Indigenous leaders say they’re an afterthought in Ottawa’s new sovereign wealth fund
Indigenous leaders are calling for meaningful consultation and inclusion in Ottawa's new $25-billion Canada Strong Fund, a sovereign wealth initiative focused on domestic infrastructure and resource projects. They argue that First Nations have historically been excluded from major economic decisions and must be full partners moving forward. Leaders stress the need for free, prior, and informed consent, especially for projects impacting Indigenous rights and climate commitments.
- ▪The Canada Strong Fund has an initial budget of $25-billion over three years and will focus on nation-building projects like port infrastructure and natural resources.
- ▪Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak emphasized that First Nations must be consulted before any investments are made.
- ▪Grand Chief Stewart Phillip stated that projects proceeding without free, prior, and informed consent of First Nations will undermine Indigenous title and rights.
- ▪Carole Monture of Indigenous Climate Action said climate investments must align with Indigenous rights and support Indigenous-led solutions.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Open this photo in gallery:Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak speaks at the First Nations Major Projects Coalition conference in Toronto on Thursday.Sammy Kogan/The Canadian PressShareSave for laterPlease log in to bookmark this story.Log InCreate Free AccountIndigenous leaders across Canada say more clarity is needed on how major projects financed under the new Canada Strong Fund will affect and respect Indigenous rights.The federal government has to engage with First Nations on the country’s new sovereign wealth fund, which was introduced on Monday, before any investments are made, the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said in a statement.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Globe and Mail.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Globe and Mail
