Latest news with #IndigenousPeoples'
Toronto Star
03-06-2025
- Business
- Toronto Star
First Nations don't have a veto over nation-building projects, Mark Carney's justice minister says
OTTAWA—Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the federal duty to consult and engage Indigenous people on major nation-building projects does not amount to granting those communities a veto. After the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) warned Prime Minister Mark Carney he must secure Indigenous Peoples' consent to his plans to expedite massive infrastructure projects, citing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, Fraser said the legal duty under that declaration is viewed by international experts and the current government as limited. 'In most circumstances, I think it demands a very deep level of, of engagement and understanding of the rights that may be impacted. And to the extent that those rights can be accommodated, we should make every effort to. The explicit nature of a veto — so from my understanding — is it stops short of a complete veto,' Fraser said in response to the Star's questions Tuesday. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'But it certainly, in my view, heightens the demands upon government to engage fully to both understand the nature of the rights that could be impacted by decisions taken by the government, but also the heightened duty to accommodate those rights that are baked into our treaties and protected by our Constitution.' The first ministers meeting in Saskatoon ended Monday with Carney promising Indigenous leaders would be deeply involved in the development of 'nation-building' projects that all premiers are keen to accelerate, and which Carney intends to fast-track with new legislation, tighter timelines for approvals, and possibly federal infrastructure money as he squares off against President Donald Trump's tariff war. Federal Politics Mark Carney, premiers agree on 'nation-building priorities,' but First Nations raise alarms over lack of consultation Prime Minister hints at prioritizing energy infrastructure — such as pipelines — after first Fraser said 'international commentary and the limited jurisprudence' interpreting the UN declaration indicates that 'we do need to fully engage and to the extent there's a potential to have a more direct impact on Aboriginal and treaty rights, it demands a higher degree of engagement.' But, he said, experts have suggested 'that is not necessarily a blanket veto power.' 'But of course, we're in new territory here. Over the course of the next generation, I expect the courts are going to do some significant work, but hopefully a lot of that work is actually going to be done between governments and Indigenous Peoples themselves through engagement and conversations.' Fraser's comments represent the first clear statement of how Carney's government will interpret the UN declaration and Canadian law when it comes to consulting Inuit, First Nations and Métis people about projects on lands over which they may hold treaty or constitutional land claims. It stands in contrast to how many Indigenous leaders view the Crown's legal obligation to consult them, many of whom argue it grants the power to consent to or deny economic development proposals. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Canada adopted legislation and an action plan to implement the UN declaration under then-justice minister David Lametti, now principal secretary to Carney. The AFN, the national advocacy group for First Nations, on Monday reminded Carney of his legal obligations to consult and obtain the consent of affected communities when drawing up the legislation to fast-track projects, and when deciding on which projects will be designated 'nation-building' and qualify for expedited approvals. Without the 'free, prior and informed consent' of those communities, the AFN warned Carney's plan will be mired in conflict and litigation. Both B.C. and Ontario governments have faced pushback from Indigenous groups as they tried to expedite resource development projects. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has moved to amend a controversial bill in an effort to address concerns that Indigenous treaty rights and environmental protections are under threat. His government has proposed to allow Indigenous-led special economic zones over mining and infrastructure projects that could benefit their communities. In B.C. First Nations leaders say a new mining framework should recognize a 'duty to consent' not a duty to consult. Provincial Politics Doug Ford's Tories amend controversial mining bill to allay First Nation concerns Indigenous leaders have been warning Ford that Bill 5 fast-tracking mining and other 'I believe in duty to consult,' Ford told reporters in Toronto Tuesday. 'I believe in treaty rights. But we can't take two, three years for duty to consult. We need to move forward. What I've experienced, when they have an equity partnership in any deal, the duty consult moves rapidly. Really quick, which is a good thing, but there's an opportunity unlike they've ever seen before, and we just want a great partnership.' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW He said there are 'many, many chiefs' that want developments like northern Ontario's Ring of Fire mining region to be developed. 'They want this road built. They want the quality of life for their kids that they never had, and that's what we're providing with them, and they're going to be great partners as we move forward.' Fraser, the federal justice minister, speaking to reporters before a cabinet meeting in Ottawa Tuesday, said that 'when we get down to the actual project decisions, it's important that we fully understand the potential impact that those projects could have on rights that are protected in our treaties and again, protected by our constitution before we actually move forward with specific projects.' He said Ottawa has had 'some engagement to date leading up to this first ministers meeting,' adding the engagement is 'ongoing.' However, AFN national chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak in a letter to Carney released Monday said it was insufficient for Ottawa to merely provide a letter and a three-page background document without providing the proposed legislation for fast-tracking project approvals to First Nations. Nepinak said she told Carney in a meeting last week that when it comes to 'nation-building projects,' Canada needs to start with fast-tracking the basics like clean water, quality housing, modern schools, all-season roads and community infrastructure. Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Rebecca Alty said that while closing the First Nations infrastructure gap is important, it's not considered nation-building and would be pursued outside the proposed legislation. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Fraser said the prime minister 'has committed to engaging over the course of the summer directly with Indigenous leaders.' 'We've learned over the course of Canada's history if you exclude rights holders from the conversation, in the long term, it's actually going to slow you down. So putting in the work up front to make sure that the nature of the rights that could be impacted are well understood and moving forward, preferably in collaboration with Indigenous partners, is going to set you up for success in the long term.' But, said Fraser, there are many Canadians that do want to see projects move more swiftly. 'It's also very clear in my community and communities across the country, Canadians want to see major projects that advance the national interest approved more quickly than the existing regime has for those key projects that are nation building. So the prime minister has made that commitment. We're going to be moving forward with measures that will help move forward those projects in the national interest, but we're going to do what we can to do it in collaboration with Indigenous partners along the way.' After the first ministers meeting ended Monday in Saskatoon, premiers emerged singing Carney's praises, and vowing to work to eliminate remaining internal trade barriers, to consult with Indigenous leaders, to streamline their own provincial permitting processes and where possible co-operate with Ottawa to assign major projects a single environmental impact assessment, under the rubric of 'one-project, one-review' that Carney has been touting. Carney, for his part, said the federal government will introduce legislation to eliminate federal barriers to internal trade and to establish a Major Federal Projects Office with the stated mandate to reduce approvals time for designated 'nation-building' resource and infrastructure projects from five years to two. He also endorsed the possible approval, and even federal support for, a future oil pipeline project that could bring oilsands exports from Alberta to tidewater — whether via the West in northwest B.C. or the East to ports in Churchill as long as it carries 'decarbonized' barrels of Canadian oil to international markets, which Carney declared would be in the 'national interest.' 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.
NDTV
28-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
87,812 Indians Got Canadian Citizenship In 2024, Most From Any Nation
Canada's Citizenship Week, which kicked off on May 26 and runs until June 1, is a vibrant celebration of the country's rich diversity and the shared values that define Canadian citizenship. At the heart of this celebration is the recognition of the incredible contributions immigrants make to Canada's growth and prosperity. According to Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab, "Each year, Citizenship Week offers our country an occasion to reflect on the meaning of citizenship." She beautifully encapsulates Canada's identity as "a mosaic that includes Canadians of all backgrounds and cultures," emphasising the importance of Indigenous Peoples' histories and the commitment to reconciliation. The statistics underscore the significant role immigration plays in shaping Canada's identity. In 2024, a substantial 3.74 lakh individuals were granted Canadian citizenship, with Indian nationals making up 23% of this number, totaling 87,812 individuals, per a report in the Times of India. This represents a notable increase from 2023, when 78,714 Indians gained citizenship. Minister Diab praises the courage of those seeking better opportunities and security for their families, saying, "It takes incredible courage to face the challenges and uncertainty of a new place." As Canadians celebrate this diversity, the government has outlined its immigration plan for the next few years. The targets indicate a slight decrease in permanent resident admissions, with 3.95 lakh planned for 2025, 3.80 lakh for 2026, and 3.65 lakh for 2027. Despite this reduction, the government aims to prioritise those already in Canada, with over 40% of permanent resident admissions in 2025 expected to be from temporary residents. Minister Diab encourages Canadians to attend public citizenship ceremonies, highlighting the importance of recognising the value immigration brings to Canada. "As Canadians, it is our responsibility to continue to highlight the value that immigration brings to Canada, and to protect the inherent rights and dignity of those who seek to call it home," she emphasises. The Citizenship Week celebrations serve as a poignant reminder of Canada's commitment to its diverse population and the values that define its citizenship. As Minister Diab so eloquently puts it, "We also take this moment to recognise that our diversity is our strength and to collectively recommit to building a better future for all who live here."
National Observer
23-05-2025
- Politics
- National Observer
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.
Scoop
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Guatemala: UN HRC Adopts Landmark Decision On Transgenerational Harm For Mayan Peoples Suffering Forced Displacement
GENEVA (8 May 2025) – The UN Human Rights Committee has found Guatemala internationally responsible for not implementing resettlement agreements and other reparation measures reached with members of the Mayan People for their continuing forced displacement. A total of 269 members of the K'iche', Ixil and Kaqchikel Mayan Indigenous Peoples, who have been forcibly displaced from their communities during the 'scorched earth' operations of the internal armed conflict in the 1980s, turned to the Committee in 2021, claiming their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) were violated. Although the victims had reached a settlement with Guatemala and agreed on a number of reparation measures under the 2011 National Compensation Programme, the programme, which foresaw, in particular, the resettlement and construction of alternative housing, was never implemented. 'Forced displacement is permanent in nature until the victims benefit from a safe and dignified return to their place of habitual residence or are voluntarily resettled elsewhere,' Committee member Hélène Tigroudja said. In its decision, the Committee found that the victims were violently uprooted from their traditional lands and forced to seek refuge in Guatemala's capital city, in violation of their right under Article 12 of the ICCPR. Amid this different cultural setting, they were also forced to conceal and ultimately change their identities in violation of Article 27. 'The uprooting of the victims from their natural environment and lands had a deep, devastating, and lasting impact as they were irremediably stripped of their cultural identity,' Tigroudja said. 'They had to abandon their cultural practices, stop wearing their traditional clothing and stop speaking their language, which also constitutes an irreparable loss for their children and grandchildren,' she added. In a new approach, the Committee considered that the State violated not only the rights of the individuals who were forcibly displaced but also the rights of third-generation children born in displacement after the events, to whom the trauma of displacement was transmitted. 'Indigenous Peoples' rights are, by definition, intergenerational. Transmission is a key condition for the continuity of Indigenous Peoples' existence and cultures,' Tigroudja said. In its decision, the Committee also highlighted that the forced displacement and accompanying violence resulted in the victims having to leave behind the buried bodies of their relatives. Moreover, they were unable to perform funeral rituals for family members who were executed, died or forcibly disappeared during the conflict, in violation of their right under Article 7 not to be subjected to torture and inhumane treatment. 'In Mayan culture, not performing funeral rites is considered a moral transgression which can lead to spiritually caused illnesses that can manifest as physical diseases and can affect the entire lineage,' Tigroudja added. 'These are not only performative ceremonies and rituals but an integral part of the physical, moral and spiritual integrity of members of the communities as well as of the communities as a whole,' she said. The Committee requested Guatemala to search for and hand over the remains of the disappeared family members to the complainants so that they could perform funeral rituals in accordance with their cultures. The Committee also requested Guatemala to build the houses according to the agreed specifications; to provide the victims, their children and grandchildren with the necessary medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment; to also provide them with scholarships if they wish so; and to carry out a public act of acknowledgement of international responsibility in which it should apologise for the violations. Guatemala is also requested to translate the decision into the Mayan K'iche', Mayan Ixil and Mayan Kaqchikel languages. The Committee's findings were assisted by Third-Party Interventions submitted by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a judge attached to the Special Jurisdiction for Peace of Colombia, and the NGO Indigenous Peoples Rights International.
Scoop
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
UN Rights Body Rules Guatemala Failed Displaced Mayan Peoples
The landmark decision, announced on Thursday, also considered the harm caused to succeeding generations. ' Forced displacement is permanent in nature until the victims benefit from a safe and dignified return to their place of habitual residence or are voluntarily resettled elsewhere,' said Committee member Hélène Tigroudja. Conflict, displacement and violations The Committee found that the 269 members of the K'iche', Ixil and Kaqchikel Mayan Indigenous Peoples were violently uprooted from their traditional lands and forced to seek refuge in the capital, Guatemala City, in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They were forcibly displaced during 'scorched earth' operations amid internal armed conflict in the 1980s. Mayan leaders approached the Committee in 2021, claiming their rights under the UN treaty were violated. Although they had reached a settlement with the Government and agreed on several reparation measures under the 2011 National Compensation Programme – which foresaw, in particular, the resettlement and construction of alternative housing – it was never implemented. 'Stripped of cultural identity' The UN Committee's decision noted that while in the capital city, Mayans were also forced to conceal and ultimately change their identities, representing another violation. ' The uprooting of the victims from their natural environment and lands had a deep, devastating, and lasting impact as they were irremediably stripped of their cultural identity,' Ms. Tigroudja said. 'They had to abandon their cultural practices, stop wearing their traditional clothing and stop speaking their language, which also constitutes an irreparable loss for their children and grandchildren,' she added. Transgenerational trauma In a new approach, the Committee considered that the State violated not only the rights of those who were forcibly displaced but also the rights of third-generation children born in displacement, thus transmitting the trauma of being uprooted. 'Indigenous Peoples' rights are, by definition, intergenerational. Transmission is a key condition for the continuity of Indigenous Peoples' existence and cultures,' Ms. Tigroudja said. The Committee also highlighted that the forced displacement and accompanying violence resulted in the victims having to leave behind the buried bodies of their relatives. Burial rites disrupted Moreover, they were unable to perform funeral rituals for family members who died or were executed or forcibly disappeared during the conflict, in violation of their right not to be subjected to torture and inhumane treatment. ' In Mayan culture, not performing funeral rites is considered a moral transgression which can lead to spiritually caused illnesses that can manifest as physical diseases and can affect the entire lineage,' Ms. Tigroudja explained. 'These are not only performative ceremonies and rituals but an integral part of the physical, moral and spiritual integrity of members of the communities as well as of the communities as a whole,' she added. Action by authorities The Committee requested Guatemala to search for and hand over the remains of the disappeared family members so that funeral rituals can be carried out in accordance with cultural requirements. The Government is also urged to undertake other measures, including providing victims, their children and grandchildren with the necessary medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment; and publicly acknowledging responsibility. About the Committee The Human Rights Committee comprises 18 independent experts who monitor implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). More than 170 States are party to the UN treaty. Committee members are elected by States parties and serve in their personal capacity. They are not UN staff and do not receive payment for their work.
