Conservative MP Jamil Jivani pleaded to Liberals for inter-party unity, but said the ‘timing and spectacle of recent floor-crossings appears to many Canadians as an effort from you (PM) to demoralize Conservatives and the millions of Canadians who voted for us.’

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 5, 2026.

OTTAWA—Mr. Jivani went to Washington.

The relationship that Conservative MP Jamil Jivani has with American vice-president JD Vance is unique.

They met in university at Yale and became fast friends, with Jivani serving in Vance’s wedding party.

So, naturally, his visit to the American capital is garnering a lot more attention than that of a simple MP.

Jivani reached out to the Prime Minister’s Office, but was surprised when his invitation for the prime minister to join him was declined.

Jivani said he went to Washington to help negotiate a free trade agreement, a goal that has eluded the government this far.

Dominic LeBlanc, minister responsible for Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade negotiations, confirmed that his office briefed Jivani, but the government declined to send a representative.

For his party, Jivani criticized the Liberals for not accepting his offer to be a direct conduit to the team at the White House.

He also emphasized in multiple communications with LeBlanc, the PMO, and the Liberal caucus chair that his intention was to provide a Team Canada approach to the challenge.

But on the Conservative side, Jivani appears to be going it alone. Which begs the question: why did his leader not join him in the Vance arm-twisting initiative?

The timing of Jivani’s trip was also interesting.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has just come off a very successful party convention in Calgary where his approval rating by delegate attendees was even larger than that of former prime minister Stephen Harper.

One would think that this past week should have been one where the leader basks in the glory of his unprecedented party popularity. Instead, he appeared to be playing second fiddle to Jivani’s Washington orchestra.

To be fair, Jivani’s timing was likely guided by his attendance at the annual Washington National Prayer Breakfast.

At that gathering, all the key players in cabinet trade negotiations, Washington lobbyists and high-profile Christian influencers are present. Any issue they embrace is sure to have an effect on Canada-U.S. relations.

Conservatives are working hard to solidify their relationship with the Trump administration.

At the convention, Poilievre’s wife Anaida was referred to as the First Lady, a title that does not exist in this country.

Alberta separatists have recently revealed that they have been meeting with senior Washington officials in an attempt to work on their separation from Canada.

A Trump cabinet official recently pitched in, suggesting that Alberta would be a welcome 51st state.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has avoided any criticism of the separatists and is not even able to get members of her caucus to support Canadian unity.

She also worked to lower the bar for a referendum, and to make it easier for separatists to launch their campaign.

What she didn’t expect was the blowback from other Albertans. Former Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk beat the separatists to the punch with a petition seeking a referendum to stay in Canada. His petition has already been signed by more than 496,000 Albertans, far ahead of the required 293,000 signatures for a vote. The petition has already been certified as successful by Elections Canada.

Things have gotten so divisive in that province that Harper and former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien discussed the issue when they got together last week for a fireside chat in Ottawa.

Both reflected on the fact that another separatist threat looms in Quebec with the potential fall election predicting a return to power of the Parti Québécois.

Well-loved former premier Lucien Bouchard has already stated publicly that, if elected, the PQ should promise there will not be a referendum in the first term.

But the separatists’ drum rolling across the country is causing a stir in political circles across party lines.

In an event sponsored by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, both Chrétien and Harper stressed the importance of a united front when it comes to trade negotiations and Canadian unity.

Harper said that “I think the reality is if the federal government manages the country right, puts the stress on unity and not on ideological tangents there’s no reason why we can’t pull the country together at this moment.”

Jivani pleaded for inter-party unity in his outreach email to Liberals, but at the same time said the “timing and spectacle of recent floor-crossings appears to many Canadians as an effort from you (PM) to demoralize Conservatives and the millions of Canadians who voted for us.”

Jivani may not be able to turn things around in Washington. His first plea for unity should be to Alberta Conservatives who want to join the U.S.

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

While Philippe Léger and others beat the drum to reopen questions around federal interference in the 1995 vote, nobody is asking how provincial agencies and Crown corporations received cash to spend on Parti Québécois propaganda in the year leading up to the vote.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 1, 2025.

OTTAWA—”Operation Citizenship” was all the buzz in Quebec last week. Former immigration minister Sergio Marchi was quoted in a Quebec newspaper saying he was instructed by then-prime minister Jean Chrétien to speed up citizenship applications in advance of a potential referendum vote.

That article followed a revelation by Marchi in the Journal de Quebec coinciding with the referendum’s 30th anniversary.

It was the first time that “Operation Citizenship” was confirmed by any federal cabinet minister although reports of a potential surge in citizenship were originally noted by journalist Chantal Hébert almost 30 years ago.

Marchi has recently written a book, Pursuing a Public Life: How to Succeed in the Political Arena.

The book, published by Dundurn Press, was published on Nov. 4, and launch parties are being held to get some attention.

Two weeks ago, a presentation was held at Library and Archives Canada, and next week, Conservative MP Michael Chong and Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi will co-host a reception with the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians.

Marchi does not write about the citizenship issue in his book, and thought the journalist’s interview would be about his tome.

He spoke freely about the prime minister’s intention to make sure that the right to vote was not denied anyone who had applied for citizenship.

Journalists reported a spike in application processing in the month leading up to the October 1995 referendum, but the confirmation of a citizenship strategy after 30 years exploded like a bombshell in Quebec media circles.

Journal de Montreal columnist Philippe Léger, no fan of the former prime minister, had this to say about the revelation: ”In the pantheon of Canadian history of deception and anti-democratic manoeuvres, Jean Chrétien holds a prominent place … if there is one political constant for Chrétien, he has always put Canada first, at the cost of cheating and undermining the democratic will of Quebecers.”

Newly-elected Quebec Liberal Leader Pablo Rodriquez downplayed the revelation, saying that Quebecers were tired of going back 30 years to debate an old question.

Most people believe Rodriquez is right. But there is a cadre of disappointed separatists who will never accept the fact that Quebecers want to stay in Canada.

While Léger and others are beating the drum to reopen questions around federal interference in the vote, nobody is shining a light into how provincial agencies and Crown corporations were funded with pro-separation budgets to spend hard cash on Parti Québécois propaganda for a year leading up to the referendum.

For example, at the time, Tourism Quebec was providing paper placemats to all restaurants, stating “Welcome to my country, Quebec” with a flourishing fleur-de-lis flag. Those menus were primarily used by small mom-and-pop restaurants who couldn’t afford tablecloths and personalized menus.

That was exactly the demographic the Parti Québécois was looking to influence.

In a radio interview more than 20 years later, I debated Jean-Francois Lisée on the issue. Lisée, a former Radio Canada journalist, became leader of the Parti Québécois from 2016 to 2018. He confirmed in the interview that government agencies were funded in the year leading up to the 1995 referendum with a budget specifically designed for independence.

His rationale was that the funding stopped before the referendum was called, so it did not need to be included in referendum spending documents.

On the show, he admitted that Hydro Québec and other Crown corporations were financed to develop separatist promotions in their work for the year before the vote.

However, for some reason, there has been lots of interest in federal involvement in the referendum, but zero interest in covering actions that favoured the separatists.

One that stands out was the decision by a trucking convoy to block the road to Montreal’s West Island on the day of the referendum. That was a definitive strategy to snarl traffic in areas where the vote was expected to be almost 100 per cent pro-Canada.

Not surprisingly, neither public officials nor police did anything to get cars moving, but that has never been investigated. Thousands were denied the right to vote on the West Island because of the illegal blockade.

So while “Operation Citizenship” may get separatists’ hackles up, there are plenty of unanswered questions about dirty tricks on the other side.

Just before the referendum, then-premier Jacques Parizeau told a group of diplomats that if Quebecers were to vote ‘no’ in the referendum, they would be like “lobsters in boiling water.” The lobster gaffe was widely denied, even though Parizeau was caught on tape.

In politics there are usually no saints on either side.

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

With referendums now being threatened in Alberta and Quebec, the current prime minister and his cabinet should remember what we almost forgot: ‘Les absents ont toujours tort.’

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

OTTAWA—Thirty years ago last week, Canada’s future hung in the balance.

In a second referendum in less than 15 years, it looked very likely that Quebec was going to vote to separate in 1995.

At the time, many argued the question was misleading, as it asked voters to engage in a new negotiation with Canada, and only separate if the negotiations failed.

Whatever the nature of the question, the momentum was on the side of the “Yes” vote. Of course, the Parti Québécois government established the question and their answer was a positive ”Yes.”

From the beginning of the campaign, the Parti Québécois appealed to the heart. Their posters featured springlike sunflowers offering a happy world after separation, with the Canadian dollar and the Armed Forces remaining intact.

The “No” team ran a campaign of the pocketbook, suggesting that the cost of separation would be too onerous to bear, and that the quality of life of Quebecers would suffer if the province tried to go it alone. In an election campaign, pocketbook issues usually work. But when it comes to the fight for a country, suggesting that the province was simply too small to succeed was a negative message that did not sit well with Quebecers.

It wasn’t surprising that less than two weeks before the vote, polling showed the separatists were pulling ahead of the “No” campaign and momentum was on their side. That was the grim message revealed to the federal cabinet and subsequently to the Wednesday caucus meeting where the frightening polling numbers were met by a stunned silence by everyone.

Politicians are not ones to sit on their hands in a crisis. They want to do something. So the federal Liberal caucus decided that it was going to organize a massive rally in Montreal at Place du Canada, and invite the rest of the country to come and tell Quebecers in person why they wanted them to stay in Canada.

In my own case, I organized 14 school buses from Hamilton, Ont. Contrary to press reports, every person paid their own way, chipping in $20 for the round trip. The group travelled 10 hours each way, attended the rally and immediately returned home. A 20-hour ride in a school bus is a sacrifice, and the gesture definitely bore witness to the love Canadians had for Quebec.

The massive rally of more than 100,000 people was reluctantly accepted by the “No” committee. They made it very obvious from the beginning of the campaign that they did not want to hear from anyone outside Quebec. Nor did they want to hear from then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, as they claimed he was unpopular in la belle province.

In the face of certain defeat, Chrétien and the caucus ignored the committee’s advice. Chrétien hosted a televised rally at the Verdun Auditorium where he made a plea to Quebecers to remain in Canada, promising federal recognition of a “distinct society” after the referendum.

As for the rally, the “No” campaign was so afraid of campaigners from outside the province that when then-Liberal MP Brian Tobin and I stood on the stage to pep up the audience in advance of the official event, the organizers pulled the plug on our electricity. Their view was this should be decided by Quebecers. But when we arrived at the Place du Canada for the rally, hundreds of people asked us, “What took you so long?”

In French, there is an expression that says: “the absentees are always wrong.” The prime minister, cabinet, and caucus had largely been absent from the campaign, and had the last-minute intervention not bypassed referendum organizers, our country could have been lost forever.

In some instances, “No” organizers said that they wanted to win, but they didn’t want to win too big. Claude Garcia, an insurance executive, was excoriated at the beginning of the campaign when he dared to tell a rally “it isn’t enough to win, we have to crush them.”

For that affirmation, he was attacked by most members of the “No” committee who accused him of playing hardball in a family setting. But when your country is at stake, there is something worth fighting for.

Post-referendum surveys showed that 69 per cent of Quebecers who knew an anglophone who voted “no.” That tells us that this is a fight for all Canadians and in both official languages, and others.

With referendums now being threatened in Alberta and Quebec, the current prime minister and his cabinet should remember what we almost forgot: “Les absents ont toujours tort.”

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

Experienced MP and current Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia will have to use all his wiles to ensure the fall session does not descend into chaos.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 1, 2025.

The summer’s over, and the kids are going back to school.

The House of Commons will also soon return for the fall session.

The back-to-school period and the return to the House face some parallel challenges.

The first thing a teacher must do in the classroom is establish order and set themselves up for success by ensuring their students do not descend into chaos.

The Speaker of the House has the same challenge. Francis Scarpaleggia is a seasoned member of Parliament who has served his constituents in Lac–Saint–Louis, Que., for more than two decades. Prior to his first election in 2004, Scarpaleggia served for a decade as the assistant to Clifford Lincoln, the predecessor MP for the riding. Scarpaleggia also started volunteering for the federal Liberal Party more than 40 years ago. He knows his stuff.

But he is a newly-minted Speaker who needs to establish his authority in the chair very early.

The previous two House Speakers—both Liberals—were bounced for what could be considered rookie mistakes. Greg Fergus was censured when he appeared in his robes in a video that aired at the Ontario Liberal leadership convention in 2023, while Anthony Rota mistakenly invited a man who had fought alongside a Nazi unit to witness a speech to the House by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, also in 2023.

Scarpaleggia’s experience will prevent him from making those types of mistakes, but he will face a larger challenge.

Normally, the House of Commons remains calm and cordial for the first couple of years of a new government.

Most members of Parliament are exhausted from campaigning and certainly don’t relish the thought of going to the polls again. Nor do the voters.

But in this instance, the return of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre means all bets are off.

There are also a couple of new developments, which will make the management of the House much more challenging.

Thoughts of the upcoming Quebec election will be in the air since it has to be held before Oct. 5, 2026. If the results of a recent byelection are any indication, there is a good chance the Parti Québécois might form government.

PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon is promising to hold a referendum in his first term. Separatist icon Lucien Bouchard, also known for founding the Bloc Québécois, has publicly warned against that move.

In a Radio-Canada interview on Aug. 20, Bouchard said that if the referendum became a central element of the campaign, it would be a gift to the Quebec Liberals.

“From memory, there aren’t a lot of Quebec political formations from the Parti Québécois who have been re-elected with the promise of holding a referendum because it becomes an election issue. …The Liberals fuel themselves on that,” he said.

The separatist movement in Alberta will also cast a shadow on Parliament. Now that the opposition leader holds a seat in rural Alberta, he will have to carefully play this wedge issue to retain support from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and core members of their respective parties.

Poilievre has just come off his own personal re-election campaign and appears happy to continue the themes of his last unsuccessful election campaign.

According to Poilievre, Prime Minister Mark Carney is already worse than former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

The Conservative leader tends to keep his fangs sharpened in and out of the House, and his party will follow him in that regard. This makes Scarpaleggia’s job more difficult than it would normally be at the beginning of a new Parliament.

The House is also dealing with a prime minister who is relatively new to the rules of parliamentary process. Carney is obviously a quick learner, but sometimes in the heat of the moment, the notion of calm leadership goes out the window.

Carney has definitely developed a thick skin in serving as governor of the central banks of both Canada and the United Kingdom. In those roles, he was on the receiving end of many political barbs when MPs were unhappy with interest rates or monetary policy.

But in the House of Commons, one has little time to react to an insulting question.The instinct to attack in return has to be tempered by the public expectation that a prime minister should be calm and measured.

The same holds true for the Speaker. Scarpaleggia has a calm demeanor, but a raucous House will also demand a strong voice in the chair.

The Speaker will have to use all his wiles to ensure the fall session of the House does not descend into chaos.

Like the teacher managing a new classroom, the Speaker needs to have a good first week.

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.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on October 8, 2018.

The phrase was coined by retiring premier Philippe Couillard on the eve of the worst defeat in the history of the Quebec Liberal Party by CAQ Leader Philippe Couillard. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade and courtesy of Flickr

OTTAWA—Incumbent syndrome is an affliction sweeping across the country. The phrase was coined by retiring premier Philippe Couillard on the eve of the worst defeat in the history of the Quebec Liberal Party.

His party faced an unstoppable wave, and despite outward claims of optimism, Couillard and his team saw it coming.

Just like the movement for change in Ontario and New Brunswick, once the wave takes hold, there is nothing an incumbent can do to stop it.

Therein lies a message for the federal Liberals as they prepare for the next election.

Unlike Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the outgoing Quebec premier had plenty of advance notice of his party’s plunge in popularity.

Having inherited a province in deep economic trouble, Couillard’s first two years included an austerity plan that many Quebecers found hard to swallow. In addition, the premier himself was not an emotive political leader. Many felt he was too cold and aloof to really connect with the people. Quebecers appreciate passion, and they reward it at the polls.

But in the months leading up to last week’s vote, the Liberals were polling in the twenties. Despite an upward bump in the final weeks, the outcome was never really in doubt.

Most polls predicted a much tighter race but Quebecers did what they usually do. They voted en masse, and the collective decision was a ballot for change.

Voters threw all the bums out, including the deliverance of a potential death blow to the Parti Québécois, denied party status for the first time in history.

Couillard looked positively relieved when he took to the stage with a graceful concession speech on election night.

If he looked relieved, PQ leader Jean-François Lisée appeared positively shell-shocked. So complete was the separatist party’s repudiation that Lisée lost his own seat to upstart Quebec Solidaire candidate and former fellow journalist Vincent Marissal.

The QS rise mirrored the fall of the PQ, breeding a rivalry that will be hard to bridge in the near future. Even if a fusion of the two parties were possible, political support for sovereignty has bottomed out.

Coalition Avenir Quebec winner François Legault was inclusive and positive in victory, pledging to work with all Quebecers and reaffirming his commitment to the place of Quebec within Canada.

The olive branch Legault held out was an important message of economic and social stability. Legault’s political career has been chequered at best, but he has a solid reputation as a successful business leader who understands the importance of constancy to a strong economy. And Couillard delivered him a strong economy in spades.

Not that the Liberals got any credit for it.

Coming from medicine, Couillard probably had no idea that the confidence we bestow on doctors will never translate into political gratitude.

Who can blame the man for being a little confused?

He delivered the province from a heavy debt load and attracted new investment and economic growth to take Quebec from the back of the Canadian pack to the front.

And his thanks was a collective voter decision to throw him out in favour of a party that did not even exist seven years ago.

To be fair, the warning bells sounding for Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick Liberals are not currently tolling for the federal party.

Trudeau’s success in bringing home a new free trade arrangement for North America may actually help him dodge the change bullet.

There is no clear alternative in the wings. The Conservative leader is running television advertisements which sound like a casting call for Father Knows Best.

Although the focus of the ad is Andrew Scheer’s mother, his dull intonation is that of an old man in a young person’s body. The Harper lite label is not going away any time soon.

Federal Liberals are also currently benefitting from the lack of New Democratic Party lift-off via their new leader, Jagmeet Singh.

However, Singh is the new kid on the block and a positive election campaign could position him to represent change in the same way it helped Trudeau the last time out.

After a strong debate performance, the prime minister vaulted from third to first place because he best represented generational change.

That playbook is spent so the Liberal brain trust will have to come up with a new way of making Trudeau become the voice for another new change. Otherwise, the weight of incumbency could drag the party down.

In this day and age, the status quo is death in politics.

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