For the first time in my lifetime, all Canadians have become engaged. We have not found all the answers, but we are asking the right questions.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 4, 2021.

Canada’s first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation posed more questions than answers.

A court-upheld Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision to compensate Indigenous children taken into care was the subject of much reflection.

The decision puts the government on the hook to compensate Indigenous children living on “reserves” who were taken into care for the last 15 years.

During the election, the Liberals appealed the decision and at press time, it was unclear whether that might happen again.

Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller said the government was reviewing the judgment before deciding on whether another appeal would be launched.

But to those Canadians who embrace the need for reconciliation, including leaders in the Indigenous community, a possible appeal soured the significance of the day of Truth and Reconciliation.

As children’s shoes were strewn across the lawn of Parliament, the reflection of little feet stood in stark contrast to jackboots of oppression that those children have felt over the centuries.

The more we learn about the horrendous deculturalization of residential schools, the more that Canadians would like to be able to make amends for a horrible historical legacy.

But the racism and discrimination identified by the Canadian Human Rights Commission did not end last week.

The first-year anniversary of Joyce Echaquan’s death coincided with a call to recognize racism in public sector services in Quebec. The mother of seven, while on her deathbed in a Joliette hospital, was called stupid, and the author of her own problems, by staff caught on a recording.

One employee was ultimately fired but Quebec’s premier Francois Legault continues to deny the existence of systemic racism in his province even though a provincial commission report has already found it “impossible to deny …systemic discrimination” when it comes to Indigenous people.

One day of the year will not change the systemic discrimination that has existed since the beginning of Canada.

But it is fair to say that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the first leader who has actually engaged in a real reconciliation conversation.

For the first time in my lifetime, all Canadians have become engaged. We have not found all the answers, but we are asking the right questions.

The first time I visited an Indigenous community was the Six Nations of the Grand River, Canada’s most populous First Nation, just 30 kilometres south of the place where I was born.

My parents took me for a visit when I was about eight or nine years old. We attended a community celebration.

To this day, I vividly remembering watching the drummers and the dancers in a cultural celebration that was unlike anything I had ever experienced.

Over the years, we visited again, and I was always struck with how different this world was, and how little we even knew about it.

I wondered why the history books in my school in Hamilton made no mention of the people who had populated our lands long before the arrival of the first Europeans.

We knew a little bit about Pauline Johnson, because of her poetry and Tom Longboat because of his athletic achievements, but for the most part, our understanding of Indigenous peoples was net zero.

How many Canadians know that the people of Six Nations helped us when the Americans were trying to take the country over. Every child was educated about the battle of Stoney Creek, a turning point in the battle for Upper Canada.

But not a single history book explored the Haldimand Proclamation, a 1784 decree that promised a tract of 950,000 acres in recognition of Six Nations loyalty and assistance to the British during the American Revolution. Only half that land was ever awarded.

In modern times, disputes arising from this agreement are covered as Indigenous protests. In reality they are only seeking what was promised in multiple settler agreements.

So many promises have been broken, it is understandable that Indigenous leaders view the current government plans with skepticism.

It is also true that while reconciliation preoccupies many Canadians, it was certainly not the top-of-mind subject in the last federal election.

Last week’s national day gives all of us a chance to engage in a deeper reflection.

From the sixties scoops to the shame of residential schools, to the appropriation of Indigenous lands by developers and governments, Canada has a sorry history to atone for.

When pundits reflect on Justin Trudeau’s potential legacy, they don’t need to look far.

Without Trudeau, this journey toward Truth and Reconciliation would never have begun.

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 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.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, November 6, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Monday marks the 150th anniversary of the first meeting of Canadian parliamentarians.

Celebrations include the usual fanfare, with a declaration in the House of Commons, and a commemorative plaque unveiling.

But the real story of these 150 years is best expressed in how we govern ourselves.

Americans live by the credo of exceptionalism. They (falsely) believe that the country of opportunity shaped by the American Revolution is unique in the world. Their Congressional Pledge of Allegiance is overarching, laying claim to one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In Canada, we would cringe at the notion of one nation. Our Parliament recognizes Quebec as a nation, stemming from the unique linguistic origins of one of our initial founding partners.

At last count, there are also 617 First Nations across the country, all party to the reconciliation discussions so high on agenda of the Liberal government.

The most common adverb in the Canadian vocabulary is ‘sorry’. It is an expression that defines us around the world. Along with our Scottish-purloined pronunciation of out and about (oot and aboot), the “sorry” status of Canadians is fodder for many late-night comedians.

This constant state of apologia is not accidental.

It stems from the origins of Parliament, when the founding fathers (and there were only fathers) created a Parliament based on the “Great Coalition” of two languages.

The stark difference between Canadians’ love for diversity and Americans’ belief in exceptionalism stems from very different political choices in the beginning.

Just last week, the Canadian government announced plans to increase its annual immigration level to one per cent.

Concurrently, in response to the New York cyclists’ terrorist attack, American President Donald Trump threatened to curb immigration. He blamed it for terrorism, as the terror suspect allegedly received his immigration papers in an American “diversity” lottery.

In recent weeks, Canadians have been debating the Quebec government’s decision to limit the face-covering niqab in provisioning of public services.

We have also been hearing more about the anti-150 anniversary movement, which led a Haligonian student leader to face a university disciplinary hearing because of her Facebook postings.

The hearing was eventually cancelled, but the controversy surrounding a Dalhousie Student Union cancellation of “colonial Canada 150 celebrations” continues.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau welcomed anti-colonial protesters to the lawn of Parliament during the Canada Day events. By so doing, he drew attention to their cause and dampened the vitriol that might have otherwise marred festivities.

Can you imagine American president Donald Trump even speaking to protesters at a Fourth of July anniversary event? He would be more likely to tweet that they should be deported to Guantanamo Bay.

While some would argue that the difference between the two leaders is one of personality or party affiliation, I believe it speaks to the larger differences in the founding tenets of both countries.

The United States of America was born out of bloodshed, both in its war of independence and bitterly fought civil war.

Canada was born out of compromise. In the spirit of inclusion, Parliament included a recognition of the inclusion of two languages.

That pivotal decision led to a Parliament that incorporated accommodation as a core value.

Some point the finger of differentiation at our specific decision to embrace a federal multiculturalism policy, back in 1971. But the roots for that decision began during the period of the Great Coalition that preceded the first Parliament, a linguistic and cultural coalition between English and French-speaking political leaders.

Our country was founded on the notion that two languages could thrive within a single state.

National cultural institutions, like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board, have never shied away from challenging the myth of monoculturalism.

The recent Quebec attempt to ban the niqab in certain public places may have been popular there and, surveys show, in other parts of the country. However, it mimics the American “exceptionalism” motto which requires that all others meld into a single, “exceptional” mold.

The Catalonian crisis is a jarring example of what happens when there is no space for two nations to coexist within a single state.

The Quebec niqab ban will be struck down by the courts. That is a good thing. Whenever the state promotes a view of national exclusivity, it dooms the nations within to assume the only way to survive is to leave.

Respect for diversity is the key to many 21st century challenges.

Back in the 19th century, the first Canadian Parliament got it right.

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