After seven years in government, Steven Guilbeault has come to the conclusion that politics is not the place for his environmental contribution. He is right. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of perfection.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 1, 2026.

OTTAWA—Steven Guilbeault’s departure from politics is the best of a bad scenario for the Liberals.

Had he decided to leave the caucus and join another party, Guilbeault’s presence would be a continuing reminder of the government’s backpedalling on climate change initiatives introduced during his time as minister. As an opposition spokesperson for the environment, he would certainly have had a platform for his passion, the global fight against climate change.

Had he decided to sit as an Independent, Guilbeault would have been a favoured spokesperson for any comment on government environmental changes. As such, he would no doubt have been a very visible thorne in the government’s side.

An exit will likely put him back in the non-governmental environmental arena. Dozens of environmental activists weighed in with statements of support for Guilbeault, some of whom will likely offer him post-political work.

But in reality, standing on the outside looking in, he will not be as visible or effective as he would have been by remaining in Parliament and simply leaving the Liberals.

Guilbeault was originally recruited as an environmental star and founder of environmental movement ‘Equiterre’ and former Greenpeace activist.

He spent only seven years in government, four of those as environment minister which was his true passion.

Even when he was replaced at Environment minister and minister of Canadian identity and culture, Guilbeault was often more engaged in environmental than cultural issues.

His life’s work has largely been devoted to the fight against global warming with relatively brief political involvement.

Guilbeault was also faced with his own diminishing influence when Prime Minister Mark Carney dismantled some of the elements of his work, including the carbon pricing abolition that was the new government’s first bill in office.

Guilbeault joins another former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who left politics to carry on her crusade for global environmental changes. McKenna departed after only six years, with the intention of making change externally. She has founded an advisory firm on climate solutions and works with the United Nations, including chairing the UN High Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emission of Non-State Entities in 2022.

Guilbeault may be moving in the same direction. He has certainly garnered the respect of environmentalists and even some opposition leaders.

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet thought so much of Guilbeault’s resignation that he used his lead-off spot in Question Period to laud Guilbeault’s environmental credentials.

Blanchet also knows that the summer vacancy in the riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Que., provides an opportunity for the Bloc to gain a seat.

Until the New Democratic Party’s Orange Wave flipped the seat in 2011, the Bloc had held Laurier-Sainte-Marie for 18 years.

In a tight race, a Bloc victory would challenge the slim Liberal majority and create momentum for the separatists. With the separatist movement getting premier attention in Alberta, the issue is on the front burner again.

Blanchet also underscored Guilbeault’s reputation as a strong environmentalist long before he entered politics.

But after seven years, Guilbeault has come to the conclusion that politics is not the place for his environmental contribution.

He is right.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of perfection.

One of the challenges faced by any environment minister is the fact that oil and gas royalties strengthen the Canadian economy and, even as alternatives arrive to displace fossil fuel use in transportation, industry and elsewhere, we still have a current need for consumption of fossil fuels.

If we are consuming—and we are—why should the government turn its back on the potential for clean production?

Electrification of the transportation sector has not developed as rapidly as expected because the infrastructure to support electric cars, buses, and trucks has not been implanted as broadly as required.

Then-prime minister Justin Trudeau would not entertain projects involving liquefied natural gas export to Europe.

Last week, the federal government announced an export agreement with Germany to export one million metric tonnes of LNG from northern British Columbia.

The proposed $10-billion facility is on Nisga’a Nation territory north of Prince Rupert.

The deal would replace LNG that Germany was previously receiving from Russia.

Would we rather see Russia or Canada benefitting from the exploitation of this resource?

To quote project proponent and Nisga’a Lisims government president Eva Clayton, “We’re managing poverty. We now want to manage prosperity.”

Environmentalists will oppose the LNG initiative as well. But at the end of the day, the moderate approach is to diversify energy options, but keep petroleum in play.

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.

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.

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet has vigorously denied the allegations and challenged his accuser to go to the police so charges can be tested in a court of law.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 20, 2020.

OTTAWA—Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet is the latest victim of social media internet justice.

Twenty-one-year-old anonymous allegations surfaced last week against Blanchet, accusing him of “sexual misconduct” in 1999 in a biker bar bathroom in Montreal, at an after-party for a rock group he managed.

Blanchet has vigorously denied the allegations and challenged his accuser to go to the police so charges can be tested in a court of law.

But the court of public opinion has already weighed in on Twitter and in the mainstream media with a vicious tone that is the flavour of the month.

Blanchet’s accuser posted her claim on a website set up to give victims a voice. The allegation topped a roller-coaster week of accusations against Quebec entertainers and media elites.

Even the premier’s wife, Isabelle Brais, got into the act, posting on Instagram in French, exhorting “knights, princes and gentlemen” to challenge those she describes as their “deviant brothers” who “stain your reputation and put you into their boat of s–t.”

She finished by asking everyone to let her know what they think.

The whole of Quebec is weighing in on the debate.

With Blanchet facing an anonymous accuser, more unproven allegations will likely follow.

What is truly bizarre is that mainstream media is stoking the flames with its own sensational coverage.

In the case of the Montreal Gazette, the anonymous accuser was interviewed and said she thought her attacker was bald and that his last name was François. Before the arrival of social media accusations, newspapers would never have printed the allegations, unless they were corroborated by another credible witness.

But all the old rules have gone out the window and the traditional media is forced to chase the tail of the social media dog.

Brais posted her Instagram comments before the allegations against Blanchet had surfaced but her call to Quebecers to let her know what they think will not go unheard.

The high-level shout-out to speak up could become a slippery slope of more social media justice.

Allegations should always be taken seriously, but Blanchet is right. The best place to deal with these allegations is by filing a complaint with the police.

In the current climate, reported allegations have to be taken seriously. But it will also be very hard to prove a 21-year-old claim without any witnesses.

But simply throwing out the accusation in the social media world does nothing to secure justice and simply besmirches the reputation of the accused, who has little power over anonymous allegations.

Unfortunately, like it or not, some of the dirt is going to stick.

And that is why direct accusations of this nature need to be raised in a court of law, not in a social media setting.

As long as anonymous complaints are given credibility by coverage in the mainstream media, we do a disservice to those who should face their accusers in a court of law.

The justice system used to be tipped against complainants who alleged sexual misconduct, assault, and improprieties.

Now it appears the pendulum has swung the opposite way. You are guilty until proven innocent.

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