Sir John A. Macdonald statue at Queen's Park visible to public for 1st time in 5 years
The public can once again see the statue of John A. Macdonald outside Queens Park.
The statue had been surrounded by wooden hoarding for the past five years. It was first covered up in 2020 after demonstrators threw pink paint on it amid wave of protests across the country that took aim at Macdonald as Canadians grappled with the history of residential schools.
Workers took down the hoarding Wednesday after a legislative committee voted to remove the covering last month.
"As Speaker, I recognize the sensitivities surrounding the history of Canada's first Prime Minister and I welcome all Ontarians to express their views — peacefully," Speaker Donna Skelly said in a statement about the removal of the hoarding.
"Violence and acts of vandalism will not be tolerated, and the Legislative Protective Service will actively monitor the statue and grounds."
Children's shoes that were placed at the base of the statue after the discovery of possible unmarked graves on the grounds of former residential schools were "carefully and respectfully" removed and stored prior to the removal of the hoarding, the statement says.
The question of what to do with the monument of Canada's first Prime Minister has been controversial.
Macdonald is considered an architect of the country's residential school system that took Indigenous children from their families in an effort to assimilate them.
WATCH | The complicated legacy of Canada's first PM:
The NDP's Sol Mamakwa is a residential school survivor, and the only First Nation member at Queen's Park. He has said the statue is a source of pain.
"It's not just a statue," he said last month after the decision to uncover the statue was made.
"It's a statue of oppression. It is a statue of colonialism. It is a statue of Indian residential schools."
Skelly says she hopes a committee will approve a monument recognizing those who attended residential schools and said Mamakwa would be welcome to join that committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Canada drops tech tax to restart US trade talks
Canada has scrapped a tax on big US technology firms, just hours before it was due to come into force, to allow trade talks between the two countries to restart. On Friday, US President Donald Trump called off negotiations over a trade deal, describing the tax as a "blatant attack", and threatened higher tariffs on imports from Canada. In response, Canada has said it is removing the tax, which should have come into effect on Monday. The digital services tax (DST) would have meant US tech giants including Amazon, Meta, Google and Apple, facing a 3% charge on Canadian revenue above $20m. Canada's finance minister François-Philippe Champagne issued a statement saying the tax would be rescinded. "The DST was announced in 2020 to address the fact that many large technology companies operating in Canada may not otherwise pay tax on revenues generated from Canadians," it said. "Canada's preference has always been a multilateral agreement related to digital services taxation," the statement added. Many countries, including the UK, are changing how they tax large multinational technology firms, which have millions of customers and advertisers around the world, but high corporation tax bills due to the way their businesses are structured. It was estimated that Canada's tax would cost the tech giants more than $2bn a year in total. Trump, who has forged a close relationship with tech company owners in his second term in office, has pushed back against such taxes. He described Canada's policy as "egregious" adding "economically we have such power over Canada". Three quarters of Canada's goods exports go to the US, worth more than $400bn a year, while Canada takes just 17% of US production. Canada's climbdown comes after a rollercoaster few months for US-Canada relations. Shortly after taking office Trump threatened to impose sweeping new tariffs and even to annex the US's northern neighbour. The antagonism helped propel Canada's Liberal Party, led by former central banker, Mark Carney, back into power. Since then there appeared to be a rapprochement, with Canada and the US saying they aimed to agree new trade terms by 21 July. UK-US tariff deal begins but still no news on steel 'We have all the cards' - Trump says he is ending Canada trade talks What tariffs has Trump announced and why?
Indianapolis Star
3 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana's cigarette tax will triple on July 1. Businesses say Hoosiers will spend money elsewhere
When Indiana lawmakers earlier this year approved an increase in the state's tobacco taxes to help plug a $2 billion budget shortfall, they did so at the objection of hundreds of businesses across the state. The 200% tax bump, which goes into effect on July 1, worried convenience store owners who warned state lawmakers in April that increases could hurt the state and local economies. 'Raising the cigarette tax will not reduce smoking but will drive consumers across state lines to purchase cigarettes at lower prices, which negatively impacts sales of responsible small Indiana business owners,' store owners wrote in a letter provided to IndyStar. Advocacy groups, such as the American Cancer Society and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, have long supported an increase in the tobacco tax to encourage Hoosiers to avoid or quit smoking and bring in additional state revenue. The measure been proposed by the Indiana House in the past, but efforts have fallen short in the Senate. Not in 2025. Indiana lawmakers and Gov. Mike Braun signed off on raising the cigarette tax by $2 a pack, which takes the state's cigarette taxes from around $1 to $3 a pack. Taxes on other tobacco products, such as cigars and e-cigarettes, will also rise. Legislative leaders, when unveiling the tax increase in the final days of the session, said they expect it to raise roughly $800 million over the two-year budget cycle, helping fund the state's Medicaid costs. "Along with revenue comes a really pretty good public policy that was going to help persuade people to either not start smoking or stop smoking at the same time," Indiana Sen. Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, said in April. But some convenience store owners say the tax increases could lead to illegal distribution of tobacco products and drive customers out of state, which would hurt state revenues and local businesses. A 200% tax increase is also not reflective of the current economy, Scott Hackleman, the chief operating officer of Herdrich Petroleum, wrote in a late-April letter to Indiana lawmakers. Herdrich operates 20 QuickPix convenience stores, including four in Richmond at Indiana's border with Ohio. 'While the intent behind this increase may be well-meaning,' Hackleman wrote. 'It places a disproportionate financial burden on a small group of adult consumers, many of whom are already facing significant cost-of-living increases across the board.' When Indiana's tax on cigarettes rises from just under $1 a pack to nearly $3 a pack on July 1, the Hoosier State will have the 12th highest state cigarette tax in the country and a higher rate than any of the states that touch its borders. The taxes per pack of cigarettes for Indiana and its neighboring states starting July 1 are as follows, according to advocacy groups like the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids: Joe Lackey, the president of the Indiana Grocery and Convenience Store Association, said he believes the tax jump puts Indiana in a place to actually lose revenue as Hoosiers look to neighboring states to buy tobacco products. Residents from states like Illinois, who saw significantly higher cigarette taxes before Indiana's increase, may no longer see an incentive to drive to Indiana to purchase cigarettes. What's in Indiana's state budget?: Here are the biggest winners and losers 'We were the cheapest state and the surrounding states were much higher,' Lackey said. 'We were selling a lot of tobacco out of Indiana, and that meant that we were collecting a lot of taxes for the state of Indiana that was not coming from Hoosiers.' Lackey said the state may see a revenue bump in June as Hoosiers make their last purchases at the current tax rate. But he worries that businesses may close or cut jobs in the months once the tax bump takes effect. 'We anticipate this is going to be a very devastating tax,' he said. Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Brittany Carloni at Follow her on Twitter/X @CarloniBrittany.
Scientific American
3 hours ago
- Scientific American
about the Legal Battles around Standing Rock
Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. In 2016 a group of activists who called themselves water protectors—led by members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe—set up camp on the windswept plains of North Dakota. Their protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline quickly grew into one of the largest Indigenous-led movements in recent U.S. history. At the protest's height more than 10,000 people gathered to stand in defense of water, land and tribal sovereignty. The response? Militarized police, surveillance drones, and a private security firm with war-zone experience—and eventually a sprawling lawsuit that arguably aimed to rewrite the history of Standing Rock. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. My guest today is Alleen Brown. She's a freelance journalist and a senior editor at Drilled, a self-described 'true-crime podcast about climate change.' The latest season of Drilled, which premiered on June 3, digs into the shocking legal battle the pipeline's builder, Energy Transfer, launched against Greenpeace. Thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today. Alleen Brown: Yeah, thank you for having me. Feltman: So for folks who don't remember or maybe weren't paying as much attention as they should've, remind us what the Dakota Access Pipeline is. Brown: Yeah, so the Dakota Access Pipeline is an oil pipeline that travels from kind of the western part of North Dakota to Illinois. And in 2016 and 2017 it was being completed and sort of inspired a big Indigenous-led movement of people who were attempting to stop it. Feltman: Yeah, and what were their motivations for stopping the pipeline? Brown: There were a few motivations. I think the biggest one and most famous one was that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was worried about water contamination ... Feltman: Mm. Brown: The pipeline travels underneath the Missouri River, right next to the reservation and not far from where the tribal nation has a water-intake system, so they were really worried about an oil leak. Feltman: Right, and it had actually—the route had been moved from what was initially planned to [in part] avoid that same concern in a predominantly white area; am I remembering that correctly? Brown: Yeah, there were talks early on—one of the routes that was being considered was across the Missouri River upstream from the Bismarck-Mandan community's water-intake system. And so, you know, that's a more urban area that is predominantly white. Feltman: And again, you know, reminding listeners—it has been a very eventful few years [laughs], to be fair—what exactly happened at Standing Rock? You know, this became a big sort of cultural and ecological moment. Brown: Yeah, so to make a long story short, what became known as the Standing Rock movement started with a small group of grassroots people from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Eventually the tribe itself got really involved, and what started as kind of a small encampment opposed to the pipeline turned into these sprawling encampments, a sprawling occupation that, at times, had upwards of 10,000 people—people were kind of constantly coming and going. And all of these people were there to stand behind the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and stop the construction of the pipeline under the Missouri River. In response—you know, there was a very heavy-handed response from law enforcement and the pipeline company. So, I think, when a lot of people think of Standing Rock, they think of private security dogs kind of lunging at pipeline opponents who are trying to stop bulldozers. Feltman: Mm. Brown: They think of law enforcement spraying water hoses in below-freezing temperatures at people who are protesting. You know, they might think of tear gas. So it was very, very intense for the people who were there. Feltman: So in the new season of Drilled you're digging into a lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer, the company that built the pipeline, and, you know, folks might be surprised to hear that they sued at all, given that the pipeline was built. It's sort of the opposite direction [laughs] you might expect a lawsuit to be flowing, but then the lawsuit's claims are also very surprising. Could you summarize those for us? Brown: Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I can share what I found in my reporting. I remember when this lawsuit, or another version of this lawsuit, was first filed in 2017—at that time I was working at The Intercept and had been digging into these documents from this private security company, TigerSwan. So I was talking to all kinds of people who had been at Standing Rock and looking at these reports from the private security company. I really didn't hear anything about Greenpeace and this big lawsuit, which started out as a RICO lawsuit—which is [one that regards] the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, designed to go after the Mafia—turned into a conspiracy lawsuit. The lawsuit had Greenpeace at the heart of everything. Feltman: Mm. Brown: The lawsuit was eventually overturned in federal court and refiled in state court in North Dakota, but the damages that they were originally demanding were around $300 million. Ultimately, in that state court case, [the jury] awarded Energy Transfer over $666 million. Feltman: Wow. Could you tell us a little bit more about, you know, what it means to be accusing someone of conspiracy and sort of what Energy Transfer's actually trying to say happened here? Brown: Yeah, so, you know, for there to be conspiracy you essentially have to have multiple parties kind of conspiring together to do crimes ... Feltman: Mm. Brown: And this lawsuit just morphed a number of times since it was originally filed. Again, eventually it was turned into a conspiracy suit, and the players that they were alleging were involved kind of changed over time. So by the time it became a conspiracy suit they were saying two individual Indigenous water protectors—which is what a lot of the pipeline opponents referred to themselves as well as this encampment that called itself Red Warrior Society that was maybe a little bit more kind of into doing direct actions that blocked bulldozers, for example, and Greenpeace were all conspiring together. Feltman: Hmm, and so you had already been investigating the Dakota Access Pipeline for years when this lawsuit came about. In your mind, you know, what are the sort of major points that you had uncovered in your reporting that are, are really conflicting with this narrative from Energy Transfer? Brown: I would say one thing about Standing Rock is that everyone that you talk to who was involved will say, 'I'm gonna tell you the real story of Standing Rock.' So it's like people have very diverse ideas about exactly what happened, and I think that speaks to how many people were there and how many people were kind of approaching this question of pipeline construction from different angles. There were people coming in from all over the world, and some people were really, you know, aligned with what the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe wanted; some people had their own agendas. But people had, I think, overall really good intentions. So there was a lot of diversity, a lot of chaos—you know, the National Guard was called in, and there were kind of federal-level law enforcement resources being used and a lot of pressure from private security, which was working with law enforcement that really amplified the tension in those spaces. There were these lights beaming down on the camp. There were people infiltrating the camps and there were drones flying around. I think, for me, understanding the way, I think, militarism and the war on terror were brought home and into this Indigenous-led resistance space is something that I've really focused on. Feltman: Right. So, you know, based on your reporting this Energy Transfer lawsuit had raised a lot of questions, and was even dismissed initially and had to be sort of repackaged. But then it sounds like they sort of got everything they wanted out of the lawsuit. What do you think are the larger implications of that? Brown: One thing is that a lot of people think of this lawsuit as a SLAPP suit, which stands for 'strategic lawsuit against public participation.' So there are a number of groups that have called this lawsuit a SLAPP. Um, there's this coalition called Protect the Protest Coalition, which includes legal advocacy and movement organizations, like the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Union of Concerned Scientists. [ Editor's Note: Greenpeace is also a member of the Protect the Protest Coalition. ] Another group that has called this a SLAPP is the Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace Trial Monitoring Committee, which came together to keep an eye on the trial. That group is wide-ranging, but it's mostly lawyers—so human rights attorneys, there's a First Amendment attorney, law professors, nonprofit leaders, attorneys who have represented Indigenous and environmental defenders. Um, Greenpeace, of course, considers this a SLAPP suit. So, the idea is that, you know, it's not necessarily meant to win on the merits; it's also meant to scare people and send a message and drain a lot of different people of time and resources. This jury did deliver the verdict that the pipeline company wanted, and now the pipeline company can point to that verdict, even if it's overturned, and say, 'Well, a jury in North Dakota said XYZ is true about the Standing Rock movement.' Feltman: Mm. Brown: And, you know, a big part of this case, beyond the conspiracy, were these defamation claims. And, you know, Energy Transfer was saying, 'It's defamatory to say that the pipeline company deliberately destroyed sacred sites,' which was a huge issue in this whole pipeline fight ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Brown: 'It's defamation to say that private security used violence against nonviolent pipeline opponents.' The third one is that 'it's defamation to say that the pipeline crossed tribal land.' Feltman: Mm. Brown: So those things—two of those things are things that come directly from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe stands behind. So now Energy Transfer has this record that they can lean on ... Feltman: Mm. Brown: And we don't know exactly how they'll use that. They've really hit Greenpeace hard, and I think [this] opens the door against the environmental movement at large. Feltman: Yeah, well, thank you so much for coming on to chat about the show with us today. I'm definitely looking forward to hearing more of this story over the course of the season. Brown: Thank you so much for having me. Feltman: And just a small update, listeners: Greenpeace has stated its intention to appeal the jury's verdict. That's all for today's episode. You can start listening to the latest season of Drilled wherever you get your podcasts. For more of Alleen's work, check out her newsletter, Eco Files. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news. For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!
