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

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

OTTAWA—Mr. Jivani went to Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The timing of Jivani’s trip was also interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In politics there are usually no saints on either side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 26, 2025.

OTTAWA—Long live the King. Maybe.

When it comes to Canada, there are few more controversial issues than whether we should continue with the monarchy.

French-Canadians and the Irish, in particular, are not happy to have a head of state which reminds them of past travails.

In the case of Quebecers, the defeat by the English on the Plains of Abraham is seen as the beginning of the end of a sovereign French nation.

As for the Irish, those who come from the south have already split from the United Kingdom and see no reason to pledge fealty to the same monarchy that they rejected in their own country.

Battle-scarred opponents of the monarchy are more vocal than those who support the institution. When Queen Elizabeth II was nearing the end of her life, Canadian pundits were suggesting that she would be our last monarch.

King Charles III would never make it to the throne because most people respected his mother and did not have the same feeling toward him.

Then the King took over in 2022, and has spent the last several months showing people exactly why he is the right person for the times.

Divorced—an unheard-of marital state in the last century, but pretty common with commoners in this century. So he is a little bit like all of us.

He also has a sense of humour and is totally prepared to laugh at himself, something that was not in the character of the Queen.

The King is prepared to participate in the quirky and the bizarre.

Just last month, he was filmed playing a carrot—yes, a carrot—with the London Vegetable Orchestra. One cannot imagine the Queen putting her lips around the top of a taproot to make music.

But King Charles was always the quirky one. He was interested in organic food long before it became popular with the general public.

When he visited Canada in 1996, he got what was described as a “rock star welcome” in my hometown of Hamilton, Ont. We spent the visit together, and I was able to personally observe the depth and breadth of his interests. He visited an Indigenous school in Manitoba, and was given the honorific title of “Leading Star.”

Long before the public was engaged, the King soaked up knowledge about Indigenous challenges and spent much time reflecting on how to improve things.

During this week’s visit, a group of Indigenous leaders has asked to meet with him to discuss the issue of a separation threat by some citizens in Alberta.

Just as Prime Minister Mark Carney wants the King to stay out of American politics, so do the Indigenous leaders want the King to wade into Alberta politics.

Indigenous leaders have told Premier Danielle Smith that they oppose the province’s decision to simplify the rules for a separation referendum.

Smith is of the view that Indigenous leaders’ votes will be counted in any referendum, but the chiefs believe their territory’s integrity cannot be impacted by any provincial referendum.

As their treaties have been with the Crown, the King is obviously in a position to support their claims.

But he also has to be cautious when getting involved in domestic politics.

Reading the Speech from the Throne is an exception because the sovereign will only be repeating a message already approved by the prime minister and his office.

And taking a position in favour of one commonwealth country may cause problems in another.

Take King Charles’ second invitation to United States president Donald Trump to visit the United Kingdom.

Carney was very unhappy with the invitation and, in a surprising move, he made it known publicly. In an interview with British Sky News, about the invitation, Carney said Canadians were not impressed by that gesture “given the circumstance. It was a time when we were being quite clear, some of us were being quite clear, about the issues around sovereignty.”

The King’s invitation was delivered by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was in the midst of negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S.

In supporting British political objectives, the monarch was forced to bypass Canadian interests.

Such is the challenge of a king. In the same vein, the Canadian prime minister has to be cautious about King Charles’ trip to Canada. It could provide fodder for Quebec separatists who see the crown as a symbol of everything they do not want in a country.

Carney wants to send an international message of strength. But that message could be double-edged.

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

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 19, 2025.

OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre’s people say they want him to soften his edges.

It doesn’t seem like he is listening.

In his press conference following the appointment of the new cabinet last week, Poilievre said a few nice words in the beginning, but then he could not refrain from individually attacking almost everything about the new Liberal cabinet.

His attacks were all very personal. He went so far as to accuse new Justice Minister Sean Fraser of being responsible for the housing crisis.

Poilievre despises Chrystia Freeland, and was positively vitriolic when referencing her contributions to the previous government.

Poilievre still hasn’t figured out that the best way to succeed in politics is to be hard on issues and soft on people.

He needs to understand why women, in particular, do not support him.

His style of politics—using nasty, personal vitriol mixed in with simple sloganeering—does not sit well with women.

Some men like the vitriol. They are up for a good fight. Poilievre got a roar from the crowd when his presence was announced at the Montreal Ultimate Fighting Championship last week.

But the crowd was mostly the same group who are already part of his core voting supporters. If he wants to grow, he has to reach out beyond them and try for the softer side.

The audience at the Bell Centre was mostly young men, and even though there was a women’s bout, not many were visible in the audience.

Why? Because most women don’t like fighting. And the nasty personal nature of the Poilievre attacks during the election did not win him many female supporters.

Some might argue I am being too harsh. When former prime minister Justin Trudeau participated in a boxing match, his victory was hailed as a political stroke of genius. But Trudeau was trying to reverse his image as a softy drama teacher. When he did manage to beat down Senator Patrick Brazeau, everyone was shocked at how easily it happened.

Then he moved on.

In Poilievre’s case, he seems stuck in fighting mode, even when the times dictate a change in tone.

Canadians awarded a near-majority mandate to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s team, and, like it or not, Poilievre is going to have to at least pretend that he wants to work with the government.

Instead, conspiracy theories about how he lost his seat are being used as fundraising tools for his party.

Contrary to the rumour mill, the redistribution that happens every decade is carried out by the non-partisan Federal Election Boundaries Commission. The chair of the commission in each province is named by the chief justice of each province, and other members are named by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is also chosen by an all-party vote.

Poilievre actually gained more Conservatives in his new riding after redistribution.

But he lost by more than 4,000 votes because people were upset about how he backed the anti-vaxxer occupiers who took over the streets of Ottawa for almost a month in 2022.

Poilievre picked his side, bringing donuts and coffee to people who blasted truck horns 24 hours a day in residential communities. As for his constituents, they were on the other side.

And his Liberal opponent Bruce Fanjoy spent two years knocking on every door in the riding.

Now Poilievre is being shuffled off to Alberta to run in what is arguably one of the safest Conservative seats in the country.

He will be confronted with separatists who have already begun their campaign to take Alberta out of the country. Premier Danielle Smith has loosened the rules to get a referendum on the ballot by lowering the threshold and allowing businesses to fund referenda efforts.

Not sure why a business should have a say in a vote on the future of the country, but Smith has admitted publicly the changes were allowed in an effort to keep her United Conservative Party from splitting into two factions, and opening the door to the election of Alberta New Democratic Party Leader Naheed Nenshi.

Poilievre will not be able to avoid that fight, and the whole country will be watching him.

If he does plan to win the next election, Poilievre needs to focus on the real fight ahead.

The country is in a tariff war with United States President Donald Trump, and we need all hands deck to save Canadian jobs and industries. If he insists on continuing the election fight against the Liberals, Poilievre is never going to increase his base or get women back.

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

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signalled early that she would be following the Quebec separatist path of obfuscating the facts and promising what she cannot deliver. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 12, 2025.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada.

Sound confusing? It is.

But confusion is the only way separatists can make their case to leave Canada. The last time the country faced a referendum was when the Parti Québécois asked Quebecers to endorse the negotiation of a better deal with Canada, and if that failed, to separate. They told Quebecers that under separation they would still be able to negotiate the use of Canadian money, border access, and military support, all of which were patently false.

Truth doesn’t matter when you are trying to break up a country.

Smith signalled early that she would be following the Quebec separatist path of obfuscating the facts and promising what she cannot deliver.

The premier said it was a sheer coincidence that she launched her new referendum rules the day after Canadians decide to elect a Liberal government under the leadership of Albertan Mark Carney.

Opponents bristled when Carney self-identified as an Albertan, even though the vast majority of his youth was spent in Edmonton.

His background is similar to that of Pierre Poilievre, who also spent his youth in Alberta and only moved to Ottawa to work in politics.

Now that Poilievre has been defeated in his own riding, he is being welcomed back to Alberta as a native son. Somehow the same open arms don’t apply to Carney.

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning set the stage for the Smith referendum launch when he threatened during the election that a vote for the Liberals would prompt a separatist movement in the West.

Alberta separatists keep referring to the West, but they are hard-pressed to defend that case as Liberals managed to garner the largest popular vote in British Columbia.

The West, like the rest of the country, is not a homogeneous mass. Alberta is not a homogeneous mass. Depending on which pollster runs the survey, between 70 and 80 per cent of Albertans do not want to leave Canada.

But the 20 to 30 per cent who do are largely followers of the party that Smith is leading. And while her government is mired in an RCMP investigation into the awarding of health contracts, a referendum debate takes attention away from internal governance problems.

Smith has already lost one cabinet minister to the health-care contracts scandal. Peter Guthrie resigned from cabinet after claims that a member of the premier’s staff interfered in the awarding of health privatization contracts.

Since his resignation, Guthrie has been turfed from the United Conservative Party of Alberta. Alberta’s current justice minister has also been linked to the scandal as news reports revealed last week that Minister Mickey Amery is related to the health investor under investigation.

Amery is also the deputy House leader, and told The Globe and Mail that he was related by marriage to investor Sam Mraiche, who is being sued and is the subject of multiple investigations, including by the provincial auditor general.

Guthrie released an open letter last month, accusing the premier of both ruining electoral chances for federal Conservatives, and fudging her position on separation.

Smith reverted back to the trope that she believes in a sovereign Alberta in a united Canada.

Now that Poilievre will soon be running for a seat in Alberta, it will be interesting to see how he navigates the separation question.

The FU crowd following him from rally to rally are likely the major supporters of a move to leave Canada and join the United States.

By expressing his strong support for Canada, Poilievre risks losing their support. The anti-vaxxers are already unhappy because they feel that Poilievre did not attack the courts for hearing the cases against occupation organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber.

During the federal election campaign, Lich was critical of Poilievre, claiming he withdrew his support. However, Poilievre’s disastrous 4,000 vote loss in his long-held riding of Carleton, Ont., was largely prompted by his earlier decision to promote occupiers at the expense of his own constituents. That choice, and the indefatigable work of Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy over the past two years, led to the shocking loss of a seat that Poilievre had held for two decades.

In the upcoming Alberta byelection, Poilievre will have to navigate the separation roadmap laid out by Smith.

The premier continually claims to believe in Canada, but she moved recently to lower the bar for referendums, and permit referendum funding by unions and corporations.

Poilievre will have to be clear in his support for Canada.

No sovereignty-association allowed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Danielle Smith doesn’t like a federal law, she and her cabinet will simply toss it out. Sovereignty in a united Canada—sounds just like the separatists. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 5, 2022.

OTTAWA—Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants sovereignty in a united Canada.

She claims it has nothing to do with a desire to separate, but the first bill she tabled as premier says otherwise. 

The crux of the bill is to give her cabinet the right to refuse to proceed with any federal legislation or action that it perceives as detrimental to Alberta. 

Notwithstanding her promises while running for the United Conservative Party leadership, she makes it very plain that her cabinet decisions take precedence over the Canadian Constitution.

Observers have underscored problems with the legislation, but they have more to do with internal Alberta politics than anything coming from Ottawa.

The decision to give cabinet the right to overturn all laws could actually cause problems for democracy in Alberta.

The move certainly seems to diminish the power of the legislature’s involvement in the approval, rejection, or amendment of any legislation.

In a majority government, the cabinet recommendation is usually carried by the legislature. But that is not a given. 

Minority governments are unlikely in Alberta, given the dominance of only two political parties. But the decision to simply override parliamentary opinion by way of a cabinet fiat is definitely a political mistake. 

At this point, the premier has to be a lot more concerned about her standing amongst Alberta voters than her popularity, or lack thereof, in the rest of the country.

She has to face the voters in less than six months, and even her immediate predecessor has made it very clear that he disagrees with her sovereignty pitch. 

In resigning on the same day that Smith tabled the sovereignty bill, outgoing premier Jason Kenney took an indirect hit at Smith’s first piece of legislation by way of his retirement statement: “I am concerned that our democratic life is veering away from ordinary prudential debate towards a polarization that undermines our bedrock institutions and principles.”

There has never been any love lost between Kenney and Smith, but this oblique reference underscores the divide that still exists inside the UCP.

While its name is “United,” in reality the party is badly split. That division is natural during a leadership period, but Smith doesn’t have much time to heal the deep wounds that can occur during internal party races. 

Some are already characterizing Smith’s legacy as that of the shortest-serving premier.  

The sovereignty legislation did little to reach out to those inside the party who share Kenney’s perspective.

As for Smith’s attempt to clarify that sovereignty and separation are not the same thing, she needs to take a deeper dive into Quebec’s peregrination.

While the rest of Canada considered them separatists, successive leaders of the Parti Québécois claimed the movement was about sovereignty, not separation. 

Sovereignty is a positive moniker. Separation represents division. But in the end, all Quebec sovereigntists want to leave Canada to start their own country. 

Smith claims otherwise, but that is about the only affirmation of Canadian unity that she is likely to make. 

Her main reason for running the province seems to be a plan to run down the country.

Smith probably thinks that an anti-Eastern sentiment will encourage a majority of Albertans to vote for her. 

But chances are their interest in personal prosperity outstrips that of her continuous assertions of public enmity. 

She will be running against Ottawa, while Alberta New Democratic Party Leader Rachel Notley will be running against the Alberta Tory record. 

The blame game actually works in two directions, and at this point in time, Notley appears to have the edge. 

By introducing her sovereignty bill as the first piece of legislation, Smith is signifying that fighting the federal government will be her top priority.

Notley says she wants to work with the feds on common issues of economic importance. 

That message of co-operation may resonate with Albertans who are looking for solutions, not brickbats.

At the end of the day, Smith’s sovereignty move does not look much different from the Parti Québécois’ offering during the last referendum.

They told Quebecers they would keep the dollar, the military, the trade agreements and all the benefits of belonging to Canada, while setting up their own sovereign country.

Smith is seeking a similar sort of autonomy.

All the reasons to endorse Canada remain intact, including access to currency, international treaty status, and military protection while none of the responsibilities will matter.

If Smith doesn’t like a federal law, she and her cabinet will simply toss it out.

Sovereignty in a united Canada—sounds just like the separatists. 

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