Doug Ford apologizes over 'hat in hand' comment about First Nations

TORONTO — Ontario Premier Doug Ford has apologized for saying First Nations should not keep coming "hat in hand" to the government if they say no to mining projects, a comment many First Nation leaders called racist.
Ford delivered that apology in a meeting at Queen's Park to several dozen chiefs who are part of the Anishinabek Nation.
Ford's government recently passed into law Bill 5, which gives cabinet the power to suspend municipal and provincial laws for chosen projects through the creation of so-called special economic zones.
The premier has said the first such zone would be the Ring of Fire region in northern Ontario, which is said to be rich in critical minerals.
The special economic zone law is part of an omnibus bill that the government says is needed to speed up construction of large infrastructure projects, particularly mines.
Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige says she and the 39 First Nations she represents have accepted Ford's apology.
Bill 5 has sparked outrage among First Nations across the province who see the new law as yet another example of a government trampling their rights and ignoring their concerns.
Many First Nations have threatened to blockade roads, railways and mines if the bill is not repealed.
On Wednesday, Ford said he is willing to give First Nations whatever they want for support to develop mines, but that came with a warning.
"When I first came into office, I told Minister (Greg) Rickford, 'Treat them well, give them what they need, whatever they want for them to prosper.' But there's going to be a point that you can't just keep coming hat in hand all the time to the government, you've got to be able to take care of yourselves," Ford said.
"And when you literally have gold mines, nickel mines, every type of critical mineral that the world wants, and you're saying, 'No, no, I don't want to touch that, by the way, give me money' — not going to happen."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 19, 2025.
Liam Casey and Allison Jones, The Canadian Press

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNN

21 minutes ago

• CNN

Supreme Court lets fuel companies sue over California's tough emission standards

The Supreme Court on Friday revived a lawsuit from fuel producers challenging California's strict vehicle emission rules, allowing the companies to fight an on-again, off-again climate policy that President Donald Trump has previously opposed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 7-2 majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' Kavanaugh wrote. While the federal government generally sets vehicle emission standards, the Environmental Protection Agency has at times granted a waiver to California – because of its longstanding air-quality problems – to set tougher standards. Given the state's size, automakers have long hewed to its tighter emissions controls even for cars sold in other states. That waiver was challenged by Diamond Alternative Energy, a subsidiary of Valero Energy Corporation, and several other companies and groups that advocate on behalf of fuel manufacturers. Although the fuel producers challenged the waiver itself, the Supreme Court specifically declined to review that question, denying an appeal in December that raised that issue. Instead, the only issue before the justices was whether the companies and trade associations had standing to sue. A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, concluded that market forces are driving the national push toward electric vehicles far more than California's tough regulations. Given that, the court ruled that the fuel makers could not proceed with the case. One of the factors a party must demonstrate to establish standing is redressability, which essentially means that the court's order can actually fix the problem the plaintiffs have raised. California said that even if courts eliminate the waiver, it wouldn't help the fuel producers because consumer demand was motivating people to buy electric vehicles on their own. During oral arguments both conservative and liberal justices seemed to be skeptical of that position, noting that the EPA had pointed to a reduce reliance on fossil fuels as part of the justification for the waiver. Perhaps sensing a win in their case, the fuel producers advocated for a categorical rule that would have made it easier for companies challenging the federal government to sue over similar decisions in the future. It's not clear how much practical impact the court's decision will have. President Donald Trump seems almost certain to withdraw the waiver, just as he did during his first administration. The waiver was later reinstated by President Joe Biden. The conservative Supreme Court has repeatedly sided against the EPA and environmental groups in past cases. Last year, the court upended a Biden administration effort to reduce smog and air pollution wafting across state lines. In 2023, the justices cut back on the EPA's ability to regulate wetlands under the Clean Water Act.

Hamilton Spectator

24 minutes ago

• Hamilton Spectator

Ford promises mining projects won't proceed without First Nations consultation after backlash

After meeting with 39 Anishinabek Nation chiefs, Ontario Premier Doug Ford reversed his position and pledged that no mining or development projects in First Nations communities — including in the Ring of Fire — will move forward without their consultation. The meeting follows weeks of growing resistance to Bill 5 , with First Nations leaders saying it was passed without meaningful consultation and warning the law violates treaty rights. Some have signalled potential blockades of roads, railways and mining sites if the province proceeds. Ford had warned such actions would not be 'wise,' saying, 'They need to move on or they'll be dealt with appropriately,' but following his meeting, his tone shifted significantly. In a joint press conference on Thursday with First Nations leaders, Ford said the meeting with the chiefs was 'productive' and added that critical mineral development — a key part of Ontario's economic strategy — cannot happen without partnership with Indigenous communities. 'Nothing moves without First Nations consultation — respecting the duty to consult and making sure we work together,' Ford said. 'We're going to get through this, and we're going to have a great collaboration.' First Nations leaders who attended the meeting said the premier's apology was welcome, but did not change their position. 'Our nations remain opposed to Bill 5,' said Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige of the Anishinabek Nation. 'This was not a consultation — it was our first conversation.' Ford also intends to visit First Nations communities to hear their needs directly — whether related to water, long-term care, or infrastructure. 'When First Nations prosper, Ontario prospers,' he said. 'And when Ontario prospers, Canada prospers.' Ford also apologized for remarks he made on Wednesday, when he said First Nations were coming 'hat-in-hand' for money from his government while rejecting resource development. At the heart of the legislation is a provision that 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. Debassige said the meeting focused on broader treaty responsibilities, but not on the legislative substance of the bill. 'Our First Nations have said, and continue to say, that we are not opposed to development; however, it must be done with us as true partners.' She added that the Ontario government has now officially recognized that lands and resources are not theirs to give, exploit or regulate as economic corridors. Laura Bowman, a lawyer with Ecojustice, says the Ford government's approach to consultation under Bill 5 falls far short of constitutional obligations. 'You can't fulfill the duty to consult after removing the tools needed to do it,' she said. 'The duty to consult requires more than just meetings … It requires information-sharing, clear regulatory frameworks and enforceable mechanisms to accommodate First Nations' rights.' Bowman says by exempting certain projects from environmental assessments and planning laws, the province is depriving First Nations of critical information — such as how development may affect local wildlife, water or culturally significant lands — and removing the legal tools needed to negotiate protections or alternatives. 'The government has passed a law without telling communities how it will be used, what projects will be exempt or what safeguards will remain,' she said. 'That's not consultation — that's bypassing the entire process.' Bowman told Canada's National Observer the province needs to change the special economic zone provision of the bill to include clear rules for consent, environmental oversight and real engagement. Sara Mainville, an Anishinaabe lawyer , said many First Nations are exploring legal avenues to challenge the bill. 'Right now, the idea that we should just trust them is a non-starter for First Nations,' she said. 'There's no trust right now.' NDP MPP: 'We are not stakeholders. We are treaty partners.' Sol Mamakwa, the NDP MPP for Kiiwetinoong and the only First Nations member of the Ontario Legislature, said Ford's change in tone is welcome — but not enough. 'The premier seems to have realized that this can't move forward without First Nations,' Mamakwa said. 'But let's be clear — this wasn't consultation. And we're not stakeholders. We're treaty partners.' Mamakwa told Canada's National Observer Bill 5 backs Indigenous communities 'into a corner' and warned that the only recourse left may be legal or direct action. 'If we're not part of the decision-making from the start, it's not reconciliation. It's just politics.' Mainville told Canada's National Observer the government must be transparent about how it plans to fulfill its constitutional duty to consult First Nations and Métis peoples — especially since Bill 5 exempts major projects from key legislation that would normally trigger such consultation. 'Without a clear regulatory path, what's left is political promises,' she said, 'and First Nations have seen how those can shift.' 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 .

Bloomberg

24 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

How the Air Force Designated Its Next Fighter Jet ‘F-47'

The Air Force may have been caught off guard or was just unprepared when President Donald Trump said the next generation fighter jet would be called F-47, documents obtained by FOIA Files suggest. By Save Welcome back to another edition of FOIA Files! This week, I'm going to take you behind the scenes as US Air Force officials, in late March, prepared to discuss the name of the next-generation fighter jet: the F-47. Any guess what—or who—it's named after? If you're not already getting FOIA Files in your inbox, sign up here. I've long been fascinated with the military's naming conventions. More than a decade ago, US Central Command unveiled 'Operation Inherent Resolve,' its campaign to defeat the Islamic State. Right after, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with CENTCOM to find out how the military settled on that name. Two years later, I ended up with an incredible set of documents that detailed the discussions that took place between the Joint Chiefs of Staff, experts and top military brass as they debated three different names for the operation.