U.S. President Donald Trump’s negative response to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos declaration has mobilized the majority of Canadians—including premiers—in unity.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 2, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney has a new moniker: Captain Canada.

At the meeting with premiers in Ottawa last week, leaders across the country seemed prepared to work together to grow inter-provincial trade.

The negative response of United States President Donald Trump to Carney’s Davos declaration has had the effect of mobilizing the majority of Canadians—including premiers—in unity.

British Columbia Premier David Eby was positively effusive in his praise for Carney’s Davos speech.

“It’s been a while since I have felt that much pride in being Canadian.”

Trump has started calling Carney “governor” again, and the White House was claiming that the prime minister walked back his Davos speech in a private conversation with the president.

Carney absolutely denied that claim, and the only Canadian party that gave any credence to the president was the federal Conservative Party.

In a statement released after Carney’s Davos speech, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre started with praise for prime minister’s “well-crafted and eloquently delivered” speech, but went on to characterize the approach with a chuckle. “If Liberal words and good intentions were tradeable commodities, Canada would already be the richest nation on Earth.”

Timing in politics is everything, and in this instance, Poilievre’s timing was off.

Carney had a great January, setting the stage with Chinese movement on canola and fish products, and a Davos speech positioning this country as a leader in creating a new world order.

This is a time where the leader of the official opposition should merely be offering praise and support.

When premiers are characterizing Carney as Captain Canada, any comments to the contrary run the risk of putting Conservatives offside with most Canadians.

The last time we saw this kind of federal-provincial harmony was at the height of the pandemic when no party nor political structure had any idea about the path forward to save lives.

During COVID, premiers and the prime minister all sang from the same hymnbook.

This time, they are harmonizing on trade, which can be a lot more politically troublesome than deciding on a medical vaccinations and securing protective medical supplies for hospitals and nursing homes.

Even Eby and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith stated publicly that they were willing to try and work together on issues with the prime minister and other premiers.

The separatist movement in Alberta is still working hard. It was reported last week that the American state department had been in touch with separatist leaders to exchange information.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed publicly that Albertans are very independent people, and the U.S is a natural partner. ”People want sovereignty. They want what the U.S. has got.”

On Jan. 28, Bessent upped the rhetoric warning the prime minister that picking a fight with the president could put the trilateral trade negotiations at risk.

Most global observers don’t believe that Canada has been the one picking international fights.

But Conservatives were quick to follow Bessent’s line of thinking. In an opinion piece written for the American-owned National Post, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner characterized Canada as a “vulnerable, sclerotic, decadent nation from which talent, intellectual property and financial capital continue to flee.”

The more Bessent and Trump attack Carney, the more Canadians from coast to coast to coast will unite.

The most recent Ipsos poll said the number of Albertans and Quebecers wishing to enter a separation discussion with Canada was 29 and 31 per cent, respectively.

But when the same poll respondents were queried on the real-world consequences, support in both provinces was cut in half. Possible downsides include standard of living declines, pension, or trade renegotiations.

The reality of an October election in Quebec is not lost on anyone. With the Parti Québécois leading in the polls, the possibility of a total Team Canada is definitely at risk.

But, in the meantime, it appears as though the disrespect continually shown by Trump and his officials for our country is driving Canadians into the government’s arms.

Meanwhile, reports surfaced last week that the MP who resigned his seat to Poilievre will get the Tory nomination. Damien Kurek has been approved to return as the candidate in Battle-River-Crowfoot, Alta., while the party has no news on where Poilievre would run in the next election.

Maybe the Conservatives are thinking that Poilievre won’t be around to lead the party into the election.

With Trump’s help, that is becoming increasingly likely.

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

The more Pierre Poilievre focuses on his claim that Canada is broken, the more citizens will reflect on who is the best fixer. Six months is a lifetime in politics. Six months from now, the story could be quite different.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 23, 2025.

OTTAWA—Christmas came early for the government.

The caucus Christmas party on Dec. 11 was abuzz with news that another Conservative MP had crossed the floor to the Liberals, leaving them one seat short of a majority.

Markham-Unionville MP Michael Ma issued a statement saying that, after listening to his constituents, “This is a time for unity and decisive action for Canada’s future.”

Ma’s floor-crossing followed the defection in November by Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont, who left the Conservatives to join the Liberal government.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said publicly that both came to the Liberals, expressing their interest in joining. But that didn’t stop Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre from characterizing the defections as “dirty backroom deals.”

Poilievre did not rule out the possibility that others may leave, fuelling rumours that 2026 would deliver a majority Liberal government.

In year-end interviews, Poilievre accepted no responsibility for the turmoil within his party. He continued to repeat the same thing he has been saying for the past six months. Under his leadership, the party received the largest number of votes in its history.

That is true. But that number was subject to two factors. First, Canada’s population is growing, so more voters are registered. Second, Poilievre’s domination in Saskatchewan and Alberta creates voter inefficiency. Many votes do not translate into many seats when they are all focussed in one or two provinces.

The only way Poilievre can win is if he pivots in order to reach out to centrist voters who currently consider the Conservative party too right-wing for their taste.

His popularity seems to be holding within Conservative ranks, and many expect him to sweep through a party review process scheduled in Calgary next month. But even there, trouble spots are appearing and party defections won’t help a leader in descent.

An Angus Reid poll published Dec. 11 found that 58 per cent of recent Conservative voters would like Poilievre to stay on the job. That represents a drop of 10 per cent from a similar poll taken in August.

More troubling for the Conservatives is that the same survey found that 63 per cent of “centrist” Canadians would like to see him replaced as Conservative leader.

It is the same group the Conservatives need if they are to finally break through and form government.

The scenario that seems to be unfolding is perfect for the governing Liberals. If an election were to happen within a year, and that is a possibility even with a razor-thin majority, Carney facing Poilievre is the best possible matchup for the Liberals.

Poilievre is not popular, and his recent comments eschewing any responsibility for the floor-crossers will not help.

What he actually needs, to get voters to give him another look, is to park the slogans and say he is sorry.

Sorry that he led the party to defeat. Sorry that some of his caucus members have lost confidence. Sorry that, six months after the election, he has not made any changes to his campaign strategy.

And while he has made some staffing changes, even they point to a narrow cast of support.

His new federal campaign manager, Steve Outhouse, ran Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis’ leadership campaign in 2022. Lewis was a virtual unknown at the time, but carried the majority of votes in Saskatchewan.

She did that by enlisting the support of those who are opposed to abortion.

But that targeted support comes with a price, including building the party strength on the right.

But that is exactly what the party should not do if it has any hope of forming government in the next federal election.

Poilievre plans to build his campaign on affordability. And that message will resonate with middle-class Canadians struggling with the rising cost of food and housing.

But when these same Canadians are asked whom they have confidence in to lead us through the maelstrom, they definitely prefer the current prime minister.

So the more Poilievre focuses on his claim that Canada is broken, the more citizens will reflect on who is the best fixer.

Six months is a lifetime in politics. Six months from now, the story could be quite different.

But at the moment, it appears Poilievre’s six-month post-election hiatus has left him frozen in time and message.

If he doesn’t change the channel, Poilievre is done.

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

The prime minister’s refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy did not get him a single vote. Nor did the abolition of an ambassadorship. But women are taking notice.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 8, 2025.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney was elected this past April thanks to an estrogen wave.

That was what a key female Liberal organizer had to say about his victory. She said that wherever she travelled, knocking on doors for the Grits, women had confidence in him, and they were the ones reversing the Liberal electoral fate.

Only a few months ago, Liberals were expecting to hold their next Christmas party in a phone booth. Instead, the party is flooded with requests from people who want to join the winning team in this seasonal celebration.

All has been going well. But there are some clouds on the horizon that the leader should be taking seriously.

Words matter—especially when you are in politics. A single comment can be parsed to death.

How many articles were written when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1997 downplayed the police use of pepper spray during a protest against a G20 meeting in British Columbia?

“For me, pepper, I put it on my plate,” was Chrétien’s comical way of minimizing the confrontation.

More recently, Prime Minister Mark Carney declined to characterize Canada’s foreign policy as “feminist” during a press conference following the recent G20 summit in South Africa.

Some saw this as wordsmithing.

Others saw it as a pivot away from the Justin Trudeau government’s 2017 Feminist International Assistance Policy, intended to focus on foreign aid that supports women’s empowerment and gender equality.

The policy was a rebuttal of the previous Stephen Harper Conservative government, which instructed officials to remove gender-based analysis from all cabinet documents.

Carney’s international admission that Canada’s feminist foreign policy was dead has sent ripples throughout the domestic foreign aid community.

Last week, a group of 92 organizations headed by Oxfam addressed an open letter to the prime minister, complaining of foreign aid cuts, and confusion around gender equality.

The organization also called for the re-establishment of an ambassador for women, peace, and security, a post that was folded into the foreign affairs department last March.

Most of us have probably never heard of this envoy, but according to Global Affairs Minister Anita Anand, Jacqueline O’Neill will continue to advocate in that area, sans official ambassadorial designation.

Carney’s statement in South Africa reinforced his initial cabinet decision to eliminate the department of Women and Gender Equality, arguing it could responsibly be included in the ministry for culture and identity.

That faux pas was reversed two months later because of the political backlash it caused.

Similar opposition is quietly brewing internally on feminist foreign policy issues.

A group of senior Liberal women, united on social media, have made it very clear they would be lobbying colleagues at the Christmas party next week.

There is also work within the Liberal women’s caucus, headed by Quebec MP Linda Lapointe, to have the issue referred to the main caucus.

The women’s caucus was crucial in getting Carney to reverse his position and reinstate WAGE as a full ministry.

The open letter from many groups that work internationally on women’s issues will definitely have some effect, but the angst of Liberal women will be even more crucial.

Carney probably thought his rebuttal of a feminist foreign policy would be understood.

He said he wanted gender equality to be a part of the government’s funding mechanisms.

But his focus on defence spending and identifying major projects for national funding means the majority of mega-financing will be focused on men’s jobs.

Like it or not, fewer than 20 per cent of the jobs in the energy sector go to women.

Less than 20 per cent of the Canadian military is also made up of women, and similar numbers apply to defence industries supplying the military.

If only one in five of the big jobs created goes to women, it will be felt in our employment numbers.

More importantly, Carney’s election to the top job was largely dependent on the women’s vote. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was able to secure support from young and middle-aged men in numbers big enough to form government.

But it was women who made sure that Carney got the nod.

No wave lasts forever. An estrogen wave is just as vulnerable to destruction as any other wave.

But surely the loss of support from women should not be based on misspoken messages.

Carney’s refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy did not get him a single vote. Nor did the abolition of an ambassadorship. But women are taking notice.

The prime minister needs estrogen to win. A feminist agenda reset is in order.

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

While current popular support trends remain close between the two parties, Mark Carney’s personal popularity is in the stratosphere relative to Pierre Poilievre’s.

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

OTTAWA–The drama of a budget vote had every political animal in the country on the edge of their seat.

And in the end, it was a cliffhanger. But in reality, the outcome should not have been a surprise to anyone.

Having just come off an election this past spring, there was zero appetite to go back to the polls for most political parties.

The only leader who could have benefited from an election is Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. A ‘no’ vote would have meant that his mandated January 2026 party review would be cancelled.

Poilievre is probably feeling fairly comfortable, given the party review vote will be held in the middle of winter in Calgary. That is the basis for his strength, and much of his support is from Members of Parliament whose purpose in politics is ideological.

Approximately 40 members of the Conservative caucus are rabidly anti-choice, while another three dozen have expressed their opposition to abortion during the election.

Politicians who are elected because of an ideology are less likely to care about winning.

The party members who do care about winning are circling the wagons in anticipation of the January opportunity to replace the leader.

Former party insider Dimitri Soudas has been openly critical of Poilievre, and as last week’s events proved, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is also no friend of the official opposition leader.

When Ford was asked about a potential federal election, he basically threw his federal cousins under the bus. The premier said so many nice things about Prime Minister Mark Carney that an observer would have thought they shared a party.

Some have even written that Carney’s budget is progressive conservative in nature.

Ford is obviously well-organized in Ontario, and Soudas’ political roots in Quebec are deep. Both of these provinces are pivotal to winning any federal election. While Conservatives in Quebec and Ontario are not ideologues, they are used to winning at the provincial and federal levels.

If they have decided that Poilievre is not a winnable candidate, they could cause problems for him in the January vote.

Hence a federal election would have allowed Poilievre to focus on the external opposition to the government, not the internal opposition within his own ranks.

The New Democrats are in the middle of their own leadership race, so the potential of an election would be unthinkable for them.

Even though they publicly opposed the budget, they allowed it to survive by securing two abstentions. NDP abstainers included Lori Idlout and Gord Johns. Idlout did not want to vote against the budget because it included a major investment in her riding of Nunavut.

Interim NDP leader Don Davies told the media after the vote that his party did not want for force an election; therefore, he approved the two abstentions.

As for the Tories, one of the abstainers, Shannon Stubbs, said she acting on doctor’s orders while the other, Matt Jeneroux, has already disclosed his dissatisfaction with his party by announcing he will not be seeking re-election.

Some thought he might cross the floor to the Liberals, following the example of Nova Scotian Chris d’Entremont who left the Conservative caucus on Nov. 4 because he said he didn’t feel represented there. Rumours swirled about other potential floor crossings, but none have materialized to date.

The Liberals will have to hope that some occur because, in minority government, there could be similar, but unsuccessful votes in the next budget, or on a supply motion in the fall.

Poilievre isn’t the only one hoping that he wins his leadership review in the New Year.

Most Liberals believe he is their ticket to remain in government.

While current popular support trends remain close between the two parties, Carney’s personal popularity is in the stratosphere relative to Poilievre’s.

If the budget vote had failed on Nov. 17, there was a good chance that the current polling numbers could have led to a Liberal majority government.

Carney looked cool, calm, and collected on the day of the cliffhanger, probably because he was in a no-lose situation.

Had the election been called, his personal popularity would definitely have outstripped that of the leader of the opposition.

A budget win gives him a few more months to prove to the Canadian people that he is the leader best positioned to pivot away from dependence on economic integration with the United States.

Carney’s global view, and business experience have helped capture the confidence of Canadians.

As long as Poilievre is leading the Tories, Carney has good reason to smile.

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

Quebec Conservatives are now privately speaking out against their leader to the media. Whether these MPs are worried enough to organize their delegations to get to Calgary in January remains to be seen.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 27, 2025.

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre cannot pivot.

The official opposition leader’s attack on the RCMP left his own party members shaking their heads.

His claim that the scandals of the previous Justin Trudeau government should have resulted in jail time has raised many eyebrows. It prompted Dimitri Soudas, who was once the communications director to then-Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, to publicly question Poilievre’s leadership capability.

In a Toronto Star op-ed on Oct. 22, Soudas didn’t pull any punches. “Leader Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative Party Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity and integrity. …In a rule of law democracy, no opposition leader should ever call for a prime minister or any political rival to be jailed. It undermines confidence in our justice system, our federal police and ultimately the Crown.”

Harper dissociated himself with a statement posted on X from the chief of staff at his consultancy, Harper and Associates. Anna Tomala posted on Oct. 17 that “Mr. Soudas does not speak for Mr. Harper.”

But that denial did not stop the rumour mill from churning overtime.

Harper’s refusal to personally denounce the Soudas op-ed has left some observers wondering where he really stands.

CBC/Radio-Canada carried a story that five members of the Conservative caucus had confirmed privately that they were unhappy with Poilievre’s performance since the election. None of the members would be publicly identified, but four who had supported Poilievre before told Radio-Canada they were rethinking their support.

The controversy has raised questions about the level of opposition the Conservative leader will face at his leadership review in January 2026.

Most pundits have been predicting it will be an easy ride, with the date and the Calgary, Alta., location a definite plus for the leader who now represents an Alberta riding.

Soudas’ background is in Quebec, and if there is a real anti-Poilievre movement percolating there, it could definitely upend the current predictions on Poilievre’s party popularity.

Quebecers like winners. And if they think Poilievre is not prime minister material, they will definitely look elsewhere.

Publicly, caucus members were supportive of the leader when entering the weekly meeting last Wednesday.

But public support doesn’t necessarily mean that they are privately positive.

Outgoing Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie had the unanimous public support of her caucus going into her leadership review this past September. But even as members were visibly rallying behind her, some of the same people were privately campaigning to unseat her.

In Crombie’s case, she was also facing vigorous opposition by others who wish to replace her, including Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith.

They were signing up their own delegates to the Ontario Liberal convention in Toronto, hoping to force Crombie out after a weak vote of support.

Crombie did not crack the 60-per-cent mark, and when the final number was tallied, only 57 per cent of the party membership at the convention supported her leadership.

Crombie resigned. She has recently been privately polling members to see whether she should re-enter the next leadership race, but that would be a very unlikely reversal of fortunes.

In Poilievre’s case, it would take a huge effort in Eastern Canada to unseat him because his support in Alberta and Saskatchewan is so deep.

It’s even been speculated that his attack on Trudeau and the RCMP was a strategy designed to increase support among the right wing of the party that prefers a Donald Trump-like approach to politics.

Some even described Poilievre’s intervention as Trumpian, because the American president is constantly ruminating about sending his opponents to jail. Trump is now asking the justice department to refund his US$230-million legal bill via an administrative claims process.

Unlike supporters of other parties, there is a significant minority in the Conservative Party that think Trump is doing a good job.

So, anything that mimics his approach will actually get Poilievre some internal support.

But it comes at the risk of losing the rest of the country. That is why some Quebec Conservatives are now privately speaking out against their leader to the media.

Whether these members are worried enough to organize their delegations to get to Calgary in January remains to be seen.

Poilievre’s gaffe last week will not be enough to unseat him. But public spats with senior party members in the months leading up to the vote are not a good sign.

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

Mark Carney needs something to show that Liberals don’t just care about mega-projects. No tax on food could be a good place to start.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 6, 2025.

OTTAWA—Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is good at retail politics. Other parties may decry his slogans and three-word mantras, but a note of caution needs to be sounded.

KISS is the basic mantra of any successful politician. It may sound a little condescending because in long form, it reads ‘keep it simple, stupid’. For marketing reasons, the last ‘s’ needs to be replaced because voters are definitely not stupid.

But a simple message is one that resonates. When Poilievre coined the phrase “Axe the Tax” in relation to carbon pricing, it mattered little that the fiscal instrument was supposed to be a price on pollution.

He marketed it as an unfair tax, and in the absence of any reply from the previous Liberal government, it was the first thing that Prime Minister Mark Carney did axe.

That move was politically necessary because in order for Carney’s “elbows up” message to be heard, he didn’t need an unpopular carbon pricing system to muddy the waters.

It went, and he won.

Poilievre was unable to pivot in the federal election, and with the help of United States President Donald Trump, Carney convinced Canadians that he was best positioned to offer a path forward by forging new international allegiances without the support of the U.S.

The prime minister is still reaching out internationally, with some success. In the meantime, the leader of the official opposition is sharpening his message on another matter: the cost of food.

Last week, Poilievre launched an attack on the government based on the increasing cost of groceries for Canadians.

A Conservative motion in the House of Commons tabled on Oct. 1 identified four factors involved in taxing food including deficits, the ban on single-use plastics, the carbon tax application to agriculture, and the federal clean-fuel standard.

It is fairly difficult to claim that dirtier fuel would reduce the price of food, and there were plenty of critics ready to attack the Conservative motion.

But the fact remains, any attack on the cost of groceries resonates with Canadians who are suffering the effects of increased prices for most food basics.

While some say the government has little influence on supply-chain issues or international instability affecting food prices, the bottom line is that Poilievre’s message resonates.

“Elbows up” has also resonated with Canadians, which is why the prime minister still has enough public support to withstand the Poilievre attacks at this point. But he shouldn’t assume it will always be this way.

When the November budget is tabled, the finance minister needs to include some deliverables for ordinary Canadians.

It is wonderful to work on interprovincial trade barriers and big projects. But at the end of the day, people vote based on their own personal interests. And if their pocketbooks are being strained by the cost of food, they will be asking whose elbows are up for them.

There is a solution for Carney to blunt this issue immediately.

While food purchased in grocery stores is not generally taxed, the reality is that the meals eaten by Canadians outside the home are all subject to tax.

Restaurants Canada CEO Kelly Higginson was in Ottawa last week lobbying finance officials to announce an end to the tax on all food in the Nov. 4 budget.

Their slogan is “Food is food. Stop taxing what we eat.” It is a simple message, and one that is very similar to that of the opposition leader.

Last year, the previous Liberal government offered a pre-Christmas tax holiday on a number of items, including restaurant eating.

Restaurants Canada is asking the government to make that exemption permanent. In a survey for the group, 84 per cent of Canadians said food should not be taxed, no matter where it is purchased.

A food tax exemption would also serve to buttress youth employment. The restaurant industry employs more than half a million young people, representing one in five jobs for that demographic. It is also the number one source of employment for young people.

The move to cut all food tax would be a big hit for the government. It currently collects $5.4-billion in taxes on non-grocery food. But Restaurants Canada says an end to the tax would result in the creation of 64,500 new service jobs, with 2,680 new restaurants opening and 15,686 spinoff jobs also being created.

Poilievre is getting traction with his focus on food prices. Carney needs something to show that Liberals don’t just care about mega-projects. No tax on food could 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.

Those of us who were ignorant of Charlie Kirk expected that his background would back up the posthumous honorifics. Instead, what we see is the story of a man who went out of his way to sow division based on race, gender, and religion.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 22, 2025.

OTTAWA—Until just recently, the only famous Kirk I knew was Captain Kirk from Star Trek, which first launched on the CTV network in Canada in 1966.

But on Sept. 10, the murder of American Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, on the campus of Utah Valley University reverberated around the world.

The president of the United States ordered all government flags to be lowered in mourning, and announced the posthumous provision of the Presidential Medal of Freedom for the slain political activist.

Those of us who were ignorant of Kirk expected that his background would back up the honorifics.

Instead, what we see is the story of a man who went out of his way to sow division based on race, gender, and religion.

Media Matters for America, a not-for-profit that tracks conservative media statements, published the following direct quotes from Kirk’s appearances and podcasts.

He had this to say about Black people: “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

On former First Lady Michelle Obama, he had this to say: “If we said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama … were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us. …You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.” Not sure how Obama stole a white person’s slot as her partner was elected by a majority vote, but it was this kind of racist vitriol that attracted attention to Kirk.

As for women, in a discussion of musician Taylor Swift’s engagement to footballer Travis Kelce, Kirk said: “reject feminism. Submit to your husband Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

Kirk also said that if he had a 10-year-old daughter who was raped, he would force her to carry the fetus to term: “Yes. The baby would be born.”

He also promoted access to guns, suggesting that “it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

On religion, Kirk said he believed “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” He also did not support the separation of church and state, claiming the concept is “a fabrication, a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

As for his views on the LGBTQ+ communities, “We need to have a Nuremburg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.”

On immigration, he said he believed that “America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever.”

So why are so many people being excoriated—even fired—for criticizing Kirk after death? And why is Donald Trump trying to convince the country and the world that Kirk is a patriot, and that his assassin was a crazed liberal?

Why was Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre upset that Prime Minister Mark Carney did not post a condolence message quickly enough after the murder?

All party leaders eventually posted messages, generally referencing Kirk’s family and the fact that differences in political perspective should not be met with violence.

Of course, that is self-evident, but in the case of Kirk, he deliberately provoked reactions by the nature of his absurd racist, homophobic, and misogynistic statements.

Kirk on the former president: “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled, Alzheimer’s-corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.”

There is never an excuse for politicians to solve problems with a weapon. That is one of the reasons why the majority of Americans want the government to promote gun control.

While innocent people—including children—are slaughtered almost every week in America by crazed individuals, Kirk spent his life lobbying against limiting that access.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conservative leader is having trouble getting support, especially from women, partly because he is seen to be too much of an attack dog. If he is going to be successful, that approach must soften. 

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

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre is riding the wrong horse.

The Conservative leader’s press conference last week attacking the prime minister for putting his holdings into a blind trust continued to personalize Poilievre’s political agenda.

He is now recommending that anyone who is elected to public office in Canada must sell off their holdings or they should not be allowed to remain in office.

Poilievre himself defended the notion of a blind trust when then-prime minister Stephen Harper hired Nigel Wright as his chief of staff.

Like Prime Minister Mark Carney, Wright had deep roots in the private sector. Other political notables like former prime minister Paul Martin faced a similar challenge while in office. Martin owned a major Canadian steamship company and, like Wright and Carney, placed his assets in a blind trust upon entering cabinet.

Poilievre knows full well that if divestiture were the only option for political office holders, many current and former politicians would never have sought the job.

He also knows that the screens being established for Carney’s trust, including oversight by the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, and screening by the clerk of the privy council and his own chief of staff, make it impossible for the prime minister to influence decisions that would personally benefit him. The fact that Carney’s holdings are in a blind trust also means that the trustee could divest all his holdings without Carney’s consultation or approval. Given the nature of these assets that likely is not going to happen, but the notion that one should sell off everything they own to get into politics is unsustainable, and Poilievre knows it.

What is even more strange about the attacks is how personal they appear to be. There is no love lost between the two men but, if only for public consumption, Poilievre needs to appear more friendly.

The Conservative leader is having trouble getting support, especially from women, partly because he is seen to be too much of an attack dog. If he is going to be successful then that approach must soften.

There is only one way to do that. Poilievre should go hard on issues, but he must be softer on people. The personal nature of his animus doesn’t sit very well with the general public.

Most Canadians don’t know—or care—that much about the rules governing ministerial and prime ministerial financial holdings. They do know about the price of eggs, housing, and the cost of the American tariff war.

Those are the issues that Poilievre should be focusing on if he intends to become a reasoned and reasonable alternative to the current prime minister.

With the Liberals in a minority situation, it is quite possible that another election could be called within the next two years. In that time frame, Carney must prove that his leadership capacity extends beyond the private sector.

A key element in that proof is how Canada emerges from the tariff war imposed by American President Donald Trump.

Carney ran an aggressive election campaign, promising “elbows up” in any fight with the Americans.

Canadians are doing their part in this fight. Land crossings to the United States are down by almost a third, and American tourism destinations are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to lure them back. Yankee produce is rotting on store shelves in this country

Some U.S. destinations are aggressively wooing Canucks with advertising, while others have even renamed streets in honour of Canada. Governors have gone on Canadian airwaves to apologize for the president, and to ask for absolution and tourism.

But Trump continues to publicly threaten our nation at every step of the negotiation.

Carney will have to be very careful not to drop his elbows. He cannot afford to look as though he is playing second fiddle in these talks.

Carney has to come up with a win. Chances are any agreement will be tempered by some sacrifices that could be problematic.

That is where Poilievre should be focussing his attention.

If Carney is going to have to water down Canadian supply management, there will be a huge political opening for the Conservative leader in Quebec. A cogent, sustained support for dairy farmers would be a good place to start.

By continuing personal attacks, Poilievre appears unchastened by his party’s electoral loss and his riding defeat.

In an interview last week, Poilievre blamed his loss in Carleton, Ont., on his decision to publicly promise a public service cut.

In the circumstances, a little humility would serve him better than personal attacks.

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

It is one thing for the Liberals to have won the election. It is another thing to confront the onslaught of misinformation that is being fed to Albertans regularly by their own government.

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

The French have it right: Les absents ont toujours tort. The absent are always wrong.

If Prime Minister Mark Carney needs proof, just review the recent messaging coming out of the Calgary Stampede.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was given a hero’s welcome, with massive coverage of his pro-Alberta Stampede event speech.

In contrast, the prime minister was filmed flubbing a pancake flip. And that flub circulated through social media in case anyone missed the missed pancake toss. Apparently being able to flip a flapjack is a sine qua non for being an Alberta member of Parliament.

Carney can expect more of that one-sided coverage whenever he visits Alberta.

So, if his government intends to legitimately tackle Alberta’s alienation, it needs to be present and active in the province on a daily basis.

That means a resourced federal cabinet communications committee focused on telling the Canadian story to Alberta.

After Canada almost lost the last Quebec referendum in 1995, much was invested in figuring out what went wrong.

Surveys showed that almost 70 per cent of francophone Quebecers who knew an anglophone voted to stay in Canada. The conclusion is that the most alienated are often also the most isolated.

In Alberta, support for separation is higher in rural than in urban areas. Obviously, many farmers and ranchers have little idea of the benefits of belonging to Canada.

Again, that disillusionment is definitely present in other rural areas across the country. But the national government, secure in its power structure and identity, has never spent political or financial capital in selling the benefits of Canada to anyone with the exception of doing so after the near-death Quebec experience.

That job is left to the politicians. They fly in, host a press conference, drop a cheque, and then move on. That strategy does not work when you have a whole provincial government devoted to proving the federation is broken.

The Alberta government’s public relations department, with 288 employees, was moved into the premier’s office earlier this year.

In an April 29 order-in-council, the responsibility for communications and public engagement (CPE) was moved from the treasury board and finance departments into the premier’s office.

With an annual budget of $38-million, the CPE is supposed to promote “non-partisan” government advertising. Some recent examples include a campaign to “Tell the Feds,” and another to promote an Alberta pension fund to replace the Canada Pension Plan.

Not political? Hardly.

The province is spending millions of dollars, and the feds expect ministers alone to manage the onslaught of negativity coming daily from Alberta.

It is not enough for the prime minister to fly in and flip a pancake. The federal government needs a massive communications and strategic presence in Alberta to treat the separation question as the existential threat that it is.

Forty years ago, the federal budget to fight disinformation by the Quebec separatists was $25-million annually.

With the modern fragmentation of media, that number should be quadrupled. It should also fight the general malaise in other rural and remote parts of Canada.

To be fair, the vast majority of Albertans are Conservative, so it is not surprising that the Tory leader gets the most applause at any public event.

But it is one thing to win an election. It is another thing to confront the onslaught of misinformation that is being fed to Albertans regularly by their own government.

If the Canadian government does not fight back, it will see further fragmentation of the country caused by disinformation and misinformation.

While Carney’s Alberta provenance—the prime minister grew up in Edmonton—certainly helped him in the election, he could soon be faced with an Alberta-based Opposition leader in Poilievre.

Poilievre is expected to be buoyed by a significant win in the most Conservative riding in the country.

Meanwhile, the country will be dealing with a wave of Alberta separatism fanned by the premier, whose own political future depends on her support from separatists.

Canada has experienced decades of complaints about Western alienation. In reality, it is not Western alienation: it is Alberta alienation with a dose of Saskatchewan disillusionment.

Two other Western provinces—Manitoba and British Columbia—have a completely different perspective.

But Canadian politicians have never pushed back against the notion of western alienation and, as a result, the country is now facing the possibility of Alberta playing the separatist card.

It is about time the national government got into the game.

Otherwise, Alberta’s one-sided vision of Canada will continue.

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