Pete Hoeskstra says Donald Trump thinks Canadians are mean and nasty for boycotting American booze and travel. But for the first time in my lifetime, the federal and provincial leaders seem committed to work together in securing long-term solutions for Canada. If we can exert monetary influence simply by using our won purchasing power, there is nothing mean or nasty about that.

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

OTTAWA—Canadians are mean, nasty people, according to the new American ambassador to Canada.

Why does he say we are nasty? Because we insist on exercising what little personal power we have to send a message to the government of Donald Trump.

If we can exert monetary influence simply by using our won purchasing power, there is nothing mean or nasty about that.

The fact the American liquor purchases to Canada are down by 66 per cent is a result of individual decisions by Canadian consumers to purchase from countries that support us, not those that punish us.

According to a June report by Statistics Canada, Canadian travel to the United States was down in May by 38.1 per cent compared to a year earlier.

British Columbia Premier David Eby countered the ambassadorial attack last week, saying that the efforts made by individual Canadians are having an effect.

“If you’re a mean and nasty Canadian for standing up for our sovereignty and our jobs, well, I think most Canadians would be proud to be considered mean and nasty.”

American ambassador Pete Hoekstra was speaking to a group of Americans gathered at the Pacific Northwest Economic Summit. He told them President Trump shared the view of Canadians being nasty for not stocking American alcohol and refusing to travel to the states.

The ambassador then joked that he had no trouble getting personal alcohol into Canada as long as his car was not checked at the border.

Normally, an ambassador is supposed to be someone who smooths differences between his or her home country and his or her ambassadorial posting. The ambassador isn’t usually the one tossing insults about Canadians.

But these are not ordinary times and Hoeskstra is no ordinary ambassador.

As the country edges closer to a date on the imposition of more tariffs from the United States, we can certainly not count on the American ambassador to be promoting a reconciliation with Canadians. Instead, he is making things worse, and Canadians will continue to dig in with their own personal boycott of American goods and travel.

The prime minister and premiers are working together to soften the deadline and broaden the benefits of the outcome. Prime Minister Mark Carney has had to back down from his self-imposed aggressive time frame for completion of the tariff negotiations.

He is learning quickly that sometimes a political compromise is the only solution. Elbows up can be a good hockey metaphor. But in politics, elbows in may sometimes be required.

And given the mixed messages emanating from Washington, the Canadian government will have to count on the continued support of individual Canadians to put pressure on the United States.

We know the citizen boycott is working because multiple governors from American states are reaching out to try and convince us to change our minds.

Their argument is that they are not the enemy. And they are right. But in the absence of any logical negotiation by the Trump team, Canadians have no choice but to continue with our personal elbows up.

That means refusing to allow American alcohol to be sold in Canadian liquor outlets and continuing to travel anywhere in Canada or elsewhere in the world. But not America.

Carney’s decision to reach out to other jurisdictions, including Europe and Mexico, with agreements that may simply bypass the United States is definitely the way to go.

And businesses looking for opportunities to repurpose their supply chains or secure raw materials from new markets must continue doing so.

But if Canadian individual decisions to stop buying American piqued the ire of the White House, we know that now is not the time to stop.

Will we succeed in negotiating the tariff agreement with the United States that will meet our needs? Only time will tell.

The good news is that for the first time in my lifetime, the federal and provincial leaders seem committed to work together in securing long-term solutions.

The country is also working quickly to break down trade barriers between provinces, which will generate economic growth and more inter-provincial commerce.

We do not have the geopolitical heft of our neighbours to the south. But if we stick together, our efforts can shake things up in Washington.

In the past, Canada was always seen as the friendly neighbour to the North. The most prominent word in our vocabulary was sorry.

The attack on our country by President Trump has changed all that. If Trump thinks that we are mean and nasty now, he ain’t seen nothing yet.

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

With sovereignty looming as a potential Alberta issue, it is time for the federal government to engage in Canadian nation building.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 25, 2022.

OTTAWA—Sovereignty is back on the political landscape. But this time, the s-word is not coming from Quebec, but Alberta.

The race to replace Jason Kenney is on.

And former Wildrose leader Danielle Smith is making the sovereignty issue a centrepiece of her campaign.

The gist of her proposal is a plan for the Alberta legislature to systematically refuse to uphold or enforce any federal law or policy that runs counter to Alberta’s interests.

Multiple legal experts have jumped in to claim the law would plunge the province into a legal quagmire and create an uncertain political climate which would be bad for business.

Smith doesn’t mind. The proponents of the original bill, the Alberta Sovereignty Act, appear to want legal chaos. Called the Free Alberta Strategy, the group’s leader Rob Anderson predicts the adoption of such a law will trigger a constitutional crisis.

He also thinks that something good will come out of the crisis that sovereignty legislation will provoke.

He hasn’t explained the positives in any detail, but Smith dismissed the claims of chaos, saying she is a person who believes in asking for “forgiveness rather than permission.”

Chaos is just what Anderson and his supporters want.

And votes are what Smith is looking for. She must believe that appealing to Tory extremists will differentiate her from other candidates in the running.

According to a Léger poll published last week, Smith is running a few points behind Brian Jean, former Wildrose Party leader who was behind the ousting of Kenney. The third most popular candidate is Kenney’s finance minister, Travis Toews, who is seen as the choice of the party establishment. That could be more of a curse than a blessing. The Léger poll focused on which candidate was most popular with the general public, but the leadership candidates are more focused on party members’ support.

Using her first day as an official candidate to endorse the sovereignty legislation, Smith is carving out a position that she hopes will separate her from the rest of the pack.

Opponent Jean stepped in quickly to douse the sovereignty fire, reiterating his support for the “rule of law” without which “you head toward tyranny.”

Smith obviously believes the controversy is worth the criticism.

Meanwhile, federal Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre has made hay by focusing on controversial issues like firing the Bank of Canada governor and replacing currency with bitcoin as the Canadian money of choice.

Most economists scoff at the Poilievre plan, but it won’t be the economists who could put him in office.

Instead, he is reaching out to the anti-government members of his party who are crowding the right wing.

And that is the same cohort that Smith is going for. She shares Wildrose’s right-wing credentials with Jean.

But she needs a platform that will clearly differentiate the two.

And it seems like she has found it.

As long as the Liberals are in power in Ottawa, there will be plenty of reasons why the United Conservative Party will want to turn its back on the federation.

Managing the challenge of climate change and fossil fuel extraction is tricky, and even after the federal government purchased a pipeline, the oilpatch was not satisfied.

But when a Conservative government comes to power in Ottawa, the Alberta sovereigntists may find themselves in the same political dilemma.

Sometimes national decisions must be made in the nation’s best interest.

No politician in their right mind would want to turn their back on any province, but on a global issue like climate change, domestic oil production is obviously affected.

The seeds of separation were sown in Alberta many years ago, but no one really expected the mainstream Conservative party to embrace them.

However, there is a good chance that Smith’s strategy will work and she will succeed in differentiating her candidacy from Jean and Toews.

If she does, the fragility of the federation will be centre stage once again.

Perhaps future federal governments should focus on the things that bring us together.

Just recently the premiers all demanded more cash for health care while at the same time the majority of health ministries don’t even share data points on common issues like maternal mortality and cancer.

Provincial management of our long-term care facilities has been disastrous. Making common cause in that area is something that most Canadians, not politicians, would support.

With sovereignty looming as a potential Alberta issue, it is time for the federal government to engage in Canadian nation building.

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