Young architects and designers will be able to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The decision to save 24 Sussex and engage the country in its restoration was courageous and timely.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 6, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered Canadians a wonderful gift on the eve of Canada Day.

After years of indecision and neglect, the historical home of the prime minister will finally be properly renovated.

His background in building led him to make a number of good decisions in advance of the announcement.

First, he decided to engage the country by seeking restoration proposals from heritage architects. That decision will spawn an increase in heritage architecture, something that is badly needed in a country where approximately 1.3 million homes are empty and unused because they are in a serious state of disrepair. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, almost eight per cent of Canadians currently live in houses with major structural issues, including lack of electricity.

In the past number of years, when the housing crisis reached a zenith, little attention was paid to the fact that we have more than a million existing homes across the country that could be restored and made available for social housing.

The national “Design and Build” competition is open to Canadian architectural firms and will seek innovative solutions on energy efficiency and use. The proposal also involves a potential crowdfunding and fundraising element, to be managed by the Rideau Hall Foundation.

The jury for the proposals is chaired by Moshe Safdie, acclaimed architect behind the glorious construction of Canada’s National Gallery. Most significant, Carney applied a one-year timeline to the process that will be overseen by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.

The building, which dates back to 1866, has been vacant for more than a decade. Prime minister Stephen Harper was the last head of government to live in the residence, and when he moved out in 2015, it was vacated for restoration. But no decision was made on the restoration until last week.

Some proposals included simply abandoning the building in favour of a new build with banquet facilities at the edge of Rockcliffe Park. That proposal sounded eerily familiar to the current decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to install a baroque banquet hall on the White House property. The Trump monstrosity is supposed to house 999 people and is to be built at a cost up to $600-million. Trump has publicly promised that no taxpayers’ money will be used in the construction, but in a recent media leak, it appears that approximately half of the cost will be paid by the public purse, allegedly to enhance security.

In the lead up to last week’s decision, the government received a report from our own security force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In that report, it claimed that simply upgrading security at the current address would cost upwards of $32-million, making the restoration too expensive to consider. That figure, in a report subcontracted by the RCMP, was subsequently discredited.

Back in 2025, Harper joined former prime minister Jean Chrétien in an offer to raise money to replace the ailing edifice. Chrétien approached the Prime Minister’s Office with the proposal, but was quickly rebuffed. The PMO believed a fundraising campaign would be too politically controversial and declined the offer.

But times have changed and so has the prime minister. Carney is not afraid to take the risk of fundraising, and the idea of crowdfunding through social media venues is another way to engage Canadians in support of the process.

There will, no doubt, be some naysayers, led last week by the leader of the opposition, who claimed that the prime minister should not move on his own housing while millions of Canadians are facing housing and affordability crises themselves.

But former New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair pointed out that Poilievre cannot say much because he lives in Stornoway, another official residence paid by the taxpayers. In Poilievre’s case, he stayed at Stornoway after he lost his seat, even though he had no association with Parliament.

So, he will not be leading the charge against the restoration.

By launching a national competition, Carney has managed to focus attention away from himself and in favour of a whole new generation of Moshe Safdies.

For the next year, the country will be directly engaged in the discussion about possible design plans. They will also be able to contribute to the restoration of the prime minister’s residence.

Young architects and designers will be able to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The decision to save 24 Sussex and engage the country in its restoration was courageous and timely.

After all, 24 Sussex is Canada’s home.

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

To date, an anti-Ottawa political perspective has transformed into an anti-Canada movement. Those of us who love this country need to understand that survival is not guaranteed. If we are not willing to fight hard for the survival of our country, Canada could be lost.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 29, 2026.

OTTAWA—Canada Day is usually an opportunity for people to weigh in on how much they love this great country.

But given the state of realpolitik in Alberta and Quebec, maybe it is time we thought about a new approach to nation building.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is rolling out major national projects as part of his campaign for “Canada Strong.” In the lead-up to Canada Day on July 1, three major projects were announced.

All were in northern parts of this country, and two involved transportation.

The Nunavut project is a 230-kilometre all-season road from the border of the Northwest Territories to the Arctic Ocean.

The second is another all-season road completion from Yellowknife to Inuvik, providing year-round access to remote northern areas.

The third is the construction of a deep underground nuclear waste storage facility in the Ignace/Wabigoon Lake area of northern Ontario.

Roads and rail link Canadians.

This country’s first prime minister saw the benefit of national transportation links, promising to link eastern Canada to the Pacific Coast by the way of a series of railway lines which ultimately became the government-owned Canadian National Railways.

Big infrastructure projects marked the beginning of Canada, and Carney obviously thinks they can revitalize the ties that bind us.

From high-speed rail to northern all-season roads, all are designed to grow the economy by building interregional links.

But the challenges faced by Sir John A. Macdonald pale in comparison to the global and regional tensions facing the current prime minister.

Big projects may be part of the answer. But the country needs to realize that we cannot simply take Confederation for granted.

In Alberta, separatists have followed a roadmap already drawn up for them by two referendums in Quebec.

In the last Quebec referendum, a convoluted question asked voters to give the government a mandate to negotiate a new deal with Canada and if they didn’t get it, start a new country.

The federal government needs to start making the case for Canada in Alberta.

Of course, there are some very strong supporters of Canada, including the “Forever Canada” team led by former Alberta minister Thomas Lukaszuk. In a few short months, he has been able to collect more than 400,000 signatures in a petition for Alberta to remain in Canada.

Canadians can take comfort from the number of people who signed the petition, but it would be a mistake to think the battle is over. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is using those very signatures to claim that she needs to have a referendum, a position which is not supported by the facts.

The pro-Canadian current messaging is falling into the same trap that almost cost us the last referendum.

The “No” campaign against leaving Canada made an economic argument while the “Yes” campaign ran an appeal of the heart.

Just this past week, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce published a survey making a strong economic argument in favour of Canada. Some 63 per cent of respondents said the discussion of separation is already costing them business, and almost half said they would relocate their businesses elsewhere if separation were to occur.

The chamber published a study which predicted that the Alberta economy would take a $62-billion annual hit, based on predicted job losses and reduction of business with other provinces.

The money argument makes sense.

But if we learned one thing from the Quebec referendum it is that voters don’t always listen to major macroeconomic arguments. At the time, the separatists claimed they would keep the Canadian dollar, the military, and even negotiate a passport.

The real story behind the last Quebec referendum was a survey done post facto which showed that 67 per cent of francophones who knew an anglophone who voted to remain in Canada. Some 92 per cent who did not know an anglophone who wanted to separate.

The main issue is not the economy; it is personal connection.

If Alberta feels isolated and belittled, the move to separate becomes that much easier.

The misinformation circulated by pro-separatist Albertans needs to be countered locally and aggressively.

The federal government needs to take the separation question seriously. Cabinet needs to develop an Alberta-based communications strategy that reaches into every rural Albertan community.

The story of Canada needs to be told in Alberta. To date, an anti-Ottawa political perspective has transformed into an anti-Canada movement.

Those of us who love this country need to understand that survival is not guaranteed.

If we are not willing to fight hard for the survival of our country, Canada could be lost.

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

Fast-tracking projects has definitely been the priority. But weakening regulations, ranging from pesticide approvals to project environmental assessments, risks tarnishing Mark Carney’s well-earned reputation as an environmental advocate.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 15, 2026.

OTTAWA—The government’s environmental agenda has faced some scrutiny, and there is definitely pushback from within the Liberal Party.

Prime Minister Mark Carney must be aware of the criticism because at the annual funders’ Laurier Club party last week, he devoted a large part of his speech to the subject of Canadian protected areas.

He pledged to pursue a 30 per cent set-aside of Canada’s vast landscape as protected areas that can never be developed.

Born in Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, the prime minister understands the value of wide open spaces.

For anyone who knows the area, Fort Smith is a town on the edge of one of the only existing wild buffalo runs in the world.

Wood Buffalo National Park straddles the Northwest Territories and Alberta, and is Canada’s largest park, an area larger than Switzerland.

It is home to the world’s biggest free-roaming wood bison herd, and is the only breeding ground for the endangered whooping crane.

It also includes the world’s largest dark sky preserve, a sky free of manmade illumination pollution, which supports animal and bird habitat and survival.

Carney’s move to set aside these lands is extremely important, but the attention paid to this promise last week made it clear that the prime minister is conscious of his current fragile standing in the environmental community.

With more than a dozen caucus members internally lobbying on the environmental front, and former environment minister Steven Guilbeault’s recent announcement that he will resign his House seat have highlighted a potential rift.

Carney has been lauded across the country by business communities because he is focusing the government on moving quickly to surmount regulatory hurdles blocking major projects.

But, behind the scenes, many long-standing Liberals are asking why Carny appears to be backing off on historical environmental commitments.

Former Quebec minister and federal MP Clifford Lincoln was in town last week as the guest of House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia.

Lincoln was a key partner in regulatory legislation passed by the Liberal government at the end of the last century.

Full disclosure: he was my parliamentary secretary, and was the main reason why we were able build opposition support for tough legislation in four key areas.

As a team, we created the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development, attached to the Office of the Auditor General. We also introduced the strongest environmental assessment legislation in the world.

He personally spearheaded toxic substances legislation, which prompted every factory in the country to modify emissions or face regulatory consequences.

Lincoln also helped to establish the Pest Management Regulatory Agency under the authority of Health Canada.

That involved battling Agriculture Canada, as it did not want to give up authority on fertilizer approval.

Lincoln worked closely with former minister and House Environment Committee chair Charles Caccia and myself to beef up the regulatory side.

Several of those regulations are now being reviewed in the name of speed.

The fight against greenhouse gases must minimize pesticide use. Up to five per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from fertilizers.

Carney got elected with broad support from the environmental community. He had a stellar reputation as an environmental leader in the business community, as founding member of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.

But since Carney’s time in government has been focused on getting results, the green shine is beginning to dull.

Last week was a wonderful chance to reminisce about Lincoln’s influence on public policy.

He is widely respected in Quebec as a minister who gave up his post when the Liberal government decided to limit anglophone rights with the introduction of Bill 178.

Lincoln is not afraid to call a spade a spade. At 97 years of age, he is still a regular contributor to the Montreal Gazette on environmental and language issues. Green Party leader Elizabeth May attended the lunch in his honour, and lauded his environmental contribution.

The current House Speaker started on Parliament Hill as Lincoln’s assistant, and they have stayed in close touch ever since.

Lincoln can be a port in a storm, providing valuable advice. He understands that saving the planet is not just about protecting natural spaces.

It involves thoughtful, rigorous enforcement of regulations designed to protect Canadians and reduce our production of greenhouse gases.

Fast-tracking projects has definitely been the priority.

But weakening regulations, ranging from pesticide approvals to project environmental assessments, risks tarnishing his well-earned reputation as an environmental advocate.

Net zero cannot be achieved solely by wilderness protection. It also involves regulating predatory human pollution.

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 June 8, 2026.

OTTAWA—Do Canadians deserve clarity on the separation question?

Separatists don’t think so.

Last week, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to repeal the 26-year-old Clarity Act.

Ironically, they tabled the bill in the very Parliament that they would like to exit.

Motivation for the move was a decision by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to promote a referendum on a potential secession process in her province.

At least the Bloc is consistent.

Along with its provincial counterpart, the Parti Québécois, the Bloc has never wavered in its commitment to leave Canada. However, referendum fatigue has kept the issue on the back burner.

As recently as last August, former separatist premier Lucien Bouchard called on the current PQ leader to drop his plan for a first-term referendum. Paul St.-Pierre Plamondon agreed to disagree with the PQ icon.

Meanwhile, Smith met with Quebec Premier Christine Frechette last week, ostensibly to discuss economic ties and strategies to create more provincial autonomy.

Frechette is opposed to another Quebec referendum, but Smith claimed the two provinces are so aligned that their names should be changed to Alberbec or Queberta.

Their brief discussion did not include any talk about the federal clarity rules.

Prime Minister Mark Carney made it clear that a single vote does not meet the conditions for separation.

The Clarity Act requires a clear question and a clear majority, but the Bloc thinks a simple majority of 50-per-cent-plus-one is enough. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien said a simple majority was so ridiculous that if a voter forgot their glasses, they could accidentally vote to leave Canada.

The Alberta premier claims support for Canada, but has used her powers to encourage the referendum. She has intervened on three occasions to promote the separation question.

Her party’s claim, included in a bill passed by the Alberta legislature, promotes a “Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada.”

Bill 1, passed in 2022, sets out the legal framework for the province to stop enforcing federal initiatives.

Smith is facing a political pickle. The majority of Albertans want to remain in Canada, but the same cannot be said for the members of the premier’s United Conservative Party.

The Republican Party of Alberta lists 18 separatist UCP members of the legislature.

Multiple polls place the percentage of UCP members who want to separate at about 60 per cent.

Smith has to satisfy those members to keep her job, but in doing so, she risks losing the rest of Alberta.

Smith’s plan to campaign in favour of Canada is based on the high costs of separation.

But her actions tell a different story.

Smith lowered the threshold for the number of signatures needed to launch a referendum. She also launched grievance panels, touring the province, and providing separatists with an official platform to air their complaints about the country.

Her party president, Rob Smith, has publicly stated the UCP would remain neutral on the separation question, while the premier has contradicted him.

She also defends the referendum by repeating that 700,000 Albertans asked for this vote. That statement is disingenuous at best, as 404,000 of the signatories signed the Forever Canada Petition, whose organizers explicitly opposed the holding of a referendum on the question.

The second problem with the 700,000 number is that the signatures to separate have not been verified by Elections Alberta because of a court decision that the push for separation violates Indigenous rights.

Smith’s government has appealed that decision, opposing the initial court judgment that cited a failure of the legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples as a reason to block the referendum.

She claims the duty to consult comes after a referendum triggers a separation process.

But Indigenous leaders have been clear that there was a failure by Smith to consult with the Athabaska Chipewyan First Nation, Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, and Siksika First Nation.

Siksika chief Samuel Crowfoot was clear, “the Alberta government would do well to change their course in dealing with First Nations and engage with us in a respectful and meaningful way … we want to be part … (of) improving Alberta, not roadblocks in their efforts to appease a fringe majority.”

Smith knows her government has failed to consult First Nations and Métis before the referendum.

She will have a tough time convincing Albertans she believes in Canada since she has been the main proponent of her party’s path to departure.

New Democratic Leader Naheed Nenshi’s best chance of victory in next year’s Alberta election is the fight for Canada.

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

After seven years in government, Steven Guilbeault has come to the conclusion that politics is not the place for his environmental contribution. He is right. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of perfection.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 1, 2026.

OTTAWA—Steven Guilbeault’s departure from politics is the best of a bad scenario for the Liberals.

Had he decided to leave the caucus and join another party, Guilbeault’s presence would be a continuing reminder of the government’s backpedalling on climate change initiatives introduced during his time as minister. As an opposition spokesperson for the environment, he would certainly have had a platform for his passion, the global fight against climate change.

Had he decided to sit as an Independent, Guilbeault would have been a favoured spokesperson for any comment on government environmental changes. As such, he would no doubt have been a very visible thorne in the government’s side.

An exit will likely put him back in the non-governmental environmental arena. Dozens of environmental activists weighed in with statements of support for Guilbeault, some of whom will likely offer him post-political work.

But in reality, standing on the outside looking in, he will not be as visible or effective as he would have been by remaining in Parliament and simply leaving the Liberals.

Guilbeault was originally recruited as an environmental star and founder of environmental movement ‘Equiterre’ and former Greenpeace activist.

He spent only seven years in government, four of those as environment minister which was his true passion.

Even when he was replaced at Environment minister and minister of Canadian identity and culture, Guilbeault was often more engaged in environmental than cultural issues.

His life’s work has largely been devoted to the fight against global warming with relatively brief political involvement.

Guilbeault was also faced with his own diminishing influence when Prime Minister Mark Carney dismantled some of the elements of his work, including the carbon pricing abolition that was the new government’s first bill in office.

Guilbeault joins another former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who left politics to carry on her crusade for global environmental changes. McKenna departed after only six years, with the intention of making change externally. She has founded an advisory firm on climate solutions and works with the United Nations, including chairing the UN High Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emission of Non-State Entities in 2022.

Guilbeault may be moving in the same direction. He has certainly garnered the respect of environmentalists and even some opposition leaders.

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet thought so much of Guilbeault’s resignation that he used his lead-off spot in Question Period to laud Guilbeault’s environmental credentials.

Blanchet also knows that the summer vacancy in the riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Que., provides an opportunity for the Bloc to gain a seat.

Until the New Democratic Party’s Orange Wave flipped the seat in 2011, the Bloc had held Laurier-Sainte-Marie for 18 years.

In a tight race, a Bloc victory would challenge the slim Liberal majority and create momentum for the separatists. With the separatist movement getting premier attention in Alberta, the issue is on the front burner again.

Blanchet also underscored Guilbeault’s reputation as a strong environmentalist long before he entered politics.

But after seven years, Guilbeault has come to the conclusion that politics is not the place for his environmental contribution.

He is right.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of perfection.

One of the challenges faced by any environment minister is the fact that oil and gas royalties strengthen the Canadian economy and, even as alternatives arrive to displace fossil fuel use in transportation, industry and elsewhere, we still have a current need for consumption of fossil fuels.

If we are consuming—and we are—why should the government turn its back on the potential for clean production?

Electrification of the transportation sector has not developed as rapidly as expected because the infrastructure to support electric cars, buses, and trucks has not been implanted as broadly as required.

Then-prime minister Justin Trudeau would not entertain projects involving liquefied natural gas export to Europe.

Last week, the federal government announced an export agreement with Germany to export one million metric tonnes of LNG from northern British Columbia.

The proposed $10-billion facility is on Nisga’a Nation territory north of Prince Rupert.

The deal would replace LNG that Germany was previously receiving from Russia.

Would we rather see Russia or Canada benefitting from the exploitation of this resource?

To quote project proponent and Nisga’a Lisims government president Eva Clayton, “We’re managing poverty. We now want to manage prosperity.”

Environmentalists will oppose the LNG initiative as well. But at the end of the day, the moderate approach is to diversify energy options, but keep petroleum in play.

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

Changes to environmental legislation is the kind of under-the-radar political discussion that will not likely make front page news. But it is the kind of change that could alienate women who tend to focus more on environmental and health concerns.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 25, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney is even more popular with Progressive Conservatives today than he is with some Liberals.

At a meeting last week of the Ottawa Women’s Canadian Club, several high-profile Tories weighed in with how much they like the job he is doing. Carney’s decision to appoint the spouse of former PC prime minister Joe Clark to chair a search committee for the Supreme Court was lauded by all. Maureen McTeer has just been named chair of the Independent Advisory board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments.

The appointment was very popular with Women’s Canadian Club members, especially those of a certain age. We were recalling the thrashing McTeer took when she kept her own name back when Clark became the youngest elected prime minister at the age of 39 in 1979. It is hard to comprehend today, but so many people were livid at McTeer, claiming Clark was unfit to be prime minister because his wife would not take his last name.

The luncheon was held at the Ottawa Hunt and Golf Club, with the topic advertised as “Life After Politics.”

Former Ontario minister and MPP Lisa MacLeod joined me on the panel which was chaired by North Grenville Mayor Nancy Peckford.

The audience included a number of former government officials and bureaucrats who well remembered how hard it was for a woman to even choose to keep her own name back in the last century.

Subject matter for the event included questions about whether women are treated differently from men when they leave politics.

MacLeod said her male colleagues who retired landed immediately in jobs while she got no offers. Instead, she started her own company.

More than two decades ago, I had the same experience. When I left politics, I was not invited to sit on a single corporate board, even though my experience in government involved responsibility for a $3.2-billion budget and 15 Crown corporations. I also chose to set up my own job, incorporating a communications and government-relations business.

The political buzz at the meeting revolved primarily around Carney and how his moves are definitely appreciated by Progressive Conservatives. One former minister in the government of Stephen Harper went so far as to tell a whole table of women that there was no way that current Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre would ever be elected to the top job. Instead, those who had voted Conservative in the past were moving over to the Liberals as long as Carney was leading the country.

The crowd was primarily made up of older women, which is the demographic that has consistently kept Liberals in power for the past decade. That is also the demographic that tends to lean more to the left on environmental and social issues. The fact that their support for Carney appears strong should obviously be of concern to Poilievre’s team.

But the environmental issues that can move votes could also be plaguing the Liberals very shortly.

Respected Toronto Star journalist Althia Raj published an opinion piece last week that will cause many women to sit up and take notice. The headline read, “Mark Carney’s pesticide policy could put the economy ahead of your health.”

The new legislation, included in two omnibus financial bills, now includes economic considerations into the decision-making process for pesticide approval under the Pest Control Products Act. The legislation also allows cabinet to overrule the decision of a single minister who declares a pesticide dangerous.

According to Raj, the proposed legislation is aligning with changes currently being introduced in the United States to weaken control over pesticide approvals in that country.

But a number of environmental organizations have objected to the bill’s intentions to replace a stand-alone health decision with one factoring in economic considerations.

Likewise, cabinet power to override a single minister would likely be used to promote pesticide approvals even if there are health risks.

All in all, it’s the kind of under-the-radar political discussion that will not likely make front-page news. But it is the kind of change that could alienate women who tend to focus more on environmental and health concerns.

Right now, the prime minister can count on the support of these women. They know how much things have improved since the time when McTeer was attacked simply for keeping her own last name.

But women’s support should not be taken for granted.

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

Current polling shows Prime Minister Mark Carney wins on global leadership. But support for the Conservatives remains strong on domestic issues. And at the end of the day, Canadians usually vote on pocketbook issues.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 4, 2026.

OTTAWA—Former prime minister John Diefenbaker would often claim: “Polls are for dogs.”

In his first election, in 1957, Dief the Chief was elected in a minority government, but his second election in 1958 resulted in the largest Progressive Conservative majority in the history of Canada. Winning 208 of 265 seats, Dief’s record was unparalleled to this day.

Even during the Brian Mulroney sweep of 1984, the percentage in seat numbers could not rival that of Diefenbaker.

So why was Dief so disdainful of polls?

Diefenbaker personally experienced the fragility of political popularity. He went from being wildly popular in the 1958 sweep to being drummed out of the leadership at a bitter national convention only nine years later.

Diefenbaker learned the hard way that polls can be as fickle as the Canadian voter.

The polling numbers tracking Prime Minister Mark Carney today are eerily similar to those of a popular Dief.

With a first minority election under his belt, one year later, Carney could arguably be swept to a large majority if a general election were held today.

Instead, the Liberals’ new majority means that the prime minister will have three more years to build the “Canada Strong” theme that he has promoted in his first year of office.

Polling numbers greatly favour Carney when viewed in comparison to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

In the Nanos poll published last week, overall support for the Liberals stood at 45 per cent with Conservatives polled at 32 per cent.

When it comes to personal popularity, Carney outstrips Poilievre by 22 per cent.

Carney is also ahead of Poilievre in every demographic except that of younger men between the ages of 35 and 54. In that group, Poilievre enjoys a three per cent advantage at 45 per cent favourability.

Despite politicians’ claim that they don’t watch the polls, most do. There are a few reasons why the prime minister should take note of those numbers.

The group that Poilievre manages to win over is the group most closely aligned with issues Canadians are concerned about.

Canadians’ biggest concern these days is job jitters, and that is a shift from previous Nanos numbers which identified the Trump factor as No. 1.

Both are interrelated. Obviously, concerns about Canadian jobs stem from the decision by American president Donald Trump to close off northern borders and threaten key Canadian industries with punishing tariffs.

Carney’s economic announcement of more than $6-billion in skilled trades and apprenticeships last week will definitely seek to assuage job concerns.

Not coincidentally, the target group of weaker support for Carney, those younger men, will also benefit from the combination of mega-project investment and skilled-trade opportunities.

Like Poilievre, Carney has been pretty good at sloganeering. The promotion of a “Team Canada Strong” serves a dual purpose. It connotes strength in the national government, and addresses the simmering separation questions that will be coming to the fore in an upcoming Alberta referendum.

Unlike Poilievre, Carney’s personal popularity has not yet taken a hit. In another Angus Reid poll last week, 30 per cent of past Conservative voters want to replace Poilievre.

His caucus has been publicly supportive with recent sorties of support from Members of Parliament. But that could change quickly if his party rejects him. While 60 per cent of Canadians have a negative view of Poilievre, 57 per cent of Tories think he should stay on as leader.

But dissident numbers rose from 18 per cent last August to 30 per cent in April. If that trend continues, Poilievre could see his own job at risk.

If Poilievre were no longer the Conservative leader, numbers for Carney would definitely be affected.

Current polling shows Carney wins on international leadership. But support for the Conservatives remains strong on domestic issues.

And, at the end of the day, Canadians usually vote on pocketbook issues.

Perhaps the most relevant number in the Nanos polling is the move away from concern about Trumpian international uncertainty to worries about personal pocketbook issues.

Poilievre scores well when it comes to which leader is most focused on these issues.

If the Tories own the affordability question, and they decide to replace Poilievre with another leader, the halo currently worn by Carney could definitely be tarnished.

The deep dive into polling numbers is being done by all politicians, especially those who say they don’t care about polls.

Carney’s need to work on his standing with younger men has already been acknowledged. Expect more Liberal news on affordability and jobs to come.

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

Performing arts groups have been lobbying the government to create a new live performance tax credit. Let’s hope the finance minister mentions this proposal in his economic statement because it truly is an investment for all, not just one gender or one region.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 27, 2026.

OTTAWA—A little-known study published last year by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce laid to rest the myth that cultural spending is a drain on federal finances.

On the contrary, the report, entitled Artworks: The Economic and Social Dividends from Canada’s Arts and Culture Sector, reported that, in 2024, the arts and culture sector contributed $65-billion in direct gross domestic product to the Canadian economy.

Conducted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Business Data Lab, and commissioned by Business/Arts along with the Canada Council for the Arts, Artworks also pointed out that, from 2022 to 2025, spending in arts and culture increased at a rate almost double the general Canadian sectoral growth.

On the international scene, this country sold almost $25-billion in goods and services globally.

According to the report, since 2011, arts-sector spending growth has outpaced all other sectors, including oil and gas, construction, wholesale and retail trade and manufacturing.

Most important for the Department of Finance is that the sector generates $17-billion in federal and provincial taxes.

So why is it, that when the conversation turns to the economy, our attention is focused not on this growth sector, but on other sectors like fossil fuels, auto, and construction?

Principal economist for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce Andrew DiCapua had this to say about government investment in the sector: “The arts and culture sector generates $29 in economic activity for every dollar in federal investment—that’s an extraordinary return in addition to the social benefits that the sector generates. Yet, we’re seeing concerning trends in both public and private funding. If we want to maintain Canada’s cultural competitiveness and harness this sector’s full economic potential, we need sustained, strategic investment.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney has a chance to advance cultural investment in the economic update that his government will be tabling this week.

The Build Communities Strong funding is definitely intended to boost jobs and grow the economy in infrastructure projects with a budget of $27.8-billion over the next decade. Those jobs will primarily go to men.

These investments tie in with Canada Strong, which was the government’s mantra until a new logo was launched at the recent Liberal national convention in Montreal.

The new mantra is Canada for All. This vision ties in beautifully with the Chamber of Commerce call for more investment in arts and culture.

Unlike other investments, government spending in arts and culture reaches out to almost every community in the country.

Festivals and Major Events Canada, the national organization representing everyone from Carnaval de Quebec to the Calgary Stampede, represents more than 500 festivals in communities across the country. That doesn’t include live theatre and music performances that multiply across the country during the summer season.

A coalition of performing arts organizations have been lobbying the government to create a new live performance tax credit. The credit is modelled after the wildly successful Canadian Film or Video Tax Credit which was launched by the government of Jean Chrétien back in 1995.

That 25-per-cent credit on the hiring of Canadian talent was the first of its kind in the world. It has been so successful that similar models have been launched in more than 40 countries around the world. It generates $3.40 in revenue for every dollar spent by the government.

A similar performing arts credit would generate $23 in local economic impact, so its accelerator value is huge. Why? Because when people attend performances, they often spend money in the community, with dinner or drinks before or after.

The government price-ticket on this live performance accelerator tax credit is $100-million annually over three years.

Government officials at multiple levels have been reviewing the proposal, but say it is too rich.

In comparison, the government uptick in military spending to meet NATO targets is $81-billion over five years.

A price tag of $300-million over three years is modest in comparison to the jobs and spending impact it will have on every community in the country.

Canada for All should mean that jobs are not happening only be in male-dominated sectors like the military and infrastructure construction.

A modest arts investment would reach out to every region and every community, with jobs for youth and women who are underrepresented in Canada Strong investments.

In the 10 years of conservative economic statements, the word ‘culture’ rarely appeared.

Let’s hope the finance minister mentions this modest tax credit proposal in his economic statement because it truly is an investment for all, not just one gender or one region.

If the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is promoting cultural investment, the government should be listening.

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

In a post-Trump political scenario, Mark Carney will need to build his bona fides on the left. Liberal Marilyn Gladu will make that harder.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 20, 2026.

OTTAWA—Marilyn Gladu’s gift to the Liberal Party may turn out to be a Trojan horse.

It moved the dial one seat closer to a majority for the government, but the crossover was not essential to the equation.

Four previous floor-crossers over the past several months did not evoke the privately negative response of some Liberals in the way that Gladu’s did earlier this month.

Previous floor-crossers were on the moderate side of their parties, so the only controversy was floor-crossing itself.

When floor-crossers are moving in the wrong direction, the political party experiencing divorce is vocal in its demand to outlaw the practice.

But when the parliamentarians are choosing to join a party, most are welcomed with open arms.

Such was not the case with Gladu.

Liberal circles were abuzz with questions about whether the Sarnia-Lambton-Bkejwanong MP’s arrival was a good thing or a bad thing for the party.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is riding a political high. Some of his support is coming from former Conservatives who like his economic prowess and international experience.

By watering down the Liberals’ perceived environmental agenda, Carney has less fulsome praise from those on the party’s left.

And with Gladu now on Team Liberal, the New Democrats were quick to trot her out as the reason why the government cannot be trusted on issues of social justice and equality.

NDP Leader Avi Lewis attacked the coherence of the Liberals for accepting her. “She ran for the leadership of the Conservative party six years ago on an anti-abortion platform, opposing conversion therapy, a stance many viewed as blatantly homophobic,” he told a media scrum.

Pro-conversion therapy and opposition to abortion were two major planks in her platform when she ran in the Conservative leadership against Pierre Poilievre.

But while some Liberals may have been quietly raising their eyebrows, the prime minister was quick to point out that Gladu promised to support the government on major social questions.

His team was successfully spinning the notion that this floor-crossing was an example of “big-tent politics” hearkening back to the days of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien when there was a significant Liberal caucus rump opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

But that was then, and this is now.

The abortion question was settled in a court judgment almost 40 years ago. And the degree of unanimity on gay rights today is literally a complete sea change from that time.

Gladu would have been happily welcomed into the Liberal government in 1993 because she would join at least a dozen members who shared her viewpoint.

Such is not the case today, so she is going to be a very lonely soldier.

Carney focused on Gladu’s business experience as an engineer when he introduced her as the newest Liberal caucus member.

If she is put to work on projects that can use her economic skills, that may be enough to keep her happy.

But if she is not happy, that can come with its own challenges.

Now that the Liberals have secured a majority government, it will be much more difficult to exercise caucus discipline and keep everyone singing from the same hymnbook.

The prime minister’s popularity was underscored with the size of his byelection victory in Terrebonne, Que., on April 13. Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet visited the BQ stronghold nine times during the campaign, but was not able to defeat the triple crown Grit juggernaut that ushered three new women into Parliament last week.

That popularity will continue at least until the American midterms when the presidential threat may be neutered.

Without Donald Trump as a foil, Carney will have to deliver on the economic U-turn that he is attempting to orchestrate away from dependence on America.

If Carney’s popularity wanes, he will need a strong left wing to carry him over into the next election.

At the moment, he doesn’t need anybody. His own vision and unique, apolitical charm are doing it for him.

But when the tide turns, he will need to strengthen both wings of the party.

Proportional representation was a popular item with some on the left. That was killed at the convention.

Former cabinet minister and fellow leadership candidate Karina Gould was excluded from Carney’s first cabinet. That should change. At the convention, Gould once again proved what an able communicator she is.

If Liberals want a winning team, Gladu should not be front and centre.

In a post-Trump political scenario, Carney will need to build his bona fides on the left.

Liberal Gladu will make that harder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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