A new report says P.E.I. can better help its homeless population. Here's how it could work
The final report on how best to support Islanders with complex issues who are experiencing homelessness is now complete, and the province says it has approved the recommendations. CBC News: Compass host Louise Martin spoke with Carlene Donnelly, who wrote the report, about what it suggests and what the next steps will be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
13 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Ontario's Bill 5 has passed. Here's why it has sparked conflict with First Nations
Ontario's Bill 5, which passed on Wednesday, will give the provincial government sweeping powers to disregard its own laws in order to speed up mining or other projects – and has prompted warning of protests or blockades from Indigenous leaders who say they should have been consulted. Formally known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, the legislation allows the Ontario government to designate 'special economic zones' where it could suspend any provincial law – including environmental or labour rules and municipal bylaws – for companies or entities it labels 'trusted proponents.' The federal government, and B.C., are also pushing to accelerate major resource projects to try shore up the country's economy in the face of U.S. tariffs and China's dominance in critical minerals. But these moves are being made amid a shifting legal landscape on Indigenous issues – and could put governments on a collision course with First Nations. In addition to allowing for special economic zones, the bill also rewrites Ontario's endangered species legislation, allowing cabinet, instead of scientists, the final say on what species are protected. And it would loosen the rules around preserving Indigenous archeological sites. (It also includes other provisions to streamline mining approvals, supported both by the industry and even the opposition, that would see key projects funnelled through a centralized, 'one project, one process' system.) The government has said it aims to designate the remote northern Ring of Fire region, where it says reserves of critical minerals are key to Ontario's economy, as its first special economic zone. While three First Nations in and near the region are supporting plans for all-season roads to the area, others have opposed the push to mine there. How these zones will be implemented – and what rules will take the place of any laws wiped off the books – is supposed to be laid out in regulations that have not been released. Those regulations must also be subject to both First Nations and public consultations, which the government has promised over the summer. First Nations leaders say they should have been consulted first, and want the bill scrapped. As opposition to Bill 5 mounted from First Nations in recent days, the government said these future regulations could include provisions to allow 'Indigenous-led economic zones,' but provided no details. Bill 5 could affect these six species in Ontario, conservationists say Ontario's Bill 5 falls into a category lawyers label 'Henry VIII legislation,' as Laura Bowman, a staff lawyer at the group Ecojustice, has pointed out. The term invokes the infamous 16th-century English king – who had two of his wives beheaded – in giving the executive branch the power to pick and choose which laws passed by the legislature apply and to whom. This aspect has alarmed not just First Nations, but the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and opposition MPPs. Liberal MPP John Fraser compares Bill 5 to the executive powers now being abused by U.S. President Donald Trump. The government defends the need for the extraordinary powers, saying it can take 15 years to open a new mine in Ontario, much longer than in other jurisdictions. Properly called the 'duty to consult and accommodate' First Nations, it has been recognized in court rulings dating back to the 1980s. It obligates the Crown – meaning governments – to consult First Nations about activities that impact their treaty rights, which were embedded in Section 35 of the Constitution in 1982. Landmark Supreme Court of Canada rulings in the past 20 years have outlined and strengthened this obligation. In essence, if governments want to allow the construction of a mine or another project in a First Nation's traditional territory, they must engage in meaningful consultations and accommodate Indigenous concerns about its effects on treaty rights, such as hunting grounds of fishing grounds. The duty to consult has seen many First Nations sign 'impact benefit agreements' with mining companies or others operating on their traditional territories, which usually involve revenue for Indigenous governments. The Decibel: Unpacking the nationwide push to fast-track major projects Ontario Indigenous Affairs Minister Greg Rickford has repeatedly asserted it does not, referencing a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the Mikisew Cree First Nation argued the then federal Conservative government had a duty to consult before bringing in contentious 2012 legislation that sparked the 'Idle No More' protest movement. In a split decision, the top court ruled against the First Nation, concluding that parliamentary privilege means governments do not trip over their constitutional obligation if they draft legislation without consulting first. But lawyers say the Mikisew ruling does not preclude governments from choosing to consult First Nations before tabling a bill. Governments routinely consult industry or other interest groups while drafting legislation. That phrase, routinely invoked by First Nations, comes from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada had at first avoided endorsing but fully signed onto in 2016. Federal legislation in 2021 began the implementation of this new standard, which clearly goes beyond a 'duty to consult.' However, Ontario has not signed onto UNDRIP or adopted it in its law. And lawyers say what 'free, prior and informed consent' will precisely mean across Canada, in different contexts, remains legally contested ground. This is also increasingly contested ground, as First Nations argue their forebears understood these documents, signed hundreds of years ago in many cases, much differently than governments did. In a case working its way through the courts, 10 First Nations that signed Treaty 9 in 1905 – which covers two-thirds of Ontario's land mass and includes the Ring of Fire – argue they never gave up decision-making power on their lands and that a new 'co-jurisdiction' regime must be established. They are also seeking $95-billion they say they are owed under the treaty, which was signed by both Ontario and Canada. 'What First Nations are really saying is, forget the duty to consult,' said Kate Kempton, a veteran lawyer for First Nations in battles with mining companies who is leading the Treaty 9 case. 'It doesn't work. It needs to be the right to decide. Bill 5 is really just the straw that is breaking the camel's back.' The government has committed to consultations with the public and First Nations on the regulations it must draft before any 'special economic zones' are named. But Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations across Northern Ontario including those in the Ring of Fire, has warned of an 'Idle No More 2.0″ wave of protests against bill, as have other Indigenous leaders.
CTV News
42 minutes ago
- CTV News
Immigration minister defends border bill's restrictions on asylum claims
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Lena Metlege Diab participates in a family photo following a cabinet swearing in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa, on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Spencer Colby OTTAWA — Safeguards have been written into the government's border bill to ensure civil rights and due process are upheld in proposed immigration regulations, Immigration Minister Lena Diab said Wednesday. Critics and advocacy groups are calling the wide-ranging border security legislation a threat to civil liberties in the immigration and asylum system. One proposed change in the legislation would prevent people from making asylum claims if they've been in Canada for more than a year. That change would not affect applications that have been submitted already but would be retroactive to June 3, assuming the bill becomes law. Diab said there would still be opportunities for asylum seekers who have been in Canada for more than a year to make their case through measures like pre-removal risk assessments. 'There's a lot of applications in the system and so this is will streamline it to ensure that those newcomers, or those people that really need our protection and use the asylum system, are processed faster,' she said. The 127-page bill, unveiled Tuesday, would give authorities new powers to search mail and expand the Canadian Coast Guard's role to include security activities. There are several other immigration measures are in the bill. They include giving authorities the power to cancel or suspend immigration documents for health or national security reasons, closing a loophole that allows people to make an asylum claim 14 days after crossing the U.S. land border, and allowing Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to share the personal information of immigrants and refugees with provincial and territorial governments. Immigration lawyer Zool Suleman said the information-sharing proposal poses a threat to the civil liberties of all Canadians. 'Everybody thinks they have nothing to hide. You'd be amazed at how much we do want to hide in terms of the personal lives that we lead in this country and that we have a right to lead in the country,' he said. 'The real issue is that the government should not be delving into your private life unless they have cause. And so what this bill is really doing is threatening the civil liberties of everybody in Canada.' Diab said the legislation includes a number of safeguards to protect personal information. She said the goal is to streamline information-sharing between branches of government that process immigration, citizenship and passport applications. 'These programs cannot share information together. So this at least will give us that ability to do that, but also share information with the provinces and territories where the need arises,' she said. Diab said information-sharing arrangements with provincial and territorial bodies would be outlined in agreements stating which information can be shared and when. 'Most Canadians probably think this is the sensible thing to do and in fact most probably think it exists already. Well, it does not,' Diab said. Diab said the final decision on cancelling or suspending immigration documents in the event of a health or public safety emergency would be made by cabinet. 'I think people, Canadians, should feel safe that we are putting all these safeguards in. But again, as I said, it's all part of protecting our country and protecting our system,' Diab said. Suleman said he has worried about a government giving itself this kind of power since the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act became law. 'People had predicted that this is the direction in which the government would go when it was passing this framework legislation. And what we find more than two decades later is it's exactly where the government has gone,' he said. 'They've taken on more and more authority for themselves with less and less safeguards for refugees and immigrants.' The legislation says that some asylum cases -- such as those of migrants crossing by land from the U.S. -- will no longer be sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for review. 'You will be subjected to a much lower level of review and much lower levels of safeguards. Essentially, what the government is trying to do for many, many refugee claimants is move to a paper review basis, not an oral review basis to determine their claims,' Suleman said. The government has been trying to cut the backlog in immigration and refugee applications and is reducing the number of permanent and temporary residents being admitted to Canada. Roxham Road in Quebec became a focal point for the immigration debate during the first Donald Trump presidency, with thousands of people claiming asylum after crossing the Canadian border onto the small rural road, about 50 kilometres south of Montreal. More recently, the government has reported an increase in the number of international students making asylum claims when their visas expire. Diab said the asylum system can't be used as a shortcut to immigration. 'If you want to immigrate to Canada, we have rules. We have processes. Please use them,' she said. David Baxter, The Canadian Press With files from Jim Bronskill This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 4, 2025.
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Politics! Border bill blowback and 'Santa' Carney
The Liberals have tabled new legislation that would significantly expand law enforcement powers and tighten immigration of all kinds, including refugee claims, in a move to appease the Trump White House — but critics say it raises major concerns for Canadians' civil liberties. Meanwhile, Mark Carney met with Canada's provincial and territorial premiers this week in his first ever first ministers' meeting, and the post-meeting vibes have been extremely positive. There seems to be a general agreement on the idea of building a new east-west pipeline — but almost nothing else about it is clear, including who would actually build it. How long will the honeymoon last? The Toronto Star's Althia Raj and CBC Ottawa's Aaron Wherry are on the show to tackle this political doubleheader. Fill out or listener survey here. We appreciate your input! For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: Subscribe to Front Burner on your favourite podcast app. Listen on Apple Podcasts Listen on Spotify Listen on YouTube
