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

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

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

Two months is a lifetime in Canadian politics these days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a difference two months makes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is that relevant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are issues of particular interest to women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberals are positioned to fight Donald Trump. Thanks to Alberta’s premier, the Conservatives seem to be ‘in sync’ with him.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 31, 2025.

OTTAWA—With friends like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre needs no enemies.

In the first week of a very short federal election campaign, Smith managed to solidify the ballot question in the Liberals’ favour.

Her major gaffe involved an intervention with the White House, asking American officials to delay tariffs until after the election because that would help Poilievre. Smith stated Poilievre was “in sync” with U.S. President Donald Trump.

All this was recorded in an interview Smith gave to Breitbart, a right-wing podcast that’s been advocating a constitutional amendment to make Trump president for life.

Instead of apologizing for foreign interference in an election, when confronted, Smith simply doubled down and claimed this was her lobbying effort for Canada.

The Alberta New Democrats did not agree, organizing the unveiling of a Canada flag in front of the Alberta legislature to underscore their belief in our country.

Smith added insult to injury by flying to Florida on March 27 to headline an extremist American fundraiser for an Islamophobic group that, according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, denies the history of slavery.

Smith was set to share the stage with Ben Shapiro, who has called Canada “a silly country” and the “Puerto Rico of the North.” Shapiro believes that Canada should be annexed as the 51st state without the right to vote.

Despite multiple requests to cancel her trip, Smith spoke in the Alberta legislature where she blamed the controversy on Liberals because the federal government had asked premiers to join in an all-in tariff lobbying effort.

Smith claimed the opposition to her Florida fundraiser came from eastern Canadian media elites, and the Liberals and New Democrats. She insisted that Albertans supported her.

The more she speaks out, the more Canadians learn about the deep ties between Canada’s Conservatives and MAGA supporters south of the border.

With the American vice-president joining his wife on an uninvited trip to Greenland, Canadians are taking the annexation threat very seriously.

Trump has refused to rule out the use of force to take over the island, but the local appetite for annexation is close to zero.

In the recent election, only one per cent of Greenland voters supported a party that promoted unification discussions. That party was the only one that did not get a single seat in parliament.

Back in this country, the ballot question for the April 28 election appears to be a vote on which leader is best placed to fight American tariffs and annexation.

Poilievre is trying to portray himself as the person with the chops to fight Trump’s tariffs, but quisling Smith’s cosy relationship with extremist Trump supporters is killing that narrative. Smith’s position is not lost on Canadian voters, and has helped to send Tory polling numbers downward.

The turnaround for the Liberals has been nothing short of astonishing. It is so positive that even a former Nova Scotia minister who left politics for “family reasons” made a surprise decision to return. Sean Fraser said last week it was a personal request from the leader that made him reverse his retirement decision, even though a successor for his riding nomination had already been chosen.

Other star candidates like a former mayor of Vancouver, the former acting mayor of Toronto, and well-known journalists Evan Solomon and Anthony Germain have jumped into the fray for the Liberals as the party’s popularity continues to rise.

The first week of the campaign has Liberals on a high.

Polling numbers across multiple platforms show that Prime Minister Mark Carney has eliminated Poilievre’s lead, and has moved to top spot.

The NDP has felt the pain of this Liberal swing because polls show leader Jagmeet Singh moving to single digits.

As Trump continues to threaten more tariffs and annexation, Liberal numbers continue to rise. Carney is viewed as the best choice to stare down the American president.

When it comes to the question of affordability, the Conservative leader fares best.

But it looks as though the ballot question will be who is best equipped to fight the United States. Carney’s massive resumé beats Poilievre’s by a mile.

Trump just added 25-per-cent tariffs to the automobile sector, and that is a huge blow to the Canadian economy.

As a pre-emptive strike, Carney announced a plan to fight the tariffs with a $2-billion auto industry fund the morning before Trump’s announcement. Poilievre was campaigning on tax cuts for seniors.

Liberals are positioned to fight Trump. Thanks to Smith, Tories seem to be in tight with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poilievre jumped on the attack saying,

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

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

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

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

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

Trump could be blamed for the turnaround.

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

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

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

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

Trump has met his match.

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

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.