Will Prime Minister Mark Carney’s national infrastructure dreams be kiboshed by Canada’s First Nations? That’s the question hanging over Ottawa this week — and if Carney’s not careful, the answer could well be yes.
At Monday’s First Ministers’ meeting in Saskatoon, the PM rolled out his big plan: slash approval times for “national interest” infrastructure projects from five to two years. He got buy-in from the premiers, hoping to stimulate growth, counter U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, and pull Canada together as one economy. Despite a shortage of specifics, there finally appears to be a willingness to get things done and reconcile the interests of East and West. Quebec Premier François Legault said he’s open to a pipeline, Ontario Premier Doug Ford was positively giddy about energy corridors, and even Alberta’s Danielle Smith was cautiously optimistic.
Indigenous leaders, however, are not impressed. National Chief Cindy Woodhouse of the Assembly of First Nations warned that the plan risks
and took umbrage at being given
to review draft proposals. Regional Chief Scott McLeod of the Anishinabek Nation
, suggesting that Canada could see a new indigenous protest movement along the lines of
. That movement arose in 2012 in response to Bill C-45, legislation advanced by then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper that sought to streamline the project approvals process, and spawned protests and rail travel disruptions across the country.
Now, Carney could face the same opposition, made worse by the actions of his own party and other progressive politicians over the past ten years. Their version of reconciliation did little to advance Indigenous people economically, but much to reinforce the idea that non-Indigenous people are guests in their own country.
From the denigration of Canadian historical figures like John A. Macdonald, Henry Dundas and Egerton Ryerson, to the performative and divisive repetition of land acknowledgements, to the spreading of
falsehoods about the existence of mass graves
at residential schools, Canada was depicted as the country that could do no right by its First Nations. Little wonder, then, that many Indigenous people don’t see themselves as part of Canada and have little interest in pulling together for the “national interest.”
There is no question that a succession of Canadian governments implemented policies that damaged generations of First Nations people, including the Indian Act, the residential school system, the
, and the
. But guilt will not help fix current problems facing First Nations. Nor will opposition to development. It will actually hurt, by weakening Canada economically and reducing its capacity to fund real change in indigenous communities, such as ending all boil water advisories and building adequate housing and schools.
It may also open a door to Trump’s dream of a 51st state, by weakening the federation and opening another fault line for Washington to exploit, in addition to Western alienation. That’s not just bad news for Ottawa, but for Indigenous communities, who could arguably fare worse under a U.S. model of tribal sovereignty than under the nation-to-nation approach of the Canadian federation.
At the same time, Canada can’t be “decolonized” like countries in Africa or Asia, where colonial rulers physically and legally withdrew. Here, more newcomers arrive every year, and no one is going anywhere. Most Canadians alive today had no connection to historical abuses yet are lumped together with long-dead politicians accused of genocide.
We can’t afford to continue “othering” each other. At some point, the country either pulls together, or it risks coming apart. Carney needs to reach out to Indigenous leaders, but be clear that Canada must advance economically to be less dependent on a volatile and increasingly hostile United States. If national projects are permanently stalled by unresolved identity politics, it’s not just infrastructure dreams that will be lost — Canada could be, as well.
Postmedia News
Tasha Kheiriddin is Postmedia’s national politics columnist.
