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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After all, 24 Sussex is Canada’s home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why was Dief so disdainful of polls?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such was not the case with Gladu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that was then, and this is now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal Gladu will make that harder.

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

If an election were held today, there is little doubt that the Liberals would easily be rewarded with a majority. But uncertainty in international affairs, including the war against Iran and trade agreement confusion, could make that support short lived.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 16, 2026.

OTTAWA—Another floor-crosser made the Liberals’ day.

Not only does Lori Idlout take them that much closer to a majority government, but it also reinforces the fact that Prime Minister Mark Carney is receiving support from across the broad political spectrum.

Until last week, only the more progressive Conservatives had made the move to cross the floor. In the case of Acadie-Annapolis MP Chris d’Entremont, he hails from the southern shore of Nova Scotia which has often flipped between the Liberals and the Tories.

The easternmost parts of the country have always leaned more heavily to the Liberals, and his riding is usually simply a Liberal/ Conservative battle.

With the exception of the Halifax area, most Atlantic New Democrats have received support based on personal appeal, rather than party label.

Jack Harris, a former long-time NDP MP and former leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador, was the only New Democrat elected in Atlantic Canada in 2015 when then-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s “sunny days” swept the country.

When the New Democratic Party’s interim leader Don Davies announced the floor crossing of Nunavut MP on March 10, he urged the former New Democrat to put her decision to a riding vote.

“The position of the New Democrats on floor crossing is longstanding and clear. We believe that when someone rejects the decision of their electors and wants to join another party, they should put that decision to their voters.” Davies said in a statement revealing Idlout’s decision to join the Liberals.

For the Liberals, the move was met with elation. The party is now just two seats short of a majority, and with three byelections scheduled for April 13, the numbers could soon increase by at least two.

In addition, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s capacity to attract a New Democrat into his caucus will assure left-leaning Liberals that his leadership is centrist enough to attract their voter base.

Until last week, the floor crossers were all Conservatives. Markham-Unionville MP Michael Ma joined the Liberals in December. He also represents a riding that has historically been a Liberal constituency.

The third Tory, Matt Jeneroux, was a bigger surprise because the Alberta MP doesn’t face the same level of electoral risk locally. In the last election, running as a Conservative, he won with a majority of 50.25 per cent. However, his Liberal opponent increased the Grit vote by almost 20 per cent, aided by the collapse of the New Democrats.

The current NDP slide, with the loss of party status and a leadership race where most candidates cannot speak French, will actually help the Liberals in Jeneroux’s riding.

The long-serving Tory said he crossed the floor because he was impressed by Carney’s speech in Davos, and became convinced that the global crisis demanded strong Canadian government leadership. That opened the door to his support for Carney, and a move that could also reinforce his personal popularity in the riding.

Likewise, in certain urban ridings in Alberta—and definitely in British Columbia—the Liberals’ capacity to attract former New Democrat voters will determine whether or not they can secure a majority government.

Carney has been making positive international waves and that reflects back on his popularity in Canada.

If an election were held today, there is little doubt that the Liberals would easily be rewarded with a majority.

But uncertainty in international affairs—including the war against Iran and trade agreement confusion—could make that support short lived.

Thus far, for as a non-politician, Carney has handled the situation with aplomb and insight. People trust him, and some of the most frequent comments relate to the fact that he is not a lifelong politician.

His business background and international, bureaucratic experience position him as someone who literally can make political decisions without appearing like a politician.

Davies came out early on the Idlout resignation, hoping to get ahead of the story. But even floor-crossings don’t seem to hurt this prime minister. In explaining her move, Idlout underscored the fact that that Carney is the first prime minister from the North, given his birthplace in Fort Smith, N.W.T.

She also lauded him for investments already made in Nunavut, one of the reasons she supported the last budget and helped the minority government avoid defeat.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is claiming “backroom deals” are designed to “seize a costly majority that voters reject, which will enable Liberals to balloon debt, inflate the cost of living, block resources and turn criminals loose on our streets.”

Contrary to Poilievre’s claim, the deals seem to enhance Carney’s popularity.

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

Unity in the country and unity in the Conservative Party work in the leader’s favour. His edges are softening and, if he can keep that up, it could help reshape his image. But ‘hissy fit’ claims launched by his own members won’t help

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

OTTAWA—The Tumbler Ridge tragedy in British Columbia did what no political manoeuvre could. It united the country and the parties.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre shared a podium. Even Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet made a special effort to speak English to reach those touched by the tragic school shootings that were too close to the memory of the femicides at École Polytechnique.

Death knows no language. It knows no politics.

So, every leader parked their partisan trappings and opted to work together to try and heal the country.

With the self-inflicted death of the shooter, we will probably never really understand the reason behind this horrendous attack on innocent students.

No reason can explain the decision of a child to kill their parent and a sibling. But the further attack on others who apparently had no connection to the shooter is simply impossible to comprehend.

All party leaders rose to the occasion. Conservative Leader Poilievre parked his usual blame-laced crime vitriol, and replaced it with a sensitive observation that mirrored what every parent in Tumbler Ridge and across the country is feeling.

He spoke about love and concern for his own children, and the parental responsibility to protect.

The prime minister also spoke gently and thoughtfully, reinforcing the impression that, in a moment of national tragedy, he was the person best placed to guide us all through it.

Tears flowed freely in the House of Commons. They were real tears, not simply a reflection of a moment of drama.

The same unity was evident when the leaders of all political parties attended a commemoration in Tumbler Ridge.

It was a reflection of what politics could be if parties worked together on big issues.

The same unity was felt during the pandemic when the prime minister and premiers parked their differences and managed to work together to save Canadian lives, no matter what their political stripe.

Some have attacked the unified approach to masking, vaccines, and distancing. But to put it in perspective, Canada saved 40 per cent more lives on a per capita basis than the United States.

The U.S. had no mask mandate and most Republicans were vigorously opposed to any limitations on personal freedom that could save lives, including vaccines and distancing.

Americans lost 1.23 million people to COVID-19. In Canada, 60,871 people perished from the same virus.

Canada also has had a unified position in relation to the U.S.’s tariff attack and the renegotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement.

That unity was spoiled last week when Conservative MP Jamil Jivani went on a right-ring American media outlet to accuse Canada of suffering an “anti-American hissy fit.” Jivani told Breitbart News that “we are shooting ourselves in the foot” with our negative reaction to the tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Poilievre stepped in quickly to say that he did not agree with the member’s comments, stating “Jivani speaks for himself, and I speak for the party.”

Poilievre is right on that, but he does face an internal problem within the Conservatives.

While the vast majority of Canadians do not support the way that Trump has treated this country, those who do support him are largely aligned with the Conservative Party.

Two separate polls earlier this year show that 50 per cent of Conservatives support Trump. In the Ekos poll, the number of Liberals who support the American president is two per cent, while only three per cent of New Democrats support him.

The polls suggested a civil war in the Tory party on this issue. Such a war has not erupted yet, but given Jivani’s comments in the U.S., the Conservatives will definitely be seized with the issue.

The greatest support for Trump is in Alberta, and that aligns nicely with the support for Poilievre.

Jivani is already working to build a national list of supporters, which he could use to organize a future Conservative leadership.

Even though Poilievre has the support of the country, he may experience some opposition in his party.

His huge victory in the recent leadership review gives him comfort that the party supports his vision and direction.

But politics is a fickle business.

Right now, unity in the country and unity in the party work in Poilievre’s favour. His edges are softening and, if he can keep that up, it could help reshape his image.

But “hissy fit” claims launched by his own members won’t help.

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

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

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

OTTAWA—Mr. Jivani went to Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The timing of Jivani’s trip was also interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.