A Federal Court of Appeal ruling on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion highlights the need for Canada to legally entrench the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), advocates say.
Regional Chief for British Columbia Terry Teegee was among those who voiced disappointment at the court decision, which found the Canadian government met its duty to consult First Nations on the pipeline project.
“Today we see another court decision that is another reminder that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and free, prior and informed consent are the necessary way forward,” he said.
“Obviously, the process is still flawed. We can replace conflict and court cases with progress, prosperity and stability.”
“The Assembly of First Nations will continue to push to ensure all policies, legislation and practices are consistent with First Nations inherent and Treaty rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and for federal legislation to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” a statement read.
The Trudeau government has long promised to enshrine the UN declaration into Canadian law, but it remains controversial in Canada because of the stipulation of “free, prior and informed consent.”
Minister of Justice David Lametti has been tasked with introducing the legislation by Trudeau, spokesperson Allison Storey said in an email statement to Global News.
“In the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada’s mandate letter, the Prime Minister tasks the Honourable David Lametti with introducing co-developed legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) by the end of 2020,” the statement read.
“By taking this step in collaboration and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, we will create greater certainty, clarity and prosperity for all Canadians. We are committed to developing an approach that will be inclusive, efficient and focused on realizing the full potential of the UN Declaration to advance reconciliation in Canada.”
Tuesday’s unanimous court decision on the pipeline cleared a major legal hurdle for construction to continue on the expansion from Alberta’s oilsands to B.C.’s coast — a move long contested by several Indigenous communities in B.C. The Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Squamish Nation, Coldwater Indian Band and a coalition of small First Nations in the Fraser Valley were part of the legal challenge and argued that the government’s consultation with them was inadequate.
Story continues below advertisement
The communities say they oppose the expansion because of the risk of oil spills and increased emissions.
Lori Campbell, director of the Waterloo Indigenous Student Centre at St. Paul’s University College, told Global News that a key element of UNDRIP is to ensure Indigenous communities have “free, prior and informed consent” in matters that impact them — for example, pipeline projects that run through their territory.
“Free, prior and informed consent doesn’t mean that the pipeline can’t go ahead. It means that it can’t go ahead through that particular territory,” Campbell said.
“Indigenous Peoples in certain territories are saying, ‘Not in my backyard, not on our territory.’”
However, Campbell noted that clause is already present in other parts of Canada’s legal system so it’s not guaranteed to change anything.
UNDRIP reaffirms what the Supreme Court of Canada already ruled in 1997 — that governments must consult Indigenous groups prior to making decisions that might impact their lives.
The declaration is also in line with Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, which states: “The existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
Section 35 also says: “For greater certainty, in subsection (1) ‘treaty rights’ includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.”
Story continues below advertisement
0:53 Trudeau: TMX approval process ‘needs to be done right’
Trudeau: TMX approval process ‘needs to be done right’
While she supports Canada entrenching UNDRIP into law, Campbell noted it may not guarantee the change Indigenous leaders hope.
“I also wonder if the Supreme Court has already confirmed this, that in this territory, the hereditary chiefs in this community have the right to sovereignty over their land and territory. I don’t know, would UNDRIP being implemented at this point actually be any different?” she said.
Campbell says it comes down to whether the government will follow through on the Supreme Court ruling, the Canadian constitution and UNDRIP, which is already international law.
“They’re all saying this is what we need to do,” she said.
Despite criticism from Indigenous communities over the court ruling, Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan said in a statement on Tuesday that the pipeline expansion will “help advance reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples” through economic opportunities.
“The government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Indigenous Peoples and it knows that consultations on major projects have a critical role to play in building that renewed relationship,” the statement read. “Canada will continue to engage in Indigenous communities at each step of the project in the months and years to come.”
What happens next?
Construction on the federally owned project has begun at terminals and along the right-of-way in Alberta, but about 88 per cent of the detailed route in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley has yet to be approved.
Story continues below advertisement
Indigenous communities and leaders said the issue of the pipeline, despite the federal court ruling, was not over.
1:00 First Nations not happy with Federal Court’s decision to continue with TMX
First Nations not happy with Federal Court’s decision to continue with TMX
The four Indigenous groups — Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Squamish Nation, Coldwater Indian Band and the coalition of small First Nations in the Fraser Valley — are still deciding whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but said they would pursue all available options to stop the project.
KITCHENER, Ont. – The man who stabbed three people in a University of Waterloo gender studies class last year says he is remorseful and wants to apologize to anyone who was affected by his violent act.
Geovanny Villalba-Aleman addressed the court at the conclusion of his sentencing hearing today, saying his intention was not to promote violence and that he doesn’t know “what’s going on” in his head.
The 25-year-old has pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, one count of assault with a weapon and one count of assault causing bodily harm in the June 2023 attack that left a professor and two students with stab wounds.
Federal prosecutors have argued the offences amount to terrorism in this case because they were motivated by ideology and meant to intimidate the public, while provincial prosecutors argued that the crimes were hate-motivated.
The provincial Crown cited Villalba-Aleman’s hateful remarks about feminists and members of the LGBTQ+ community in a manifesto written before the attack among the aggravating factors the court must consider in the sentencing.
But the defence is arguing that Villalba-Aleman’s motivation was his belief that “left-wing thinking” stifled his freedom of speech, and that the court should consider his statements to police a more accurate reflection of his thoughts than what he wrote.
Defence lawyers have rejected the notion that the attack was driven by ideology and also said the federal Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that terrorist activity took place in this case.
As the weeklong sentencing hearing drew to a close Friday afternoon, Ontario Court Justice Frances Brennan asked Villalba-Aleman if there was anything he wanted to say to the court.
He replied that he wanted to apologize “to anybody who might be affected by this” and said he believes that violence is “not good” for any reason.
“Even though I committed a violent attack, I still … don’t know what happened,” he said. “Right now, I don’t know what’s going with my head. I still feel remorseful for what happened.”
Villalba-Aleman said that some people may not believe his apology since “the act is done,” but he asked the judge to consider his remorse.
“If there is a way to reconsider the situation because I admit that violence is not good … my intention was not to promote more violence here,” he said.
Villalba-Aleman, an international student who came to Canada from Ecuador in 2018, initially faced 11 charges in the case.
Court has heard that he will eventually be subject to a deportation order.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 25, 2024.
OTTAWA – The federal government is giving Canada Post the ability to store and transport prohibited firearms in new regulations that bring the retail gun buyback program one step closer to beginning.
An order-in-council dated Oct. 16 allows for prohibited assault-style firearms to be removed from safes at firearms retailers, transported and ultimately destroyed.
More than 1,500 models of firearms were banned in May 2020 after a mass shooting in Nova Scotia left 23 people dead, including the gunman.
Since then, retailers that have the weapons have been required to securely keep them in their inventory.
“Once the program launches, the updated shipping regulations will make the affected firearms and devices mailable matter and will temporarily permit businesses taking part in the program to ship firearms or devices via post,” said Gabriel Brunet, spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, in a statement on Friday.
LeBlanc previously said that the long-promised gun buyback would begin this fall.
First, the government will buy banned firearms from retail stores and have them destroyed. An individual buyback program for people who own prohibited weapons begins next year.
In a statement, Canada Post said it is prepared to take part in the first phase of the buyback program, because retailers are already familiar with the strict rules required to safely mail firearms.
The Crown corporation maintains it will not take part in the second phase of the program, involving individual firearm owners, because of concerns with employee safety.
Gun control advocacy group PolySeSouvient, which represents survivors and families of the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, said it’s good news to see progress made on the buyback but it has doubts about the program’s overall effectiveness.
“Unless the list of prohibited assault weapons is completed, current owners of weapons prohibited in 2020 can simply take the money from the buyback to purchase new ones,” massacre survivor Nathalie Provost said in a statement.
The group is calling on LeBlanc to expand the ban to more than 450 firearms it says should have been included in the May 2020 ban, and similar weapons that have come on the market since then.
“These new models that entered the market remain legal, available and mostly non-restricted from what we can see,” Provost said.
The Criminal Code amnesty for owning prohibited assault-style firearms has been extended twice so far, and is now set to expire on Oct. 30, 2025. The regulations allowing these firearms to be mailed expires on the same date.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 25, 2024
Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version stated that the gun buyback program applied to restricted firearms.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The most far-reaching of Ohio’s laws restricting abortion was struck down on Thursday by a county judge who said last year’s voter-approved amendment enshrining reproductive rights renders the so-called heartbeat law unconstitutional.
Enforcement of the 2019 law banning most abortions once cardiac activity is detected — as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant — had been paused pending the challenge before Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Christian Jenkins.
Jenkins said that when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned power over the abortion issue to the states, “Ohio’s Attorney General evidently didn’t get the memo.”
The judge said Republican Attorney General Dave Yost’s request to leave all but one provision of the law untouched even after a majority of Ohio’s voters passed an amendment protecting the right to pre-viability abortion “dispels the myth” that the high court’s decision simply gives states power over the issue.
“Despite the adoption of a broad and strongly worded constitutional amendment, in this case and others, the State of Ohio seeks not to uphold the constituional protection of abortion rights, but to diminish and limit it,” he wrote. Jenkins said his ruling upholds voters’ wishes.
Yost’s office said it was reviewing the order and would decide within 30 days whether to appeal.
“This is a very long, complicated decision covering many issues, many of which are issues of first impression,” the office said in a statement, meaning they have not been decided by a court before.
Jenkins’ decision comes in a lawsuit that the ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the law firm WilmerHale brought on behalf of a group of abortion providers in the state, the second round of litigation filed to challenge the law.
“This is a momentous ruling, showing the power of Ohio’s new Reproductive Freedom Amendment in practice,” Jessie Hill, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Ohio, said in a statement. “The six-week ban is blatantly unconstitutional and has no place in our law.”
An initial lawsuit was brought in federal court in 2019, where the law was first blocked under the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. It was briefly allowed to go into effect in 2022 after Roe was overturned. Opponents of the law then turned to the state court system, where the ban was again put on hold. They argued the law violated protections in Ohio’s constitution that guarantee individual liberty and equal protection, and that it was unconstitutionally vague.
After his predecessor twice vetoed the measure citing Roe, Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed the 2019 law once appointments by then-President Donald Trump had solidified the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and raised hopes among abortion opponents.
The Ohio litigation has unfolded alongside a national upheaval over abortion rights that followed the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, including constitutional amendment pushes in Ohio and a host of other states. Issue 1, the amendment Ohio voters passed last year, gives every person in Ohio “the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.”
Yost acknowledged in court filings this spring that the amendment rendered the Ohio ban unconstitutional, but sought to maintain other elements of the 2019 law, including certain notification and reporting provisions.
Jenkins said retaining those elements would have meant subjecting doctors who perform abortions to felony criminal charges, fines, license suspensions or revocations, and civil claims of wrongful death — and requiring patients to make two in-person visits to their provider, wait 24 hours for the procedure and have their abortion recorded and reported.
