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.

If this fight continues, the federal government may have to consider overriding Danielle Smith’s objections. The pain of tariffs needs to be shared across the country. If Ontario and Quebec are facing tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, every province has to do their part. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 17, 2025.

OTTAWA—The roller-coaster ride facing our country is unlikely to end soon.

U.S. President Donald Trump is doubling down on his false claims that Canada is responsible for the tariff wars engulfing both countries.

And he continues to repeat that Canada’s best economic path would be to simply join the United States. Trump has been publicly questioning the boundaries between the two countries, and the organizations that manage boundary issues and shared watersheds.

The International Boundary Commission has maintained the integrity of the border since a treaty signed in 1925. The current boundary was surveyed and demarcated in 1908. Since that time, there has been zero claim that the border designation is wrong.

But we are dealing with a president who thinks he can rename the Gulf of Mexico simply by executive order.

He can also decide that news organizations refusing to carry the Gulf of America geographic designation will no longer be part of the White House press pool.

Reuters and the Associated Press have both been kept out of White House briefings for not bowing to the president’s order.

The White House Correspondence Association used to be responsible for managing the media membership and presidential pool access. It has criticized the change in policy, but Trump has said he wants new media included.

The president has also decided to further snuff out free speech by authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport anyone in the country on a temporary permit who participates in legal demonstrations.

So much for America’s First Amendment guaranteeing free speech.

Trump’s disrespect for Canada continues apace, even though the vast majority of Canadians have made it very clear that they are not interested in becoming the 51st state.

The only organized group that seems lukewarm to the fight for Canada is the truckers’ Ottawa occupation group.

Leader Tamara Lich—still awaiting the verdict in her trial for mischief, intimidation and counselling people to break the law—went on social media to complain about the slogan “Elbows Up,” calling it “the stupidest slogan I ever heard of.”

Mike Myers didn’t agree with her. In his recent appearance on Saturday Night Live, the Canadian comedian launched the “elbows up” movement after playing Elon Musk on the show. At the very end of the episode, Myers opened his vest, showing his ‘Canada Is Not For Sale’ T-shirt, and mouthed the words “elbows up” message while crooking his left elbow up. Every Canadian knew exactly what he meant. #ElbowsUp became a rallying cry that Liberal Leader Mark Carney referenced in his victory speech at the party convention last weekend, as did outgoing prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Some of the Liberal government’s more vocal opponents don’t like the unity message. It will be interesting to see how the leader of the official opposition manages this national consensus.

Pierre Poilievre has expended so much political energy to convince people that Canada is broken that it is tough for him to embrace a national, united fight for the country.

His core support draws from anti-vax truckers and if he appears to be too pro-Canada, that could cost him dearly. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has made it clear she will risk nothing in her tariff fight.

While most other premiers appear focused on this existential fight of our lives, Smith heads off to Florida March 27 to headline a conservative event with Ben Shapiro, a strong supporter of the plan to overrun our nation.

“When we take over Canada, you will be expelled to Panama to work the canal,” he wrote in a social post to prime minister Justin Trudeau in January.

Alberta New Democratic Party Leader Naheed Nenshi called Smith’s participation in the US$1,500 ticketed event, “Despicable. These are not the kind of people that Albertans want her associating with,” Nenshi told reporters.

Smith defended her participation, saying she will be influencing millions of followers on Shapiro’s social media account.

The premier has also been on Breitbart, saying she is getting the message out, but unlike Ontario Premier Doug Ford, her main strategy appears to be appeasement.

Smith repeatedly states that Alberta will not retaliate with oil and gas tariffs, even though the brief threat of electricity tariffication got Trump’s attention.

If this fight continues, the federal government may have to consider overriding her objections. The pain of tariffs needs to be shared across the country. If Ontario and Quebec are facing tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, every province has to do their part.

A fuel tariff would be immediate cause a hike in gasoline prices south of the border. Gas-guzzling pro-Trump truckers would not be amused.

Canada needs all elbows up!

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

Donald Trump keeps saying that Canada will be better off, with a better health-care system, better jobs and a better economy if it joins the United States.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 17, 2025.

OTTAWA—Sixty years have passed since Canada broke from British tradition to adopt a unique flag.

The distinctive red Maple Leaf is now recognized around the world as a symbol of Canada, but it was a much more divisive debate six decades ago.

With the exception of U.S. President Donald Trump, most people see our flag as a symbol of freedom and diversity. It often adorns backpacks of young travellers as a flag that is welcomed everywhere.

It wasn’t always so. In 1965, the Progressive Conservatives thought the adoption of a new flag was an insult to those who fought in two world wars under the unofficial national Red Ensign. The ensign included a smaller union jack and a Canadian coat of arms.

Former prime minister John Diefenbaker made it his personal mission to fight the flag.

Prime minister Lester Pearson preferred another design, which included three red flags attached by a stem with a blue border. The original designer of the flag, Mount Allison University historian George Stanley, received death threats.

The Tories voted for the single maple leaf design, thinking Liberals would support the tri-leaf version that was called the Pearson Pennant. Instead, Liberals also supported the single Maple Leaf, and an all-party committee voted 15-0 in favour of the Stanley-designed flag that was inspired by the flag of the Royal Military College in Kingston.

While the world may have embraced it, even modern-day Conservative governments have not been so celebratory.

On the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the flag, then-Canadian heritage minister Conservative Shelly Glover refused to organize a celebration of the event.

While local flag-raisings took place across the country, the only official national celebration was held by then-governor general David Johnston.

Current Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has taken a more celebratory approach to the flag.

In Tory advertisements, Poilievre is often seen walking in a field under the shadow of a huge Canadian flag.

The use of the flag as a symbol adopted by anti-vax truckers has now made its display permissible for all political stripes.

Trump recently communicated his message of economic domination by tweeting a photograph of himself standing on a mountain with a Canadian flag flying proudly behind him.

And five living Canadian prime ministers called on all Canadians to fly our flag on the anniversary date as a message to Trump that our country has no intention of becoming America’s 51st state.

In a joint letter signed by former prime ministers Stephen Harper, Joe Clark, Paul Martin, Kim Campbell, and Jean Chrétien, the leaders called on Canadians to fly the flag this past Saturday to answer the “threats and insults from Donald Trump.”

And while in Brussels attending a meeting with European leaders, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made it very clear that there’s “not a snowball’s chance in hell” of Canada joining the United States.

He’s enlisting the support of international partners, including the European Union, as most states have been strangely silent on Trump’s annexation comments.

Europeans are listening now because Trump has been threatening them with tariffs, as well.

The Danish government has reacted to Trump’s announcement that he would like to take over Greenland. As well as threatening retaliatory tariffs on Ozempic, Denmark’s biggest export to the U.S., some Danes have launched a petition to buy California.

While all Canadians are now uniting behind the flag, the Trump threat may also serve to be a catalyst for breaking down interprovincial barriers.

If we can build a pipeline to send Alberta crude for refining in Illinois and Texas, surely, we can do the same for eastern Canada.

So when we have been delivered lemons by Trump, we need to make lemonade. And we need to start recognizing the great benefits that come with life under the Canadian flag.

Poilievre’s message that Canada is broken now needs reworking, and he was slated to deliver a major pivotal speech this past weekend.

His message will need massaging because the idea that Canada is broken plays right into the hands of Trump, who plans to crush our country economically.

Trump keeps saying that Canada will be better off, with a better health-care system, better jobs and a better economy if we join the U.S.

He also revealed earlier last week that when it comes to takeover of foreign lands, he believes he has the legal right to “take over the Gaza Strip and occupy it.”

Insert “Canada,” and we have an idea of what might be coming.

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

Up until Doug Ford’s hot mic comments about Donald Trump, he was smooth sailing as Captain Canada, but he’s hit some rough waters.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 10, 2025.

OTTAWA—Captain Canada has no clothes. Ontario’s Doug Ford lost that standing when it was revealed last week in a leaked hot microphone recording that he was a huge Trump fan who celebrated when Donald Trump was victorious.

“On election day, was I happy this guy won? One hundred per cent I was,” Ford told supporters while chatting with a few of them on Feb. 3 at a campaign event. “Then the guy pulled out the knife and fucking yanked it in us.”

In that regard, Ford joined a minority of Canadians as the vast majority were hoping for another outcome to the American election.

Ford said all the right things in the lead-up to the tariff war, including wearing the mantle of Captain Canada in multiple American television interviews.

His negative numbers were neutralized as a result of these interventions, and it looked like Ford would be sailing to a second term.

Then came the revelations of what he really thinks. Ford called a snap election banking on two things: the unpopularity of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and the popularity of Ford’s personal fight for Canada.

But now he has faced a serious hit to his plan on both those fronts.

First, the prime minister’s reaction to the tariffs, including an incredible speech to the nation and a robust response to Trump’s proposed plan, have actually boosted his popularity.

It is hard for Ford to run against Trudeau, and then get on television to say how we all want to work together.

Second, Ford’s attachment to Trump, and the fact that he is sticking to a multi-million Starlink satellite contract with Elon Musk is causing pain on political fronts.

Ford briefly announced he would cancel the deal, but then revoked his cancellation when the tariff threat was put on pause for 30 days.

Trump may have paused, and his attention temporarily pivoted to an insane suggestion to kick all Palestinians out of Gaza and turn the place into an American-owned resort. For a president who campaigned on staying out of other countries’ business, he is off to a poor start.

Trump continually repeats his dream to literally turn Canada into the 51st state. And Canadians are literally not buying it. The national move to “Buy Canadian” and to refuse American purchases or travel shows no signs of pausing.

Trump has even managed to turn Quebecers into ardent Canadian nationalists. The boycott is being felt so broadly that Boston Pizza felt compelled to underscore its Canadian identity.

The company took the unprecedented step of clarifying through social media that despite its name, it is not American.

In fact, it is so Canadian, it was even started by a former Mountie.

The Boston Pizza mea culpa is proof positive that the Buy Canadian movement is working. Even after the American president postponed tariff threats for 30 days, Canadians appear to be launching their own trade war.

And if the label or destination is American, the answer is no.

As for Ford’s Conservative counterpart in Ottawa, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is still reeling from the fact that his carbon tax election has been pulverized by a change in Liberal leadership and the fight against Trump’s political agenda.

Poilievre is also too closely aligned with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, the only Canadian politician bent on weakening her country’s leadership by siding with Trump.

It took Smith only hours after the announcement that Trudeau had been successful in postponing tariffs for the Alberta premier to start attacking him again, and defending Trump’s actions as understandable.

Only a month ago, pundits were claiming that Smith was in the ascendancy as Trudeau was leaving and Poilievre appeared poised to become prime minister.

Thank Trump for a trade war that vaults the federal Liberals into top spot in Ontario for the first time in almost two years.

Mainstreet Research polling published last week showed the federal Liberals at 43 per cent while the Conservatives are at 39 per cent. That has not been replicated in the provincial election trending yet, but Ford’s support of Trump is already provoking some movement in the race.

The hatred for Trudeau that was supposed to be the underpinnings of a successful Ford re-election has diminished, and with the fight for Canada, the premier has to be cautious about his attacks on the prime minister.

As for Poilievre, he has largely disappeared, not doubt huddled with supporters trying to craft a new three-word slogan as “Canada is Broken” no longer cuts it.

Perhaps he should pivot to a four-word pitch.

There is a new MAGA hat circulating featuring the Canadian flag, and the words Make America Go Away.

That is a hat the Tories should be wearing because as long as the threat of Trump’s annexation plans remains, Canada will not be broken.

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

A lawsuit will not likely reverse the damage already done to Han Dong. A warm caucus welcome would be a good place to start.

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

OTTAWA—Han Dong should be quickly welcomed back into the Liberal caucus with open arms.

He was completely exonerated by the final report of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference headed by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue.

Dong posted a letter following the report release last week which said the following: “I am relieved that Justice Hogue ‘did not see evidence of parliamentarians conspiring with foreign states against Canada.’”

Dong also expressed that he was “heartened by Justice Hogue’s definitive conclusions about the very public allegations that have been made against me specifically. I have always maintained that I called for the release of the Two Michaels at every opportunity. I am grateful for Justice Hogue’s unequivocal confirmation that ‘the classified information corroborates Mr. Dong’s denial of the allegation that he suggested the PRC [People’s Republic of China] should hold off releasing Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor.’”

Dong is seeking an apology from Global, Corus and the Global newscaster who originally broke the allegations story.

In her report, Hogue made it clear that no foreign government posed a threat to elections in Canada. She found the bigger threat to democracy is the spread of disinformation and misinformation in media and on social networks. Ironically, it was spread of just such mis/disinformation that led to the establishment of the inquiry in the first place.

Hogue’s 16-month investigation involved testimony from more than 150 witnesses, resulting in seven volumes of recommendations. More than half of them should be implemented before the next election.

Some of the recommendations involved changes to party nomination processes, and the necessity for leaders to receive security briefings. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is the only current leader who refuses to get security clearance for those briefings, on the grounds that it might affect his ability to speak freely on issues.

Hogue also discredited the conclusions of a report prepared by the parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing foreign influence on parliamentarians.

Last June, in the middle of the Hogue Inquiry, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians published a report based on intelligence documents that accused unnamed parliamentarians of “semi-wittingly” or “wittingly” assisting foreign government attempts to interfere in the Canadian democratic process.

Hogue said the parliamentarians came to the wrong conclusion, and suggested “the frailties of intelligence make it dangerous to rely on.”

Hogue’s report, because it largely debunked the political hysteria surrounding the role of parliamentarians as traitors, received little coverage. Likewise, the exoneration of Dong was buried deep in the news cycle.

The initial allegations made front-page news across the country, and the crisis prompted his departure from the Liberal caucus while the investigation was ongoing.

Hogue identified shortcomings in the flow of information between federal government departments involved in the issue. But since when has bureaucracy not been accused of a laborious system to manage the flow of information? When dealing with classified information, the flow can be even more tedious.

Because the report largely discounts the role of foreign governments in Canadian elections, we can expect to hear very little on this issue in the near future.

But what the Hogue report does expose is an uneasy willingness to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to the dealings of non-white Members of Parliament.

No MP has ever been accused of cozying up to the United States, even though we have a friendship group pf parliamentarians that connects on a regular basis. MPs with good connections in Washington are considered an asset.

Why do we not say the same thing about MPs with good connections in other countries? Why is it considered perfectly normal to work in tandem with the United States, but positively traitorous to be well-connected in the People’s Republic of China?

Is racism a factor of bias in some of our intelligence-gathering? Are we as stringent with European connections as we are with those of the Asia-Pacific?

Given the definitive conclusions of the Hogue report, it is time to right a wrong.

It is one thing to amend party regulations to ensure tighter control on who gets to vote. But what are the consequences for false information that targets a hardworking Member of Parliament like Dong?

Dong is free to go the legal route, as he seems to have a solid case for a libel suit. I successfully sued members of the media twice in my political career.

But a lawsuit will not likely reverse the damage already done to Dong. A warm caucus welcome would be a good place to start.

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

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

OTTAWA—Enemy of the state: that is the only way to characterize the threat of Canadian “economic annexation” by American president-elect Donald Trump.

His so-called joke about Canada joining the United States is turning deadly serious.

It is a threat that one would expect from a dictator. It is not a threat that one could expect from the leader of our democratically-elected neighbour, the United States.

All bets are off with the Trump claim that Canada should join the U.S. in the formation of a single country.

He even has the nerve to post a map of Canada absorbed into the United States, with the stars and stripes flag covering all the way from Mexico to the Arctic.

Trump has ruled out military force as a method of annexation, speaking instead about economic annexation.

He continues to falsely claim that Canada receives hundreds of millions in subsidies in America.

He wants to end auto, milk, and lumber imports from Canada, claiming that his country doesn’t need any of our goods to survive.

However, Trump did not mention electricity or oil and gas, Canadian exports that America needs to keep its economy running.

Trump also reached out to support the candidacy of Pierre Poilievre as a future prime minister, saying the pair are on the same political wave length.

Poilievre moved quickly to distance himself from Trump, stating the obvious: Canada will never become the 51st state.

But Conservative allies like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith plan to attend the president’s inauguration on Jan. 20 in celebration of his victory.

The Alberta premier has also refused to join Ontario Premier Doug Ford in denying the export of energy to the U.S. Ford promised to retaliate on tariffs by refusing to export energy south of the border, but Smith quickly rebutted that Ford did not speak for her province.

However, that happened before Trump launched his campaign to annex Canada.

Smith would be hard-pressed to explain her presence at Trump’s inauguration when the leader she plans to celebrate is claiming publicly he will buy Greenland, annex Canada, and take over the Panama Canal.

While Trump’s threats are being widely covered here at home, they won’t make the news very long in the U.S.

Ford was supposed to be interviewed on the subject by CNN, but his presence was cancelled when the California wildfires replaced Canada’s annexation in the news cycle.

While Americans may gloss over Trumpian machinations, we cannot afford to do so.

We need to get tough on as many fronts as possible. One of those could be a refusal to allow the president to enter Canada for the G7 meeting in June because of his recent federal criminal conviction.

Diplomacy could override that refusal, but diplomacy is also a two-way street.

Unless Trump issues a clarification regarding his crazy annexation claims, he should be kept out of the country.

Words have consequences, and the words of a bully need to be met with consequences.

Some might argue that barring Trump from the country would simply poke the bear.

But stroking the bear has not gotten us anywhere.

Peter Donolo, former prime ministerial communications adviser to then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, recently wrote an opinion piece saying that we can’t treat the Trump threats as a joke.

Instead, we need to act with political muscle. That muscle should include testing Trump in international fora.

The Organization of American States is where the unilateral declaration of annexation theory could be tested. Last year, the OAS issued a condemnation of Venezuela’s move to annex the Essequibo region of Guyana.

Canada, and the rest of the Americas, has an interest in dampening down Trump’s rhetoric.

Annexation is not legal, which is why the world has been working to get Russian troops out of Ukraine.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should also be asked to take a stand on the American president-elect’s annexation ruminations.

The United Nations could also be an appropriate forum for condemnation of Trump’s hostile annexation rhetoric.

These claims need to be fought at the highest level of international diplomacy, including the potential for legal remedies.

The International Court of Justice should be asked for its opinion as to the legality of Trump’s annexation threats. It has a mandate to give advice on international legal issues. What could be more pressing than a claim that one democratic country will undertake ‘economic annexation’ of another?

Trump must be taken seriously. It is time to fight a bully by destroying his bully pulpit.

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

In last week’s palace revolt, there is no heir apparent standing in the wings. Although several candidates are already preparing, including some in cabinet, there is no single juggernaut organizationally.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 28, 2024.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dodged a bullet from his own party last week.

A document signed by 24 caucus members set out the reasons why they think he should resign. One surprise element in the document was the deadline for his decision.

He has been told in no uncertain terms that he must make his future known one way or the other by Monday, Oct. 28.

The number of caucus members who did not sign the document is just as noteworthy as the number who did.

In a caucus of 153 members, some 130 chose not to participate in this ultimatum.

That doesn’t mean that they are all happy with the leadership, no matter what cabinet members have been saying for the cameras.

With poll numbers stagnating and a 19-point gap to close with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, many ministers and MPs are repeating privately what the dissidents said at the Liberal caucus meeting on Oct. 23.

Some are voting with their feet, decided they are not seeking re-election for all kinds of good reasons. Most of them cite family and quality of life issues, but the cloud hanging over everyone’s head is winnability.

If they don’t make a move soon—and drastically—they are all risking defeat in an election expected next year.

Media reports said Trudeau listened attentively to the criticism and got emotional at times when he recounted the sacrifices his own family has made on his behalf.

In his own words, the prime minister has said that his decision to continue in politics was a factor in the end of his marriage.

That is an incredible sacrifice to make, and at some point, he has to evaluate whether it is really worth it.

The past year has been an unsuccessful effort to reboot the Liberal image.

The move to shake up cabinet and bring in younger, more diverse voices has not resulted in any upswing in Liberal support.

If anything, that shakeup actually accelerated Trudeau’s downward spiral as caucus grew more concerned when two relatively safe Liberal seats were lost in byelections in the key battlegrounds of Toronto and Montreal.

Trudeau has consistently refused to used paid advertising as a way to change the channel on his leadership. When he was elected in 2015, he promised to do away with government advertising that was deemed to be partisan.

But that promise is blowing up in his face as most Canadians have no idea that the federal government has introduced enhanced pharma care, national daycare, increased dental care and cross-Canada school food programs.

Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith underscored the decision by the Liberal Party not to spend a lot on advertising in a media interview after the caucus last week. He also called for an end to the “palace intrigue.”

His wish may be granted as most Liberal MPs don’t want to stab themselves in the back.

Back in the days of the fight between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, a similar letter circulated for weeks.

Martin supporters in the caucus had been working for years to smooth the way for their guy to take over, and this letter-writing campaign garnered more than 70 signatures.

The difference is that there was well-oiled machine behind the man who wanted to force Chrétien out.

Martin was widely viewed as a successful finance minister who could be a three-term prime minister himself.

In last week’s palace revolt, there is no single heir apparent standing in the wings. Although several candidates are already preparing—including some in the current cabinet—there is no single juggernaut organizationally.

The Oct. 28 deadline is a recognition that the time to replace Trudeau is running short if he were to decide that he wants to step down and prompt a leadership race.

With loss of the supply-and-confidence agreement with the New Democratic Party in September, the uncertainty of an early election also has Liberal members spooked.

They know that even if Trudeau goes, the time to put together a leadership scenario is a minimum of five months, and even that is cutting it short.

They may not have five months if all opposition parties decide they want to vote non-confidence.

Trudeau exited caucus last week pledging to reporters that “the Liberal Party is strong and united.”

That may be wishful thinking. They are certainly united in wanting some specific changes to how the government is getting its message out. And some simply want him out.

But don’t expect Trudeau to follow his father’s footsteps and take a walk in the snow this week.

Hill Times Editor’s note: Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith was referring to the Liberal Party of Canada’s lack of political advertising, not the Government of Canada’s. This column has been corrected and updated online.

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

The idea behind the Marshall Plan could be applied to a world approach to resettlement of refugees.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 14, 2024.

OTTAWA—Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre are cut from the same cloth.

Last week, the behaviour of both men made that clearer than ever.

While a Category 5 hurricane was bearing down on Florida and the Gulf Coast, Trump was doing everything in his power to blame the storm of the century on immigration.

While Canada and the world were mourning first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on innocent Israeli civilians, Poilievre used a memorial service to blame the catastrophe on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

According to Trump, immigrants—and by osmosis his opponent Kamala Harris—are responsible for all crimes, economic challenges, and inflationary woes in the United States.

He forgets that more than one of his wives is an immigrant herself who has contributed positively to American life.

Poilievre is not riding the anti-immigration wave at the moment. Like Trump, he is married to an immigrant, but unlike Trump, he cannot make hay over a political attack on refugees.

Canadians are still generally positive about the role immigrants play in building our economy, although that support has been waning in recent months.

Make no mistake, if Poilievre smells a change in the domestic political wind, he will follow his American counterpart into attack mode on immigration.

Quebec Premier François Legault has already opened the door to that possibility, as he has recently taken to blaming the federal government for refugees who have been coming across the American border on foot.

Legault knows the pur laine support that he depends on is not as positive toward immigration as it is in urban areas.

Herouxville, Que.,’s racist “code of conduct” for immigrants was not that long ago. The notion that immigrants could water down the vibrancy of the French language in Quebec appeals to voters in rural constituencies.

Quebec is one province where Poilievre has not made a breakthrough. If he needs to stoke fear of immigrants as an election wedge issue, he will not hesitate.

So how does the current Liberal government counter that possibility?

Taking a leadership role in designing solutions for the world refugee crisis would be a good place to start.

I attended a meeting last week where a former public servant approached me to suggest that Canada initiate a call for a world Marshall Plan for refugee resettlement.

The first Marshall Plan, launched by the Americans after the Second World War, sought to rebuild war-torn regions of Europe, and modernize industry by removing trade barriers and improving prosperity. Another goal was to prevent the spread of communism.

In a relatively short period of less than a decade, bombed-out infrastructure was remediated, and the Europeans were back in business.

Some credit the Marshall Plan with putting Germany in the position to become a dominant European industrial powerhouse.

But the idea behind the Marshall Plan could be applied to a world approach to resettlement of refugees.

The Canadian government could take the lead in the Americas, working with Caribbean and Latin American countries to develop an economic-funded resettlement plan that would not cannibalize borders, but rather would co-operate and share the challenge of resettling the millions of global citizens who have lost their homes to war, famine, economic collapse, or climate change.

By involving Latin American nations, the plan would develop a more rational collective approach to assist the influx of immigrants from failed states in that part of the world.

A refugee resettlement plan could be replicated in other parts of the globe with a similar work plan.

Obviously, participation by the United States would be key, and that cannot happen until the results of the November election are finalized.

If Trump wins, there will be no possibility of regional co-operation, especially with our Latin neighbours. He is busy blaming immigration for every problem facing his country.

But if Harris is victorious, there could be an appetite for co-operation, given her knowledge of Canada and her parents’ status as Indian and Caribbean immigrants.

Now is the time for the Trudeau government to take the lead in an area that Canada knows well.

Back in the last century, our country won the Nansen Medal, a United Nations recognition for outstanding service in the cause of refugees because of Canadian efforts to resettle Vietnamese immigrants.

We remain the only country in the world to have been so honoured. We were the first country to include private sponsorships in our resettlement strategy.

It is time to think big again. Head off an anti-immigrant tsunami with our own modern-day Marshall Plan.

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

Poilievre’s media hatred is well-known, but his disdain for fellow MPs has recently come into greater public focus. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 30, 2024.

Stephen Colbert belled the cat. Before Canadians get too triumphant about how we would never vote for Donald Trump, the host of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert underscored the obvious.

Pierre Poilievre is Canada’s Donald Trump.

As Canadians get closer to an election, Conservative pundits are explaining that Poilievre’s caustic campaign attitude would soften were he to become prime minister.

American pundits said the same thing when Trump was headed to the White House.

After the cliffhanger surprise victory in the November 2016 election, it was suggested that his toxic behaviour would change once he became the president.

But what we observed was the exact opposite. By empowering a bully, American Trump supporters managed to feed the ego of an even bigger bully.

Poilievre is certainly Trump-like in his attacks on everyone who opposes him, and even some of those who don’t.

The Conservative leader issued a prohibition last week against talking to any reporter with CTV news after it was revealed that his comment on dental care was edited.

But his fatwa did not stop there. He also insisted that all Conservative MPs refrain from holding any meetings with executives, lobbyists, or any other representative of Bell Media, even though CTV “unreservedly” apologized for the alleged misrepresentation.

CTV News issued a second statement on Sept. 26, saying two CTV News staff members were responsible for “altering a video clip, manipulating it for a particular story,” and are no longer members of the CTV News team. CTV News “sincerely and unreservedly” apologized, and said its duty is “to provide accurate, fair, and balanced coverage of the issues that matter to Canadians.”

Poilievre attacked the head of CTV’s parent company—and previous Conservative party donor—BCE president Mirko Bibic blaming him for a recent downgrading in the company’s valuation by Moody’s.

Poilievre also claimed that Bibic was pulling the editorial strings in the newsroom to make the Conservatives look bad, and prop up the government.

Forget about Bell’s leadership. What about the almost 45,000 people who work for the company that is struggling along with other conglomerates because of the changing media landscape?

Bibic has actually donated to the Conservative Party in the past. He even supported Jean Charest’s leadership bid, which perhaps accelerated Poilievre’s angry tone last week.

Poilievre has already trashed the CBC, claiming that as prime minister he would end its funding. He has also consistently attacked The Canadian Press for allegedly writing stories that are carried verbatim by dozens of news outlets across the country (which is their mandate).

Poilievre’s media hatred is well-known, but his disdain for fellow MPs has recently come into greater public focus.

After NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh ripped up the supply-and-confidence agreement with the government earlier this month, but then refused to join in Poilievre’s non-confidence motion last week, the Conservative leader called his NDP opponent “a fake, a phoney, a fraud, and a liar.”

The move follows the same example as Trump who loves burning his bridges with aggressive and over-the-top rhetoric.

This is strange behaviour for someone whose prime ministerial future could depend on his capacity to work with other parties.

If he is elected by a minority of voters, Poilievre would have to make common cause with other leaders in order to survive.

And having a workable relationship with Singh should be on his agenda, not increasing the temperature to the point where Singh was implying to “bro” that he step across the aisle and fix their differences with their fists.

Trump has amply proven that you can’t take the bully out of the man. Even when he was in a position of authority, as the president of the United States, Trump acted as though he still had to double down permanently on all his enemies, including—and especially—those who had formerly been his friends.

As for Poilievre, he has pretty much smoked everyone in the so-called “heritage media.”

But he won’t get his message out by simple social posts or Rebel regurgitations.

Last week, Rebel was denied the right to receive media support because, according to a recent Federal Court judgment, it doesn’t create enough original news.

According to Revenue Canada, less than one per cent of Rebel’s content is original, so it cannot claim the financial payment offered by the Liberal government to existing media outlets.

That decision will no doubt enhance Poilievre’s attacks on everyone in the media, but it is a stretch to assume that the president of CTV’s parent company would have any say on what goes on in the national news room.

The legal beagles at Bell are probably reviewing their slander options today. If Poilievre were as fulsome outside the House as he was inside, he will probably be served with a notice to apologize for his comments.

But, like any bully, that may only make him angrier.

As Colbert said: Poilievre is Canada’s Trump.

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

The result of last week’s byelection in Montreal proves there’s no such thing as a safe seat in politics. Liberal organizers also made a classic error: pushing aside viable local candidates for hand-picked head-office replacements.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 23, 2024.

OTTAWA—As prime minister Justin Trudeau struggles to defend his future plans, he should step back and reflect on one thing.

All the troubles the Liberals are currently facing are self-inflicted.

The first huge error was to believe that replacing two highly-respected senior cabinet ministers with newbies would enhance the party’s election chances.

When Trudeau chose to demote then-justice minister David Lametti and send Carolyn Bennett to the diplomatic corps, he was counting on the belief that both occupied so-called “safe” Liberal seats.

The result of last week’s byelection in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, Que., proves one thing.

There is no such thing as a safe seat in politics.

Liberal organizers also committed a classic error in both ridings, pushing aside viable local candidates for hand-picked head-office replacements.

In Toronto-St.Paul’s, Leslie Church—an Ottawa insider—was the chosen one. Several popular local candidates wanted to run for the nomination, but were not given the chance to compete fairly.

In Montreal, nominee Laura Palestini was a well-known local councillor. But there were others who wanted to seek the nomination when Lametti stepped down to return to the legal profession.

National campaign co-chair Soraya Martinez Ferrada told Radio Canada last summer that Palestini was hand-picked by the party, bypassing an open nomination process.

Privately, she explained to disgruntled Liberals that the party preferred directed democracy.

But that decision meant that several long-term riding activists sat out the election, and in a race as tight as the one we saw on the evening of Sept. 16, their absence was costly.

The best way to ensure a candidate has the support of the riding is to allow an open nomination where all prospective candidates prove their organizational prowess, as well as their ability to connect with the community.

In both byelections, head office chose the candidates, and that left a bad taste in people’s mouths.

The self-inflicted wound of trying to direct democracy was coupled with a political calculation that has cost the Liberals dearly.

In the July 2023 cabinet shuffle, three senior ministers were moved out, supposedly to reboot the party fortunes.

Not coincidentally, new cabinet choices depended on how the changes might help electorally.

In Ottawa, former minister Mona Fortier occupied what is supposed to be another safe seat.

The exits of Fortier, Lametti, and Bennett were all supposed to ensure a better political positioning for the Liberals.

Lametti’s departure set the stage for the ministerial appointments of Tourism Minister Martinez Ferrada, and Justice Minister Arif Virani.

Both hail from minority communities, and it was thought that their promotions—like that of Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez—would increase party chances in Latin-American, Muslim, and Filipino communities. Fortier’s replacement with Jenna Sudds was intended to solidify a tough seat in west Ottawa, the thinking being that ministers are more likely to be re-elected in a tight race.

Instead, the numbers have not moved up for the Liberals, and the losses in two previous strongholds have further damaged the prime minister’s staying power.

The notion that ministerial status improves electability is also debatable.

Back in 1984, when I was the only Liberal elected between Toronto and Windsor, the ministerial moniker hurt rather than helped.

At that time, the party had governed for so long that anyone associated with a ministry was actually in greater danger of defeat.

The only reason I was able to win my seat was that I had come from the provincial legislature, and as a new candidate, I had the benefit of saying that I represented change.

In a change election, people vote for change. And if you are too closely associated with the previous government that can hurt rather than help.

The Liberal cabinet reset, carried out more than a year ago, has not improved the party’s standing.

There is a mood in the country that people want change. For better or for worse, they are not focusing on Pierre Poilievre’s destructive policies.

Instead, they are telling the Liberals they want new faces. Trudeau is trying to warn Canadians: “be careful what you wish for.”

Meanwhile, some Liberal organizers are actively seeking to cherry-pick their candidates, and to slow the nomination process for others.

Long-time Members of Parliament like Judy Sgro have fulfilled all the requirements for renomination, but still haven’t been given the green light.

If the party takes one lesson from these byelections, it is this: There is no such thing as a safe seat. And the best way to win an election is for the party to stay out of it.

Let local Liberals decide.

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