Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Prime Minister Mark Carney “revised” his first major Parliamentary bill as Canada’s leader on August 8, by mandating that industrial projects deemed fit for speedy approval “must” serve the interests of indigenous peoples.This unilateral reinvention repudiates the legal text of Bill C-5, passed into law on June 26, which only states that indigenous interests “may” or “can” be considered.“The core to the Act, core to the objective, these projects must advance the interests of indigenous peoples and they must contribute collectively to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objective with respect to climate change,” Carney said before closed-door meetings with leaders of Métis associations from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario. .Most Canadians want proof before accepting unmarked indigenous graves at Kamloops residential school.Hardly an eyebrow was raised at this extra-legal rejigging of the bill or about the conspicuous absence of Manitoba’s Métis at these meetings.The Manitoba Métis boycott was announced on August 6 by its leaders, their reason being the inclusion of the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO).“We will not be attending that summit,” Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) President David Chartrand said at a news conference inside the Château Laurier Hotel in Ottawa on August 6..Flanked by his cabinet, Chartrand told reporters he considers the MNO a “fraudulent” organization with which Manitoba leaders can’t share the same table.“To the prime minister, the door is open. If you want to come and sit down with my cabinet in a government-to-government relationship, we will meet,” he said, overlooking that the MMF is not a government.“But if you want to insult us, then we’ll see each other in a different political realm in the future. So, unfortunately, it’s a sad day for us. Truly.”.HANNAFORD: Crunch coming between government control and your rights.In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the existence of a rights-bearing Métis community in and around Sault Ste. Marie, ON. At issue, however, are six “new historic” Métis communities that the MNO and the Ontario government jointly recognized in 2017. Indian Bands in Ontario contest the legitimacy of the communities, and the MMF, the federally recognized government for the Red River Métis, withdrew from the Métis National Council in 2021 over the dispute.Other Métis groups also expressed concern about not having been to the meeting in Ottawa to discuss the federal government’s recently passed law to fast-track major national projects..Not unexpectedly, Carney ignored these issues when he addressed the media on August 8. Instead, he said, “This law requires meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples both in the process of determining which projects are in the national interest, and in the development of the conditions for each project.” However, he did not explain what such “meaningful consultation” would consist of.Bill C-5, An Act to Enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, grants cabinet authority to select for speedy approval any industrial project it deems “in the national interest.” The Act states the cabinet “may consider any factor (it) considers relevant … including the extent to which the project can advance the interests of indigenous peoples.” That criterion is not mandatory.“As we build the new Canada, we are going to build it in partnership with indigenous peoples,” Carney told Métis leaders. “That’s why we’re here.”.RUBENSTEIN: Moral relativism haunts the CBC’s coverage of the war in Gaza.Parliament passed the bill under a cabinet-imposed deadline of July 1. The Senate sponsor of the bill, Senator Hassan Yussuff (ON), described it as an act of faith.“It’s always a reminder to all of us as people who care about this great country to have some trust in one another,” said Yussuff. “I come to work every day having trust in my fellow senators.”“I think we are all well-intentioned people wanting to do the right thing,” said Senator Yussuff. “Yes, there is a degree of trust in this bill.”.While it’s an oversimplification to say Canadians don’t trust the government, there’s a growing trend of declining trust in Canadian public institutions, including the government. Surveys indicate that while trust in the police and municipal public service is relatively high, confidence in the federal government and parliament is significantly lower. A 2022 study by Statistics Canada indicated that while 62% of Canadians reported a good or great deal of confidence in the police, only 32% felt the same about the Federal Parliament. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc told the Senate on June 17 that the terms of the bill would be defined once it was signed into law. “It is very difficult to define in specific terms,” he said. “Everyone has their own theory.”.EDITORIAL: CBC's gaslighting defence of ‘two-tier’ justice for migrants.If this sounds like the bill is long on intent but short on detail, its contents prove it.“Before recommending that an order be made … the Minister must consult … with indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the project to which the order relates.” What such “consultation” would entail is left to one’s imagination, perhaps providing yet another reason not to trust the federal government..Making matters worse, many Indian bands and indigenous organizations have expressed anger over the lack of meaningful consultation during the bill’s development, feeling betrayed by the process. This anger is misplaced, however, because the courts have already ruled that aboriginal people do not have a right of prior consultation on parliamentary bills.Yes, the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, through Section 35, recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights. This recognition has led to the development of the “duty to consult and accommodate,” which requires the government to consult with indigenous peoples when considering actions that could negatively affect their rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified that this duty to consult primarily applies to the executive branch of government (e.g., the Cabinet and government departments) when implementing or administering laws. It generally does not extend to the legislative branch (Parliament) during the process of creating these laws.Indigenous critics also fear that the bill could lead to the further marginalization of Aboriginal communities by prioritizing projects without adequately considering their rights and perspectives. Concerns also exist that the legislation could lead to the disregard of treaty rights and the infringement of indigenous sovereignty..EDITORIAL: Scrap the useless Chinese EV tariff, which hurts Canada’s canola, pork, seafood industries.However, consultation and negotiation, a process that regularly takes years to complete, would negate the purpose of the bill “to urgently advance projects throughout Canada, including in the North, that are in the national interest.”Asked by senators whether any particular group held a veto over projects, LeBlanc replied, “Veto is the aggressive word you can use. Vito’s is also a restaurant on Mountain Road in Moncton.”Such a cavalier reply to a critically important question is one more example of why so many Canadians have lost faith in our national leaders.Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
