Latest news with #LukeHildebrand
Hamilton Spectator
16-07-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
More legal battles likely as First Nations launch first lawsuit against new federal, provincial laws
As First Nations launch the first constitutional challenge against federal Bill C-5 and Ontario's Bill 5 — sweeping laws to fast-track mines and major infrastructure — legal experts say the governments' refusal to consult has left Indigenous communities with no other option and more court battles are likely ahead. 'They didn't engage with First Nations, they didn't engage with labour unions, and they simply passed bills that don't work for either group — making a lawsuit almost inevitable,' said Luke Hildebrand, a lawyer not involved with the lawsuits. 'I'd be surprised if this is the only one.' Hildebrand said both governments escalated the situation by refusing to consult the very people most affected. He sees the legal challenge as grounded in three core arguments: that both laws violate the constitutional duty to consult, undermine treaty rights, and conflict with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) , which protects the right to free, prior and informed consent. 'This is about unilateralism,' Hildebrand said. 'Instead of sitting down and building something together, they [both governments] said, 'We're doing this — you catch up.' That's the wrong approach.' 'No escape for First Nations' The two laws allow governments at both federal and provincial levels to bypass environmental assessments and permit requirements, clearing the way for major development projects with little or no First Nations involvement. Bill 5 allows the provincial cabinet to create 'special economic zones,' where selected projects and developers could be exempt from environmental regulations and planning laws, undermining First Nations consultation. The government has already signalled its intent to designate the Ring of Fire as a 'special economic zone' under the new law. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Ontario Superior Court by nine First Nations, argues both pieces of legislation violate constitutional rights, treaty obligations and Canada's international commitments. The filing argues that the two laws build on one another, compounding their effects. 'Since both are similar in their violative regimes, purposes and effects, there is no escape for First Nations,' the lawsuit reads. 'Our case is not a fight against development,' said Chief Taynar Simpson of Alderville First Nation in a statement. 'It is a fight against dangerous development pushed ahead by factless, thoughtless and reckless decision-making from government ministers behind closed doors with little accountability.' First Nations leaders say the speed at which the bills were passed left them with no time to respond. There was little warning, no meaningful engagement and no opportunity to shape the legislation. 'Rushing headlong into major projects without knowing the costs means the governments are playing a dangerous game with our lands and futures,' said Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin. She pointed to the Ring of Fire region — a sensitive peatland ecosystem critical to carbon storage — as an area at serious risk. She warned that damage from mining and infrastructure could have catastrophic consequences. 'Our way of life, our children's futures and our shared environment, which is the basis of all life, is not a pawn in some political game,' she said. The federal and provincial governments have defended the legislation as a necessary response to economic uncertainty caused by US tariffs. In an email response, a spokesperson from the federal Privy Council Office said the government is reviewing the court challenge, noting it had 'just received the Notice of Application,' and declined to provide further comment. However, the statement reaffirmed the government's commitment to Indigenous rights under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It said Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, includes multiple stages of consultation with Indigenous communities before major projects are approved. Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to meet with First Nations leaders in the coming days, the statement added. In an email, Ontario Premier Doug Ford's office said it has begun consultations with First Nations to shape regulations for special economic zones. 'We will continue to build consensus with First Nations on shared priorities, including legacy infrastructure, all-season roads and resource development that support long-term prosperity,' Ford's office said. But Hildebrand says the harm has already been done. 'This wasn't about consultation — it was about centralizing power and sidelining not just First Nations, but workers and municipalities too,' he said. Sara Mainville, an Anishinaabe lawyer, said the legal challenge is unusual but valid. She says while constitutional challenges typically follow a specific project approval, this case is different: the laws themselves may be enough to violate Indigenous rights. 'The federal government only gave First Nations seven days to respond to Bill C-5,' Mainville said. 'That's not real consultation. It erased years of relationship-building.' Mainville pointed to the Mikisew Cree Supreme Court decision , which confirms that even legislation — not just project decisions — can trigger constitutional challenges if it strips away protections that would normally require consultation. Mainville said this case might follow the same path Alberta and Ontario used to successfully challenge federal impact assessment law. Both Mainville and Hildebrand believe the lawsuit may delay the very projects the government hoped to fast-track — and more challenges are likely. Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the Ford government was warned repeatedly that Bill 5 would end up in court. He said the failure to consult First Nations made legal action inevitable, and even members of the premier's own party raised concerns about the bill's flaws. 'Had the government worked collaboratively from the start, we'd be much further along,' Schreiner said. 'First Nations consent is non-negotiable. Their involvement strengthens both the process and the outcome.' He warned that Ford's actions will delay progress. 'Ford's reckless disregard for Indigenous rights and democratic debate will slow down development because of court challenges and the lack of public support,' he said. Hildebrand said that if the courts strike down the bills, it could restrict the use of fast-track economic zones across Canada and force governments to rethink how major projects are approved. 'If Indigenous nations succeed, it will affirm that economic development can't come at the expense of Indigenous sovereignty, workers' rights or environmental protection,' he said. But he added that real reconciliation must happen through dialogue — not just legal battles. 'Reconciliation doesn't happen in a courtroom — it happens at the nation-to-nation table,' Hildebrand said. 'My hope is that this lawsuit is a wake-up call to both Prime Minister Carney and Premier Ford. But whether they'll answer it is another question.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. 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. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
16-07-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Building an abundant Canada beyond Bill 5
Canadians are living in a time of paradoxical scarcity. GDP has never been higher, but there are not enough houses for every family. Electronics have never been cheaper, but there are not enough doctors for every patient. The stock market shatters record after record, but there are not enough good-paying jobs for every worker. Canadian politics, in turn, has become a politics of scarcity. A politics is so consumed with the need to keep working people afloat, that we have abandoned visions of prosperity. A politics that looks to the past with nostalgia, instead of to the future with hope. To solve the paradox of scarcity, we need to imagine something better; something abundant. We need to dare to be hopeful. Imagine a Canada where your home is heated and cooled by energy so clean it doesn't emit an ounce of CO2, and so cheap, you barely pay attention to your utility bill. Where your fridge is stocked with fresh produce grown in a vertical greenhouse, just a few miles down the road. Where your daily commute and cross-country vacation travel is on fast, reliable, electric public transit. Where you get paid more to work less because of the wonders of artificial intelligence (A.I.) One hundred years ago, this was a utopia. Today, it's eminently possible. Solar panels are now cheaper than fossil fuels. The Netherlands — a country half the size of New Brunswick — is the second-largest exporter of vegetables in the world because of vertical farming. A.I. technology may be as revolutionary as electricity. If we can imagine an abundant Canada, we can build it. But to do that, we need to build more of what we need — public infrastructure, greenhouses, renewable energy and transmission lines. Not more of what corporate profits demand — pipelines, gold mines and ammonium nitrate plants. It also means that we need to use what non-renewable resources we have — critical minerals, aggregates, precious metals — to build what society needs and not what drives corporate returns. If we can imagine an abundant Canada, we can build it. But to do that, we need to build more of what we need — public infrastructure, greenhouses, renewable energy and transmission lines, writes Luke Hildebrand Unfortunately, we are barrelling headlong in the exact wrong direction. Ontario's Conservative government has enacted Bill 5 — Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025, and Canada's Liberal government enacted Bill C5 — The One Canadian Economy Act. Both pieces of legislation fast-track corporate mineral extraction and crude oil projects by gutting environmental protections and trampling labour rights. They give cabinet the power to waive any environmental or labour law, which slows down corporate extraction. The Liberal and Conservative Bill 5s amplify a politics of scarcity. They speak to the fact that we need more infrastructure projects and skilled jobs. But they set out to accomplish this by doing more of what caused this scarcity in the first place: re-allocating societal resources to projects which maximize corporate returns. Instead of advancing the long-term public good, they prioritize short-term private profit. These policies lead in only one direction: more corporate profit, more emissions and fewer sustainable jobs and resources to build a green economy. The Bill 5s effectively shunt the public service to the side, so supposedly uber-efficient companies can get things built. They manifest a worldview that the public service is devoid of the know-how to build projects, and only the private sector can save us. This is a fairytale. Corporations do what is profitable, not what is desirable. The same public services that organized the Canadian economy for two world wars, built the trans-Canada highway and developed the Canadarm which constructed the International Space Station, can coordinate and build the green economy we need. But to do it, we need to re-tool and re-empower the public service. For decades, the public service has been regulated to fail. Consecutive governments have piled more red tape, more regulations and more reporting requirements upon civil servants. Instead of a public service which innovates and builds, we now have a public service that fills out forms. Public servants — some of our best, brightest and most publicly-minded citizens — spend their time pushing paper instead of breaking ground. Canadians are hurting, but the Bill 5s are not the antidote. We need a politics of abundance. We have too little of what we need — good jobs, renewable energy, affordable housing — and too much of what we don't need which lines the pockets of corporations — cheap electronics, appliances designed to break and gas-guzzling cars. Politics is about priorities. We need to use the precious non-renewable resources we have for the projects of the highest societal importance, not the most profitable corporate schemes. But above all, we need to rediscover our belief in ourselves. To believe that we can accomplish more if we plan, build and design projects and the economy for the common good, than if we resign ourselves to what is profitable in the short-term. We need to believe in Canada, in Canadians, and build our common future together.
National Observer
16-07-2025
- Business
- National Observer
More legal battles likely as First Nations launch first lawsuit against new federal, provincial laws
As First Nations launch the first constitutional challenge against federal Bill C-5 and Ontario's Bill 5 — sweeping laws to fast-track mines and major infrastructure — legal experts say the governments' refusal to consult has left Indigenous communities with no other option and more court battles are likely ahead. 'They didn't engage with First Nations, they didn't engage with labour unions, and they simply passed bills that don't work for either group — making a lawsuit almost inevitable,' said Luke Hildebrand, a lawyer not involved with the lawsuits. 'I'd be surprised if this is the only one.' Hildebrand said both governments escalated the situation by refusing to consult the very people most affected. He sees the legal challenge as grounded in three core arguments: that both laws violate the constitutional duty to consult, undermine treaty rights, and conflict with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which protects the right to free, prior and informed consent. 'This is about unilateralism,' Hildebrand said. 'Instead of sitting down and building something together, they [both governments] said, 'We're doing this — you catch up.' That's the wrong approach.' 'No escape for First Nations' The two laws allow governments at both federal and provincial levels to bypass environmental assessments and permit requirements, clearing the way for major development projects with little or no First Nations involvement. Bill 5 allows the provincial cabinet to create 'special economic zones,' where selected projects and developers could be exempt from environmental regulations and planning laws, undermining First Nations consultation. The government has already signalled its intent to designate the Ring of Fire as a 'special economic zone' under the new law. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Ontario Superior Court by nine First Nations, argues both pieces of legislation violate constitutional rights, treaty obligations and Canada's international commitments. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Ontario Superior Court by nine First Nations, argues both pieces of legislation violate constitutional rights, treaty obligations and Canada's international commitments. The filing argues that the two laws build on one another, compounding their effects. 'Since both are similar in their violative regimes, purposes and effects, there is no escape for First Nations,' the lawsuit reads. 'Our case is not a fight against development,' said Chief Taynar Simpson of Alderville First Nation in a statement. 'It is a fight against dangerous development pushed ahead by factless, thoughtless and reckless decision-making from government ministers behind closed doors with little accountability.' First Nations leaders say the speed at which the bills were passed left them with no time to respond. There was little warning, no meaningful engagement and no opportunity to shape the legislation. 'Rushing headlong into major projects without knowing the costs means the governments are playing a dangerous game with our lands and futures,' said Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin. She pointed to the Ring of Fire region — a sensitive peatland ecosystem critical to carbon storage — as an area at serious risk. She warned that damage from mining and infrastructure could have catastrophic consequences. 'Our way of life, our children's futures and our shared environment, which is the basis of all life, is not a pawn in some political game,' she said. Governments defend bills The federal and provincial governments have defended the legislation as a necessary response to economic uncertainty caused by US tariffs. In an email response, a spokesperson from the federal Privy Council Office said the government is reviewing the court challenge, noting it had 'just received the Notice of Application,' and declined to provide further comment. However, the statement reaffirmed the government's commitment to Indigenous rights under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It said Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, includes multiple stages of consultation with Indigenous communities before major projects are approved. Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to meet with First Nations leaders in the coming days, the statement added. In an email, Ontario Premier Doug Ford's office said it has begun consultations with First Nations to shape regulations for special economic zones. 'We will continue to build consensus with First Nations on shared priorities, including legacy infrastructure, all-season roads and resource development that support long-term prosperity,' Ford's office said. But Hildebrand says the harm has already been done. 'This wasn't about consultation — it was about centralizing power and sidelining not just First Nations, but workers and municipalities too,' he said. Sara Mainville, an Anishinaabe lawyer, said the legal challenge is unusual but valid. She says while constitutional challenges typically follow a specific project approval, this case is different: the laws themselves may be enough to violate Indigenous rights. 'The federal government only gave First Nations seven days to respond to Bill C-5,' Mainville said. 'That's not real consultation. It erased years of relationship-building.' Mainville pointed to the Mikisew Cree Supreme Court decision, which confirms that even legislation — not just project decisions — can trigger constitutional challenges if it strips away protections that would normally require consultation. Mainville said this case might follow the same path Alberta and Ontario used to successfully challenge federal impact assessment law. Both Mainville and Hildebrand believe the lawsuit may delay the very projects the government hoped to fast-track — and more challenges are likely. Schreiner: Ford ignored the warnings Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the Ford government was warned repeatedly that Bill 5 would end up in court. He said the failure to consult First Nations made legal action inevitable, and even members of the premier's own party raised concerns about the bill's flaws. 'Had the government worked collaboratively from the start, we'd be much further along,' Schreiner said. 'First Nations consent is non-negotiable. Their involvement strengthens both the process and the outcome.' He warned that Ford's actions will delay progress. 'Ford's reckless disregard for Indigenous rights and democratic debate will slow down development because of court challenges and the lack of public support,' he said. Hildebrand said that if the courts strike down the bills, it could restrict the use of fast-track economic zones across Canada and force governments to rethink how major projects are approved. 'If Indigenous nations succeed, it will affirm that economic development can't come at the expense of Indigenous sovereignty, workers' rights or environmental protection,' he said. But he added that real reconciliation must happen through dialogue — not just legal battles. 'Reconciliation doesn't happen in a courtroom — it happens at the nation-to-nation table,' Hildebrand said. 'My hope is that this lawsuit is a wake-up call to both Prime Minister Carney and Premier Ford. But whether they'll answer it is another question.'
