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. ...
(Sidebar: now, what if these groups wanted to deal with Trump?)
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.” ...
“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.
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.
Canada is a carcass that is divided by the least worthy to lead it.
One groups can stymie progress while the other can seize power and territory for its own purposes.
The voting public need not lift its collective head.
No comments:
Post a Comment