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.

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, July 3, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—In Canada, the 150th birthday bash seems to have taken on a double meaning.

Bash connotes a happy time when everyone joins together in an unforgettable party.

Bash can also mean a chance to take a dump on the very birthday celebration that drew hundreds of thousands of Canadians to Parliament Hill.

Some of the worst birthday bashers were the aboriginal naysayers who erected a protest teepee on Parliament Hill to protest ‘our home on native land.’

They achieved their goal, garnering headlines about legitimate aboriginal grievances that have not been rectified during the lifetime of Canada’s existence.

In so doing, they missed a huge opportunity to build a bridge instead of burning it.

How easy would it have been for the original fathers of Confederation to walk away from the agreement to create Canada because of differences of language and different religion? To welcome those differences into one political construct took courage, and a willingness to reach out.

Real leaders know how to step beyond divides and bring people together.

U.S. President Donald Trump has shown how easy it is to build walls. He nurtured a political base founded on racial and religious resentment.

That strategy was politically profitable in the short term. Demagogues and despots have always understood how easy it is to divide people on the basis of race, religion and colour.

It should be our collective responsibility to support bridge building and decry division.

That is why the decision of aboriginal protesters to try to undermine the nation’s celebratory mood on Canada’s birthday was a mistake. That is why the recent ban on police participation in the Toronto Pride parade was also a mistake.

The Black Lives Matter movement, that spearheaded the police ban, has legitimate beefs related to racial profiling, discrimination and biased treatment by police. So does the gay community.

Some of us are old enough to remember the horror of the Toronto bathhouse raids.

But to go from that unhappy period to a situation when gay supporters from the police join in celebration of diversity can only be viewed a huge step forward.

What does blocking police accomplish in the effort to eliminate bias and discrimination?

If anything, the Black Lives Matter movement is simply reinforcing reverse discrimination. Just like police should not be stopping people on the streets and randomly asking for proof of identity just because of their colour, so parade goers should not ban all police on the basis that some have been, and continue to be homophobic and/or racist.

Surely the intention of leaders in the black, white and indigenous communities should be focussed on bridging the gaps between races, not systemically reinforcing the notion that one group is an overlord of the other.

By attempting to pour cold water on the Parliament Hill celebrations of Canada’s birthday, some aboriginal leaders have done a disservice to their own history.

The indigenous peoples welcomed Europeans to our shores. Without the Mi’kmaq, Montagnais and the Innu, Samuel de Champlain would never have survived Canada’s cruel winters.

So why turn their backs on the very ancestors that their forefathers welcomed?

Some will argue that it is all about making a political point. The point that the birthday of an occupier nation is not worth celebrating.

Really?

After 150 years, Canada as a construct is actually worth celebrating. Is it a perfect country? Certainly not. Have mistakes been made in political and religious leaders decisions to displace children and wipe out indigenous languages in the name of civilization?

Of course, and rectifying the scandalous legacy of residential school deculturalization has preoccupied governments for the past quarter century. To be successful, reconciliation cannot be unidirectional.

All healing involves recognition that the aggrieved and the aggressor will set aside their rancour and reach out to accept the other.

It involves an understanding that supporting police who support minorities is a part of the healing process.

Assuming that the mistakes of the past can only be solved in a one-sided demonstration of guilt simply reinforces reverse prejudice and discrimination.

When those early leaders sat down in Charlottetown in 1864 to fashion a country, they were 153 years ahead of their time.

In today’s global world, different peoples, with different religions, and different languages need to find a way to live and work together.

The survival of the human race depends on it.

The creation of Canada was at the core of that diversity.

And 150 years later, it is time for all of us to celebrate.

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, May 29, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Father knows best.

In 2017, that statement may be an anachronism, but Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould received some sage parental advice last week.

Hereditary chief Bill Wilson was blunt, calling for the resignation of the head of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Characterizing the glacial pace of the inquiry as “disgusting” and a “bloody farce,” he added in a blunt CBC television interview: “It’s almost as if they have scraped scabs off open wounds and then have done nothing to heal them.”

Wilson-Raybould will be under tremendous pressure to ignore her father’s advice but if she does so, she will pay a huge political price.

Only a few days earlier, commission chief Marion Buller defended the apparent disorganization and lack of communication by claiming she was taking a victim-centred approach to the inquiry process.

Public complaints keep piling up. Basic organizational tools to carry out simple tasks like manning hotline phones and enlisting witnesses do not seem to be in place more than five months after the inquiry launch.

And given that the promise of an open, transparent forum was one of the key Liberal election centrepieces, it is imperative to get the inquiry right.

One of the challenges the minister faces is that once a commission of inquiry is called, it becomes master of its own destiny.
 
Even though the composition and membership was government-designed and approved, a commission is free to establish its own pace and work plan.

The irony of that reality is that any failure is visited squarely on the shoulders of government.

A lot is riding on a successful conclusion to a process that appears discredited before public meetings even commence.

A huge reboot needs to happen now.
 
While the commission chief has amassed an impressive list of credentials during her time as British Columbia’s first indigenous woman on the bench, it is one thing to write courtroom judgments.

It is quite another thing to manage a $50-million national organization with travel and communication requirements involving remote communities across Canada.

Wilson-Raybould must move quickly to reverse what is becoming a public embarrassment for the government.

But she also needs to tread carefully because once launched, any public inquiry is an independent body designed to be master of its own affairs.

That is the main reason why most governments are loathe to launch public inquiries in the first place.

The Gomery Commission is one recent example of a well-publicized public inquiry that cost millions but was eventually discredited by a Federal Court judge, who bluntly accused Judge John Gomery of judicial bias.

In the early years of the Jean Chrétien Liberal government, the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada was established. The cost of the inquiry took four years and ballooned to $14-million.

When cabinet recommended a fixed report date and budget, we were informed that we had no choice but to simply foot the bill. Privy Council officials said that to do anything else, would be an interference in the independence of the judicial process.

Wilson-Raybould may have to ignore that advice. Otherwise, what was a centrepiece of a new government may prove to be an embarrassment.

Last week during a much-publicized interview, the inquiry head appeared to lack basic communications skills. The operation is already suffering the loss of multiple communication directors.

With a high level of staff dissatisfaction and turnover, it is little wonder that there is no coherent message.

What is also inexplicable is the lack of basic infrastructure in place to support the potential witnesses. Having telephone operators to handle the onslaught of expected hotline calls is a question of simple organizational management.

The inquiry needs to re-establish its organizational credentials quickly, by securing the removal of the chair.

The last thing the inquiry needs is to victimize women who have already been victims, simply because no one is even in place to follow up on basic telephone messages.

Wilson-Raybould is a talented, dynamic member of the Liberal cabinet. She comes with great credentials in the aboriginal and justice communities, and she cannot afford to wear this failure. But wear it she will unless she acts on her father’s blunt, public message.

It must be tough for any elected official to witness their parent on national television dishing out some pretty tough advice.

But unless his advice is heeded, Wilson-Raybould will personally bear the blame for a failure over which she now has little control.

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