By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 26, 2025.

OTTAWA—Long live the King. Maybe.

When it comes to Canada, there are few more controversial issues than whether we should continue with the monarchy.

French-Canadians and the Irish, in particular, are not happy to have a head of state which reminds them of past travails.

In the case of Quebecers, the defeat by the English on the Plains of Abraham is seen as the beginning of the end of a sovereign French nation.

As for the Irish, those who come from the south have already split from the United Kingdom and see no reason to pledge fealty to the same monarchy that they rejected in their own country.

Battle-scarred opponents of the monarchy are more vocal than those who support the institution. When Queen Elizabeth II was nearing the end of her life, Canadian pundits were suggesting that she would be our last monarch.

King Charles III would never make it to the throne because most people respected his mother and did not have the same feeling toward him.

Then the King took over in 2022, and has spent the last several months showing people exactly why he is the right person for the times.

Divorced—an unheard-of marital state in the last century, but pretty common with commoners in this century. So he is a little bit like all of us.

He also has a sense of humour and is totally prepared to laugh at himself, something that was not in the character of the Queen.

The King is prepared to participate in the quirky and the bizarre.

Just last month, he was filmed playing a carrot—yes, a carrot—with the London Vegetable Orchestra. One cannot imagine the Queen putting her lips around the top of a taproot to make music.

But King Charles was always the quirky one. He was interested in organic food long before it became popular with the general public.

When he visited Canada in 1996, he got what was described as a “rock star welcome” in my hometown of Hamilton, Ont. We spent the visit together, and I was able to personally observe the depth and breadth of his interests. He visited an Indigenous school in Manitoba, and was given the honorific title of “Leading Star.”

Long before the public was engaged, the King soaked up knowledge about Indigenous challenges and spent much time reflecting on how to improve things.

During this week’s visit, a group of Indigenous leaders has asked to meet with him to discuss the issue of a separation threat by some citizens in Alberta.

Just as Prime Minister Mark Carney wants the King to stay out of American politics, so do the Indigenous leaders want the King to wade into Alberta politics.

Indigenous leaders have told Premier Danielle Smith that they oppose the province’s decision to simplify the rules for a separation referendum.

Smith is of the view that Indigenous leaders’ votes will be counted in any referendum, but the chiefs believe their territory’s integrity cannot be impacted by any provincial referendum.

As their treaties have been with the Crown, the King is obviously in a position to support their claims.

But he also has to be cautious when getting involved in domestic politics.

Reading the Speech from the Throne is an exception because the sovereign will only be repeating a message already approved by the prime minister and his office.

And taking a position in favour of one commonwealth country may cause problems in another.

Take King Charles’ second invitation to United States president Donald Trump to visit the United Kingdom.

Carney was very unhappy with the invitation and, in a surprising move, he made it known publicly. In an interview with British Sky News, about the invitation, Carney said Canadians were not impressed by that gesture “given the circumstance. It was a time when we were being quite clear, some of us were being quite clear, about the issues around sovereignty.”

The King’s invitation was delivered by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was in the midst of negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S.

In supporting British political objectives, the monarch was forced to bypass Canadian interests.

Such is the challenge of a king. In the same vein, the Canadian prime minister has to be cautious about King Charles’ trip to Canada. It could provide fodder for Quebec separatists who see the crown as a symbol of everything they do not want in a country.

Carney wants to send an international message of strength. But that message could be double-edged.

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

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

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

It doesn’t seem like he is listening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then he moved on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signalled early that she would be following the Quebec separatist path of obfuscating the facts and promising what she cannot deliver. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 12, 2025.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada.

Sound confusing? It is.

But confusion is the only way separatists can make their case to leave Canada. The last time the country faced a referendum was when the Parti Québécois asked Quebecers to endorse the negotiation of a better deal with Canada, and if that failed, to separate. They told Quebecers that under separation they would still be able to negotiate the use of Canadian money, border access, and military support, all of which were patently false.

Truth doesn’t matter when you are trying to break up a country.

Smith signalled early that she would be following the Quebec separatist path of obfuscating the facts and promising what she cannot deliver.

The premier said it was a sheer coincidence that she launched her new referendum rules the day after Canadians decide to elect a Liberal government under the leadership of Albertan Mark Carney.

Opponents bristled when Carney self-identified as an Albertan, even though the vast majority of his youth was spent in Edmonton.

His background is similar to that of Pierre Poilievre, who also spent his youth in Alberta and only moved to Ottawa to work in politics.

Now that Poilievre has been defeated in his own riding, he is being welcomed back to Alberta as a native son. Somehow the same open arms don’t apply to Carney.

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning set the stage for the Smith referendum launch when he threatened during the election that a vote for the Liberals would prompt a separatist movement in the West.

Alberta separatists keep referring to the West, but they are hard-pressed to defend that case as Liberals managed to garner the largest popular vote in British Columbia.

The West, like the rest of the country, is not a homogeneous mass. Alberta is not a homogeneous mass. Depending on which pollster runs the survey, between 70 and 80 per cent of Albertans do not want to leave Canada.

But the 20 to 30 per cent who do are largely followers of the party that Smith is leading. And while her government is mired in an RCMP investigation into the awarding of health contracts, a referendum debate takes attention away from internal governance problems.

Smith has already lost one cabinet minister to the health-care contracts scandal. Peter Guthrie resigned from cabinet after claims that a member of the premier’s staff interfered in the awarding of health privatization contracts.

Since his resignation, Guthrie has been turfed from the United Conservative Party of Alberta. Alberta’s current justice minister has also been linked to the scandal as news reports revealed last week that Minister Mickey Amery is related to the health investor under investigation.

Amery is also the deputy House leader, and told The Globe and Mail that he was related by marriage to investor Sam Mraiche, who is being sued and is the subject of multiple investigations, including by the provincial auditor general.

Guthrie released an open letter last month, accusing the premier of both ruining electoral chances for federal Conservatives, and fudging her position on separation.

Smith reverted back to the trope that she believes in a sovereign Alberta in a united Canada.

Now that Poilievre will soon be running for a seat in Alberta, it will be interesting to see how he navigates the separation question.

The FU crowd following him from rally to rally are likely the major supporters of a move to leave Canada and join the United States.

By expressing his strong support for Canada, Poilievre risks losing their support. The anti-vaxxers are already unhappy because they feel that Poilievre did not attack the courts for hearing the cases against occupation organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber.

During the federal election campaign, Lich was critical of Poilievre, claiming he withdrew his support. However, Poilievre’s disastrous 4,000 vote loss in his long-held riding of Carleton, Ont., was largely prompted by his earlier decision to promote occupiers at the expense of his own constituents. That choice, and the indefatigable work of Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy over the past two years, led to the shocking loss of a seat that Poilievre had held for two decades.

In the upcoming Alberta byelection, Poilievre will have to navigate the separation roadmap laid out by Smith.

The premier continually claims to believe in Canada, but she moved recently to lower the bar for referendums, and permit referendum funding by unions and corporations.

Poilievre will have to be clear in his support for Canada.

No sovereignty-association allowed.

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

Had Donald Trump not weighed in with his threat to annex Canada, and had Justin Trudeau decided to remain and fight this election, the outcome would definitely be quite different.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 28, 2025.

OTTAWA—They used to say that six months is a lifetime in politics.

Two months is a lifetime in Canadian politics these days.

Two months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was headed to a majority government.

Liberals had been languishing 20 points behind in the polls, and incumbents were voting with their feet.

Cabinet ministers were leaving politics (for family reasons), and Liberal party organizers were scrambling to simply fill the nominations across the country.

Because it looked as though the Liberals were potentially headed for third-party status, nobody wanted to step up and offer themselves as sacrificial lambs at the altar of a Poilievre government.

Organizers muttered privately that nothing could avert impending disaster, and Members of Parliament should batten down the hatches and just kept working their ridings in the hopes they might survive the oncoming storm.

Then the impossible happened. Less than two months ago, the Liberals elected Mark Carney in a landslide.

Even though Carney had been serving as economic adviser to then-prime minister Justin Trudeau for some time, he was seen as an agent of change, a political newcomer who actually had experience fighting the international shock waves that American President Donald Trump was sending around the world.

He was also fiscally conservative enough to focus his election promises on operational changes. Where the previous prime minister had increased operational spending by nine per cent annually, Carney has committed to a two per cent increase.

Former Conservative deputy leader Lisa Raitt characterized it this way on CTV last week, “They like the Conservative policies, but they want Mark Carney to implement them.” That was her conclusion after canvassing in Ontario and Cape Breton, N.S., where she reinforced the notion that people just don’t like Poilievre.

She is right on that count. The gender and age gap in voting preferences is startling, with women supporting Carney by a margin of 20 per cent. The so-called Boomer generation is also largely supportive of the Liberals.

To counter that message, the Conservatives used the last week of the campaign to run an ad of two older men on a golf course chatting about how they had to get rid of the Liberals. They also trotted out a very sombre ad of former prime minister Stephen Harper intoning on his reasons for supporting Poilievre.

In the first instance, if the Conservatives are trying to appeal to women voters, the last thing they need to see is two men on a golf course. The tone-deaf nature of that ad was equivalent to a late-campaign corporate endorsement for Poilievre led by Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa and entitled, “Friends of Free Enterprise in Canada.” The group ran full-page ads in newspapers across the country the weekend before before the first leaders debate.

Again the message bombed. Among the 33 leaders who signed on, 32 were men. Any woman reading the advertisement would simply ask “if the Tory leader had that little support among women, why would I bother voting for him?”

So Carney moved enough to the right to convince lifelong Tories to vote for him, and his ‘Elbows Up’ approach to Trump convinced many New Democrats to park their vote with the Liberals.

Just this week, I was chatting with a former labour leader and lifelong New Democrat who was celebrating his 100th birthday.

On the call, he confessed to me that he had voted Liberal for the first time in his life, and he convinced a couple of friends to do the same.

So even though Poilievre had enough resources to throw lots of money at late-campaign advertising, even that effort struck the wrong note, and merely reinforced the decision of many people who were leaning towards Carney.

At the end of the day, the Liberals also need to send a thank-you note to Donald Trump, whose insulting behaviour to Trudeau in particular and the country in general prompted a complete redrawing of the Canadian political map.

Had Trump not weighed in with his threat to annex Canada, and had Trudeau decided to remain and fight this election, the outcome would definitely be quite different.

As it is, the Poilievre anti-Trudeau/carbon tax campaign did not survive the test of time. He could not or would not pivot his message, and as a result, he will probably have to pivot right out of politics after this election.

Raitt underscored Poilievre’s personal unpopularity as one of the reasons the party was failing badly.

What a difference two months makes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are at the halfway point in the election, but much could happen in the yin and the yang of the campaign. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 14, 2025.

OTTAWA—Does size matter? Pierre Poilievre seems to think so.

In this regard, he is aligning himself closely with U.S. President Donald Trump, who claimed that his inauguration day crowds during his first term were bigger than anything posted by Barack Obama.

Poilievre has also claimed his crowds are the biggest in history, which, of course, is false.

Back in 1979, governing Liberals managed to organize a rally of more than 20,000 people in Toronto’s Maple Leaf Gardens and then went on to lose the election to the Conservatives.

Rallies definitely help to charge up the base, which serves to grow the ground game of local candidates, but they also chew up a lot of time that could be better used recruiting new supporters.

In Poilievre’s case, he has a solid group of core followers who will never waver. They also tend to be opponents of vaccinations, and the so-called “woke” world they are living in.

But the work to grow his base will actually decide the election. If he cannot do that, it doesn’t matter how many of the faithful line up to join his rallies, he won’t win.

As for organizers, most will tell you that the campaign focus should be on local organizational voter-identification. This is not getting done when people are busy getting supporters to rallies.

How is that relevant?

When prime minister Brian Mulroney won his second election back in 1988, his party managed to secure victory in 20 ridings by less than 1,000 votes. In a tight race, what matters most is who actually gets to the polls to vote.

If the current numbers hold, (and that is not likely) the Liberals will win a comfortable majority and the race will be called within an hour of the polls closing.

But if the gap narrows, the number of seats with a margin of less than 1,000 votes could actually decide the election.

We are at the halfway point in the election, but much could happen in the yin and the yang of the campaign.

The debates in French and English will be very important because if Prime Minister Mark Carney stumbles, he will definitely curb the enthusiasm of his campaign.

Poilievre’s support is obviously not as wide, but it is very deep. In the case of Carney, his supporter is much broader, but without the depth of loyalty that Poilievre is enjoying.

People like Carney’s background and think that he has the right financial chops to deal with the chaos caused by Trump’s tariffs.

He will need to reinforce that impression during the debates, with particular attention to his performance in the French language.

Most French speakers are satisfied that Carney’s capacity in Canada’s second official language is not a vote-loser. Carney is particularly popular in Quebec.

During the final days of prime minister Justin Trudeau’s time in office, Liberals were lagging badly, but the Conservatives were not much more popular. The Bloc benefited from those numbers, with leader Yves-François Blanchet looking to form a majority in Quebec. But the Quebec numbers now show that Blanchet could lose even in his own riding.

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh is facing the same possibility as his single-digit polling could mean a massive rout for his party, including the potential loss of his own seat.

Singh is focusing his message on convincing Canadians that minority governments work better for people, in an effort to stem the massive move of New Democratic voters to the Liberals.

As long as Trump keeps threatening the world order, Canadians who are seeing their cost-of-living rise and their bank accounts shrink, want to rally around a leader who will fight the American president.

A minority Parliament would not provide Canadians with certainty in the global crisis that Trump has created.

A tight race between the Liberals and the Conservatives will create even more challenges for the Bloc and the NDP. In the global crisis, Canadians will want a strong prime minister. Those dynamics mean that this election has become a two-party race. And if you look at crowd-size, it looks as though Poilievre has an edge.

Carney’s crowds are growing in size as well, but the Liberal party’s focus is on a tight, get-out-the-vote campaign in every riding. That means that, while Tory supporters are following their leader in rallies, Liberals are looking for new voters in canvassing, phoning and social media activities.

Both parties are obviously working their ground game, but Poilievre’s push for big crowds does not mean victory.

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

The Liberal leader is leading in all demographic groups except for men aged 35 to 54

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 7, 2025.

OTTAWA—Women are stampeding to the Liberals in this election.

The most recent Ipsos Reid poll showed that, for women over the age of 55, Prime Minister Mark Carney holds a 27-point lead over Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

The Liberal leader is leading in all demographic groups except for men aged 35 to 54.

But the startling gap between women and men is worth examining.

Poilievre didn’t help himself last week when he launched his housing strategy claiming that women’s biological clock would run out before a Liberal housing program would help.

“I don’t think any woman wants to hear Pierre Poilievre talking about their body, period!” was the immediate retort from New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh.

Critics on social media questioned why Poilievre plans to cancel national childcare if he is so interested in women having babies.

The social gains introduced by the Liberals over the last decade are particularly important for women.

Obviously, childcare is huge, and the dental care program is especially important for older women on fixed incomes who cannot afford dental work. Ditto for school lunch programs and pharmacare, including free birth control, IUDs, hormonal implants, and the morning-after pill.

Poilievre is definitely not on board with national childcare, and has been ambiguous about dental and pharmacare. He has promised that no person currently covered under those programs would be cut off, but is silent on the extension of the programs to others. He also voted against the National School Food Program, and is silent on its continuation.

These are issues of particular interest to women.

It is not lost on them that several dozen members of the Conservative caucus have pledged to support limitations on abortion through private members’ bills. Poilievre himself, in his very first speech to Parliament, spoke out in opposition to public health funding for transgender medical services.

The Trump Supreme Court nominations that resulted in an end to reproductive choice in the United States, and the United States president decision to abolish equal rights policies for women, minorities, gays, and transsexuals has frightened Canadian women, as well. If it could happen there, what about us? Poilievre doesn’t pass that smell test.

Carney leads dramatically in net-positive favourability. That sum is the number achieved when you deduct unfavourable from the favourable viewpoints to discover what people think about each candidate.

Carney is enjoying a positive favourability among men and women. With men, the net range is 18-plus while for women it is 26-plus, according to the same poll.

The difference between Carney’s favourability rating and Poilievre’s unfavourable is stunning. Three in five women—at 61 per cent—say they have an unfavourable view of Poilievre.

Carney has also managed to attract the majority of young voters, a crucial element in Justin Trudeau’s 2015 majority government victory.

Forty-five per cent of young men between the ages of 18 and 34 now support the Liberals, and 46 per cent of men over 54 years old support the Liberals.

We are almost four weeks away from the vote, and the leaders’ debates could both have an effect on the outcome.

Poilievre has been cautioned publicly by members of his own party that he needs to pivot away from the anti-Liberal message to an anti-Trump stance.

But the challenge for the Conservative leader is that a significant percentage of his base also supports Trump. So if he is too tough on the American president, he will lose supporters, as well.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who is busy courting Trumpian podcasters and running her own “Trash Canada” campaign, is stoking the flames of separation in Alberta, which is decidedly unhelpful to her federal leader.

Poilievre not only has had to pivot on message that Canada is broken, he also has to attack Trump. The “lost Liberal decade” phrase, which peppers all his public declarations, seems to reinforce the notion that Canada is broken, even while his Bring it Home/Canada First mantra sounds like a page out of the Trump playbook.

Of course, Trump’s chaotic approach to government is ensuring that his prints are all over this Canadian election.

His ill-advised Liberation Day announcement of worldwide tariffs on April 2 has certainly caught everyone’s attention. Even if the American Senate is successful in reversing the emergency resolution that allowed the president to impose tariffs, it is going to take time for this to happen.

Financial markets and ordinary citizens in the United States are already very nervous about the cost of these tariffs.

But Trump’s tenure is four years, and Poilievre only has three weeks.

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

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

OTTAWA—Trump is rooting for Carney. Who would believe it?

Nobody. The notion that the president of the United States would support the leader of a party he has been insulting and demeaning, is as believable as his claim that he won the 2020 election.

Donald Trump has spent the first two months of his term in office trashing the Liberal government and threatening the country with economic takeover.

Donald Trump has spent the first two months of his term in office trashing the Liberal government and threatening the country with economic takeover.

The interview given by the president in which he states he would rather deal with Liberals because the Conservative leader said bad things about him is simply another of Trump’s multiple contradictory positions.

Pierre Poilievre jumped on the statement, claiming that he is the strong Canadian leader to fight the constant flow of attacks from the president.

But he will have a tough time convincing most Canadians of that, since his whole career has been based on copying the messaging and governing approaches of Trump.

Just last week, Poilievre announced he would break a longstanding tradition, by kicking journalists off his campaign plane during the upcoming election.

Poilievre barring reporters from his aircraft is akin to Trump’s decision to eject legitimate journalists from the White House briefings and replace them with so-called social media journalists.

One of those newbies posed a ridiculous question on Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s clothing choices during the recent disastrous meeting with the Ukrainian president.

Poilievre supporters regularly denigrate the Canadian mainstream media, labelling them as legacy journalists with whom the Conservative leader refuses to engage.

CBC’s Rosemary Barton is constantly reaching out on social media simply asking for an interview with the leader of the official opposition.

Poilievre has also recently released details on his party’s position to cancel foreign aid in favour of military reinvestment.

That is the same position taken by Trump, who authorized Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to eliminate international aid.

That cancellation was questioned last week in a Federal Court judgment ruling that the dismantling of USAID was likely unconstitutional.

It is unclear whether the White House will even heed this court ruling as Trump has pushed back against another court ruling opposing the mass deportations being carried out under government orders.

The chief judge of the American Supreme Court issued a video warning to the president, after Trump threatened a judge with impeachment because of a ruling.

Last week, Poilievre repeated his promise that he would have no problem firing the governor of the Bank of Canada.

Poilievre refuses to accept the independence of those responsible for Canada’s monetary policy just as Trump threatens the independence of the judicial system.

Some believe that Trump’s comments were specifically intended to help the Conservative leader, but the presidential tirade was more likely directed against Poilievre’s negative commentary on Trump.

“The Conservative that’s running is stupidly no friend of mine. I don’t know but he said negative things. So when he says negative things, I couldn’t care less. … It is easier to deal actually with a Liberal. And maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t really care.” Trump said in an interview on Fox News.

Poilievre jumped on the attack saying,

“It’s true. I am a strong leader. I am a tough guy to deal with….By contrast the Liberals…have driven a half trillion dollars of investment to the U.S.”

Poilievre’s pro-Canada positioning is relatively new. He has spent most of his time in opposition saying Canada is broken because of the tax policies of former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Now Trudeau is gone, the carbon pricing is gone, and Poilievre is trying to pivot into a posture as the strong man for Canada.

Trump’s declaration will definitely soften the MAGA edges that have been dogging Poilievre.

If the ballot question in the election is “who is best prepared to deal with an erratic American bent on annexing Canada,” current polls place Prime Minister Mark Carney in first place.

Trump could be blamed for the turnaround.

In an unprecedented political comeback, the Liberal Party has reached polling parity with the Conservatives since the election of Carney.

Trump is not oblivious to the astonishing political upswing of the Liberals.

He must be steaming that Carney’s first international trip was to Europe, not Mar-a-Lago. Carney also managed to purchase an Australian early warning radar system that was supposed to be destined for the United States.

One of Canada’s first financial moves under Carney was to sell off American dollars in a Canadian government bond offering.

Trump has met his match.

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.