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.

The silence hovering over the Republican Party into the second week after Donald Trump’s loss may be working in Washington, but in the rest of the world, it is simply exposing the country’s claim to democracy as a sorry charade.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 16, 2020.

OTTAWA—America is losing its lustre as the global beacon of democracy.

It could be difficult to promote democratic principles elsewhere when most senior Republican politicians do not respect it at home.

The parody of the Trump-Biden stalled transition started off as a bit of a joke. Most people thought the Republicans were simply willing to give U.S. President Donald Trump a few days to let the defeat sink in.

But his promotion of the notion of a rigged election is shining a light into the inner workings of the Republican Party.

All senior members of the party are backing the president’s bizarre lie about who won the election.

Four years of Trump’s isolationism may have made a negative mark on the world, but it has not affected his popularity at home.

Like president-elect Joe Biden, Trump increased his own vote, and continues to claim that he won the election, but that officials stole the result by refusing to end the count.

The code of silence hovering over his party into the second week after the loss may be working in Washington but in the rest of the world, it is simply exposing the country’s claim to democracy as a sorry charade.

The president’s attack on Fox News and his claim of a stolen election has penetrated his base, with supporters across the country brandishing signs demanding that officials “stop the steal.”

Trump continues to claim illegality in states like Pennsylvania and Georgia even when their Republican officials deny any illegitimacy.

Republican Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt was adamant that there was no skullduggery in his city. He was immediately attacked by name, by the president.

But Schmidt did not back down. Instead he publicly questioned why people would so easily swallow lies about a fraudulent election.

Local Republicans like Schmidt and those who are distant from Washington seem the most likely to throw cold water on Trump’s illegality claims.

Former U.S. president George W. Bush congratulated Biden on his victory shortly after the result was called by several media organizations on Nov. 7.

But the silence on Capitol Hill was deafening. Mitch McConnell led the revisionism charge, claiming that Trump had every reason to refuse to concede as long as the results had not been certified.

But almost two weeks after the vote, courts have found zero evidence of widespread fraud. Last week, the Republican lieutenant-governor of Texas offered a million-dollar reward for any evidence of malfeasance. This is the same politician who said grandparents were willing to die during the pandemic in support of the economy.

The Georgia recount is automatic since the margin of victory is less than 0.5 per cent. But with 99 per cent of the vote in, Biden was ahead on Nov. 12 by 14,005 votes even though the vote differential was only 0.3 per cent.

In my own political life, I underwent a recount in my first provincial election which was lost by 15 votes. In those days, a difference of less than 25 votes resulted in a judicial recount. In the end, I ended up gaining one vote in the recount, legally losing the election by 14 votes.

The chance of turning thousands of votes around in Georgia is virtually impossible.

Back in 2000, the difference in the American presidential vote in Florida was little more than 500 votes. The finalized counting process took more than a month, and ultimately did not displace the initial victor, George W. Bush.

But Trump is not about to let the facts stand in the way of a good lie. And his legion of supporters in the Republican Party are listening.

Polls show that 70 per cent of Republicans now doubt the outcome of the election. That number has doubled since election night. The vast majority of them refuse to concede that the Democratic U.S. president-elect was chosen by the majority of voters and the electoral college.

The truth may be starting to set in. At press time, only four Senators from the Republican Party had broken with the majority by tweeting their congratulations to president-elect Biden. They included independent-minded Susan Collins and Trump enemy Mitt Romney.

Within the White House, some are already speculating about the pardon process, which is one of the last acts of an outgoing president.

Trump is allegedly considering a list of pardons, including one for Jared Kushner’s father, a billionaire convicted of witness tampering, illegal election contributions and tax evasion. Trump is also considering an unprecedented self-pardon.

That should not surprise.

Nothing about the Trump presidency has followed precedent.

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

Donald Trump’s failings and disgraces as president haven’t shaken his core supporters, but they likely lost him his second term.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 9, 2020.

OTTAWA—Revenge is a dish best served cold. Deceased Congressional leaders John McCain and John Lewis may have delivered that dish in spades from their graves.

Days into the American presidential vote count, Arizona and Georgia are among the key states, holding the balance of power in the critical road to 270 electoral college votes needed for victory.

Both states witnessed the deaths of their beloved native sons met with insult and ignominy by U.S. President Donald Trump. The state of Arizona was in the Trump column in the last election, but that was before the president spewed some of his standard anti-military vitriol, claiming that McCain was no war hero because he was captured in theatre. Ditto for Georgia, before the president boycotted the Lewis state funeral, which was attended by all other living presidents.

McCain’s family was so outraged by the slurs against the respected Republican that they campaigned against Trump in this election. But the insults directed towards icons like McCain and Lewis mattered little to most Republicans.

With the record-breaking turnout in this race, Trump managed to score more than five million more votes than Republican ballots cast in 2016. To those of us watching this election from afar, that solid support seems incomprehensible. How could anyone vote for a president who boycotted the funeral of America’s senior congressional African American? It is shocking to the world that Trump was not thrown out of office in shame, considering the chaos that has reigned during his term in office.

On COVID-19 alone, his incompetence, and the absence of a national strategy, has led to the deaths of more than 234,000 people. But his disastrous handling of the COVID pandemic does not seem to have had any influence on his popularity amongst diehard supporters.

In one CNN interview, a woman whose whole family had fallen ill from COVID was supporting Trump and did not believe he had any responsibility for the viral spread in the United States. She said she was voting for him because of his terrific success in foreign policy, and specifically cited the signing of a trade agreement with Israel.

With the massive support he received during the election, it may not have been enough to win, but he will definitely remain a player on the American political stage. Rumour has it that if Trump loses the election, which seems increasingly likely, he is so angry with Fox News that he will revive a 2016 plan to launch his own television station.

Trump was also running an irate twitter rant against Fox News, because of its decision to call Arizona as a winner for the Democrats just a few hours after the polls closed. The enraged president demanded officials stop counting votes in Democratic-leaning states and speed up voting where he was winning.

Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani was also piling on with unproven conspiracy theories. The most bizarre was a Trump tweet quickly hidden by the political censor rules on twitter. Without a scintilla of evidence, Trump ginned up his followers with the notion that his win was being stolen by underhanded Democratic shenanigans. His supporters stormed a number of independent election counting centres, some toting arms and threatening employees as they entered or left the election premises. Protesters were acting on his bizarre tweet in the early morning hours after the polls closed, claiming he won the election and the only thing officials needed to do was to stop counting votes.

Trump was insisting on foul play on the counting front, but even Twitter political censors did not believe him. The tweet was blocked after Trump claimed, “Last night I was leading, often solidly, in many key states, in almost all instances Democrat run and controlled. Then, one by one, they started to magically disappear as surprise ballot dumps were counted. VERY STRANGE.”

It is only strange for a political neophyte. In elections around the world, polling divisions in crowded urban areas come in later and with larger numbers. It takes longer to count them. Add mail-in ballots to the mix and you can anticipate more delays. Some states did not even start counting the millions of mail-in ballots until the evening of the election. Even though this is a federal election, each state has its own voting system.

The claim that votes are being stolen is false. The principle that every vote counts is at the core of democracy. But Trump doesn’t care. He will be a one-term wonder who prefers working with dictators.

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

Even if Donald Trump is defeated on Nov. 3, and that is by no means a certainty, the differences that mark our two countries will only continue to grow

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 19, 2020.

OTTAWA—Has Donald Trump damaged Canada-United States relations irreparably?

According to a Focus Canada poll published in The Globe and Mail last week, Canadians’ view of our southern neighbour has sunk to the lowest level since those statistics have been collected.

The polling consortium included the Environics Institute, the University of Ottawa and the Century Initiative.

The number of Canadians who consider the United States an enemy has jumped from one per cent to 11 per cent in the past seven years.

Roland Paris, a political science professor and former adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quoted as saying the worsening of Canada’s view was largely a result of attitudes toward American president Donald Trump. Paris said the number of Canadians who consider the United States an enemy “is more an expression of frustration and alienation than the actual belief that the United States represents an enemy.”

But I am not so sure.

The Senate hearings into the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett shine a light into what is really going on in the United States.

That a candidate for the Supreme Court could claim the president does not have to abide by Supreme Court decisions is outrageous. Her public claim that it was an “open question” as to whether the president could pardon himself is startling. Barrett said she would have to study the issue before rendering a decision on it.

She also refused to weigh in on a defeated Trump’s potential refusal to leave office and was silent on the constitutionality of voter intimidation and deliberate attempts to discredit the election process.

She also refused to affirm the legality of mail-in ballots, claiming that it was “a matter of policy that I can’t express a view.”

Even after Trump has left office, the chief constitutionalists of the country are likely to be Supreme Court judges who are not prepared to defend against potential fraud in the White House.

By all accounts, Barrett’s nomination will sail through the Senate hearing process, as there are more Senators who want to anoint her than oppose her.

What does that say about the state of democracy in a country with or without Donald Trump as its leader?

The majority of Senators are willing to support a Supreme Court nominee, not because of her constitutional knowledge, but rather because of her religious beliefs. It is well known that Barrett is opposed to abortion and has already spoken out against the legal decision of Roe versus Wade that provides the basis for legal abortions in the United States. Barrett refused to be pinned down on the matter during the Senate hearings, but she has previously joined groups and signed petitions opposing all abortions.

That runs counter to the view of the majority of Americans, but aligns with the core of religious zealots who have lined up to re-elect Trump.

The fact that Trump still garners 42 per cent support just two weeks before the vote is a reflection, not just of the president, but of the state of politics in the United States.

The fact that no moderate Republicans have crossed the floor to vote with the Democrats and block the Barrett nomination is a further signal of how powerful the religious right has become in the last number of years.

Senator Lindsay Graham, in a dead heat in his own bid for re-election, has flipped his opposition to the early nomination and is now leading the charge to see her confirmed before the November 3 election day.

All that to say that even after Trump is no longer the president, the cleavage between Canadian and American viewpoints is growing.

Only 22 per cent of Canadians surveyed believe that Canada is getting more like the United States. For the first time since the question has been asked, more Canadians felt our country is becoming less like America. Thirty-five per cent of those polled held that view this year, compared with only nine per cent back in 2001.

The trend lines are definitely continuing as Canada and the United States go in distinctly different directions.

In addition to the Trump effect, Canadians referenced American racial unrest and its inept response to COVID 19 as reasons why they believe the two countries are growing apart.

Canadians continue to view our American neighbour with growing indifference. Some are even openly hostile.

Even if Trump is defeated on Nov. 3, and that is by no means a certainty, the differences that mark our two countries will only continue to grow.

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

Ongoing railway blockades do erode some support but once ended, Canadians want to move beyond the reality of cultural annihilation and colonial domination. Reconciliation involves healing the wounds of history.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 2, 2020.

OTTAWA—The Government of Canada is not responsible for world oil prices.

And like it or not, companies make decisions largely based on their profit margins.

With the price of oil as low as it is, resource-based companies are rethinking their investment strategies around the world.

Just last week, a major exploration project was cancelled in Australia, which had been in development stages for more than a decade. Norwegian oil giant Equinor announced an end to controversial plans to drill in the Great Australian Bight in a move hailed by environmentalists as a “huge win.”

The Norwegian firm was granted approval last December to begin exploratory drills in seas off South Australia.

In announcing the cancellation, Equinox said the project was not commercially competitive. Equinox was the fourth company to pull out of the area, and the public opposition to drilling in this pristine marine ecosystem could not have been lost on the company.

But in the end, even with strong government support, the project was neither popular nor economically viable.

While Equinor was pulling out, anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto announced a plan for decarbonization of its $2.6-billion iron ore mine in Western Australia. Rio is building a $100-million solar farm to generate power for its mining operations as part of a plan to get carbon out of its energy options.

Recent Australian bush fires have put climate change on the map in that country and companies like Rio are responding with plans to lower their carbon footprint.

The Australian prime minister is a right-wing climate change denier, who was elected by his party to replace a leader accused of going soft on climate change.

Scott Morrison is a strong supporter of fossil fuel development, and once brought a lump of coal into Parliament to convince fellow legislators of the safety and cleanliness of the product. He did not mention the coal was shellacked to make sure he didn’t get his hands dirty.

Morrison was under heavy criticism during the devastating bush fires because he continually refused to acknowledge that climate change was contributing to the fire threat.

But having a prime minister who is blind to the world phenomenon of climate change was not enough to keep Equinor spending in the Great Australian Bight.

Stephen Harper was Canada’s most pro-oil prime minister and yet, by trying to fast-track approval processes, he was unable to get through any pipeline approvals during his time in office.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s position on fossil fuels is more attenuated. He wants to reduce our collective carbon footprint but is still sensitive to the fact that when someone in the world is using oil, it might as well be Canadian oil. But his opinion as prime minister does not matter when the current world price dictates that an investment will not make money.

And as the planet is rethinking the full costs of fossil fuel warming, no single government can be blamed for shifting international energy priorities.

If Rio Tinto has a plan to go carbon neutral, it is because they have seen the writing on the wall. It makes more sense for them to fuel their mining operations via solar energies than to stick to conventional carbon-based fuel.

Trudeau will definitely suffer the political fallout of lost oil and gas investments. The Conservatives federally and in Alberta have been successful in pinning the blame for the Teck Resources withdrawal on the government.

Trudeau will also feel the fallout from national protests in support of the hereditary minority of Wet’suwet’en people who oppose the $6.6-billion Coastal GasLink Pipeline.

Poll numbers have recently been on the uptake for Canadian Conservatives. Despite the fact that it is the only party that does not appear to have a legitimate plan to fight climate change, the Canadian public is responding to the “get tough” simplistic rhetoric.

However, the Tories also run the risk of backing themselves into a corner on the crucial question of Indigenous reconciliation.

By questioning the proposed changes to the Canadian citizenship oath, which affirm constitutional enshrinement of aboriginal and treaty rights, Conservative MP immigration critic Peter Kent could be creating problems for his own party.

At the end of the day, Canadians support the Indigenous reconciliation agenda, and expect governments to be able to work positively to reverse more than a century of discrimination.

Ongoing railway blockades do erode some support but once ended, Canadians want to move beyond the reality of cultural annihilation and colonial domination.

Reconciliation involves healing the wounds of history.

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 hereditary chiefs to demand reconciliation from the rest of us. But they need to show their good faith as well.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on February 24, 2020.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s conciliatory approach to the barricades is wearing a little thin.

It is fine to ask Canadians to exercise patience, but when more than 1,500 people are to be laid off because of illegal occupations, patience comes at a heavy cost.

Trudeau’s decision to exclude Andrew Scheer from the opposition leaders’ meeting was also ill-considered.

He may not agree with Scheer’s perspective, but a discussion involving opposition leaders should not be exclusionary.

How can one possibly rally the opposition, when the leader of the largest opposition contingent in the House of Commons is deemed persona non grata?

Many have characterized Scheer’s speech on the blockade as inflammatory and destructive, which was why Trudeau declined to invite him to the opposition discussion.

That certainly was the case, but in a discussion, you can’t only invite the people you agree with.

Whoever is advising the prime minister, is pursuing the same “go softly” approach that almost cost the Liberals the last election.

In the matter of SNC-Lavalin and former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau spent weeks trying to bring two former ministers onside with conciliatory public statements. He appeared oblivious to the public shellacking his reputation was taking from Wilson-Raybould and colleague and former minister Jane Philpott.

Harsh reactions are not in Trudeau’s DNA. His first election promising sunny ways was a reflection of his own approach to life. His commitment to Indigenous reconciliation, for example, is personal and very real. And he sees the blockades as a litmus test of that commitment.

But when the sun is not shining, leadership sometimes must replace conciliation with toughness.

During the SNC-Lavalin controversy last year, Trudeau refused to publicly rebuke caucus colleagues who were openly attacking his integrity. He tried unsuccessfully for weeks to get Wilson-Raybould and Philpott back onside.

He sent caucus members to conciliate and did his level best to win them over in private without criticizing them publicly.

Instead, Trudeau simply succeeded to strengthening Wilson-Raybould’s hand and casting himself as a weak and indecisive leader.

That impression of weakness was the key reason the Liberals were unable to garner the nation’s confidence with a majority government.

Now in a minority, Trudeau has no choice but to converse with all opposition parties. The decision to exclude Scheer makes the Conservative leader the issue, and not in a good way for Trudeau.

Instead of trying to work with all parties to find a solution embraced by everyone, the Liberals have left the door open to making Scheer the lead spokesperson for law and order.

Trudeau was right to attack Scheer’s comments in the House. It is not up to the government to call in the police. But it is certainly up to the prime minister to speak out loudly and clearly about the right of Canadians to get to work.

When a group is blocking parliament, a passenger train route or freight train links, it is illegally disrupting the right of other Canadians to go about their business.

The exercise of patience is not going to solve this dilemma. When Indigenous chiefs themselves are asking protesters to end their blockades, the prime minister needs to back up the chiefs.

Illegal occupation of workplaces should not be negotiable.

But in tying the current blockades into the reconciliation agenda, Trudeau risks losing the political credit for what his government has already accomplished.

Full funding for Indigenous education, an end in sight to boil water advisories, framework governance agreements, it is fair to say that there has been more progress on reconciliation in the past four years than has happened in the last four decades.

With all the premiers now demanding a solution, the pressure will mount on the prime minister to get tough.

It may go against his grain, but Trudeau needs to move quickly, or the unfettered blockades will spiral further out of control. The longer nothing is done, the more cross-country disruptions will spread.

With Indigenous leaders at his side, Trudeau has every right to call for an end to the blockades, as a sign of good faith.

It is one thing for the hereditary chiefs to demand reconciliation from the rest of us. But they need to show their good faith as well.

If they absolutely refuse to negotiate, there is no point in shutting down the Canadian economy to get them onside.

That wish would be as fruitless as the prime minister’s hope last year that soft words would settle the SNC-Lavalin affair. Leadership can be tough.

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

Courts have been very clear. Governments have a duty to consult Indigenous people before green-lighting major construction projects. But duty to consult should not be confused with veto power.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 17, 2020.

OTTAWA—Indigenous sovereigntists are the flavour of this month in Canada.

Unlike Quebec separatists, they are being afforded unprecedented positive media across the country.

Shutting down key modes of transportation, like passenger and freight trains, and blocking roads across the country are the goals of supporters of the hereditary chiefs of Wet’suwet’en opposed to a pipeline project.

The only problem is, elected representatives of the people of Wet’suwet’en have already spoken out in favour of the pipeline agreement that the hereditary chiefs insist on illegally opposing.

Who is the real voice of Indigenous people in this instance?

Governments of all stripes are treading carefully, not wanting to provoke another Oka, Ipperwash, or Caledonia. The federal government is punting the problem over to the provinces, suggesting they are in a legal and constitutional position to police the protests.

The provinces are continuing to offer to negotiate, knowing full well that the standoff of the hereditary chiefs appears, for all intents and purposes, to be non-negotiable.

In reality, the current illegal occupation of railway lines and parliamentary buildings has zero to do with past local territorial disputes.

In the case of Oka, an Indigenous burial ground was being razed to build a golf course. In the case of Caledonia and Ipperwash, both disputes over expropriated land were ultimately referred to the courts.

In the current case, the issues have already been heavily litigated in the courts. After reviewing all the evidence, courts have ruled that the duty to consult First Nations along the route of the proposed Coastal Gaslink pipeline has been properly carried out.

The courts also reported that the majority of Indigenous leaders support the pipeline, as confirmed by the 20 bands that have signed agreements to work with pipeline proponents.

A minority, including hereditary leaders, and eco activists, have determined that they are above Canadian law and will never cede to a colonial governance decision.

When the British Columbia Legislature was shut down last week, that just about said it all. There is no place for democracy when bullying and blockades attract public attention.

Bonnie Georgie of the Witset First Nation, a former Coastal GasLink employee, supports the 670-kilometre pipeline plan. She says many in her community are afraid to speak out for fear of being “bullied, harassed, threatened and called a traitor.”

According to George, hereditary leaders sit on the band council, and usually play a role in encouraging a consensus on any given issue. She is still hopeful that one can be reached but fears the potential loss of economic opportunities if the illegal blockades continue.

The puzzling thing about the blockaders’ argument is that they claim their actions constitute a refusal to be governed by laws set up by colonial overlords.

They disavow any police authority and want the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to vacate their lands.

They refuse to support the right of elected band leaders to make a decision.

Can you imagine Canada’s reaction if Quebec were to refuse to accept all laws passed after the battle of the Plains of Abraham?

Anarchy is the only description that can apply to hereditary systems that override the will of the majority of people in their own community in an effort to defend alleged rights that pre-existed the arrival of colonial occupiers.

And if the country is going to engage in a true spirit of reconciliation, it has to be built on the foundation of some basic principles, democracy being one of them.

In this instance, the elected band leaders have all consulted their communities and came to a conclusion.

They support the pipeline and want to enjoy the economic benefits it will bring to their young people.

Reasonable Canadians are struggling to understand the dynamic in this fight. It is unfair that a small minority of Indigenous leaders are able to hold hostage the balance of their communities.

They cling to a claim that their blockades reinforce a demand to return management of their homelands back to chiefs whose leadership bloodline was established long before the first European colonizers ruined the New World.

We cannot walk back 500 years.

Institutions and legal structures have evolved in the past centuries. Injustices have been rectified and democratic institutions have been strengthened.

Democracy weakens their claim to hereditary power. That reality needs to supersede the current national impasse on pipeline construction. Courts have been very clear. Governments have a duty to consult Indigenous people before green-lighting major construction projects.

But duty to consult should not be confused with veto power.

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, February 6, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—In politics, ambiguity is usually considered a sign of weak leadership. But it can sometimes be a blueprint for survival.

When the Government of France weighed in on the question of an independent Quebec back in 1977, they coined a phrase that epitomizes political ambiguity. The “non-indifference” policy was their explanation to support but not to interfere in the move for Quebec separation.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau displayed no such ambiguity when he launched a plan for electoral reform during the last election, boldly proclaiming that 2015 would be the last vote under the current system.

Today, he probably wishes that he had been a little less categorical. In the heat of a campaign, certainty is a lot more attractive than ambiguity.

Explaining his about-face in the House of Commons last week, the prime minister appeared uncomfortably resolute. Without consensus on electoral change, it would be folly to change the system.

Predictably, the New Democrats attacked Trudeau viciously. NDP spokesperson Nathan Cullen admonished himself publicly to choose his words carefully. He then proceeded to call the prime minister a “liar” and “the most cynical variety of politician” who “spit in the face” of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Cullen’s response was angry, because his party stands to lose the most without proportional representation.

His party is also to blame for the impasse. They chaired the parliamentary committee which effectively set up the Liberal exit strategy.

By endorsing only one alternative system, that of proportional representation, committee members effectively signed the death warrant for electoral reform. The Conservatives said little last week, because they oppose reform. Their insistence on a national referendum on the matter was intended to scuttle any change.

By recommending only one system, and then agreeing to a national referendum, the NDP killed its own goose.

Anyone who is old enough to remember the national referendum on the Charlottetown Accord and the two Quebec referenda on separation knows that those debates are divisive and inconclusive. History informs us that the majority of provincial referenda on voting systems opted for the status quo. That was what the Conservatives were banking on.

The two major parties that actually want change are the Liberals and the New Democrats. By making common cause with the Conservatives, the New Democrats secured some short-term mileage. They also managed to damage the government minister charged with the responsibility of implementing electoral reform, with much public fanfare.

In the long term, their moves killed the only real opportunity for reform because they were unwilling to consider options other than proportional representation.

Late last year, I attended a meeting on Parliament Hill with former NDP member Lynn McDonald. At a discussion group involving former parliamentarians, she kept insisting that proportional representation was the only alternative to the current system supported by the experts.

She was not interested in any other system because the weighted vote tends to benefit centrist parties, not ideological parties situated on the left or right.

Fair Vote Canada promotes only one alternative, the proportional voting system. Not surprisingly many signatories to their “non-partisan” declaration are unions with public NDP affiliation.

Cullen referenced the number of Canadians upset by Trudeau’s reversal in the “hundreds of thousands.”

In a country of 34.6 million people, this does not appear to represent a strong enough impetus to change our current voting system with one that takes power from voters and gives it to political parties.

As one who left politics because of party interference in local nominations, I would be loathe to replace first-past-the-post with a system in which the parties can pick a list of their preferred candidates.

We should change how we vote. There are multiple examples of how a weighted vote would produce a Parliament that represents the majority without putting more power in the hands of parties.

The parliamentary committee, chaired by the NDP, could have worked toward a consensus report. They could have proposed multiple options for reform, including the weighted ballot. In that system, the voter ranks their preferences for member of parliament. This system guarantees that the candidate with the most support from the voters is sent to Parliament.

New Democrats promoted proportional representation, because their primary wish is implement a system where smaller parties get more seats in the House.

They were snookered by the Conservatives, who managed to secure a commitment for a national referendum.

That lack of consensus left Trudeau with no choice.

The least worst system remains.

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 Monday, December 12, 2016.

OTTAWA—I took the MyDemocracy.ca voting test and discovered what I already knew. According to the online government survey, managed by Vox Pop, I am a pragmatist.

The pragmatist in me says electoral reform is dead.

Its public interment by the minister responsible for democratic reform was not a pretty sight.

Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef arrived in Parliament with great promise. She is fresh and authentic, two qualities that should have stood her in good stead in a tough portfolio. But what she made up for in enthusiasm, she lacked in experience.

The toughest political nut to crack is that of changing the voting system. It is not for the faint of heart, or the novice.

Voting changes have been entertained multiple times in Canada. Thus far, none have succeeded.

Back in March of 2004, the Law Commission of Canada recommended a change to the mixed member proportional system. That autumn, in the speech from the throne, the government promised to follow through with reform.

Multiple options were subsequently studied by a citizens’ consultation group, and a House of Commons committee, but in the end the current system prevailed.

British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have all taken a look, and decided against change. In two provinces, voters made the decision directly through a referendum.

In the rest, the politicians took a pass.

Prince Edward Island undertook a look at the issue this year, with a plebiscite last month proposing a new system of mixed proportional. Unfortunately, even with a decision to lower the voting age to 16, less than 40 per cent of islanders voted. It did not seem to excite many people.

But the Liberal dissent tabled last week killed any chance of federal change before the next election.

Other possible modernizations, including internet voting, may end up supplanting electoral reform, as the mainstay of a federal Liberal promise to change voting.

The possibility of online voting would definitely entice more millennial and younger generation citizens to the polls, especially if they don’t have to leave their keyboard or cellphone.

Voter turnout, or lack thereof, is not just a reflection of mistrust in the electoral system. The surprise victory of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau occurred because he appealed to those recalcitrant young people who did not identify with typical politicians.

Trudeau showed a side of himself that definitely appealed to a younger generation. It was the perfect foil to the aging demeanour of both Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair.

Trudeau may regret being so definitive on the issue of electoral reform. His statement that “We are committed to ensuring that the 2015 election will be the last federal election using first-past-the-post” left no wiggle room.

His minister was stymied by her lack of political experience.

Bowing to pressure, Monsef’s first mistake was to hand over chairmanship of the committee to the Opposition. That move set the stage for the impasse we witnessed last week between the Liberals and all Opposition parties.

The Conservatives certainly don’t want a change. The committee’s demand for a referendum on any proposed change pretty much guarantees that nothing will happen before the next election.

As for the New Democrats and the Green Party, they stand to gain the most with a proportional voting system.

Monsef was wrong when she accused the committee of not doing its job. The hefty report is thorough if not definitive.

But in playing politics with the outcome, the opposition participants gave each other exactly what they wanted, a guaranteed referendum for the Conservatives, and a party-run list system for the smaller parties.

If implemented, the biggest loser would have been the Liberal Party. So Monsef cut her losses and moved to immediately distance herself and her government from the report.

Electoral reform will not happen in this Parliament.

It may never happen. It is certainly not the top of mind issue that moves voters. If anything, it is a party issue for those who cannot make the breakthrough to government.

Bad electoral change comes with its own set of problems. Instead of encouraging centrist policies that accommodate the greatest number of people, proportional parliaments often hand more power to extremists.

Ideologically based parties may be small, but they are much more committed to organizing their membership and getting their vote out. Fringe groups could easily dominate the national agenda if a system of proportional voting replaced the current first-past-the-post Parliament.

I am a pragmatist. Change for change’s sake is not worth the risk, nor a referendum.

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