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.

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, September 4, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Last week’s cabinet remake will prompt a much-needed reboot of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

By splitting it in two, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is legally acknowledging what many have realized for years.

The promised delivery of territorial services in remote Indigenous communities is a huge undertaking that will take more than an election promise to deliver.

Trudeau has announced a five-year timeline to abolish all boil-water advisories on territorial lands.

For most of us, comfortably ensconced in homes with ample access to running water, a day’s shutoff is a catastrophe.

But for hundreds of Aboriginal communities, the idea of daily access to clean drinking water is literally a pipe dream.

At the end of 2016, more than 150 communities across the country had to boil their tap water before use.

In some cases, like Shoal Lake in northwestern Ontario, and Kitigan Zibi in Quebec, the local population has not accessed safe drinking water for up to two decades.

By splitting Indigenous Affairs into two separate departments, the prime minister is fleshing out the specifics of his promise to reconcile historic divisions with First Nations, Metis, and Inuit.

As he said in support of the shuffle, “There’s a sense that we’ve pushed the creaky old structures at INAC as far as they can go”.

Minister Carolyn Bennett will continue to take responsibility for legal and treaty rights, as minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs responsible for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit relations with the government.

Former Health minister Jane Philpott has taken over responsibility for delivering services like education, health, and housing in her role as head of the Department of Indigenous Services. The switch from her former Health portfolio to Indigenous Services is not as much of a leap as it might seem at first blush.

The federal government is actually the seventh largest provider of health care services in Canada. When provincial health ministers gather to discuss issues, they often insist the sole federal role is financial. But in reality, with responsibility for Indigenous and military health delivery, the government of Canada has more responsibility for service delivery than many provinces and territories.

Philpott’s success in the Health portfolio, and her professional background, will stand her in good stead with these new responsibilities. She is also going to discover that Health ministry challenges were a walk in the park compared to the enormity of Indigenous service shortcomings and requirements.

Modern interpretation of the decades-old Indian Act implies that this paternalistic legislation was totally designed by white people who were determined to reinforce an imbalanced relationship. In some measure, that interpretation is correct. But the elephant in the room is that when it comes to legislative changes, there is no unanimity amongst different Indigenous communities.

When the Indian Act was amended back in 1985 to conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the biggest opponents of abolishing institutionalized sexism were Aboriginal chiefs.

At that time, if an Aboriginal woman married a white man, she lost all rights and could be kicked off her ancestral home. If an Aboriginal man married a white woman, the marriage contract would confer his rights upon the wife and all her descendants.

The greatest opposition to post-matrimony equality came from the chiefs. The Assembly of First Nations categorically refused to endorse a legislative amendment to confer equal marital rights on women and men. National native womens’ associations lobbied Parliamentarians for equality, and many of us, especially women politicians, were on their side.

Canada’s first Aboriginal minister, Len Marchand, an Indigenous leader from British Columbia, lead the charge for full equality. In the end, he lost the battle, when the act was amended to confer equal marriage status for Aboriginal women and their children but exclude descendants. To this day, vestiges of gender discrimination exist in the legislation, largely because Aboriginal leadership has blocked full equality.

Philpott will be dealing with multiple challenges in her new job, not the least of which will be working with remote communities to secure the kind of access to services that the rest of us take for granted.

Last week’s cabinet changes will ensure that service delivery will merit undivided ministerial attention.

Philpott immediately dampened down expectations, explaining that “we’re undoing generations of dysfunctional and discriminatory structures. We don’t want to pretend that this is going to be done overnight.”

The minister is right about the dysfunction. But the sad reality is that those discriminatory structures are not just a white man’s legacy.

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