To date, an anti-Ottawa political perspective has transformed into an anti-Canada movement. Those of us who love this country need to understand that survival is not guaranteed. If we are not willing to fight hard for the survival of our country, Canada could be lost.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 29, 2026.

OTTAWA—Canada Day is usually an opportunity for people to weigh in on how much they love this great country.

But given the state of realpolitik in Alberta and Quebec, maybe it is time we thought about a new approach to nation building.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is rolling out major national projects as part of his campaign for “Canada Strong.” In the lead-up to Canada Day on July 1, three major projects were announced.

All were in northern parts of this country, and two involved transportation.

The Nunavut project is a 230-kilometre all-season road from the border of the Northwest Territories to the Arctic Ocean.

The second is another all-season road completion from Yellowknife to Inuvik, providing year-round access to remote northern areas.

The third is the construction of a deep underground nuclear waste storage facility in the Ignace/Wabigoon Lake area of northern Ontario.

Roads and rail link Canadians.

This country’s first prime minister saw the benefit of national transportation links, promising to link eastern Canada to the Pacific Coast by the way of a series of railway lines which ultimately became the government-owned Canadian National Railways.

Big infrastructure projects marked the beginning of Canada, and Carney obviously thinks they can revitalize the ties that bind us.

From high-speed rail to northern all-season roads, all are designed to grow the economy by building interregional links.

But the challenges faced by Sir John A. Macdonald pale in comparison to the global and regional tensions facing the current prime minister.

Big projects may be part of the answer. But the country needs to realize that we cannot simply take Confederation for granted.

In Alberta, separatists have followed a roadmap already drawn up for them by two referendums in Quebec.

In the last Quebec referendum, a convoluted question asked voters to give the government a mandate to negotiate a new deal with Canada and if they didn’t get it, start a new country.

The federal government needs to start making the case for Canada in Alberta.

Of course, there are some very strong supporters of Canada, including the “Forever Canada” team led by former Alberta minister Thomas Lukaszuk. In a few short months, he has been able to collect more than 400,000 signatures in a petition for Alberta to remain in Canada.

Canadians can take comfort from the number of people who signed the petition, but it would be a mistake to think the battle is over. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is using those very signatures to claim that she needs to have a referendum, a position which is not supported by the facts.

The pro-Canadian current messaging is falling into the same trap that almost cost us the last referendum.

The “No” campaign against leaving Canada made an economic argument while the “Yes” campaign ran an appeal of the heart.

Just this past week, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce published a survey making a strong economic argument in favour of Canada. Some 63 per cent of respondents said the discussion of separation is already costing them business, and almost half said they would relocate their businesses elsewhere if separation were to occur.

The chamber published a study which predicted that the Alberta economy would take a $62-billion annual hit, based on predicted job losses and reduction of business with other provinces.

The money argument makes sense.

But if we learned one thing from the Quebec referendum it is that voters don’t always listen to major macroeconomic arguments. At the time, the separatists claimed they would keep the Canadian dollar, the military, and even negotiate a passport.

The real story behind the last Quebec referendum was a survey done post facto which showed that 67 per cent of francophones who knew an anglophone who voted to remain in Canada. Some 92 per cent who did not know an anglophone who wanted to separate.

The main issue is not the economy; it is personal connection.

If Alberta feels isolated and belittled, the move to separate becomes that much easier.

The misinformation circulated by pro-separatist Albertans needs to be countered locally and aggressively.

The federal government needs to take the separation question seriously. Cabinet needs to develop an Alberta-based communications strategy that reaches into every rural Albertan community.

The story of Canada needs to be told in Alberta. To date, an anti-Ottawa political perspective has transformed into an anti-Canada movement.

Those of us who love this country need to understand that survival is not guaranteed.

If we are not willing to fight hard for the survival of our country, Canada could be lost.

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 August 13, 2018.

OTTAWA—You cannot learn from history by hiding it.

The decision by Victoria City Council to get rid of a statue of our first prime minister does nothing for truth and reconciliation.

It repeats the same errors made by past generations, who believed the best way to deal with a difficult issue was to hide from it.

Teen pregnancy? Send the offending young mother away and do not allow her to hold her baby in case they bond in the first few moments of life.

Spousal abuse? Suck it up buttercup, your marital vows included good and bad, and after all, how bad can it be?

Non-heterosexual relationships? Hide them in the closet for fear their sexual orientation will contaminate the rest of us.

Racism? Simply the state of things between dominant whites and everyone else.

Mentally handicapped? Stamp it out through sterilization.

Deculturalization? It is the white man’s way or the door way.

One does not have to reach too far into the past to find blatant examples of discrimination that would not be tolerated today.

Back in the eighties, there was a move afoot to modernize the Indian Act, and abolish sexual discrimination enshrined in the legislation.

At that time, an aboriginal woman who married a white man lost her status. The same punishment did not apply for an aboriginal man who married a white woman.

Pure, unadulterated gender bias.

The biggest opponents to ending the discrimination were neither the bureaucrats nor the politicians but rather the aboriginal chiefs who refused to extend band rights to women who married outside their race.

Just this spring, the courts overturned a local Mohawk band decision in Kahnawake that required First Nations people who married whites to get off tribal land. The “Marry Out, Get Out” law prohibits people who marry non-natives from living in the community. The Mohawk Council says the move to expel mixed-marriage families safeguards Mohawk land and culture.

But Justice Thomas Davis ruled otherwise, saying the policy violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ban on family discrimination. Mohawk council spokesperson Joe Delaronde insisted the community’s membership laws are an internal community matter. “Our position has been that these types of matters are not to be decided by outside courts,” Delaronde said in response to the decision. “We’re very independent here and we say it’s our law and our business.”

He framed the membership law as part of the Mohawk struggle against assimilation.

“When a place like Kahnawake stands up for itself we seem like radical bad guys when really, all we’re doing is trying to protect what little we have,” he said. “It’s a survival mechanism.”

The same argument was used by racists to defend segregation and oppose interracial dating, which they claimed would dilute the white race.

Today, no one would tolerate racism but some have no problem explaining away the obvious discrimination in Kahnawake.

The search and destroy mission targeting Sir John A. Macdonald does nothing to redress past wrongs. Instead, it stokes the flames of division by refusing to embrace the true meaning of reconciliation.

Nelson Mandela, a stirring example of real reconciliation, invited his own prison guard to the inauguration of his presidency.

Our first prime minister was not perfect. By many accounts, he was an alcoholic who suffered from racist tendencies that translated themselves into horrible public policy. That was part of his legacy.

Macdonald also had the vision to link a new nation from Atlantic to Pacific, making an indelible mark on our collective identity and creating a country which is the envy of the world.

The answer should be to educate everyone on the positive and negative aspects of his political leadership without obliterating the significant accomplishment of creating Canada.

Last summer, some were mourning Canada’s 150th birthday, focussing on imperfections that have beleaguered our past. Our collective treatment of indigenous peoples was disgraceful.

So is our continuing sexism, where women in the paid work force are still paid only seventy-four per cent of what men receive.

All discrimination should end, and that is the job of current and future leaders.

But each change happens by moving in a positive direction.

Removing traces of our history, however chequered, does not change them.

Much has changed since Macdonald railed on in Parliament against Indigenous peoples.

It would be a mistake to define his place in history only by mistakes. Our first prime minister did some things worth remembering.

The colonial construct called Canada is one of them.

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