The issues that matter to Indigenous voters ahead of the upcoming election
Throughout the election season, CBC is visiting communities to hear what's top of mind as they prepare to vote. Indigenous affairs reporter Wawmeesh Hamilton explores what issues matter to Indigenous voters ahead of April 28.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The bully is a person in our neighbourhood
Opinion A new kid moves into your neighbourhood. A loudmouth, pretty darned full of himself; 'I'm the best, the bigly-est, the smartest person ever,' but you're used to all sorts, even windbags, so you don't pay him much mind. And then one day as you're walking by, he punches you in the face. Later, he's all smiles, and says 'Let's let bygones be bygones, we could be the bestest of friends.' And things get better for a bit, though he's still insufferable. Demetrius Freeman / The Washington Post U.S. President Donald Trump Not long after, as you're walking by, he comes up and punches you in the face, saying that you were mean to him. A week later, he punches you in the face. And then says, 'We should really be friends.' At some point, tired of being punched in the face, you simply avoid him. Deal him out altogether from your life. Because you have no trust whatsoever that he isn't going to punch you in the face — and, to add insult to injury, also blame you for forcing him to punch you in the face. Enter America. Several media outlets — the CBC among them — are reporting that Canada and the United States are exchanging broad-strokes terms for a joint deal on economic and security issues. No framework deal at this point, just a starting point for what two competing views on what a negotiation might look like. You can understand it from a pragmatic point of view, when we do so much of our business with our largest trading partner to the south. And it is, in a qualified way, good to at least be talking. On the other hand … Sign a trade and security deal with the United States? We already have a binding trade deal with the United States, signed with great Sharpie flourish by the exact same person who has spent the last few months punching us in the face with tariffs. Here's the key point — why would we trust an American leader with a 100 per cent record of punching us in the face to, maybe, not punch us in the face any more? The truth is, we can't. Especially because U.S. President Donald Trump has a lengthy corporate history of punching people in the face as well. It's been his art of the deal — signing contracts and then refusing to honour payment terms, and demanding people settle breached contracts for pennies on the dollar or fight him in the courts for years. Weekday Mornings A quick glance at the news for the upcoming day. It's a conundrum we, and many other American trading partners, face: we can't really afford to lose America's business, and we can't really afford trying to keep it, either — because every time we jump one hurdle, we're faced with a new one and are asked to jump even higher. Contrast America's current negotiating style with the Chinese government, which has just announced a zero-tariff policy with virtually every single African country — 53 in all — with the one exception being Eswatini, the former country of Swaziland, because that country has diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Meanwhile, the U.S. is punishing African countries with high tariffs because Americans buy products cheap from them, while the populations of those countries are not in a financial position to make an equal-sized purchase of American goods. (Not only punching them in the face, but kicking them when they're down as well.) It's understandable that we're trying to make a deal in the short term, or maybe our federal government is trying to run out the clock as much as possible. But that's not the answer. Maybe we can't move out of the neighbourhood. But we can make new friends — not necessarily China, but there's a big world out there.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What are ‘nation-building projects' anyway?
Opinion The Canadian Press reports that 38 CEOs of Canadian energy companies signed a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, congratulating him for his election win and pitching policy measures like overhauling (read 'gutting') the Impact Assessment Act, scrapping federal emissions caps on oil and gas and repealing industrial carbon pricing. Carney met with them and thanked them for their communications. (Carney talks partnerships with energy execs, Free Press, June 2). Then, 13 premiers met with the PM to pitch their favourite projects which include pipelines and nuclear plants. The process sounds more like a high-stakes version of Dragons' Den, with the feds ready to dole out the public purse, than it does a thoughtful, serious assessment of the very real dangers that Canada faces — not just from the U.S. tariffs and the economy, but also from climate change. Couldn't the premiers smell the smoke emanating from the infernos blazing across the northern forests as they sat behind closed doors in a Saskatoon hotel room? Now the PM and cabinet will make decisions about which of these projects make the cut — which ones will be 'pre-approved' and fast-tracked. A few hints are leaking out: looks like nuclear will make the short list, along with 'decarbonized barrels of oil' — which is shorthand for as yet unproven carbon capture, but which sounds like a perfect oxymoron. What are the criteria for these decisions? Does anyone know? Will the public get that information? Will Parliament? Just a week before that, 130 civil society organizations from across the country, representing many thousands of Canadians, also wrote the PM, reminding him that the 'nation-building' energy and infrastructure projects that Canada needs will not only create good jobs and build the economy, but also respect Indigenous rights and protect the climate. Oil and gas development and pipelines will not meet these goals, never mind the threats of Alberta separation. Did Alberta Premier Danielle Smith not get the memo that several oilsands sites were evacuating due to wildfires? Oh, the irony). Nuclear builds are too slow to address the global warming crisis and nuclear is among the most expensive forms of electricity production. Taxpayer dollars can be invested way more efficiently in actual renewable energy sources (including efficiency and storage) — all available now and ready to be deployed, and regional and national grid interconnections that are so sorely needed. These are the best investment for energy supply, requiring less capital investment and providing the best return on the dollar in terms of energy production, job creation, and rapid greenhouse gas reduction. And imagine for a moment a remote nuclear plant engulfed in a wildfire. (Thinking here about Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe who promotes 'small modular nuclear reactors' for remote communities while acknowledging at the time that his province 'cannot manage and handle a single other fire'). Oil, gas and nuclear projects are more properly 'nation destroying' projects. Ask any of the First Nations currently evacuating their homes and territories as climate change creates prime conditions for out-of-control fires. It's unlikely the PM will meet with civil society groups (though we did ask). Will he meet with and more importantly, hear the concerns of, First Nations worried that 'fast tracking' impact assessments will only run rough-shod over their rights and lands? As Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Derek Nepinak put it 'We need to talk about these issues collectively… our inherent rights, treaty rights and human rights are at issue…' Also at issue: our children's future. How is it that we can be at this point in history where we know without a doubt what the impacts of climate change are — and yet our governments seem prepared to invest and go whole hog into the very same industrial development schemes that created the problem in the first place? If it's true as the International Energy Agency has stated that countries will be seeking non-fuel-dependent sources of energy and actually winding down fossil fuel infrastructure by 2030, why would Canada spend crucial resources (our money) on exactly these fuel dependent technologies? (For the record, nuclear is dependent on uranium and therefore not renewable). Can you say, 'stranded assets'? Not only are we at risk of betting the farm on unsustainable projects and creating even more economic chaos for the future, by not changing the development paradigm we put at risk the very building blocks and sustainers of life itself — water, air, forests, oceans, the ability to grow food. We owe it to future generations (as well as ourselves and especially those being drastically impacted by climate change today) to turn this ship around. The energy CEOs might not agree, but that's what our premiers should be calling for. That's what our new government should be determined to do. Anne Lindsey volunteers with the No Nukes MB campaign of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition and has been monitoring nuclear waste since the 1980s.
Toronto Star
7 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Canada's wildfire season on track to be the second worst on record
OTTAWA—The 2025 wildfire season is on track to be Canada's second-worst on record, federal officials said Thursday, as hundreds of fires burn across Ontario and Western Canada and smoke blankets some urban centres. Approximately 3.7 million hectares of land have burned so far in Canada, only second at this point of the wildfire season to the devastating 2023 fires during which 15 million hectares were ravaged and more than 200,000 Canadians were forced to flee. Current forecasts expect higher-than-normal temperatures across the country and a 'hot and dry' summer. The highest wildfire risk remains in Western and Northern Canada. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'We are clearly experiencing and maybe in store for a challenging year, but I would hesitate drawing too many comparisons to 2023 at this point,' Michael Norton, director general at Natural Resources Canada's northern forestry centre, told reporters. That's because a 'slight downturn' in fire activity is expected this month, and drought conditions were worse and several large fires happened at the same time that year. Ottawa has so far received three requests for federal assistance, two in Manitoba and one in Ontario, as Prime Minister Mark Carney last Sunday deployed Canadian Armed Forces aircraft and personnel to help emergency personnel in the northwest of the province. Around 500 international forest firefighters have come from the U.S. and Australia, and more than 100 more are coming from Costa Rica. Still, long-debated plans for a national emergency response agency or wildfire firefighting service do not appear to be in sight, with federal officials saying Thursday the matter was still being considered. 'One of the things that we want to make sure is that we don't end up spending a lot of time and effort duplicating services that are already available and that already work very well,' Emergency Preparedness Minister Eleanor Olszewski told reporters during a news conference on the wildfire situation. The update comes as Canada prepares to host international leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump, for the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta. this weekend. Wildfires are expected to be one of several subjects discussed at the summit. Olszewski told reporters that G7 countries have already agreed in principle to a 'wildfire charter' that would include an international agreement on how wildfires should be dealt with globally. Federal cabinet ministers also faced several questions about the Carney government's decision to try to cut short debate and pass Bill C-5, its legislation that would give the government new powers to evade existing laws and regulations to fast-track 'nation-building' development projects, through the House of Commons by the end of next week. The Carney government on Thursday put forward a motion that would only give one day of hearings from civil society groups, stakeholders and experts next week, many of which have raised concerns about Indigenous consultation and environmental protections. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
