Doug Ford apologizes to First Nations for ‘hat in hand' comments
Speaking to reporters at Queen's Park on Thursday after a two-hour meeting with chiefs from the Anishinabek Nation, which represents 39 First Nations across Ontario, Ford was contrite.
'I just want to say I sincerely apologize for my words, not only if it hurt all the chiefs in that room, but all First Nations,' the premier said.
'I speak from the heart and sometimes my words don't come out properly, which I think you've all seen over a number of years. I sincerely apologize if that has offended anyone. I've never been too proud to sit back and apologize for something that I've said or if have offended someone,' he said.
Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige, who was standing beside Ford as he spoke, accepted his apology.
'Our chiefs felt today that the apology was sincere. We are looking at today as a new day going forward,' said Debassige.
'The premier has corrected himself for the 'hat in hand' comment and has committed to be working with us as a good treaty partner and has owned what he said,' she said, 'and I'm not going to belabour that.'
However, Debassige emphasized that while the chiefs appreciated the confab, the Anishinabek Nation still opposes Bill 5, the '
Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act
,' which was passed two weeks ago.
'We remain steadfast in the rights of our nations,' she stressed, noting other matters were discussed behind closed doors.
'It would be disrespectful to our First Nations communities to suggest their only concern is Bill 5 at this time.'
The meeting came one day after Ford was accused by New Democrat MPP Sol Mamakwa of making 'racist' remarks about First Nations.
On Wednesday in St. Catharines, the premier said 'there's an opportunity of a lifetime for them' if minerals can be extracted more quickly from remote regions.
'We're giving them $3 billion with a B … to be equity partners, to make their communities more prosperous and wealthier and have services they've never had before,' said Ford, noting' there's going to be a point that you can't just keep coming hat in hand all the time to the government.
'You've got to be able to take care of yourselves — and when you literally have gold mines, nickel mines, every type of critical mineral that the world wants, and you're saying, 'No, no, I don't want to touch that, by the way, give me money.' Not going to happen. It's simple,' he said.
In a letter Thursday to Ford, Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak accused the premier of 'pejoratively dismissing' Indigenous rights.
'Your remarks only serve to perpetuate racist stereotypes and are not acceptable in any way or circumstance,' she wrote.
For his part, Mamakwa (Kiiwetinoong) said Thursday 'that's not the way we create relationships with First Nations' and had urged Ford to apologize.
'As First Nations, you know, we are not beggars,' he added. 'That type of thinking is not great … it belongs back in the 1950s.'
Ford's mea culpa overshadowed a meeting that had been called as his Progressive Conservatives scrambled to fix Bill 5 in regulation following its speedy passage before the legislature rose for the summer break.
Opponents charge the law breaches long-standing First Nation treaty rights as well as waters down environmental protections with of new 'special economic zones' designed to fast track project approvals.
Ford's Tories argue the law — similar to
the federal Bill C-5 being pushed through by Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals
— is needed to get projects approved quickly
The premier and prime minister say U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war against Canada means that approvals must be expedited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Frank Calder and the Nisga'a influenced modern treaties in Canada
Many First Nations across the country are warning that new infrastructure bills to fast-track build projects may be infringing on their rights — rights that received a huge boost more than 50 years ago, thanks to the pioneering efforts of a hereditary chief of the Nisga'a Nation in B.C. Frank Calder led a case out of B.C.'s northwest coast that would result in the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledging Indigenous rights and title for the first time — and, in turn, contributed to modern treaties and Indigenous self-governing agreements across the country, as it opened the door for Indigenous people to negotiate land claims with the government. Chiefs in B.C. are citing Calder, and other cases that affirmed Indigenous rights and title, at a time when many say their rights aren't being respected. In Ontario, nine First Nations have taken the province and Canada to court over Bill 5 and Bill C-5, which aim to fast-track projects, and chiefs in B.C. are also saying more court challenges are to come. The bills come as Canada experiences economic uncertainty because of tariffs, and Indigenous people are concerned that the environment and their rights are taking a back seat. As Indigenous people gear up for court, previous rights and title cases are top of mind as Canada pushes for "shovels in the ground." With Indigenous people citing the Calder case, and their rights and title, what does that mean? Indigenous rights and title In a 1982 amendment to the Constitution, Section 35 recognized and affirmed the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous people in Canada. It defines "Aboriginal peoples of Canada" as Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples. Treaty rights are defined in each negotiated treaty. But there is no definition of "Aboriginal rights and title" in the Constitution for Indigenous communities in Canada that didn't sign a treaty — and this has led to debate, controversy and several court cases. Many of the significant cases that aimed to define Aboriginal rights and title took place in B.C., paving the way for First Nations across the country to have a better hand at negotiating tables. One of the earliest is the Calder case, filed by the Nisga'a on B.C.'s northwest coast. The Government of Canada credits Calder for shifting the treaty negotiation process in the country to a rights-based approach. The Calder case Calder was a hereditary chief of the Nisga'a Nation and, alongside others, took B.C. to court in 1967 in an attempt to get his nation's land back and to have Nisga'a rights and title protected in the Nass Valley. The Nisga'a pursued the case, arguing that its rights under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 had been violated because, like most Indigenous communities in B.C. at the time, they had never signed a treaty. The proclamation, still in place today, states that all land in Canada is considered Indigenous land until ceded by treaty, and further, that Aboriginal title existed before settlement, and only the Crown can purchase land from First Nations. The Calder case caused a split decision at the Supreme Court of Canada, with three judges voting in favour of the Nisga'a and three voting in favour of the province. The court's two other judges recused themselves from the case. The seventh judge dismissed the case on the technicality that First Nations needed permission from the government to sue the government, and the Nisga'a didn't have it. Although the case was dismissed, for the first time in Canadian history, the Supreme Court judges who voted in favour of the Nisga'a acknowledged the existence of Aboriginal title. First Nations from unceded territories now had a better hand at negotiating tables and started being invited to them. 'A whole different world': Nisga'a negotiator The Calder case laid the groundwork for modern treaties in Canada. The very first — the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement — was signed two years later. It took longer for the Nisga'a, who signed their treaty in 2000, after 113 years of negotiations. Matthew Moore was on the negotiation team for 16 of those years and remembers how B.C. kept turning them away. "Every time I went to the provincial government, I would get refused with the comment that you guys aren't Canadian citizens, you're wards of the federal government. You have to talk to the federal government," he said. "It was really humiliating and frustrating to go through that." Following Calder, Moore says that Nisga'a members asked then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau if the government was open to negotiating a treaty, or if they wanted to go back to court. "Our people got a response back that the federal government did not want to go back to the Supreme Court of Canada. They wanted to explore negotiations," said Moore. Canada and many First Nations call the period from the 1970s onward the modern treaty era. Saskatchewan impact Among those participating in the modern treaty process is a nation in Saskatchewan that wasn't allowed to sign a numbered treaty between 1871 and 1921. Darcy Bear, chief of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, told CBC News the Dakota territory spans from the United States to Canada, and negotiators from the government labelled Chief Whitecap and his people as "American Indians," and so, didn't allow him to sign. The Whitecap Dakota signed its self-government treaty with the Crown in 2023. "The self-government treaty recognized Whitecap Dakota Nation members as Aboriginal peoples of Canada with section 35 rights, something they never did before," said Bear. Bear says that it was important for his people to be governed by their own Dakota laws, instead of being governed by the Indian Act — a policy still in place today, enacted in 1876 that changed Indigenous governing systems to the chief and council system. Bear says that his community researched modern treaties and self-government agreements in B.C. and the United States before requesting a negotiation process with the Crown. Yukon impact Another area of Canada that was settled without a treaty is the Yukon. Dave Joe, a member of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations and the first native lawyer in the territory, says that before modern treaties "it was a dark period in history" for First Nations people in Canada. "It was a period of restrictions about whether or not we could own the land, whether or not we could pursue a land claim, whether or not we could pursue court action." He was involved in creating the Umbrella Final Agreement, the template used to negotiate all land claim settlements for Yukon First Nations. Joe says that the Calder case with the Nisga'a, the civil rights movement in the United States, and another rights and title case pursued by the Tlingit and Haida nations in Alaska, all inspired First Nations in the Yukon to pursue their land claims. "Those were the three sorts of backdrops to Yukon First Nations, saying that hey, we have a valid claim here as well." He says that the Calder case initiated the modern treaty era in Canada. "And so [the Nisga'a] had a good case going forward. That recognition, I think, prompted Pierre Trudeau to accept our proposal to negotiate rather than proceeding with court action." And even as the Calder case was influential in Canada, according to the University of British Columbia, it has also been referenced in Australia and New Zealand.
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
Beaten-down carmakers smell fatter profits under Trump
For all their complaints about how unfair President Trump's tariffs are for U.S. automakers, the industry seems quite pleased with his environmental policies, which lift a massive regulatory cost burden. Why it matters: Trump's agenda could wind up as a net win for the auto industry, allowing them to sell more high-margin, U.S.-built trucks and SUVs for the foreseeable future, while avoiding penalties for not building enough electric vehicles. Stunning stat: Together, General Motors, Ford and Stellantis are projecting nearly $10 billion in gross tariff costs this year. For the most part, they're eating those taxes rather than passing them on to consumers. Yes, but: Trump's deregulation policies could help them offset most or all of that burden, depending on the outcome of continuing trade talks. Driving the news: In quarterly earnings calls with analysts, the CEOs of the Detroit 3 said Trump's reversal of Biden-era EV policies will boost their finances. "To build what customers really want is going to be a tailwind for us," said Ford CEO Jim Farley, citing what he called a "multi-billion dollar opportunity" over the next couple of years. GM CEO Mary Barra had a similar message, calling Trump's regulatory policies a "huge opportunity" that allow the automaker to keep selling profitable trucks and SUVs while EV demand slowly builds. Stellantis, meanwhile, is bringing back muscle cars and Hemi engines now that it's no longer obliged to produce EVs and fuel-sipping engines. "And this will mean to us a lot of additional profit," said CEO Antonio Filosa, trying to steer a turnaround. The big picture: The Trump administration has been moving quickly to unwind Biden's EV-favorable policies. Trump ditched his predecessor's ambitious CO2 emissions targets and canceled California's EV mandates (although 11 states are suing to block that effort). His administration is also erasing consumer tax credits for EV purchases and repealing existing fuel economy targets and CO2 emissions standards. By removing penalties for non-compliance, the government is also eliminating any incentive for carmakers to buy regulatory credits from overachieving rivals. Zoom in: Ford, for example, said last year it had contracts to purchase about $3.8 billion of non-compliance credits from other carmakers — presumably Tesla, which said in October that it had long-term contracts to sell $4.7 billion of credits. As of this week, however, Farley told analysts that Ford has already reduced that commitment by nearly $1.5 billion — money that can instead be invested in other parts of the business or to improve profits. On the flip side, Telsa is staring down a "few rough quarters" as support for EVs goes away and it pivots toward autonomy and robots starting next year. Aside from vanishing tax breaks that will likely dampen EV demand, Tesla is also losing that easy money — $15 billion since 2012 — it made from selling regulatory credits.
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump keeps making disastrous trade deals because of it
Trump's tariffs have already collectively cost American car manufacturers billions of dollars. That isn't sustainable – and it gives foreign automakers a leg up. The Trump administration has struck a tariff deal with Japan, marking a significant accomplishment ahead of the Trump-imposed Aug. 1 deadline for deals to be reached. But the deal has some obvious problems, namely with how it fits into the automotive industry landscape. As it stands, the tariff burden on Japanese manufacturers importing their vehicles to the United States is lower than that on domestic producers importing their materials. American automakers are not happy with the deal. President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with Japan serves to demonstrate how little administration officials actually understands what they are doing in the trade policy arena. Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump's tariffs are being implemented in the most chaotic manner possible. Trump's trade policy doesn't even give US car companies a leg up Proponents of tariffs love to claim that their policies will incentivize domestic production, but the reality is that they add additional burdens to domestic producers. The Japanese trade agreement spans many sectors, but this idea can be seen clearly in the automotive industry. American car manufacturers are charged tariffs of 25% on imported parts and 50% on imported aluminum and steel. The costs of tariffs on importing components and raw materials essential to vehicles only serve to drive up production costs for those companies doing what Trump wants, building in America. Opinion: Republicans accused Biden of trying to bribe voters. Now they're doing the same. These tariffs have already collectively cost domestic producers billions of dollars. Ford alone lost $800 million to tariffs in the second quarter and expects to lose $2 billion this year. Ford has rather admirably taken on a great portion of the costs of these tariffs themselves rather than raising prices, but because of that, tariff policies have resulted in Ford's first quarterly loss in two years. That isn't sustainable. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Not only are these tariffs costing domestic producers money, but they are also disadvantaging them against foreign competition. Japanese car companies face a tariff of just 15%, thereby further incentivizing the import of Japanese cars over domestic production. This rate is also notably lower than the 25% rate on vehicles coming from Mexico and Canada, both of which produce vehicles for American car companies. There's an even greater irony in that fact because Japanese manufacturers, such as Toyota, have announced expansions to their already existing U.S.-based manufacturing plants. It turns out that continuing production in Japan will be better. Tariffs are bad – but Trump's aren't even doing what he claims The backward effects that tariffs are having on domestic car production are a perfect example of how dysfunctional this administration's policy is on the issue. Even the tariffs that are put into effect don't achieve what they purport to. Opinion: I'll never have a car payment. Here's my secret. In the case of cars, they are doing the opposite, giving manufacturers from a foreign nation an artificial leg up over American ones. In this case, the disparity is a result of negotiated deals taking place at different times. Trump is rewarding Japan by coming around to make a deal before both Mexico and Canada. Another area of concern is the sudden and unexpected shock of tariffs, often with little advance notice to the impacted industries. Tariffs don't make sense, but they make even less sense when there is no phase in the window in which companies can change their manufacturing practices to avoid them. Nor can any company be faulted for not rapidly changing any of their practices, given the fact that Trump's tariff policies have changed by the week, or sometimes even by the day. The volatile nature of these policies has made it impossible for any affected parties to make reasonable decisions going forward. This administration's dysfunctional approach to tariffs has resulted in a headache for everyone involved. While everyone suffers, domestic producers end up getting the short end of the stick. None of this is good. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
