This is not only the shame of the Catholic Church and other churches that ran the schools on behalf of the Canadian government. It is the shame of all of us.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 1, 2022.

OTTAWA—Mission accomplished. Pope Francis’ apology tour was a long time coming.

Former Assembly of First Nations’ national chief Phil Fontaine first broached the subject of a papal apology more than two decades ago.

The issue was reiterated as one of the recommendations of the report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Delegations repeatedly made the request to the Holy See.

Having the Pope speak from the heart on Canadian soil, to express true sorrow and penitence for the atrocious treatment of Indigenous children in residential schools, was the real first step in reconciliation.

You could witness the pain in the eyes of elders listening to the Pope’s first apology in Alberta.

In some instances, tears streamed from their faces when they weighed the meaning of the message they had waited a lifetime to hear.

If you had not lived the Sixties Scoop, or multiple relocations of children over the past century, it is hard to fathom how horrifying that must have been for six-year-olds to be stripped of their language and culture.

One story that has stuck in my mind was that of an elder who was explaining his first experience in residential schools.

His mother had made him a beautiful tanned leather jacket, replete with traditional fringing and beading, to wear proudly on his first day at school.

Love and history went into that garment, which should have warmed the lad and reminded him of his far away family every day of his young life.

Instead, the moment he arrived, the jacket was torn from his body and thrown in the garbage. He was warned never to try to get it back.

That coat was a symbol of his lost culture. He subsequently tried to escape from school on more than one occasion, only to be found and brought back by police.

The foregoing is not only the shame of the Catholic Church, and other churches that ran the schools on behalf of the Canadian government.

It is the shame of all of us.

We may not have known what was being done in the name of Christianity.

But we all share responsibility.

And, just as the Pope said last week, this is not the end of the journey of reconciliation. It is only the beginning.

The church needs to open up its records so those who were buried in anonymous graves after dying at school can be properly buried.

It also needs to be transparent with the financial resources that were supposed to form part of the original settlement signed off with the Government of Canada.

The response to the Pope’s visit definitely depended upon the demographics of who was hearing the apology.

For young people, it was generally viewed as too little too late, while the elders appeared generally appreciative of the content and authenticity of the Pope’s message.

Criticism did not only come from the young. An Indigenous priest from St. Basil’s Church was very direct in attacking the lack of Indigenous messaging during the mass performed by the pope in St. Anne’s, Alta., a well-known pilgrimage for Métis Catholics from Western Canada.

He also pointed out that the pope did not accept responsibility in the name of the Catholic Church, but rather in his own name and on behalf of certain evildoers amongst the clergy.

But, as Fontaine said, if the head of the church makes this historic apology, he is speaking for the whole church.

There will, no doubt, be many who can weigh in to diminish the gravitas or sincerity of the pope’s penitence.

But for those who have been waiting a lifetime for the simple words, “I am sorry,” it has finally happened.

The last time a papal visit occurred in Canada, it took a year’s planning and happened in one location at a youth mass in Downsview, Ont., in two languages.

This time, in three months, the pope was able to visit three provinces and deliver a message of penitence in 15 languages, including 12 Indigenous languages.

Elders were able to finally hear in the apology in their own language, which was also a really important step toward forgiveness. That effort was supported by funding from Minister Marc Miller, who is studying the Mohawk language himself.

Many can find fault with some elements of the pope’s message, and will attack the things that he did not say.

But he made it very clear that the Catholic Church was turning its back on the old missionary ways of hierarchical conversion.

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 7, 2018.

OTTAWA—Nation-to-nation status sounds good in principle. What actually happens in practice is another matter.

When the prime minister reiterates his government’s intention to redress indigenous wrongs by a nation-to-nation dialogue, it sounds like a good step in the direction of reconciliation.

When the national discussion includes infrastructure in Indigenous communities, or repatriation of aboriginal language or artifacts, it may be simple to finesse a bilateral agreement, when only two parties are involved in the negotiation.

But when nations infringe on the constitutional rights and responsibilities of multiple governments, that is when the rubber hits the road. And starts burning.

A dozen years ago, Quebec was deemed a nation, by parliamentary resolution.

In reality, nationhood is expressed in asymmetrical federalism, an approach to governance that permits each province to choose their own path in certain circumstances.

Today’s ongoing debate on carbon pricing is a good example of how the federal government can co-exist with provinces in areas of joint jurisdiction, including certain environmental initiatives and standards. We dare not refer to national government as that carries a different meaning in certain provinces.

When it comes to defining the role of nationhood in divvying up revenues from new initiatives like legalized marijuana, the notion of equal status for Indigenous nations evaporates.

The prime minister has already rebuffed an Assembly of First Nations request last week to delay pot legalization for a year, while Indigenous nations negotiate their share of cannabis taxes.

Trudeau is well into the third year of a four year mandate, and one thing the prime minister cannot afford to do is to break his promise on pot.

The youth vote that provided Trudeau an electoral breakthrough in the last election is expecting tangible results on legalization. They will not be satisfied by any delay, even if it is prompted by Indigenous communities seeking clarity on their share of weed spoils.

Nonetheless, the AFN proposition will have some support. With a number of ministers focussing directly on reconciliation and support for Indigenous communities, there has to be a way to recognize an aboriginal pot partnership.

The government will likely respond with a form of federal revenue-sharing on indigenous lands, but will not embrace the notion that a bilateral agreement can be negotiated between two equal partners.

The parliamentary debate, stoked by a Senate committee which has also been given freedom to operate outside the ambit of political parties, will continue to smoulder in the months ahead.

The Senate standing committee on aboriginal peoples sides with AFN claims that implementation should be delayed.

The thorny issue of jurisdiction has not escaped the attention of indigenous leaders elected to territorial governments.

In an open forum organized by the Northwest Territories last month, Tlicho nation resident Georgina Franki asked whether her community was even subject to territorial regulations on cannabis. She questioned whether the Tlicho Nation might already have the authority to licence cannabis dispensaries and grow-ops. Members of the legislative assembly present at the consultative meeting. could not give her an answer. The N.W.T. legislature has already determined that marijuana will not be sold by indigenous communities or their designates.

That right has been assigned to licensed liquor stores, with a proviso that indigenous communities be informed as to who is buying and how much. The government says it will consider an expanded indigenous community role once the system has begun operating.

In another perspective on just what nation implies, last week the Quebec Superior Court threw out a Kahn ‘awake housing law that a marriage to a non-indigenous person triggered expulsion from the community.

The ruling in a case launched by 16 dispossessed residents, stated that the policy was a violation of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms which legislates non-discrimination on the basis of family status.

In responding to the ruling, Kahn‘awake grand chief Joe Norton said he would not be guided by “outside courts” in matters “so integral to our identity.” Instead, local council is considering their own changes to the marital ouster law.

The bottom line is that aboriginal nation status is subjugated to federal, provincial and territorial lawmaking, notwithstanding the dialogue of equals.

Trudeau’s government is to be congratulated for embarking on a discussion about how to move past the colonial approach that has largely marked Ottawa’s relationship with First Nations across the country.

However noble, the prime minister will not likely be able to achieve his promised goal of a dialogue between equals. Some governments are just more equal than others.

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 on Monday, December 11, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—As the date for legal pot nears, the Assembly of First Nations has thrown a new wrinkle into the rollout.

Last week, the AFN announced the formation of a committee to study how aboriginal territories will implement their own regulations. Regional chiefs from Quebec and Ontario share committee duties, and are expected to report on all aspects of their own proposals for legalization of cannabis.

Ontario chief Isadore Day suggested the committee may want to raise the age for legal consumption on their own territories, based on studies that show young brains are still being formed into the early twenties.

As with the provinces, there is no unanimity on how the new laws will apply. But there is unanimity on one issue, First Nations say that they will determine the rules around the use and sale of marijuana on reserves and will not be governed by any federal or provincial laws.

Many of the points raised at the AFN annual meeting last week are certainly worthy of consideration.

If the Government of Canada is committed to a nation-to-nation approach, then any move which has a direct impact on Indigenous communities needs to be based on some form of agreement.

But when push comes to shove, just which government will take precedence?

Another sticking point, which has also been the main bone of contention with the provinces, is around revenue sharing.

Currently, cigarettes manufactured and sold on multiple reserves across Canada are free of tax, ostensibly to be available to those on the territory who enjoy tax-free status. In reality, many points of sale are adjacent to large urban areas, and cigarettes are also sold to those who come to the reserve to avoid the hefty “sin” taxes currently levied on tobacco by all governments.

Presumably, on-reserve marijuana dispensaries would enjoy similar tax treatment, and the temptation to sell the product to neighbouring residents who do not enjoy tax-exempt status would be huge.

The current proposed patchwork of provincial regulations appears seamless in relation to the multiple regulatory changes that could be involved when laws are developed by more than 600 First Nations and 3,000 reserves across the country.

It seems unlikely that the outcome of any AFN committee findings will be implemented before the July 1 deadline set for legal pot.

But aboriginal business leaders are already moving in to take advantage of the potential pot of gold expected to materialize with legalization.

Even former AFN chief Phil Fontaine is reported to have joined the movement, by partnering with a licensed marijuana producer to create Aboriginal Roots, an on-reserve marijuana franchise grow-op initiative.

In many remote communities, the potential for economic growth is minimal so the financial lure of marijuana businesses is also attractive.

But as Day suggested, there are also potential health and social costs attached to overuse or abuse of the drug. Not surprisingly, AFN leaders across the country are not unanimous in their view of how pot legalization should be carried out.

All this is happening just six months before the implementation target date.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cannot afford to back away from his commitment to legalize marijuana on the next Canada Day.

His government is midway through its mandate, and his surprise victory was largely the result of a surge in support by pot-smoking, next-gen voters, who would not take kindly to a delay.

Given the commitment by Trudeau to reconciliation with First Nations, the prime minister has no option but to negotiate on this issue as a sign of good faith.

Both commitments may seem contradictory.

Some First Nations, like some provinces, are already calling for a delay in the implementation date.

Given the current involvement of organized crime in the illegal drug trade, law enforcement officials will, no doubt, be concerned about the potential for criminality and how that will be managed.

Many questions loom, with few answers.

At the end of the day, the financial windfall that comes with legalization will ensure that all parties come to the table.

The AFN has its work cut out for itself, with the requirement to reach consensus quickly enough to be ready for the July 1 deadline.

So does the government.

As one of the first countries in the world moving to legalize cannabis across the board, Canada is being closely watched by other jurisdictions considering a similar move.

Controversy cannot overshadow the launch of the new pot law. Trudeau and his team need a smooth rollout on legalization. Their re-election may depend on it.

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