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.

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.

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.