From the moment he took office, Prime Minister Mark Carney made moves to show his commitment to Indigenous peoples. In March, he met with the leaders of the three main Indigenous organizations: the Assembly of First Nations, Métis National Council, and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. In May, amid US president Donald Trump’s threats to Canadian sovereignty, King Charles III delivered a speech from the throne that placed reconciliation at the heart of the national story. That same month, Carney appointed Cree member of Parliament Mandy Gull-Masty to lead Indigenous Services Canada. The former grand chief of Eeyou Istchee became the first Indigenous person to hold the post.
But less than five months into the job, Carney has already blundered on his early promises. Just before Canada Day, Parliament passed Bill C‑5, officially the One Canadian Economy Act. At its core is the Building Canada Act, a sweeping law that gives the federal government new powers to fast-track infrastructure and energy projects deemed to be in the “national interest.” Paired with a companion law aimed at reducing interprovincial trade barriers, the legislation was pitched as a bold response to Trump’s tariffs.
Even before it was tabled, the bill drew sharp criticism from Indigenous people across the country, who warned it could undermine the federal government’s constitutional duty to consult Indigenous communities on major projects like highways, pipelines, or mines. The Supreme Court has long made clear that this duty is legally required and can’t be ignored, no matter how urgent or nationally vital the project is. But just days ahead of its introduction, the new justice minister, Sean Fraser, stated that consent for Indigenous people “stops short” of a veto. Fraser walked the comment back, but it echoed a long-standing pattern of sidelining Indigenous rights and priorities.
The last time the federal government passed sweeping industry-friendly legislation without proper Indigenous consultation, it triggered one of the largest grassroots political movements in Canadian history: Idle No More. The movement was a direct response to the 2012 passage of the omnibus budget bill C-45, legislation that endangered traditional lands and resources by reducing federal oversight on thousands of waterways. Indigenous people across the country took part in Idle No More with widespread protests, including teach-ins, flash mobs, round dances, and blockades. Though the law remained in place, the movement showed that when governments legislate without meaningful Indigenous involvement, the consequences can be swift, sustained, and impossible to ignore.
Yet, across Canada’s history, Indigenous people have been European settlers’ longest allies. Relations with French settlers led to the birth of the Metis people; First Nations played pivotal roles in British efforts during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. And many Indigenous people volunteered and fought as part of Canada’s contributions to the first and second world wars.
Now, Canada faces new threats as the US president muses about making Canada an unwilling fifty-first state while launching a trade war on Canadian goods. But as history has proved, Canada cannot succeed in defending itself as a nation-state without acknowledging and partnering with Indigenous nations.
Indigenous concerns began not just with the bill’s content but with how little say they had in shaping it during the quick parliamentary process. Acting Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Gord Bluesky described the rare “super-motion” tool the government used to compress the entire legislative review process as a “dangerous precedent.”
National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said First Nations leaders were given only seven days to review a “backgrounder” on the legislation before it was introduced, in June—a sharp contrast to the process behind other bills, like the First Nations Clean Water Act, which the AFN helped co-develop. In that case, the AFN worked closely with the federal government throughout the legislative process to ensure the bill recognized First Nations’ inherent right to self-government, including jurisdiction over water, and reflected the needs of their communities.
“This isn’t the way to respect each other,” Woodhouse Nepinak later said about Bill C-5. “We don’t need more colonialism when we have Trump’s colonialism at our borders.” In the Senate, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president Natan Obed also said their organization was asked to participate only in limited consultation sessions a week before the bill’s first reading. “It has been Canada’s weakness that it pats itself on the back for being a great champion of Indigenous peoples,” Obed said, “an upholder of the rule of law and respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights, while at the same time acting very differently through its legislation and practices.”
Other chiefs have also expressed similar frustrations. Grand Chief of the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta Trevor Mercredi called the lack of consultation “not a failure of process” but a “deliberate act.”
The bill passed the House of Commons on June 20 with an amendment affirming it could not override the Indian Act and promising the “active and meaningful participation of the affected Indigenous peoples.” But the Indian Act applies only to First Nations and reservations covered by treaties. It doesn’t extend to unceded territories lying outside of reservations—which account for 95 percent of British Columbia, much of the Maritimes, and large parts of northern Quebec and Ontario—or Metis and Inuit peoples. So, without any guarantee of free, prior, and informed consent, the amendment doesn’t go far enough to protect Indigenous rights to consultation on their traditional territories. Despite repeated calls from Woodhouse Nepinak for senators to speak to First Nations leaders over the summer and explicitly include consent in the legislation, the bill passed through the Senate without a single change.
Hassan Yussuff, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, said he believed the senators “have to reflect in this moment on whether we are doing the best job possible in passing this legislation. I can say sincerely that I think we are.” But Yussuff’s idea of “the best job possible” may serve Bay Street more than it does reconciliation with Indigenous partners.
Carney is betting that development happens faster when the government acts unilaterally. The cost of that calculation means starting his tenure not with momentum but with the task of resetting his relationship with Indigenous partners. Carney already inherits a backlog of unresolved issues: the First Nations clean water legislation, which was voted down last session by Conservative filibustering; stalled negotiations on the child welfare reform settlement worth over $47 billion; calls for a national inquiry into police violence against Indigenous people; and the highly controversial Metis self-government legislation left to die on the House floor.
Carney pledged “more fulsome conversations” via summits with Indigenous rights holders, the first of which was held on July 17. A summit with Inuit rights holders was held July 24, and one with Metis rights holders on August 7. Carney called the July 17 meeting a “first step” toward his vision of “building Canada.” But while some First Nations leaders came away from the meeting cautiously optimistic, others left feeling frustrated and unheard.
Meanwhile, resistance from First Nations is building, not just to this law but to that broader vision as similar legislation is rolled out across the country. In May, as First Nations gathered in Queen’s Park to protest Bill 5—Ontario’s attempt to fast-track energy projects in designated “special economic zones,” like the Ring of Fire—Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, who represents forty-nine First Nations in the province, told reporters “everything is on the table,” including legal action and coordinated opposition.
“It is clear their goal is to fast-track development in our territories, and eliminating red tape really means eliminating our rights. Our treaty is not red tape. Our rights are not red tape,” Fiddler said.
Manitoba premier Wab Kinew, however, has refused to join a new trade pact unveiled late July by Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, saying there’s no deal without Indigenous consent on major infrastructure. “Our government will not treat consultation as a box to check after decisions are made,” he said, according to the Winnipeg Sun.
In a letter to the prime minister in May, Woodhouse Nepinak cautioned that without real dialogue, the legislation “will become marred in conflict and protracted litigation.” Such legal challenges, British Columbia Regional Chief Terry Teegee said, could make getting major projects approved harder and slower than if consultation had happened from the start. Fighting in court would tie up development for years, with significant financial costs not just to First Nations but the government. On July 14, nine First Nations in Ontario launched legal action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the province’s and the federal government’s fast tracking of bills. The challenge calls the legislation unconstitutional, wanting the bills struck down and asking for $100 million in damages.
“Our case is not a fight against development, it is a fight against dangerous development pushed ahead by factless, thoughtless and reckless decision making from government Ministers behind closed doors with little accountability,” Alderville First Nation Chief Taynar Simpson said in the press release.
Many chiefs warn of broader grassroots resistance. Lake Huron Regional Chief Scott McLeod said Carney’s legislative moves risk sparking a second Idle No More. In June, he was asked to brief Ontario Provincial Police forces on potential protests by First Nations.
That same month, First Nations youth leaders told reporters on Parliament Hill about their intention to start a youth-led “warrior peoples’ movement” against the legislation. “No matter what bill you pass,” said Ramon Kataquapit, a youth councillor with the Chiefs of Ontario and Nishnawbe Aski Nation, “we’ll be here and we’ll be ready to respond.”
Source link
[ad_3]
[ad_4]