There is a record number of 53 MPs from minority backgrounds in the Commons, representing 15.7 per cent of the total number of seats. That percentage is still below the 26.3 percentage of visible minorities in the general population. But the increase in the last election was outstanding.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 11, 2026.

OTTAWA —May is Asian Heritage Month in Canada. And in a speech last Tuesday to a diverse audience at the National Gallery of Canada, Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller revealed a surprising number.

He celebrated the reality that one in five Canadians is of Asian background. The country is aware of a large Asian presence in the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Vancouver.

But our diversity has spread across the country.

What was exciting at the gallery celebration was the presence of more than two dozen MPs and Senators who hail from Asian background.

They join dozens of other MPs who are defined as visible minorities.

In the current Parliament, there is a record number of 53 MPs from minority backgrounds, representing 15.7 per cent of the total number of seats.

That percentage is still below the 26.3 percentage of visible minorities in the general population.

But the increase in the last election was outstanding.

Almost 10 per cent of the House of Commons is comprised of South Asian members who occupy 31 seats.

The number of visible minorities has increased in every one of the last four elections, so equivalency should be happening soon.

Compare that figure to the number of Asian Americans serving in their Congress. At this time, only 24 Congresspeople self-identify as Asian, representing 4.4 per cent of the House of Representatives. The Asian presence in the United States figures in at only 6.7 per cent.

The first Canadian breakthrough in diverse parliamentarian elections occurred in 1993 when 13 minority MPs were elected.

According to a paper published by retired McGill professor Jerome H. Black, “this was the first time that more than a handful of such individuals had found their way into Parliament and thus, constitutes significant early development in the racial diversification of the legislature.”

That breakthrough did not happen by accident. The Liberal Party won a majority government that year, and part of its pre-election strategy for recruiting candidates was to establish a 25-per-cent minimum nomination of women and minorities.

That strategy continued while the Liberals in government.

The establishment of Asian Heritage Month was carried out by an official declaration of the government. At the time, then-Senator Vivienne Poy and I worked together on the subject. She introduced a private member’s bill into the Senate in the fall of 2001, and I issued an official government declaration the following February, setting the stage for the first celebration of May 2002.

We used the same strategy to introduce Black History Month in 1995. Parliament’s first Black woman, Jean Augustine, introduced the resolution in the House that was subsequently adopted as official government policy under the leadership of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The decision to adopt an inclusive nomination process was also reflected in other government policies.

In 1999, as minister, I issued a directive to the CRTC demanding a rewrite of television and radio licensing renewal guidelines to require applicants to hire women, minorities, and Indigenous Peoples.

Funding guidelines were also modified for all 15 Crown corporations under the authority of the minister of Canadian Heritage. This group included the CBC and Parks Canada.

The directive ensured that every organization develop a plan to increase the hiring of women and minorities. In the case of Parks Canada, their action plan resulted in an immediate 17-per-cent hike in the hiring of Indigenous employees.

The government also announced the first-ever National Aboriginal Day under the leadership of Ron Irwin, then-minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We also established National Multicultural Day.

Both days of recognition were included in the celebrations of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and Canada Day.

The first Asian Heritage month celebration involved coffee and cookies in one of the parliamentary reception rooms with a few dozen representatives.

Last week, it was standing-room only, and the theatre at the National Gallery was filled with hundreds of participants.

Most important were the numbers of parliamentarians who joined the minister in the presentations. The face of the country is changing, and the face of government is—thankfully—changing along with it.

From Liberal MPs Chi Nguyen to Jean Yip, from Rechie Valdez, to Fares Al Soud, the presenters were dynamic, bright and bilingual. Each had their own story, sharing their family struggles of immigrating to a new country.

Each also has experienced unique struggles in securing nominations or electoral success.

They are the new faces of Canada.

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.

If an election were held today, there is little doubt that the Liberals would easily be rewarded with a majority. But uncertainty in international affairs, including the war against Iran and trade agreement confusion, could make that support short lived.

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

OTTAWA—Another floor-crosser made the Liberals’ day.

Not only does Lori Idlout take them that much closer to a majority government, but it also reinforces the fact that Prime Minister Mark Carney is receiving support from across the broad political spectrum.

Until last week, only the more progressive Conservatives had made the move to cross the floor. In the case of Acadie-Annapolis MP Chris d’Entremont, he hails from the southern shore of Nova Scotia which has often flipped between the Liberals and the Tories.

The easternmost parts of the country have always leaned more heavily to the Liberals, and his riding is usually simply a Liberal/ Conservative battle.

With the exception of the Halifax area, most Atlantic New Democrats have received support based on personal appeal, rather than party label.

Jack Harris, a former long-time NDP MP and former leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador, was the only New Democrat elected in Atlantic Canada in 2015 when then-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s “sunny days” swept the country.

When the New Democratic Party’s interim leader Don Davies announced the floor crossing of Nunavut MP on March 10, he urged the former New Democrat to put her decision to a riding vote.

“The position of the New Democrats on floor crossing is longstanding and clear. We believe that when someone rejects the decision of their electors and wants to join another party, they should put that decision to their voters.” Davies said in a statement revealing Idlout’s decision to join the Liberals.

For the Liberals, the move was met with elation. The party is now just two seats short of a majority, and with three byelections scheduled for April 13, the numbers could soon increase by at least two.

In addition, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s capacity to attract a New Democrat into his caucus will assure left-leaning Liberals that his leadership is centrist enough to attract their voter base.

Until last week, the floor crossers were all Conservatives. Markham-Unionville MP Michael Ma joined the Liberals in December. He also represents a riding that has historically been a Liberal constituency.

The third Tory, Matt Jeneroux, was a bigger surprise because the Alberta MP doesn’t face the same level of electoral risk locally. In the last election, running as a Conservative, he won with a majority of 50.25 per cent. However, his Liberal opponent increased the Grit vote by almost 20 per cent, aided by the collapse of the New Democrats.

The current NDP slide, with the loss of party status and a leadership race where most candidates cannot speak French, will actually help the Liberals in Jeneroux’s riding.

The long-serving Tory said he crossed the floor because he was impressed by Carney’s speech in Davos, and became convinced that the global crisis demanded strong Canadian government leadership. That opened the door to his support for Carney, and a move that could also reinforce his personal popularity in the riding.

Likewise, in certain urban ridings in Alberta—and definitely in British Columbia—the Liberals’ capacity to attract former New Democrat voters will determine whether or not they can secure a majority government.

Carney has been making positive international waves and that reflects back on his popularity in Canada.

If an election were held today, there is little doubt that the Liberals would easily be rewarded with a majority.

But uncertainty in international affairs—including the war against Iran and trade agreement confusion—could make that support short lived.

Thus far, for as a non-politician, Carney has handled the situation with aplomb and insight. People trust him, and some of the most frequent comments relate to the fact that he is not a lifelong politician.

His business background and international, bureaucratic experience position him as someone who literally can make political decisions without appearing like a politician.

Davies came out early on the Idlout resignation, hoping to get ahead of the story. But even floor-crossings don’t seem to hurt this prime minister. In explaining her move, Idlout underscored the fact that that Carney is the first prime minister from the North, given his birthplace in Fort Smith, N.W.T.

She also lauded him for investments already made in Nunavut, one of the reasons she supported the last budget and helped the minority government avoid defeat.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is claiming “backroom deals” are designed to “seize a costly majority that voters reject, which will enable Liberals to balloon debt, inflate the cost of living, block resources and turn criminals loose on our streets.”

Contrary to Poilievre’s claim, the deals seem to enhance Carney’s popularity.

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.

While current popular support trends remain close between the two parties, Mark Carney’s personal popularity is in the stratosphere relative to Pierre Poilievre’s.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 24, 2025.

OTTAWA–The drama of a budget vote had every political animal in the country on the edge of their seat.

And in the end, it was a cliffhanger. But in reality, the outcome should not have been a surprise to anyone.

Having just come off an election this past spring, there was zero appetite to go back to the polls for most political parties.

The only leader who could have benefited from an election is Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. A ‘no’ vote would have meant that his mandated January 2026 party review would be cancelled.

Poilievre is probably feeling fairly comfortable, given the party review vote will be held in the middle of winter in Calgary. That is the basis for his strength, and much of his support is from Members of Parliament whose purpose in politics is ideological.

Approximately 40 members of the Conservative caucus are rabidly anti-choice, while another three dozen have expressed their opposition to abortion during the election.

Politicians who are elected because of an ideology are less likely to care about winning.

The party members who do care about winning are circling the wagons in anticipation of the January opportunity to replace the leader.

Former party insider Dimitri Soudas has been openly critical of Poilievre, and as last week’s events proved, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is also no friend of the official opposition leader.

When Ford was asked about a potential federal election, he basically threw his federal cousins under the bus. The premier said so many nice things about Prime Minister Mark Carney that an observer would have thought they shared a party.

Some have even written that Carney’s budget is progressive conservative in nature.

Ford is obviously well-organized in Ontario, and Soudas’ political roots in Quebec are deep. Both of these provinces are pivotal to winning any federal election. While Conservatives in Quebec and Ontario are not ideologues, they are used to winning at the provincial and federal levels.

If they have decided that Poilievre is not a winnable candidate, they could cause problems for him in the January vote.

Hence a federal election would have allowed Poilievre to focus on the external opposition to the government, not the internal opposition within his own ranks.

The New Democrats are in the middle of their own leadership race, so the potential of an election would be unthinkable for them.

Even though they publicly opposed the budget, they allowed it to survive by securing two abstentions. NDP abstainers included Lori Idlout and Gord Johns. Idlout did not want to vote against the budget because it included a major investment in her riding of Nunavut.

Interim NDP leader Don Davies told the media after the vote that his party did not want for force an election; therefore, he approved the two abstentions.

As for the Tories, one of the abstainers, Shannon Stubbs, said she acting on doctor’s orders while the other, Matt Jeneroux, has already disclosed his dissatisfaction with his party by announcing he will not be seeking re-election.

Some thought he might cross the floor to the Liberals, following the example of Nova Scotian Chris d’Entremont who left the Conservative caucus on Nov. 4 because he said he didn’t feel represented there. Rumours swirled about other potential floor crossings, but none have materialized to date.

The Liberals will have to hope that some occur because, in minority government, there could be similar, but unsuccessful votes in the next budget, or on a supply motion in the fall.

Poilievre isn’t the only one hoping that he wins his leadership review in the New Year.

Most Liberals believe he is their ticket to remain in government.

While current popular support trends remain close between the two parties, Carney’s personal popularity is in the stratosphere relative to Poilievre’s.

If the budget vote had failed on Nov. 17, there was a good chance that the current polling numbers could have led to a Liberal majority government.

Carney looked cool, calm, and collected on the day of the cliffhanger, probably because he was in a no-lose situation.

Had the election been called, his personal popularity would definitely have outstripped that of the leader of the opposition.

A budget win gives him a few more months to prove to the Canadian people that he is the leader best positioned to pivot away from dependence on economic integration with the United States.

Carney’s global view, and business experience have helped capture the confidence of Canadians.

As long as Poilievre is leading the Tories, Carney has good reason to smile.

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

The message from the Newfoundland and Labrador election is loud and clear: Rural voices will not be silenced. The Canadian government needs to listen.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 20, 2025.

OTTAWA—The result of the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election on Oct. 14 should serve as a wake-up call for the federal Liberals.

Of course, the appetite for change is always present when a government has been in power for a decade. But it would be a mistake to think the majority government delivered to the Progressive Conservatives was simply a result of voter fatigue.

Instead, there was an urban/rural split that went undetected in the multiple polls that predicted another Liberal majority.

The polls were wrong. It was quite obvious that the Liberal messaging resonated in the greater St. John’s area, but fell pretty flat in the rest of the province.

The Liberals held their own in the provincial capital, which is the heart of Newfoundland media coverage. That strength led pollsters to misread the appetite for change that was rolling across the rest of the province.

Liberal Health and Community Services Krista Lynn Howell was defeated by Andrea Barbour, even though Progressive Conservatives were joking that there were more road-paving announcements than icebergs in her Great Northern Peninsula district before the vote.

Howell lost by 595 votes, which does not seem like a lot. But considering the district included only 4,703 voters, that is more than a 10 per cent margin.

Her job as health and community services minister did not help because one of the main issues promoted by the Progressive Conservatives was major new investment in health care.

The Tory party platform called for an improved patient-nurse ratio, and promised the addition of 50 more nursing education spaces at Memorial University. The party also pledged to tackle government spending, all the while reducing taxes.

On the affordability front, the Progressive Conservatives offered the highest personal-tax exemption in Atlantic Canada, raising the threshold to $15,000 below which no taxes would be paid.

It also promised to increase seniors’ benefits by 20 per cent, all the while claiming to reduce government spending.

The Tory platform was only released a few days before the election which meant there was little to attack, but its general focus on health, affordability, and safety appeared to resonate across the province.

Compare that platform to the proposals of the Liberals, who promised hundreds more child care spaces. Child-care spaces are much more popular in urban areas, where an extended family is often not as available to pitch in. The Tories promised to increase the Child Tax Benefit, which goes to every child, not just those whose parents both work outside the home.

Outgoing premier John Hogan tied most of his promised spending increases to the revenue that would be generated from Newfoundland and Labrador’s agreement to sell hydroelectric energy to Quebec.

Hogan claimed that most of his promises would be funded by the cash coming from the 2024 memorandum of understanding penned with Quebec by then-Liberal premier Andrew Furey.

The PCs are advocating changes to the MOU, but premier-elect Tony Wakeham insisted throughout the campaign that the MOU was not the biggest issue. Obviously, voters agreed.

In his victory speech, Wakeham suggested he would launch an independent review of the deal, while Quebec Premier François Legault confirmed his government is open to renegotiation.

At the end of the day, the PC’s platform dealt with pocketbook and health issues for all parts of the province. The Liberals are the urban party, which wasn’t enough to carry them over the finish line.

That same challenge faces the federal Liberals when the lifespan of this minority government is cut short in the next couple of years.

This past spring, Prime Minister Mark Carney was able to present himself as a new face in Parliament, with plenty of experience in the business and international communities.

His triumph was driven, in part, because of the wedge that United States President Donald Trump generated from his incessant calls to annex Canada, and his rude treatment of then-prime minister Justin Trudeau.

But as Carney’s own newness wears off, and the bitter effects of Trump’s anti-Canada campaign wear the country down, the prime minister will have to put something new on the table.

More attention definitely needs to be paid to rural regions that have been painted a deep swath of blue for the past two decades.

They do not represent the majority, but in a tight election, the votes of rural Canadians could well decide who forms government.

The message from the Newfoundland and Labrador election is loud and clear: Rural voices will not be silenced.

The Canadian government needs to listen.

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

Peter Mazereeuw and Sheila Copps dig into the return of Parliament, how Mark Carney might handle Question Period, whether the Liberals should elect a Conservative House speaker, and more.

Liberals are positioned to fight Donald Trump. Thanks to Alberta’s premier, the Conservatives seem to be ‘in sync’ with him.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 31, 2025.

OTTAWA—With friends like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre needs no enemies.

In the first week of a very short federal election campaign, Smith managed to solidify the ballot question in the Liberals’ favour.

Her major gaffe involved an intervention with the White House, asking American officials to delay tariffs until after the election because that would help Poilievre. Smith stated Poilievre was “in sync” with U.S. President Donald Trump.

All this was recorded in an interview Smith gave to Breitbart, a right-wing podcast that’s been advocating a constitutional amendment to make Trump president for life.

Instead of apologizing for foreign interference in an election, when confronted, Smith simply doubled down and claimed this was her lobbying effort for Canada.

The Alberta New Democrats did not agree, organizing the unveiling of a Canada flag in front of the Alberta legislature to underscore their belief in our country.

Smith added insult to injury by flying to Florida on March 27 to headline an extremist American fundraiser for an Islamophobic group that, according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, denies the history of slavery.

Smith was set to share the stage with Ben Shapiro, who has called Canada “a silly country” and the “Puerto Rico of the North.” Shapiro believes that Canada should be annexed as the 51st state without the right to vote.

Despite multiple requests to cancel her trip, Smith spoke in the Alberta legislature where she blamed the controversy on Liberals because the federal government had asked premiers to join in an all-in tariff lobbying effort.

Smith claimed the opposition to her Florida fundraiser came from eastern Canadian media elites, and the Liberals and New Democrats. She insisted that Albertans supported her.

The more she speaks out, the more Canadians learn about the deep ties between Canada’s Conservatives and MAGA supporters south of the border.

With the American vice-president joining his wife on an uninvited trip to Greenland, Canadians are taking the annexation threat very seriously.

Trump has refused to rule out the use of force to take over the island, but the local appetite for annexation is close to zero.

In the recent election, only one per cent of Greenland voters supported a party that promoted unification discussions. That party was the only one that did not get a single seat in parliament.

Back in this country, the ballot question for the April 28 election appears to be a vote on which leader is best placed to fight American tariffs and annexation.

Poilievre is trying to portray himself as the person with the chops to fight Trump’s tariffs, but quisling Smith’s cosy relationship with extremist Trump supporters is killing that narrative. Smith’s position is not lost on Canadian voters, and has helped to send Tory polling numbers downward.

The turnaround for the Liberals has been nothing short of astonishing. It is so positive that even a former Nova Scotia minister who left politics for “family reasons” made a surprise decision to return. Sean Fraser said last week it was a personal request from the leader that made him reverse his retirement decision, even though a successor for his riding nomination had already been chosen.

Other star candidates like a former mayor of Vancouver, the former acting mayor of Toronto, and well-known journalists Evan Solomon and Anthony Germain have jumped into the fray for the Liberals as the party’s popularity continues to rise.

The first week of the campaign has Liberals on a high.

Polling numbers across multiple platforms show that Prime Minister Mark Carney has eliminated Poilievre’s lead, and has moved to top spot.

The NDP has felt the pain of this Liberal swing because polls show leader Jagmeet Singh moving to single digits.

As Trump continues to threaten more tariffs and annexation, Liberal numbers continue to rise. Carney is viewed as the best choice to stare down the American president.

When it comes to the question of affordability, the Conservative leader fares best.

But it looks as though the ballot question will be who is best equipped to fight the United States. Carney’s massive resumé beats Poilievre’s by a mile.

Trump just added 25-per-cent tariffs to the automobile sector, and that is a huge blow to the Canadian economy.

As a pre-emptive strike, Carney announced a plan to fight the tariffs with a $2-billion auto industry fund the morning before Trump’s announcement. Poilievre was campaigning on tax cuts for seniors.

Liberals are positioned to fight Trump. Thanks to Smith, Tories seem to be in tight with him.

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.

Karina Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Mark Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

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

OTTAWA–Why Karina Gould? That’s the question friends posed when I gave a couple of television interviews promoting her as the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

At press time, Gould had not yet announced, but her team was putting together a campaign to create a fighting chance in this shortened race to name the next prime minister of Canada. Gould has already recruited more than a dozen caucus members.

Not overwhelming, but considering her campaign only started a week ago, it is a good start.

Mark Carney has been running for the job for years. Press reports say he has about 30 MPs on his team. That number should be twice as large if Carney’s support is as wide and deep as the media keep claiming.

On just about every network, including his American pre-campaign interview on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, Carney is constantly presented as the almost certain winner of the upcoming race.

Resisting that pull may be difficult, but many Liberals would like to support a leader who’s in it for the long haul.

Does anyone really think that Carney—who declined offers of more than one nomination in the last election—will stick around if the party ends up in third-party status? The answer is no.  

Liberals need a leader who will appeal to young people. Gould is the most appealing to that cohort because she reflects their values and energy. Gould has managed multiple cabinet portfolios with energy and savvy.  

A superb communicator in multiple languages, Gould negotiated Canada’s national childcare via multiple provincial agreements. While child care is seen as crucial for Canadians, Gould is being critiqued internally by those who say motherhood is a reason not to vote for her.

Before we dismiss misogyny’s role in leadership, we cannot forget what happened to the Kamala Harris vote in the United States. She lost the presidency because American men voted against her. Had the election been determined only by women, Harris would have won. 

No one asked Justin Trudeau if he could manage both politics and a young family when he ran for office at age 36 back in 2008. Instead, his youth and a campaign that included cannabis legalization managed to ignite the attention of a new generation.

Gould has been generating much interest with young people. She also has support from senior Liberals who have supported the party for decades.

Unlike some colleagues, Gould reaches out regularly to party elders, seeking their advice and wisdom while other leadership candidates have either ignored them or publicly denigrated them. 

Party faithful remember the very off-putting negative response of Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland when former prime minister Jean Chrétien offered to go to China to negotiate a solution to the extradition of Meng Wanzhou to the United States.  

Freeland scorned his offer, and ended up with a protracted fight with China that cost our country economically and politically. But Freeland’s high profile during the Trudeau years have set her up as an obvious runner-up to Carney’s stardom.

Neither Carney nor Freeland have Gould’s likability factor. Parties make decisions based on whom they think can win. Canadians make decisions on the emotional feel they get from a politician. Is that person someone you would like to have a beer with? Kim Campbell was elected Progressive Conservative leader and prime minister because she was seen to be the best choice to rebuild her party in the post-Brian Mulroney era.  

It turned out to be a terrible decision that left the Tories reduced to two seats in a Liberal majority government in 1993. Today, Liberals have little time to judge the emotional IQ of each of the candidates.  

But when it comes to support from young people, reaching out to party faithful, and a commitment to the long-term rebuilding process, Gould is our best bet. 

The first question at any leadership debate should be, “If the Liberals lose the next election, are you willing to remain as leader?” The second question should be, “How can we recapture the dynamic wave of support by young people that carried Trudeau to power in 2015?”

The answer to both questions is Gould studied Latin American and Caribbean studies at McGill and philosophy at Oxford and who worked for the Organization of American States on migration.

She learned Spanish while volunteering at a Latin American orphanage. Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

Correction: This column originally incorrectly reported that Karina Gould is a lawyer. She is not, and the column was updated at 8:09 a.m. on Jan. 16.

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