U.S. President Donald Trump’s negative response to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos declaration has mobilized the majority of Canadians—including premiers—in unity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 2, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney has a new moniker: Captain Canada.

At the meeting with premiers in Ottawa last week, leaders across the country seemed prepared to work together to grow inter-provincial trade.

The negative response of United States President Donald Trump to Carney’s Davos declaration has had the effect of mobilizing the majority of Canadians—including premiers—in unity.

British Columbia Premier David Eby was positively effusive in his praise for Carney’s Davos speech.

“It’s been a while since I have felt that much pride in being Canadian.”

Trump has started calling Carney “governor” again, and the White House was claiming that the prime minister walked back his Davos speech in a private conversation with the president.

Carney absolutely denied that claim, and the only Canadian party that gave any credence to the president was the federal Conservative Party.

In a statement released after Carney’s Davos speech, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre started with praise for prime minister’s “well-crafted and eloquently delivered” speech, but went on to characterize the approach with a chuckle. “If Liberal words and good intentions were tradeable commodities, Canada would already be the richest nation on Earth.”

Timing in politics is everything, and in this instance, Poilievre’s timing was off.

Carney had a great January, setting the stage with Chinese movement on canola and fish products, and a Davos speech positioning this country as a leader in creating a new world order.

This is a time where the leader of the official opposition should merely be offering praise and support.

When premiers are characterizing Carney as Captain Canada, any comments to the contrary run the risk of putting Conservatives offside with most Canadians.

The last time we saw this kind of federal-provincial harmony was at the height of the pandemic when no party nor political structure had any idea about the path forward to save lives.

During COVID, premiers and the prime minister all sang from the same hymnbook.

This time, they are harmonizing on trade, which can be a lot more politically troublesome than deciding on a medical vaccinations and securing protective medical supplies for hospitals and nursing homes.

Even Eby and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith stated publicly that they were willing to try and work together on issues with the prime minister and other premiers.

The separatist movement in Alberta is still working hard. It was reported last week that the American state department had been in touch with separatist leaders to exchange information.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed publicly that Albertans are very independent people, and the U.S is a natural partner. ”People want sovereignty. They want what the U.S. has got.”

On Jan. 28, Bessent upped the rhetoric warning the prime minister that picking a fight with the president could put the trilateral trade negotiations at risk.

Most global observers don’t believe that Canada has been the one picking international fights.

But Conservatives were quick to follow Bessent’s line of thinking. In an opinion piece written for the American-owned National Post, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner characterized Canada as a “vulnerable, sclerotic, decadent nation from which talent, intellectual property and financial capital continue to flee.”

The more Bessent and Trump attack Carney, the more Canadians from coast to coast to coast will unite.

The most recent Ipsos poll said the number of Albertans and Quebecers wishing to enter a separation discussion with Canada was 29 and 31 per cent, respectively.

But when the same poll respondents were queried on the real-world consequences, support in both provinces was cut in half. Possible downsides include standard of living declines, pension, or trade renegotiations.

The reality of an October election in Quebec is not lost on anyone. With the Parti Québécois leading in the polls, the possibility of a total Team Canada is definitely at risk.

But, in the meantime, it appears as though the disrespect continually shown by Trump and his officials for our country is driving Canadians into the government’s arms.

Meanwhile, reports surfaced last week that the MP who resigned his seat to Poilievre will get the Tory nomination. Damien Kurek has been approved to return as the candidate in Battle-River-Crowfoot, Alta., while the party has no news on where Poilievre would run in the next election.

Maybe the Conservatives are thinking that Poilievre won’t be around to lead the party into the election.

With Trump’s help, that is becoming increasingly likely.

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

The long-term outcome of Mark Carney’s trade mission is unclear. What is clear is that the two countries have been working hard to repair the relationship.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 19, 2026.

OTTAWA—It is hard to believe that almost a decade has passed without a Canadian prime minister setting foot on Chinese soil.

There was a time when Canada and China were close.

Back in 1970, then-Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau became one of the first Western leaders to recognize the People’s Republic of China.

As a private citizen, Trudeau had travelled to China in 1949. He undertook a subsequent visit in 1960 with fellow traveller and future Senator Jacques Hebert. After the visit, the pair authored a book sympathetically chronicling their experiences Two Innocents in Red China.

The book was relatively positive toward the communist regime and paved the way for Trudeau’s future Sino-vision as prime minister.

In Trudeau’s first political campaign, his platform included recognition of the PRC and a promise to promote its membership in the United Nations. He fulfilled both promises with China joining the UN in 1971.

Canada was also on the receiving end of the friendship, based on the relations between a Canadian doctor and the revered leader of the Chinese revolution.

Dr. Norman Bethune was a communist and frontline trauma surgeon who served in the Spanish Civil War, and then served in China as a frontline medic of the Chinese Communist Party’s Eighth Route Army in the Sino-Japanese War.

Bethune is honoured in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame, but his notoriety in China is much greater. Chairman Mao Zedong, delivered a eulogy for the doctor, who died of septicemia on a battlefield after performing surgery on a wounded soldier. The eulogy was subsequently published as a chapter in Mao’s Red Book Essays.

Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong was mandatory reading in all Chinese elementary schools, so every Chinese student knows the story of Bethune.

The Red Book lauded Bethune’s “utter devotion to others without any thought of self.” The Mao essay portrayed Bethune as a model of communism and medicine, a legacy which remains today.

The strong ties established by Bethune and formalized by Trudeau put Canada in an excellent position to build business and personal relationships with Chinese counterparts.

Most expected that Trudeau’s son, prime minister Justin Trudeau, would build upon his father’s legacy.

Instead, early in his mandate, Canadian-Chinese relations reached a new low when Canada acceded to a provisional American extradition request, accusing the Huawei deputy board chair Meng Wanzhou of “conspiracy to defraud multiple international institutions.”

The irony of the arrest was that Wanzhou was simply transiting via the Vancouver airport from Mexico when Canada arrested her in keeping with our extradition agreement with the United States.

It would have been so simple for Canadian officials to warn their Chinese counterparts in advance to avoid the airport, and the whole issue of her detention would have been moot. That kind of diplomatic backdoor discussion takes place all the time, and many observers could not understand why this country became the focus of Chinese ire because of an American extradition request.

At the time, the American allegation was that Wanzhou cleared money actually destined for Skycom, but transmitted illegally through Huawei. It was alleged that Skycom was doing business with Iran, which violated U.S. sanctions.

To make matters worse, the Chinese government arrested and imprisoned two Canadians. The case of the Two Michaels—Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig—made headlines in Canada, further straining relations between the two countries.

In the end, the U.S. and China negotiated an agreement to free Wanzhou and the political damage was largely meted out to Canada.

It was that fiasco that left Canada in political limbo as far as the Chinese were concerned.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s objective in his historic visit last week was to reboot the relationship politically and economically.

On the economic front, there were high hopes for a resolution to the 76-per-cent canola tariff imposed on Canada by the Chinese.

Global Affairs Minister Anita Anand stated last week that it is Canada’s intention to move away from American trade dependency and increase other international trade by 50 per cent in the next decade.

She also downplayed existing this country’s foreign policy labelling China an “increasingly disruptive” global force.

The long-term outcome of Carney’s trade mission is unclear.

What is clear is that the two countries have been working hard to repair the relationship.

A change on Canadian treatment of Chinese electrical vehicle sales is also under discussion. A collapse of the current Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade negotiations could open that door.

China is definitely a door worth opening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian Bacon was funny. This is not.

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

The more Pierre Poilievre focuses on his claim that Canada is broken, the more citizens will reflect on who is the best fixer. Six months is a lifetime in politics. Six months from now, the story could be quite different.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 23, 2025.

OTTAWA—Christmas came early for the government.

The caucus Christmas party on Dec. 11 was abuzz with news that another Conservative MP had crossed the floor to the Liberals, leaving them one seat short of a majority.

Markham-Unionville MP Michael Ma issued a statement saying that, after listening to his constituents, “This is a time for unity and decisive action for Canada’s future.”

Ma’s floor-crossing followed the defection in November by Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont, who left the Conservatives to join the Liberal government.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said publicly that both came to the Liberals, expressing their interest in joining. But that didn’t stop Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre from characterizing the defections as “dirty backroom deals.”

Poilievre did not rule out the possibility that others may leave, fuelling rumours that 2026 would deliver a majority Liberal government.

In year-end interviews, Poilievre accepted no responsibility for the turmoil within his party. He continued to repeat the same thing he has been saying for the past six months. Under his leadership, the party received the largest number of votes in its history.

That is true. But that number was subject to two factors. First, Canada’s population is growing, so more voters are registered. Second, Poilievre’s domination in Saskatchewan and Alberta creates voter inefficiency. Many votes do not translate into many seats when they are all focussed in one or two provinces.

The only way Poilievre can win is if he pivots in order to reach out to centrist voters who currently consider the Conservative party too right-wing for their taste.

His popularity seems to be holding within Conservative ranks, and many expect him to sweep through a party review process scheduled in Calgary next month. But even there, trouble spots are appearing and party defections won’t help a leader in descent.

An Angus Reid poll published Dec. 11 found that 58 per cent of recent Conservative voters would like Poilievre to stay on the job. That represents a drop of 10 per cent from a similar poll taken in August.

More troubling for the Conservatives is that the same survey found that 63 per cent of “centrist” Canadians would like to see him replaced as Conservative leader.

It is the same group the Conservatives need if they are to finally break through and form government.

The scenario that seems to be unfolding is perfect for the governing Liberals. If an election were to happen within a year, and that is a possibility even with a razor-thin majority, Carney facing Poilievre is the best possible matchup for the Liberals.

Poilievre is not popular, and his recent comments eschewing any responsibility for the floor-crossers will not help.

What he actually needs, to get voters to give him another look, is to park the slogans and say he is sorry.

Sorry that he led the party to defeat. Sorry that some of his caucus members have lost confidence. Sorry that, six months after the election, he has not made any changes to his campaign strategy.

And while he has made some staffing changes, even they point to a narrow cast of support.

His new federal campaign manager, Steve Outhouse, ran Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis’ leadership campaign in 2022. Lewis was a virtual unknown at the time, but carried the majority of votes in Saskatchewan.

She did that by enlisting the support of those who are opposed to abortion.

But that targeted support comes with a price, including building the party strength on the right.

But that is exactly what the party should not do if it has any hope of forming government in the next federal election.

Poilievre plans to build his campaign on affordability. And that message will resonate with middle-class Canadians struggling with the rising cost of food and housing.

But when these same Canadians are asked whom they have confidence in to lead us through the maelstrom, they definitely prefer the current prime minister.

So the more Poilievre focuses on his claim that Canada is broken, the more citizens will reflect on who is the best fixer.

Six months is a lifetime in politics. Six months from now, the story could be quite different.

But at the moment, it appears Poilievre’s six-month post-election hiatus has left him frozen in time and message.

If he doesn’t change the channel, Poilievre is done.

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.

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.

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.

This one-off is much more than it appears to be. Along with finalizing the fall date on a permanent basis, the government is also restructuring how it determines spending.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 13, 2025.

OTTAWA—Elections and budgets seem to stall governments. When it comes to an election, no one knows the outcome, so the bureaucracy must go into a holding pattern while they await the outcome.

As for budgets, bureaucrats are loath to make new commitments or policy changes until they know what impact the budget will have on their operating costs.

Last week’s announcement that future budget dates will be moved from the spring to the fall was met with a yawn by most Canadians.

While the business world needs financial certainty to make investment decisions, ordinary people don’t really care whether the work is announced in the spring or the fall.

In the current circumstance, the government had to change the date this year to accommodate the delay caused by the April election, and the change in cabinet.

A new finance minister needs time to be briefed on all the issues, and to make financial decisions.

But this one-off is much more than it appears to be. Along with finalizing the fall date on a permanent basis, the government is also restructuring how it determines spending.

The intention is to make it clearer that long-term capital investments are a different line item than regular operational costs.

The Conservative finance critic Jasraj Hallan immediately attacked the announcement of this new approach. He claims that what the government calls “Modernizing Canada’s Budgeting Approach” is merely another way of “cooking the books.”

But the government is insisting that the new financing mechanisms are consistent with international guidelines. The autumn budget means that the bulk of the government spending decisions will happen after the April fiscal year end, which should bring spending habits closer to actual financial reality.

The insistence that the government differentiate between operational costs and long-term capital investments will help Canadians understand why, in some instances, current deficits build up long-term equity.

To the ordinary person, the analogy would be a mortgage. If you hold debt in order to build equity, such as in the owning of a house, you are investing in the future, not simply spending.

If the same amount of money is spent on disposable items like clothing or coffee purchases, they are obviously not appreciating assets and need to be viewed differently.

Just as a mortgage is worth holding for a family, national investment in housing stock, public transit, and major infrastructure projects can easily be understood as capital expenditures for long-term Canadian economic stability.

If we don’t spend on capital expenditures, like housing, we find ourselves in a housing crisis like the one that has thrown the country into turmoil.

For the past 30 years, the federal government transferred housing dollars to the provinces with no guarantee that housing would be built. And when it wasn’t, we landed in a crisis of social housing that will take a decade to overcome.

A plan to treat that investment separately from general government-service spending may be better understood by the public, but not everyone agrees.

The interim parliamentary budget officer Jason Jacques says that the definition of capital expenditures is too broad, going beyond international standards. The former parliamentary budget officer disagrees, saying the new accounting is additional information to what will continue to be provided to Canadians.

Conservative MP Pat Kelly also attacked the changes, saying “Debt is still debt at the end of the day—doesn’t matter how many columns you try to present to Canadians.”

With the fall budget date, most departments will likely be changing the way they manage year-end spending. In the current climate, most departments try and spend all the money in their budgets before the end of March, which is the fiscal year-end. If surplus funding lapses, their next budget could be reduced as a consequence.

With the government plans to reduce operational spending, the appetite to accelerate year-end spending will be blunted.

At the end of the day, most Canadians will pay little attention to these changes. In general, people don’t even fully understand the difference between an economic statement and a budget. Departments will be following closely, as will the business world.

The separation between operational spending and capital investment will provide a better snapshot of government priorities, like mega-projects meant to stimulate the economy, or capital investments in public infrastructure.

The Finance Department is characterizing these decisions as generational investments.

But governments generally only get credit for what is happening in the short term. Long-term planning has never been a political strong suit.

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

Mark Carney needs something to show that Liberals don’t just care about mega-projects. No tax on food could be a good place to start.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 6, 2025.

OTTAWA—Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is good at retail politics. Other parties may decry his slogans and three-word mantras, but a note of caution needs to be sounded.

KISS is the basic mantra of any successful politician. It may sound a little condescending because in long form, it reads ‘keep it simple, stupid’. For marketing reasons, the last ‘s’ needs to be replaced because voters are definitely not stupid.

But a simple message is one that resonates. When Poilievre coined the phrase “Axe the Tax” in relation to carbon pricing, it mattered little that the fiscal instrument was supposed to be a price on pollution.

He marketed it as an unfair tax, and in the absence of any reply from the previous Liberal government, it was the first thing that Prime Minister Mark Carney did axe.

That move was politically necessary because in order for Carney’s “elbows up” message to be heard, he didn’t need an unpopular carbon pricing system to muddy the waters.

It went, and he won.

Poilievre was unable to pivot in the federal election, and with the help of United States President Donald Trump, Carney convinced Canadians that he was best positioned to offer a path forward by forging new international allegiances without the support of the U.S.

The prime minister is still reaching out internationally, with some success. In the meantime, the leader of the official opposition is sharpening his message on another matter: the cost of food.

Last week, Poilievre launched an attack on the government based on the increasing cost of groceries for Canadians.

A Conservative motion in the House of Commons tabled on Oct. 1 identified four factors involved in taxing food including deficits, the ban on single-use plastics, the carbon tax application to agriculture, and the federal clean-fuel standard.

It is fairly difficult to claim that dirtier fuel would reduce the price of food, and there were plenty of critics ready to attack the Conservative motion.

But the fact remains, any attack on the cost of groceries resonates with Canadians who are suffering the effects of increased prices for most food basics.

While some say the government has little influence on supply-chain issues or international instability affecting food prices, the bottom line is that Poilievre’s message resonates.

“Elbows up” has also resonated with Canadians, which is why the prime minister still has enough public support to withstand the Poilievre attacks at this point. But he shouldn’t assume it will always be this way.

When the November budget is tabled, the finance minister needs to include some deliverables for ordinary Canadians.

It is wonderful to work on interprovincial trade barriers and big projects. But at the end of the day, people vote based on their own personal interests. And if their pocketbooks are being strained by the cost of food, they will be asking whose elbows are up for them.

There is a solution for Carney to blunt this issue immediately.

While food purchased in grocery stores is not generally taxed, the reality is that the meals eaten by Canadians outside the home are all subject to tax.

Restaurants Canada CEO Kelly Higginson was in Ottawa last week lobbying finance officials to announce an end to the tax on all food in the Nov. 4 budget.

Their slogan is “Food is food. Stop taxing what we eat.” It is a simple message, and one that is very similar to that of the opposition leader.

Last year, the previous Liberal government offered a pre-Christmas tax holiday on a number of items, including restaurant eating.

Restaurants Canada is asking the government to make that exemption permanent. In a survey for the group, 84 per cent of Canadians said food should not be taxed, no matter where it is purchased.

A food tax exemption would also serve to buttress youth employment. The restaurant industry employs more than half a million young people, representing one in five jobs for that demographic. It is also the number one source of employment for young people.

The move to cut all food tax would be a big hit for the government. It currently collects $5.4-billion in taxes on non-grocery food. But Restaurants Canada says an end to the tax would result in the creation of 64,500 new service jobs, with 2,680 new restaurants opening and 15,686 spinoff jobs also being created.

Poilievre is getting traction with his focus on food prices. Carney needs something to show that Liberals don’t just care about mega-projects. No tax on food could be a good place to start.

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