No one prime minister can overturn more than a century of governance mistakes, but the legacy Justin Trudeau is building will make sure that Canadians are invested in the changes that need to happen for true reconciliation.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 8, 2024.

OTTAWA—The beginning of the new year also ushered in the second annual National Ribbon Skirt Day.

The first Ribbon Skirt Day was recognized by Parliament last year to honour Indigenous regalia, including the ribbon dress.

National attention was drawn to the importance of the ribbon dress after Saskatchewan schoolgirl Isabella Kulak was derided for wearing hers to a formal school event in 2020. According to media reports, a staff member told the 10-year-old that what she was wearing was not formal enough for “formal day” at the school in Kamsack.

The school district subsequently issued an apology. To mark the new year, in 2021, Isabella and a group of friends marched into their classrooms wearing ribbon dresses and shirts on the first day of school.

Kulak’s humiliation sparked an outcry and prompted Parliament to recognize National Ribbon Skirt Day on Jan. 4. Some may think this designation is frivolous, but in reality, it underscores the journey taken by Indigenous People over the past decade.

Whatever happens to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the future, he will definitely go down in history as the prime minister who devoted the most political—and financial—capital to reconciliation. I underscore financial because Trudeau is not the first leader to speak out about the challenges facing Indigenous Peoples, whether in urban, rural, or northern areas, but he is certainly the first to invest major cash in the solutions.

We won’t likely see the benefit of his government’s investments immediately. One of the first and little-noticed decisions was the move to increase education funding on reserve so that it matched what was happening in other parts of the country.

Before Trudeau, Indigenous education spending was only about 60 per cent of what was spent on average schooling in Canada. By insisting on parity, Trudeau prompted an increase in the quality of education in territories that will probably not yield results for at least a decade.

The same holds true for boil-water advisories. Previous governments—including my own—worked on a piecemeal basis to solve water issues, but there was never a published target or a focus on a complete end to advisories until Trudeau took office in 2015.

One of the key ways in which Trudeau managed to improve the water situation was his decision to break up the former Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and split it into two different ministries. One ministry is specifically focused on service delivery, while another is working to conclude governance agreements that solidify Crown-Indigenous relations.

By creating two departments and resourcing them, Trudeau has made sure that focus of work does not get stalled on one while officials work on the other.

Adequate running water and properly funded education will not make up for the years of damage done by separating families and underfunding communities. The residential school trauma has been multi-generational, and most Canadians didn’t even know it existed until recently.

The National Ribbon Skirt Day is more than a recognition of one girl’s courage. It is a celebration of culture and heritage that should instill a sense of pride and belonging in Indigenous children who have often been made to feel like second-class citizens in their own country.

No one really knows what kind of policies a Conservative prime minister would introduce to continue the work to overturn deeply rooted and racist governance, but in Pierre Poilievre’s round-the-clock social media postings, you don’t hear much about Indigenous People.

No one prime minister can overturn more than a century of governance mistakes, but the legacy Trudeau is building will make sure that Canadians are invested in the changes that need to happen for true reconciliation.

Most people vote on what is good for them, not necessarily what is good for their fellow citizens. So the work done on reconciliation will not likely yield too much support in the ballot box for the Liberals. But when the history books are written, Trudeau will definitely go down as the prime minister who made the greatest strides in overcoming colonialization and truly delivering on reconciliation.

Kulak—and every other Indigenous student—has reason to be proud of her regalia and her history. It is one of survival. resilience and celebration. In 2024, let’s hope governments continue the journey of reconciliation, in words and deeds.

Indigenous children in schools across the country should never be mocked because of what they are wearing or where they come from.

Instead, they should be celebrated every day.

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 November 6, 2023.

OTTAWA—The takedown of Buffy Sainte-Marie is painful to witness. The CBC claims its evidence is airtight, but there appears to be a number of holes in the exposé about Sainte-Marie not being Indigenous.

According to the CBC, the singer-songwriter’s claim to Indigenous roots has been contradicted by her birth certificate and even some members of her own family.

The birth certificate upon which the CBC based its story says that Sainte-Marie was born to parents Albert and Winifred Santamaria. Sainte-Marie says that she was adopted by Albert and Winifred, who changed their names to Sainte-Marie after the war because of racism against Italians.

The CBC story claimed “many instances over the years of contradictory statements from the singer regarding that personal history.”

The story recounted how many awards and recognitions that had come to Sainte-Marie in part because of her unique status as an Indigenous artist in a white world.

Sainte-Marie was named Billboard’s Music Award for Top Artist in 1964 just after she was described by The New York Times as “one of the most promising new talents on the folk scene today.”

But it also laid out the multiple times that Saint-Marie had self-ascribed different Indigenous origins, claiming that she has been Algonquin, Mi’kmaq, and Cree at different times to different news outlets.

Former Globe and Mail reporter Jan Wong had this to say on X about the claim that Sainte-Marie was not adopted because of her birth certificate. “Hey @CBCNews your Buffy Pretendian story rings false. I did quick search of adoptee births in Mass: ‘An amended birth certificate, created after an adoption is finished, lists the name of the adoptive parents just as if the child had been born to them originally.’ ”

There were certainly a number of inconsistencies in the way that Sainte-Marie recounted her life story at various moments in her career.

But it is undeniable that she fought for Indigenous rights at a time when no one was really listening very hard.

Some have claimed she appropriated this identity to further her career.

But given that she burst onto the folk scene in the 1960s, it is pretty hard to see how her Indigenous heritage claim would have been developed simply to support her rise in the music world.

In the 1960s, being Indigenous was no ticket to success. Instead, negative stereotypes prompted many Indigenous Peoples to hide their identity.

Sainte-Marie was consistent in her fight for Indigenous Peoples, and her claim to attachment to her people.

She wasn’t the first to be accused of Indigenous appropriation, and she won’t be the last.

Last week, Newfoundland Premier Andrew Furey visited Labrador to deliver a series of apologies to residential school survivors. Over a few days, the premier visited five Inuit communities to deliver solemn apologies.

That visit happened a month after Furey made a similar apology to the NunatuKavut Community Council.

The premier’s first apology was attacked by members of the Innu nation and the government of Nunatsiavut, claiming the NunatuKavut community has no legitimate Inuit identity.

That difference of opinion was virally reflected in the House of Commons two years ago when the Inuit Member of Parliament attacked her colleague in Labrador for falsely claiming her Inuit heritage.

Then-NDP MP Mumilaaq Qaqqaq was forced to apologize for a Twitter post in which she demanded that Liberal MP Yvonne Jones “validate her Inuk-ness.”

Jones characterized the attack as “lateral racism,” and told the media that “I don’t think I have to prove my identity … I know who I am. I know who my grandmother and my great-grandmother was … I can trace my Inuit history in Labrador back to the early 1800’s.”

But the very public fight was a reflection of the challenges that come with clarifying Indigenous lineage.

The CBC obviously thought it was doing a deep dive into the real story behind Buffy Sainte-Marie.

But the backlash caused by the story, and the questions around adoption practices more than 80 years ago have not been fully answered.

It is a disservice to Sainte-Marie’s lifelong Indigenous commitment to believe that a colonial birth certificate holds all the answers to her birth history.

The story was explosive. But with too many holes in the content, it should have been left untold.

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 October 9, 2023.

OTTAWA—There is a reason people love politics.

The adrenalin of the fight, the rollercoaster ups and downs make it a show worth watching.

The majority of Canadians don’t spend every waking moment focused on Question Period. They live their lives, struggle with family and financial issues, and focus on Ottawa when casting a ballot every four years or so.

For political junkies like me, we watch politics because we love the thrust and parry. Last week was a sight to behold.

The country went from the abyss to the mountaintop in a single vote. The House of Commons morphed from a forum that applauds war criminals to a place that elected the country’s first Black speaker.

Concurrently, Manitoba voted for massive change by choosing the first ever First Nations leader to head up its legislature.

The elections of Greg Fergus on the Hill and Wab Kinew in Winnipeg are reasons to celebrate this fragile construct called democracy.

Members of Parliament were shouting with joy on the choice of Fergus, and some wiped tears from their eyes on witnessing the election of the first Black Canadian House Speaker.

The same optimism met Kinew’s landslide victory, some likening it to the “orange crush” of 2011 which saw then-federal NDP leader Jack Layton come ever so close to forming government. The reaction of Indigenous leaders last week was compelling. This is what real reconciliation looks like.

Manitoba voters overwhelmingly rejected a government that sadly ran an election campaign ad on not exhuming the bodies of two murdered Indigenous women believed to be buried in a landfill.

Does anyone think that would have been a campaign poster if those women had been white? The outgoing government launched a blatant attempt at racial wedge-politics that failed miserably.

That is why elections matter and why—as Canadians—we can be proud of the choices made at the ballot box last week.

Of course, some pundits can even find a negative twist on those votes.

“Why not sooner?” said some, while others fear the Speaker’s election was just tokenism. Those were some of the brickbats sent his way within moments of Fergus being ceremoniously dragged into the job.

The Quebec MP quickly showed us why he is not a token choice.

With wit and depth, Fergus got to work, warning MPs to treat him like a new car and avoid denting him on the first day.

All and sundry rose to pledge fealty and gentleness, promising they would do their best to make the House of Commons a more civil place.

That might not last too long. I give it two weeks. And that because during one of those weeks the House will not be sitting.

The debates ahead will make the House of Commons a place worth watching, where speeches are measured by the depth of ideas, not the talons of tongues.

Fergus may follow the Peter Milliken school of speakership. Milliken, the longest serving speaker who was elected in successive Liberal and Conservative government terms, understood that some heckling can stand the House in good stead.

It is a bit like the valve on a pressure cooker. Letting out a little steam is the only way to avoid a major explosion.

Most importantly, Fergus needs to treat all Members of Parliament, and political parties, equally.

The last House Speaker not chosen by secret ballot was John Bosley, who served in the chair for the first two years of prime minister Brian Mulroney’s majority government.

The opposition felt Bosley’s rulings were too one-sided (present company included), and a raucous parliamentary period prompted changes to the standing orders—or House rules—which resulted in the election of speakers by secret ballot.

The first speaker so chosen was Progressive Conservative John Fraser. The British Columbian MP was so popular that he was re-elected and served almost eight years.

He combined a wry sense of humour with taut control over decorum in the House.

Fraser and Milliken garnered the respect of all members. That is the challenge facing Fergus.

A lifelong Liberal, who served as a political assistant and party organizer before being elected, he will have to leave his partisan hat at the door.

His sunny personality will be a help there as Fergus has a reputation across party lines for being a positive, friendly force.

That positivity must be tempered by a strong arm in the oversight of Question Period.

Fergus will need to be a gentle giant, but not too gentle.

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

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.

While reconciliation is a process that cannot happen in a week, one gets the feeling that Canada is moving in the right direction.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 4, 2022.

OTTAWA—Watching Justin Trudeau in Williams Lake and Indigenous leaders in Rome last week was compelling.

For the first time in the history of Canada, it feels as though we have a real chance at reconciliation.

That is not to say that all will be satisfied with papal promises. The Catholic Church has been notoriously slow on all fronts. First, the promise of a $25-million compensation package has been languishing for 16 years. Second, sexual predators parading as priests have been protected by the hierarchy for years.

Even with all the roadblocks, all the leaders at the Vatican gatherings expressed real hope that the differences with the Catholic Church could be bridged.

The same message of reconciliation came during the prime minister’s visit to Williams Lake.

Chief Willie Sellars lauded the prime minister’s presence with eloquence, suggesting he finally felt like a leader in his community and in Canada.

Many chiefs, especially in British Columbia, believe that the colonial reach of the Crown in taking over their lands and subsuming their cultures precludes any attachment to Canada.

The pain of Indigenous Elders was reflected last week in the telling of their stories.

It is understandable that bitterness influences the perspective of young leaders who had seen their cultures and languages annihilated by government policies taking their parents and grandparents from their homes and buried dead children in unmarked graves.

Instead, we witnessed hope for the future.

Hope from Chief Sellars of Williams Lake that he and his tribal partners would work with governments to identify the anonymous burial grounds and heal the families. They plan to commemorate these atrocities by forgiving but not forgetting.

With a focus on education, language, and reconciliation, the Indigenous leadership is ready to move forward, working with governments for solutions.

Governments have to be ready to do their part, and that includes the government of Vatican City.

Indigenous leaders visited the Vatican museums and witnessed some of their own artifacts that were stolen or traded out of their possession, only to end up in a foreign museum in a foreign land.

But those same leaders expressed an interest in working with the Vatican museum on a co-management agreement that could see some artifacts repatriated to their territories while others remained in Rome for all to see.

In Rome and Williams Lake, there was a sense of conciliation in the words of leaders on both sides.

But words alone are not enough. The Vatican has a responsibility to follow through with specific actions. That will not nullify the Catholic Church’s participation in the government-licensed residential schools. But it will underscore that truth and acknowledgement are the first steps toward healing.

The painful stories of those elders that were heard in Rome and Williams Lake will not be forgotten. But there is a way to move beyond that, with educated young people free to speak their languages and embrace their cultures.

From 30-year-old Métis National Council president Cassidy Caron, to 46-yer-old Natan Obed of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, to Williams Lake Chief Willie Sellars, all are leaders.

While all Canadians can view this leadership with optimism, when it comes to the colonial powers or the Catholic Church, one can also expect some skepticism.

When Trudeau spoke of his early experiences with his father, getting a first-hand look into the world of pain caused by residential schools at a young age, he was animated and genuine.

And when Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller spoke about the journey for healing, he too appeared committed to the process and not simply mouthing the words that people expected to hear.

While reconciliation is a process that cannot happen in a week, one gets the feeling that Canada is moving in the right direction.

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

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.

But no one can deny that Justin Trudeau has been more committed to action than any predecessor.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 29, 2019.

OTTAWA—There has always been a love-hate relationship between politicians and the media.

As a young reporter for The Hamilton Spectator, I was accused of going over to the dark side when I resigned to run for office.

Reporters and politicians need each other, but there is a chasm of skepticism that separates the two.

I say that because it has been my distinct recent impression that some journalists are lining up to shape the outcome of the next federal election.

Take a recent, screaming front page Globe and Mail headline on April 24, saying that the government used partisan lists to screen judicial appointments.

The article claimed that one-quarter of judicial appointments had been party donors in previous years.

That meant three-quarters of appointees to the bench had not supported the party.

Statistically speaking, there was no story there. The headline was so misleading that an associate professor of psychology wrote a letter to the editor, saying: “Clearly, the facts overwhelmingly supported the statement by Justice Minister David Lametti’s office that political leanings were not taken into consideration for judicial appointments. Your article’s tone and presentation, however, present quite a different picture.”

It is highly probable that Liblist, the party tracking tool, screened out candidates who had been big donors to the government, for fear of a public backlash.

All donations are a matter of public record and, of course, parties use every tool at their disposal to avoid criticism about appointees tied too closely to the government.

That explanation does not square with The Globe narrative that the Liberals are improperly tinkering with the justice system.

The story also appeared to breathe life into claims by former minister Jody Wilson-Raybould that PMO had improperly handled files within her jurisdiction.

The former Liberal made The Globe front page again on April 25, taking direct aim the government’s reconciliation agenda at a gathering of British Columbia First Nations.

Why is a one-sided speech from a former minister a front-page story?

In a lengthy article that largely repeats her speech verbatim, the former minister accuses colleagues of “a pattern of trying to quote, manage the problem with Indigenous peoples and make incremental and limited shifts rather than transforming the status quo.”

Many believe the former minister’s dissatisfaction with the reconciliation agenda was the real reason she quit cabinet.

When Philpott resigned in solidarity, she claimed her only disagreement with the leader was on the deferred prosecution agreement. Philpott repeated that statement multiple times.

But last week, she too, joined her friend in the attack on the government’s Indigenous agenda. She accused Canada of needing adjustment in “moral compass” if it could not fund a Grassy Narrows treatment centre.

As Indigenous services minister for almost three years and then head of Treasury Board, Philpott herself could have funded the Grassy Narrows project.

In 2017, she promised in writing to do so but her promise came with zero funding.

As Treasury Board president, she wrote Canada’s cheques. So if the country’s moral compass has been compromised, she bears some responsibility. How does she square her criticism with previous public statements that her sole disagreement with the prime minister was the SNC-Lavalin file?

In the 20-paragraph Globe story, only one paragraph provided a viewpoint critical of the pair.

For sure, not everyone is happy with the slow pace of reconciliation. But no one can deny that Justin Trudeau has been more committed to action than any predecessor.

A week earlier, The Globe published a scathing op-ed rebuke of Wilson-Raybould, written by the founding chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers.

Past president of the Criminal Lawyers Association Brian Greenspan, wrote: “The reputation and integrity of the administration of criminal justice in Canada has recently been challenged by critics who betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the responsibilities of key participants in our justice system. Regrettably, these misconceptions have been fuelled by our former attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould. The attorney general’s power to superintend prosecutions is an important aspect of our system. The former attorney general treated the director of public prosecutions (DPP) as essentially unreviewable. Politically accountable oversight in ensuring that the public interest is properly taken into account isn’t anathema to the rule of law. The attorney-general’s power to superintend prosecutions is an integral part of our justice system.”

This criticism comes from someone with deep knowledge of the criminal justice system and zero political agenda.

Politicians usually blame media when things are going badly. But when front-page news is so blatantly one-sided, they may not be wrong.

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