logo
In the tariff war, is Canada forgetting about Indigenous nations?

In the tariff war, is Canada forgetting about Indigenous nations?

In the fear and fury generated by the US administration's thuggish treatment of Canada and other allies and trade partners, Canadian political elites have donned the Captain Canada mantle. Virtually all political parties and think tanks are asserting Canadian sovereignty and making commitments to jobs and incomes by proposing new mechanisms to ensure expedited approvals of priority infrastructure and industrial projects.
In this melee, Indigenous nations, and our rights and interests, are not discussed — we remain marginalized. Our rights attract attention only when political elites and indeed, most Canadians, think the political agenda is relaxed enough to tolerate it, or there is something to gain through our inclusion.
Indigenous Peoples' rights have a legal basis and some Constitutional recognition domestically, and more robust recognition in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the gold standard for these rights. Any national policy that ignores these realities will be expensive and vulnerable to litigation and civil society opposition, as evidenced by the pipeline fights in BC and the fishing wars in Mi'kmaw territory. Further, Ontario's 'Ring of Fire' region, invoked by some politicians as an immediate source of state-approved projects for its untapped mineral wealth, is on unceded Treaty 9 Indigenous territory.
Ignoring Indigenous nations and rights, as Canada enters a new economic chapter, would shred Canada's reputation, much as ignoring the Canada-USA-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) shreds America's. Ignoring us is contrary to the last decade of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation work and is a serious risk to both the legitimacy of political elites and the profitability of Canadian industries.
Regulatory streamlining anticipated for pre-approved or quickly approved projects benefiting corporate stakeholders with government approvals for pipelines, mines and such, runs right through Indigenous lands, waters and rights. This is true despite the involvement in some projects of a few Indigenous communities or capitalists.
Cutting 'red tape' and eliminating regulatory barriers, proposed by a number of politicians and corporate actors, facilitates the fast-forward, consequence-free kinds of approaches beloved by investment capitalists and the governments that service them. However, one critic's 'red tape' is another's regulatory regime ensuring transparency, accountability and compliance with safety codes, environmental standards, and fundamental human rights. Indigenous rights require state recognition and regulatory support.
Moreover, Canadians face another existential crisis unrelated to US President Donald Trump's reckless trade war: the breakdown of our climate and natural environment collapse as a direct result of political, corporate and consumer activity. That catastrophe looms at least as large as present economic threats. Indigenous rights and priorities are linked to climate and environmental matters in profoundly important ways. Most of us come from cultures that privilege relationships with everything in our territorial environments. Maintaining these relationships is a primary obligation.
Ignoring Indigenous Peoples' rights is contrary to Canada's Truth and Reconciliation work and is a serious risk to the legitimacy of political elites and the profitability of Canadian industries, write Joyce Green and Christine Sy
While sharing our fellow citizens' fears about the Trump-induced economic perils, we have fears too, about the trampling of Indigenous rights and interests, seen as impediments to the prime directive of protecting economic growth and the jobs it sustains. We are not entirely hostile to these priorities, but surely, we can expect the elite political class to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Canadian governments and citizens must focus on the very serious threats to the state's sovereignty and economic order, while still advancing its ethical relations with Indigenous nations, protecting Indigenous rights and enacting legislation to meet the challenges of the imminent and evident threat of more catastrophic climate change and environmental collapse.
Given the erasure of Indigenous nations in public discourse about Canada's future, we wonder if a next iteration of the Idle No More movement is needed to bring these matters into the public eye and get them on the political agenda?
Canada wishes to defend its sovereignty in the face of threatening rhetoric from the Trump administration, but it cannot simultaneously ignore the sovereignty of the many Indigenous nations with whom it is in relationship. The colonial rampage has never stopped for us, even if the language framing it has changed. We are still trying to recover from colonialism in a context where it is still unfolding. Some of us are still seeking either negotiation or implementation of treaties. Many treaties that exist are coerced agreements created in contexts manipulated to cause duress, somewhat like the mystifying, ever-changing shifts in trade relationships instigated by the US that Canada faces now.
Indeed, Canadians are about to empathize much more personally with the politics of imperialism, the disparity of power relations, and the implications of being subjected to external dominance and exploitation. Might this lend itself to an appreciation of what Indigenous Peoples have and continue to endure?
With American imperialism at the door, will Canada reflect on its relationships with Indigenous nations, and recognize that its honour is only as good as its commitment to reconciling its relationship with the Indigenous nations upon whose lands it calls home?
Joyce Green is professor emerita of political science at the University of Regina. Her research interests focus on Aboriginal-settler relations and the possibility of decolonization in Canada.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Canada's on the brink of trade peace with Trump: Full Comment podcast
Canada's on the brink of trade peace with Trump: Full Comment podcast

National Post

time40 minutes ago

  • National Post

Canada's on the brink of trade peace with Trump: Full Comment podcast

Article content Don't call it a done deal until it's done, but America's ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, tells Brian this week that negotiations between Ottawa and President Donald Trump's administration are making progress. He explains why he believes things are moving quickly in the right direction to settle the trade war between our two countries. Hoekstra also talks about why he's looking forward to the next phase of the longstanding bilateral relationship, when he thinks Canada and the U.S. will work harmoniously and productively again, allied in eliminating the fentanyl scourge from both countries and building the two strongest economies in the industrialized world — although he still thinks Canada will be eating America's dust. (Recorded June 6, 2025) Article content Article content Article content

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests

CTV News

time42 minutes ago

  • CTV News

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests

Protesters confront a line of U.S. National Guard in the metropolitan detention centre of downtown Los Angeles, Sunday, June 8, 2025, following last night's immigration raid protest. (AP Photo/Eric Thayer) U.S. President Donald Trump has deployed at least 300 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump initially said he was deploying 2,000 troops. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C., to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about the guard's deployment Sunday and conditions under which the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Tense moments after National Guard arrives Guard members arrived to specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated. They stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home.' After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. He federalized part of California's National Guard under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places him, not the governor, atop the chain of command, according to Newsom's office. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil On Sunday, Trump was asked if he plans to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles and he said, 'We're gonna have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.' Trump didn't elaborate. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Rebecca Boone, The Associated Press

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests

CTV News

timean hour ago

  • CTV News

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests

Protesters confront a line of U.S. National Guard in the metropolitan detention centre of downtown Los Angeles, Sunday, June 8, 2025, following last night's immigration raid protest. (AP Photo/Eric Thayer) U.S. President Donald Trump has deployed at least 300 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump initially said he was deploying 2,000 troops. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C., to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about the guard's deployment Sunday and conditions under which the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Tense moments after National Guard arrives Guard members arrived to specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated. They stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home.' After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. He federalized part of California's National Guard under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places him, not the governor, atop the chain of command, according to Newsom's office. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil On Sunday, Trump was asked if he plans to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles and he said, 'We're gonna have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.' Trump didn't elaborate. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Rebecca Boone, The Associated Press

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store