing, job-search assistance, mental-health programs, and addiction support.

Most provide a much-needed medical and social service link to the outside community.

The Nov. 4 budget was silent on NAFC funding which is scheduled to sunset because the existing 10-year funding agreement ends in 2026.

Leaders from dozens of friendship centres across the country descended on Ottawa last week for a summit on their continued existence.

Speaker after speaker made the case that survival is crucial to the reconciliation process that the government has committed to.

Miller attended the event, joined by Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty. Both spoke positively in support of funding friendship centres.

If anyone understands that the key to Canadian identity is Indigenous, it’s Miller.

He is still held in high regard for his work as minister responsible for Indigenous services, and minister of Crown-Indigenous relations.

On a personal basis, Miller was the first MP in history to make a statement in the Mohawk language, studying a community-based program developed by the Six Nations of the Grand River near Brantford, Ont.

Miller recently faced some criticism for his reaction to a question on the decline of French-language speakers in Quebec. Miller said he was “fed up” with the language debate, raising the ire of Quebec Premier François Legault, who called him a “disgrace.”

Miller’s exasperation stemmed from the fact that language is constantly used by politicians as a political weapon.

He won’t face that issue with Indigenous Peoples. But he will be challenged to put his historic support for them to the test by returning full funding to friendship centres from coast to coast to coast.

Meanwhile, centres are scrambling because they literally do not know what will happen in three months.

The NAFC’s interim CEO advised the government that March 31, 2026, layoffs are being contemplated because that is when budget certainty ends.

Deputy minister of Indigenous Services, Algonquin Gina Wilson, has confirmed that funding will be renewed, but no one knows by how much and when.

Millions of Indigenous Peoples are hoping Miller and Gull-Masty will deliver more than a lump of coal this Christmas.

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

The prime minister’s refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy did not get him a single vote. Nor did the abolition of an ambassadorship. But women are taking notice.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 8, 2025.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney was elected this past April thanks to an estrogen wave.

That was what a key female Liberal organizer had to say about his victory. She said that wherever she travelled, knocking on doors for the Grits, women had confidence in him, and they were the ones reversing the Liberal electoral fate.

Only a few months ago, Liberals were expecting to hold their next Christmas party in a phone booth. Instead, the party is flooded with requests from people who want to join the winning team in this seasonal celebration.

All has been going well. But there are some clouds on the horizon that the leader should be taking seriously.

Words matter—especially when you are in politics. A single comment can be parsed to death.

How many articles were written when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1997 downplayed the police use of pepper spray during a protest against a G20 meeting in British Columbia?

“For me, pepper, I put it on my plate,” was Chrétien’s comical way of minimizing the confrontation.

More recently, Prime Minister Mark Carney declined to characterize Canada’s foreign policy as “feminist” during a press conference following the recent G20 summit in South Africa.

Some saw this as wordsmithing.

Others saw it as a pivot away from the Justin Trudeau government’s 2017 Feminist International Assistance Policy, intended to focus on foreign aid that supports women’s empowerment and gender equality.

The policy was a rebuttal of the previous Stephen Harper Conservative government, which instructed officials to remove gender-based analysis from all cabinet documents.

Carney’s international admission that Canada’s feminist foreign policy was dead has sent ripples throughout the domestic foreign aid community.

Last week, a group of 92 organizations headed by Oxfam addressed an open letter to the prime minister, complaining of foreign aid cuts, and confusion around gender equality.

The organization also called for the re-establishment of an ambassador for women, peace, and security, a post that was folded into the foreign affairs department last March.

Most of us have probably never heard of this envoy, but according to Global Affairs Minister Anita Anand, Jacqueline O’Neill will continue to advocate in that area, sans official ambassadorial designation.

Carney’s statement in South Africa reinforced his initial cabinet decision to eliminate the department of Women and Gender Equality, arguing it could responsibly be included in the ministry for culture and identity.

That faux pas was reversed two months later because of the political backlash it caused.

Similar opposition is quietly brewing internally on feminist foreign policy issues.

A group of senior Liberal women, united on social media, have made it very clear they would be lobbying colleagues at the Christmas party next week.

There is also work within the Liberal women’s caucus, headed by Quebec MP Linda Lapointe, to have the issue referred to the main caucus.

The women’s caucus was crucial in getting Carney to reverse his position and reinstate WAGE as a full ministry.

The open letter from many groups that work internationally on women’s issues will definitely have some effect, but the angst of Liberal women will be even more crucial.

Carney probably thought his rebuttal of a feminist foreign policy would be understood.

He said he wanted gender equality to be a part of the government’s funding mechanisms.

But his focus on defence spending and identifying major projects for national funding means the majority of mega-financing will be focused on men’s jobs.

Like it or not, fewer than 20 per cent of the jobs in the energy sector go to women.

Less than 20 per cent of the Canadian military is also made up of women, and similar numbers apply to defence industries supplying the military.

If only one in five of the big jobs created goes to women, it will be felt in our employment numbers.

More importantly, Carney’s election to the top job was largely dependent on the women’s vote. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was able to secure support from young and middle-aged men in numbers big enough to form government.

But it was women who made sure that Carney got the nod.

No wave lasts forever. An estrogen wave is just as vulnerable to destruction as any other wave.

But surely the loss of support from women should not be based on misspoken messages.

Carney’s refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy did not get him a single vote. Nor did the abolition of an ambassadorship. But women are taking notice.

The prime minister needs estrogen to win. A feminist agenda reset is in order.

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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 19, 2025.

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre’s people say they want him to soften his edges.

It doesn’t seem like he is listening.

In his press conference following the appointment of the new cabinet last week, Poilievre said a few nice words in the beginning, but then he could not refrain from individually attacking almost everything about the new Liberal cabinet.

His attacks were all very personal. He went so far as to accuse new Justice Minister Sean Fraser of being responsible for the housing crisis.

Poilievre despises Chrystia Freeland, and was positively vitriolic when referencing her contributions to the previous government.

Poilievre still hasn’t figured out that the best way to succeed in politics is to be hard on issues and soft on people.

He needs to understand why women, in particular, do not support him.

His style of politics—using nasty, personal vitriol mixed in with simple sloganeering—does not sit well with women.

Some men like the vitriol. They are up for a good fight. Poilievre got a roar from the crowd when his presence was announced at the Montreal Ultimate Fighting Championship last week.

But the crowd was mostly the same group who are already part of his core voting supporters. If he wants to grow, he has to reach out beyond them and try for the softer side.

The audience at the Bell Centre was mostly young men, and even though there was a women’s bout, not many were visible in the audience.

Why? Because most women don’t like fighting. And the nasty personal nature of the Poilievre attacks during the election did not win him many female supporters.

Some might argue I am being too harsh. When former prime minister Justin Trudeau participated in a boxing match, his victory was hailed as a political stroke of genius. But Trudeau was trying to reverse his image as a softy drama teacher. When he did manage to beat down Senator Patrick Brazeau, everyone was shocked at how easily it happened.

Then he moved on.

In Poilievre’s case, he seems stuck in fighting mode, even when the times dictate a change in tone.

Canadians awarded a near-majority mandate to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s team, and, like it or not, Poilievre is going to have to at least pretend that he wants to work with the government.

Instead, conspiracy theories about how he lost his seat are being used as fundraising tools for his party.

Contrary to the rumour mill, the redistribution that happens every decade is carried out by the non-partisan Federal Election Boundaries Commission. The chair of the commission in each province is named by the chief justice of each province, and other members are named by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is also chosen by an all-party vote.

Poilievre actually gained more Conservatives in his new riding after redistribution.

But he lost by more than 4,000 votes because people were upset about how he backed the anti-vaxxer occupiers who took over the streets of Ottawa for almost a month in 2022.

Poilievre picked his side, bringing donuts and coffee to people who blasted truck horns 24 hours a day in residential communities. As for his constituents, they were on the other side.

And his Liberal opponent Bruce Fanjoy spent two years knocking on every door in the riding.

Now Poilievre is being shuffled off to Alberta to run in what is arguably one of the safest Conservative seats in the country.

He will be confronted with separatists who have already begun their campaign to take Alberta out of the country. Premier Danielle Smith has loosened the rules to get a referendum on the ballot by lowering the threshold and allowing businesses to fund referenda efforts.

Not sure why a business should have a say in a vote on the future of the country, but Smith has admitted publicly the changes were allowed in an effort to keep her United Conservative Party from splitting into two factions, and opening the door to the election of Alberta New Democratic Party Leader Naheed Nenshi.

Poilievre will not be able to avoid that fight, and the whole country will be watching him.

If he does plan to win the next election, Poilievre needs to focus on the real fight ahead.

The country is in a tariff war with United States President Donald Trump, and we need all hands deck to save Canadian jobs and industries. If he insists on continuing the election fight against the Liberals, Poilievre is never going to increase his base or get women back.

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.

United States President Donald Trump has been able to turn most of the world against him, but his unfair tariff war against Canada will also bring some positive changes to Canadian public policy.

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

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is going out on a high.

So much so that some believe he will remain prime minister until a quick election makes a decision on future leadership.

The thinking behind this new political twist is that Trudeau would be able to fight the tariff war internationally while the new Liberal leader would focus on fighting the opposition in a Canada-wide campaign.

That decision will be up to the winner.

United States President Donald Trump has been able to turn most of the world against him, but his unfair tariff war against our country will also bring some positive changes to Canadian public policy.

Canadians are united in their resolve to fight what Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly characterizes as an existential threat.

Former Alberta United Conservative Party leader Jason Kenney has come out gangbusters, lauding Canada’s decision to fight American tariffs with all possible tools at our disposal.

His social media message was an indirect hit at current UCP leader Danielle Smith, the only domestic leader who has been publicly undermining the Canadian tariff response strategy.

Only minutes after Trump announced illegal 25-per-cent tariffs on almost everything, and a 10-per-cent tariff on energy, Smith undercut the feds by announcing on an American media outlet that she would not retaliate with her tariffs on oil and gas.

Any good negotiator would never make such an admission on Fox News in a foreign country without having a discussion with Canadian partners. Smith obviously doesn’t have much concern for industries other than Alberta’s petroleum producers. Her official response is that she is onside with the prime minister and other premiers, but her actions say otherwise. Like Trump, she is an untrustworthy ally.

Compare Smith’s response to that of re-elected Progressive Conservative Ontario Premier Doug Ford. He is threatening to cut off electrical exports, and has cancelled the $100-million Starlink satellite deal with Elon Musk’s company.

Ford’s aggressive response caught Washington’s attention, as well, so much so that he received a call from American tariff designer, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Lutnick tried to convince Ford that Canada should enter into negotiations to lower the illegal tariffs.

Ford pushed back and insisted that the only negotiation was to end the tariffs totally.

United against the tariff war—possibly minus Premier Smith—Canadians have also seen this fight for our sovereignty spread to Quebec.

For the first time, the premier of Quebec is on the same page as the rest of the country. For the first time, the fight for sovereignty is not aimed at Ottawa, but at Washington, D.C.

Josh Morgan, mayor of London, Ont., and chair of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities big city mayors’ caucus, is calling for municipalities to change procurement rules to encourage “Buy Non-American” purchases. Morgan says the 25-per-cent tariffs have forced municipalities to move away from American purchasing where possible.

That means sourcing Canadian or international replacements for anything that municipalities, hospitals, schools, and other public institutions purchase.

A “Buy Canadian” strategy embraced by municipalities across the country could be huge. Provincial and federal institutions need to follow suit, including Crown corporations.

The federal government is the largest property owner and purchaser in the nation, and a shift in procurement policy to buy Canadian could rejuvenate businesses hit by Trump’s economic attack.

Quebecers are motivated because they also know that if Trump’s annexation threat were to come true, he would quickly squash the French language in public policy.

The idea that a country is founded on two official languages is an anathema to Trump’s vision of a white, anti-diversity population.

The president’s new slogan is “Make America Rich Again,” but the stock market reaction to his tariffs doesn’t match his rhetoric.

Fox News carried an analysis of the tariffication on trucks, saying it would boost the cost of a Dodge Ram truck from $80,000 to $100,000.

One dealer in Pennsylvania told Fox News that a truck purchase cancellation has already occurred because of the price hike.

House prices in the U.S. are expected to jump 10 per cent, and Republicans—facing trouble in their districts with lost Canadian booze and orange juice sales—are starting to knock on the president’s door.

Trump’s tariff war has woken up his base at home. When the market for bourbon and trucks is facing a crisis, you know the president will have to act.

An offer to negotiate his illegal tariffs should be a non-starter for Canada.

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

Karina Gould is a force to be reckoned with. If Liberal voters actually want a future that will reflect the best elements of the Trudeau era, they should vote Gould, writes Sheila Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 3, 2025.

OTTAWA—Karina Gould, who I endorse for leader, blew everyone out of the water in the English Liberal leadership debate last week.

In her own words, repeatedly, she is not Conservative light.

Why is that important? Because contrary to the media crowning of Mark Carney, this is actually a race for the hearts and minds of Liberals.

Many Liberals are extremely happy with the legacy left by the team of outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The list of accomplishments is long. Trudeau will be viewed as the most progressive prime minister in my lifetime.

Universal childcare, school food programs, dental care, reconciliation, educational parity for Indigenous children, real action on climate change, hiking seniors’ benefits, managing a pandemic with amongst the lowest death rates in the G7, heavy investments in mass transit as part of the fight against global warming, taking the lead in housing for the first time in 30 years, signing a health agreement that will force provinces finally to share critical data, the first ever gender-equal cabinet—I could go on, but you get my point.

For Liberals who believe that public life is a chance to do something for the betterment of all, Trudeau’s record has proven it in spades.

Of course, he was unpopular in the end, and his decision to leave was the right one. Anyone who has studied politics knows that three terms is the maximum in the modern age as politics is the only profession where the more experience you get the more people want to get rid of you. The only governments that extend beyond that are dictatorships where public money is spent to massage the image of the leader, and opponents are either jailed or murdered.

In that context, don’t be surprised to see a move to end the two-term limit imposed on American presidents. At the latest meeting of Conservative zealots in the United States, President Donald Trump’s pardoned friend Steve Bannon gave a speech promoting presidency for life status for Trump which ended in a Nazi salute.

Given the U.S. vote at the United Nations, refusing to condemn Russia for the illegal invasion of Ukraine, anything can happen.

Much of the two Liberal debates in French and English focussed on how to fight Trump, and the stormy seas ahead under his watch.

Chrystia Freeland positioned herself as the Trump-beater, and given that the American president has personally singled her out when attacking Canada, she has the credibility to back up that claim.

But this election is not just about Trump.

Carney has made it clear that he wants to move the party to the right, and he took some swings at the current government for too much spending.

That approach will definitely appeal to Conservatives who can’t support Pierre Poilievre’s “broken” vision of Canada.

But for Liberals to win the next election, they will need to draw the majority of their support from liberally minded New Democrats.

Recent polls focusing on the post-Trudeau Liberal surge have confirmed that the majority of the shift is coming from left-wing voters who are returning to the Liberals.

If they think the party has a Conservative-light leader, the door will open for Jagmeet Singh to reassert himself in the same way that Jack Layton did during the Orange Crush that almost brought the New Democrats to government.

So the election of a Liberal leader who is focused on moving to the right may not be the best bet for the party.

By all accounts, Gould was the clear debate winner in English, and had the greatest of ease in French.

It was obvious to all that Carney needs work in that department, and Freeland is also not as convincing in French.

By articulating a clear difference with Carney, Gould has managed to vault herself into a fray which previously included only the two so-called front-runners.

Gould is a force to be reckoned with. If Liberal voters actually want a future that will reflect the best elements of the Trudeau era, they should vote Gould.

That includes support for the carbon rebate, which was destroyed by Poilievre’s sloganeering.

Trudeau refused to spend any government money explaining what the program involved because early in his first term, he opted out of advertising. That was a dumb mistake which cost the Liberals dearly.

But the program itself is sound, and the fact that Gould defended it as vociferously as she did—while all others were running away—is another point in her favour.

She is a truly liberal Liberal.

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