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.