Three Indigenous members of Canada's Parliament named to prime minister's cabinet
Miles MorrisseauICT
It was a historic day in the Canadian government with the naming of the nation's first Indigenous Minister of Indigenous Services.
Newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney tapped Member of Parliament Mandy Gull-Masty, a former chief of the Quebec Crees, for the historic appointment. Gull-Masty, Cree, of Carney's Liberal Party, won in the northern Quebec riding of Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou, flipping a seat that had previously been won by the Bloc Quebecois.
SUPPORT INDIGENOUS JOURNALISM.
Congratulations from the Cree in Quebec greeted the historic news Tuesday.
'On behalf of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Nation Government,' the council stated on X, formerly known as Twitter. 'We extend our congratulations to Mandy Gull-Masty on her appointment as Minister of Indigenous Services in the new federal cabinet formed this morning.'
Rebecca Chartrand who won in the northern Manitoba riding of Churchill Keewatinok Aski has been named Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs. Chartrand, Anishinaabe/Inninew/Dakota/Métis, also flipped a seat for the Liberals, defeating Nikki Ashton, the long time New Democratic Party incumbent.
Buckley Belanger was named to cabinet as Secretary of State for Rural Development. Belanger was victorious in the northern Saskatchewan riding of Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River. Belanger was the lone Liberal elected in the entire province of Saskatchewan.
Rebecca Alty has been named as the minister responsible for Crown-Indigenous relations. Alty is non-Indigenous but represents the Northwest Territories and a significant Indigenous demographic.
The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations put out a release welcoming Alty to the role of Crown-Indigenous relations and stating that the former mayor of Yellowknife 'brings valuable northern perspective and experience working with Indigenous communities.' FSIN also congratulated Gull-Masty on her historic appointment.
'The appointment of these two accomplished women to lead key Indigenous portfolios signals a positive step forward for Prime Minister Carney's government to advancing reconciliation and addressing the priorities of First Nations,' said FSIN Chief Bobby Cameron. 'We look forward to establishing strong working relationships with both ministers as we collectively work to address the needs of our community.'
Métis National Council President Victoria Pruden was also encouraged with the new cabinet.
'The Métis National Council welcomes the announcement of the new federal cabinet and is encouraged by the appointment of three Indigenous Members of Parliament to key leadership role,' Pruden told ICT. 'We are particularly pleased to see the historic appointment of Mandy Gull-Masty, former Grand Chief of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), as the first Indigenous Minister of Indigenous Services Canada. We also recognize the proud Métis citizen from Île-à-la-Crosse, Buckley Belanger, who has been named Secretary of State for Rural Development, and Rebecca Chartrand—Anishinaabe, Inninew, Dakota, and Métis—as the new Minister of Northern Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency.'Pruden also stated that the council is ready to work with the new government to improve the lives of Métis people and strengthen the Métis Nation.
'We look forward to continuing to work in partnership through a government-to-government, nation-to-nation approach to advance the rights, interests, and priorities of the Métis Nation," she said. "This includes strengthening the Métis economy and addressing the cost-of-living crisis, workforce readiness, Métis climate leadership, and enhancing Métis data sovereignty and capacity.'
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs stated that the historic appointment of Gull-Masty and the appointment of Chartrand reflect the growing presence and leadership of First Nations women in federal decision-making.
'The swearing-in of Prime Minister Carney's Cabinet is a significant moment for the country, and especially for First Nations,' said Grand Chief Kyra Wilson. 'We look forward to building respectful, Nation-to-Nation relationships with this new team and ensuring that the commitments made to First Nations in the Liberal Party platform are fully implemented with clear identified timelines and deliverables. Treaty implementation will continue to be a priority for our Nations as we move ahead.'
The new ministers were sworn in at Rideau Hall, the official residence of the Governor General Mary Simon, Inuk. Each Member of Parliament swears allegiance to Simon, who is the representative of the King of England.
Following the swearing-in ceremony, Carney spoke to the media.
'Our new government will be a strong and reliable partner to the provinces, the territories and to Indigenous peoples,' Carney said. 'We will reinforce bridges across labor, business and civil society, and together, we will advance the nation, building investments that will support the core mission of this government, which is to create the strongest economy in the G7, an economy that works for everyone.'
Carney referenced the rumblings about separation from some in the oil-rich province of Alberta who were disappointed in his election.
'Canada is only one nation, a confederation based on the union of peoples, French, English and Indigenous,' said Carney. 'Our government's approach will reflect that reality. We will govern as a cabinet constructively and collaboratively working with caucus and across parties in Parliament to deliver the change that Canadians want and desire.'
Although the Liberals won the election, they will lead with a minority government, which will require support from the other parties. In the previous government of Justin Trudeau, the Liberals made a deal with the National Democratic Party to get their support and have the necessary votes in the House of Commons to pass legislation.
It is still unknown what type of arrangement will be made, if any, but it is very possible that the NDP will hold some balance of power in the new government. The NDP was decimated in the recent national election, losing official party status, but their Members of Parliament could still hold influence if Carney wants to make a deal.
Of the seven NDP Members of Parliament, two are Indigenous and are returning to Ottawa after successfully defending their seats. Leah Gazan, Wood Mountain Lakota Nation has held the riding of Winnipeg Centre since 2019. Lori Idlout, Inuk, held her seat of Nunavut since 2021.
The Carney government will be heading back to work on May 27, when Parliament with be opened with King Charles III and Queen Camilla in attendance.
Our stories are worth telling. Our stories are worth sharing. Our stories are worth your support. Contribute today to help ICT carry out its critical mission. Sign up for ICT's free newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
LEDREW: Tyranny over, Liberals once again free to disagree with prime minister
Debate and differences of opinion are permitted once again in the Liberal Party – the children are no longer in charge. Canada is no longer run by a cockwomble. What a difference a mature prime minister makes! A prime minister who does not pick the weakest for cabinet so that his PMO will be totally in charge. A prime minister who can obviously change his mind, all the way from 'net-zero' to thinking of utilizing resources. A prime minister who will not impoverish Canadians and embarrass Canada by telling other heads of state that there is 'no business case' for exporting LNG to needy nations with lots of cash to pay us. Refreshingly, we now have a natural resources minister – Tim Hodgson – who has travelled to the once-separating Alberta to support new oil and gas infrastructure to trade in overseas markets and supply energy to Eastern Canada! How novel – jobs and riches for Canadians. LILLEY: Mark Carney offers words – Pierre Poilievre's words – but we need action GOLDSTEIN: Carney can't fix Canada's underperforming economy on his own LILLEY: Trudeau lowered bar so much, Carney gets credit for being an adult Under the regime of the last ten years, ideas that may be contrary to the dogma of the PMO could not even be broached. The late Bill Graham, an experienced and tested and worldly intellect, and former Liberal leader, was once told in no uncertain terms by some kid in the PMO that his advice on a complex issue was not necessary because 'we have this, thank you very much.' This closure of the mind was aided and abetted by appointees in the PMO who did not have the wherewithal to think through even the simplest situations. Remember the SNC-Lavalin scandal? I seriously doubt that any lawyers in the new PMO will be contacting prosecutors in any Crown office in Canada in an attempt to change a decision on criminal charges. Senior and thoughtful Liberal senators were removed from the Liberal caucus – their views not needed. Only members of parliament were allowed in caucus – people who either had their positions because of the PM or wanted a promotion that only the PM could offer, gutless supplicants who would never offer up an opinion differing from the official PMO stand. The Liberal Party itself was reduced to an insignificant triviality, its supporters cowed into silence, because if you dared offer a differing viewpoint then you were considered disloyal, and banished – or at least branded as no longer a Liberal. I had turned down government appointments, and was not seeking invitations to state dinners in Ottawa, so over the last decade I could be critical of many Trudeau positions that now, after he has been dumped, many others suddenly seem to understand were idiotic. And for that difference of opinion with the Trudeau government, lifelong friends, many of whom had partaken of my hospitality over the years, who had enjoyed the perks of power from being in favour in Ottawa (gotta love those government jets), would actually turn their heads at the sight of me – or not invite me to events that I had helped create decades ago. Several dowagers of the party tried to rip strips off me. Friends tell me that the big shots of Ottawa and Montreal hate me with a passion for daring to challenge the Trudeau government. I was 'no longer a Liberal.' The truth is that I am a Liberal – I believe in well-managed government, fiscally prudent, socially progressive, encouraging of debate, with an eye on providing the freedom and impetus to build a better Canada. I believe in the rule of law – not the fiat of unnamed, well-paid, political helpers. Much to the detriment of my finances, I have volunteered tens and tens of thousands of hours of tough slugging in the service of the Liberal Party. Now that things are returning to some degree of normalcy, I would gladly do so again, and encourage others to do so – politics is a noble calling. Canada, and the debate, needs you.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump has rejected police reform. States and localities must take the lead.
Five years after a Minneapolis police officer brutally murdered a handcuffed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for over nine minutes, prompting worldwide protests against wrongful police killings of Black people, the Trump administration has taken a giant step back from police reform. The Justice Department announced in May that it is abandoning agreements reached with police departments in Minneapolis and Louisville, Ky., mandating reforms designed to reduce killings, brutality and other police misconduct. The Justice Department is conducting a review to determine if it should drop similar agreements with about a dozen other police departments. On top of this, the Justice Department will end civil rights investigations of alleged criminal conduct by the Louisiana State Police and police departments in Memphis, Mount Vernon, N.Y., Oklahoma City, Phoenix and Trenton, N.J. Thankfully, Minneapolis officials announced that they will abide by their agreement, known as a consent decree, reached with the Justice Department in the closing days of the Biden presidency. But it is absurd to depend on police departments to police themselves. The federal government has a duty to protect people from police who engage in criminal conduct. The dangerous pullback by the Justice Department is likely to result in more wrongful deaths at the hands of police — particularly of Black people and members of other minority groups. A nationwide count by the Washington Post of deadly shootings by police from 2015 through 2024 found that Black people 'are killed by police at more than twice the rate' of white people in America. The number of non-Hispanic whites killed by police was 4,657, compared with 2,484 Black people. Because only 14 percent of the American population is Black, the number of people killed by police annually averaged 6.1 per million of the Black population, compared with 2.5 per million of the white population. There are, of course, times when police must use deadly force to prevent the killing of others. But this wasn't the case with Floyd and many others killed by police. Floyd, who was unarmed, was only suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes. As a Black man like Floyd, I have experienced the unfair and harsh treatment some officers give to people who look like us. I've been stopped on the road and detained in front of my home by police several times when doing nothing wrong. I've been ordered out of my home and car to lay on the ground, had guns pointed at me, been handcuffed and been threatened with arrest. I don't think I would be treated this way were it not for the color of my skin. Most police officers never beat, shoot or kill anyone. They risk their lives to keep us safe and deserve our gratitude. But it is naive to believe that officers can do no wrong, that we live in a colorblind society or that there is no such thing as systemic racism. In the wake of the Trump administration's rejection of its duty to protect us all from police misconduct, the job of implementing needed reforms must go to state and local governments that oversee police agencies. Here are some actions they should take. Increase police funding to implement reforms: After Floyd's murder, some progressives adopted the slogan 'defund the police.' That was a mistake. Police departments need more federal, state and local government funding to better train and pay officers and to put more officers on the street to do police work the right way. More funding will make it less likely that police engage in the kind of unlawful violence that killed Floyd and too many others. Polling by CBS in 2022 found only 9 percent of Americans believed providing less funding for police would help prevent violent crime, while 49 percent said more funding for police would do so. A Gallup poll the same year found 89 percent of Americans believed minor or major changes were needed to improve policing — including 87 percent of whites, 90 percent of Hispanics and 95 percent of Blacks. Focus on preventing crime, not just crime response: Putting more cops on the street and having them get out of their patrol cars to build relationships with people and businesses helps officers gather intelligence about bad actors. The increased presence of officers in communities will prevent crime. This is an expensive but necessary step if we are serious about police reform. Independently investigate alleged misconduct: Rather than relying on police departments to police themselves and investigate officers accused of misconduct, states and localities should set up independent commissions to objectively conduct such investigations. Reward good cops and punish bad ones: Officers who report misconduct by colleagues should be rewarded financially and with promotions, while officers acting improperly should be disciplined, including with firing and prosecution when they commit crimes. A national database of fired officers should be established so bad cops can't get hired by departments in other localities. Increase police pay and education requirements: Raising police pay will make it easier to attract well-qualified job applicants. Departments should require every new hire to have at least two years of college and eventually a four-year degree. A 2017 national survey found that about 52 percent of officers had two-year college degrees, about 30 percent had four-year degrees and about 5 percent had graduate degrees. Governing Magazine reported in 2023 that 'research suggests that officers with college degrees generate fewer substantiated complaints and … are less likely to shoot or kill members of the public.' Increase screening of police recruits and veteran officers: Use psychological tests and in-depth interviews to identify those unsuitable for police work because they are too eager to use violence — especially if they feel threatened — or too prejudiced against certain groups. Increase officer training: Better training will make officers better able to do their jobs without resorting to deadly force. This should include training in psychology and mental health to assist officers in dealing with people experiencing a mental health crisis. Alternatively, set up a division of mental health police officers to address incidents where drugs or mental issues are the source of bad conduct. 'One in five fatal police shooting victims may have been experiencing a mental health crisis … at the time of their death,' a federal study of 633 deadly police shootings concluded. These recommendations are all common sense and promote justice and public safety. With the Trump administration abandoning its responsibility to investigate police misconduct and demand reforms, the job passes to state and local governments. Doing so would be a fitting tribute to George Floyd and the many others wrongfully killed by police. A. Scott Bolden is an attorney, former New York state prosecutor, NewsNation contributor and former chair of the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
