Latest news with #UNDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples
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
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.'
The Star
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Star
Borneo.TV launch sparks backlash from Sabah creatives and indigenous groups
KOTA KINABALU: was launched to bring Sabah's stories to the world – but instead of celebration, it has sparked backlash from local creatives and indigenous groups who say they were excluded from the process meant to represent them. Unveiled on July 1, the online streaming platform is marketed as a digital showcase under the banner "Sabah in the eyes of the world." However, critics argue the initiative risks cultural insensitivity, legal ambiguity and the sidelining of local voices. Several Sabah-based creatives claimed they were blindsided by the launch, asserting there was no formal engagement with local filmmakers, content producers or cultural custodians before the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Sabah Maju Jaya (SMJ) secretariat and Kuala Lumpur-based IB Media Consultant Work Sdn Bhd. Sabah Film and Visual Association president Chester Pang described the move as disappointing, calling for greater transparency on policies, content curation and communication channels with the local industry. "This kind of exclusion weakens trust and sidelines the very people who've helped build Sabah's creative ecosystem," he said. Safva, representing Sabah in the Malaysian Film Association Coalition, expressed readiness to collaborate but expects clearer policies and meaningful inclusion moving forward. Beyond the creative sector, cultural advocates say the platform may dilute Sabah's indigenous narratives instead of elevating them. Historian and MA63 advocate Remy Majangkim questioned the implications of outsourcing a cultural platform to a non-local entity. "Are these small steps to neutralise our cultural diversity and remove our sovereign identity through new narratives?" he asked, warning that cultural storytelling must come from within the communities it aims to portray. Indigenous rights activist Atama Katama said the move failed to uphold international cultural standards, including the Unesco Convention on Cultural Diversity and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Sabahan national artist Yee I-Lan echoed those views in a public Facebook post saying that it risks erasing local agency in favour of top-down branding. Legal concerns have also surfaced. Safva legal advisor Yong Yit Jee said it remains unclear whether IB Media holds the necessary broadcasting licences from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission or complies with the Personal Data Protection Act 2010. "Any income generated from Sabah's content must benefit Sabah's economy. Without transparency in contracts or clear IP protection, Sabah creators could be left vulnerable to exploitation or loss of control over their work," he said. Yong also stressed the need for free, prior and informed consent when indigenous cultural elements are involved, warning of possible legal consequences if this is ignored. Safva and other stakeholders are now calling for the public disclosure of the SMJ-IB Media agreement and for an open dialogue involving groups like Jatiks and other cultural bodies to ensure the platform respects the legal, cultural and economic rights of Sabah's creative community. Previously, SMJ Secretariat chief coordinator Datuk Rosmadi Datu Sulai explained that the government remains open to engaging with local stakeholders. But many in Sabah's creative and indigenous circles remain unconvinced, saying meaningful inclusion requires more than after-the-fact invitations. While many support the idea of sharing Sabah's stories with the world, they say the platform's success depends on how genuinely it involves the communities it claims to represent.
Euronews
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Ecuador approves controversial law on protected areas
Ecuador's government passed a new law governing protected areas, triggering strong criticism from indigenous leaders, legal experts and environmental advocates who argue it violates national and international protection. The piece of legislation, passed on Thursday by a vote of 80-23 in the 151-seat chamber, permit private entities – including foreign companies – to participate in the management of conservation zones. Government officials claim the measure will bolster oversight of protect lands, enhance park security, support ecotourism and curb illegal mining, while maintaining a ban on extractive activities. However, critics warn the law could facilitate land grabs, weaken constitutional safeguards and lead to greater environmental degradation. They also accused lawmakers of pushing the bill through without consulting affected communities. 'This is constitutional vandalism,' said Oscar Soria, co-CEO of the international policy group The Common Initiative. 'Ecuador has shattered its international credibility and invited isolation from the global community.' Opponents also say the law violates at least 15 international agreements – including the ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 'The legislators of Ecuador reopened a historic wound,' said Justino Piaguaje, leader of the Siekopai peoples and head of the NASIEPAI Indigenous organization. Piaguaje slammed the law as 'dangerous and unconstitutional" and said it not only reinforces systemic violations of Indigenous rights but 'actively perpetuates a legacy of dispossession and violence that stretches back to the colonial era.' "It threatens our survival and desecrates the dignity of the Ecuadorian people,' he said. Valentina Centeno, president of the parliament's Economic Development Commission, insisted the law does not open the door to extractive industries and that here is a provision 'that explicitly prohibits' them. Still, Indigenous leaders say the process lacked transparency and bypassed meaningful dialogue with their communities. Legal challenges are already underway, with Indigenous organizations vowing to take the case to Ecuador's Constitutional Court and international forums.
Global News
04-06-2025
- General
- Global News
Minister says his comments on Indigenous consultation ‘eroded' trust
Justice Minister Sean Fraser apologized Wednesday for comments he made about the government's duty to consult with Indigenous leaders on major projects. Fraser said Tuesday that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires consultation but does not amount to 'a blanket veto power' over projects. Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Fraser said Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak called him Tuesday night to express her frustration with his comments, and he apologized. 'Despite innocent intentions, I think my comments actually caused hurt and potentially eroded a very precarious trust that has been built up over many years to respect the rights of Indigenous people in this country,' Fraser said. 'I've come into a position that I think is essential in the process of respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and I wanted to make sure that just not Chief Woodhouse but Indigenous leaders, Indigenous Peoples across this country know that my desire and the government of Canada's desire is to move forward on a relationship.' Story continues below advertisement 3:02 Carney calls for energy partnerships to make Canada a global superpower Woodhouse Nepinak said it's 'disheartening' when politicians make such comments and the government has made a series of missteps since her Thursday meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'When the prime minister's trying to start a relationship with First Nations in a good way, it's disheartening when comments are made later, twice now actually this week,' she said, citing Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Rebecca Alty saying that work to fill the First Nations infrastructure gap won't qualify for Ottawa's push to fast-track what it calls 'nation-building' projects. 'And then (Fraser's) comment came yesterday and I was taken aback. He called to apologize. He needs to apologize to First Nations for those comments.' The UN declaration, which Canada adopted, requires free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples on matters affecting their rights, lands, territories and resources. Story continues below advertisement Fraser said talking about the declaration in terms of veto power makes an assumption that the government and Indigenous people are working against each another. 'In my experience engaging with Indigenous leaders, their perspective is one of wanting to have their rights respected and wanting to share in the benefits of development,' Fraser said. 'So, as we go forward, whether it's on the major projects initiative we'll be working on or any issue that touches on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, I want to be absolutely clear that our desire is to work in partnership and at every stage of the process, from project selection to conditions that may be imposed. We're going to engage, properly consult and work in partnership to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples.'
