Connect with us

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

To Truly Help Indigenous Communities Prosper, We Must Put the Economic Horse Before the Political Cart

Published

9 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has surprised a lot of people by placing a real emphasis on his party’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. Not only has he recruited high-profile Indigenous politicians like Ellis Ross and Chief Billy Morin to be candidates, but he’s even addressed the annual meeting of the Assembly of First Nations.

As he thinks about how best to translate these efforts of engagement and outreach into a practical policy agenda, he ought to prioritize economic reconciliation over certain political reforms. This is a balance that the Trudeau government has failed to abide by.

In November 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a statement on the 25th anniversary of the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP)—a massive five-volume report containing 440 recommendations covering most areas of Canada’s Indigenous life.

The prime minister proudly stated his government followed through on one RCAP recommendation: In 2017, it established the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and North Affairs and the Department of Indigenous Services as separate departments.

Yet his government neglected—like others before it—a much more significant recommendation: the creation of economically viable and eventually self-sufficient Indigenous communities.

The result is that most Indigenous governments in Canada—even self-governing modern treaty governments—are no closer to achieving RCAP’s vision of self-sufficient Indigenous governments.

It reflects a consistent problem in the discourse about advancing progress towards the overall goal of reconciliation. Indigenous activists and scholars too often put the politics of self-government before economics.

They advocate for independent political institutions, but without a realistic economic plan, these institutions will not be free of federal economic paternalism.

They fail to put the political cart behind the economic horse.

Over 20 years ago, Dene leader Stephen Kakfwi told an interviewer that First Nations seeking self-government must first consider their community’s financial viability. No government in the world, he said, provided free housing, free education, and free government. Kakfwi wisely observed that this would not create self-reliant individuals, families, and communities.

So, what will ensure a path toward economic viability for Indigenous communities that leave the Indian Act? Long-term data on Indigenous communities provides answers.

The National Indigenous Economic Development Board (NIEDB)’s flagship Aboriginal Economic Benchmarking Report found a recurring positive correlation between greater control over land and resources and higher socio-economic outcomes.

The NIEDB’s research reveals Canada’s modern treaty process provides the greatest Indigenous economic freedom because it provides the most significant control over land and resources. Modern treaties are land claims agreements signed since the 1970s between the Crown and First Nations, in which Indigenous parties abandon reserves and federal oversight. They involve wide-reaching control over lands and resources and often self-governing institutions.

These agreements provide a favourable investment climate and create greater potential for economic development and growth by instilling certainty over rights to land and resources.

Consider two case studies, one in the U.S. and one in Canada, to understand this fully.

First is the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The second is the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA). Both agreements involved Northern Indigenous groups extinguishing rights and title in exchange for cash and full control over lands and resources. Both agreements created arm’s length corporate structures to make sound business and investment decisions for the community.

Through ANCSA, U.S. Congress provided Alaska Natives with a total cash settlement of $962.5 million and title to surface and sub-surface to 40 million acres.

ANCSA turned the Alaska Native communities into for-profit regional and village corporations with legal obligations to generate profits for their shareholders.

Alaska Natives would not allow these entities to become regular corporations. They banned selling and trading shares on the open market. They adopted ancestral restrictions on shareholder eligibility to prevent takeovers.

Alaska Native communities used their revenues to establish a fiscal relationship between all corporations that included resource revenue sharing.

As a result, ANCSA created a significant socio-economic change within the Alaska Native population and shifted from subsistence-based activities toward a more middle-class existence over a few decades.

The corporation’s economic power rested on natural resource wealth (oil and timber). However, wise investment of settlement monies and resource revenues into other businesses and ventures ensures future economic viability.

Now, turning to Canada.

The Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic signed the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) with the federal government. The IFA created two institutions, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) and the Inuvialuit Game Council to oversee wildlife.  The IRC corporate structure encompasses six community corporations.

The Inuvialuit Development Corporation (IDC) was the IRC’s business unit. The IDC invested settlement monies into business ventures within and outside the settlement region, focusing on creating Inuvialuit jobs. The IDC created over 20 subsidiary businesses and joint ventures in seven major business sectors. They invested in construction, manufacturing, environmental services, transportation, tourism and hospitality, real estate, and petroleum servicing.

The Inuvialuit Investment Corporation (IIC) is the IRC’s second subsidiary. IIC protects Inuvialuit funds, earns a five percent long-term return, and manages Inuvialuit corporation investment funds.  Inuvialuit Social Development Fund—the non-income generating part of the IRC—provides Inuvialuit housing, health, welfare, education, and traditional language services.

The IFA created significant socio-economic change within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, paralleling changes within Alaska Native society after the ANCSA. The two communities differ because the promised Mackenzie Valley Pipeline project never materialized for the Inuvialuit while the Trans Alaskan Pipeline did.

One wonders how the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline could have economically improved the condition of the Inuvialuit.

So, can one conclude Indigenous communities cannot achieve economic viability without substantial natural resources? Not necessarily. Indigenous communities without substantial natural resources tend to adopt two other economic development strategies: 1) expanding land holdings, including valuable urban lands; and 2) developing high-value-added, reserve-based businesses and niche industries.

Studies by the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute reveal that many First Nations in Canada have access to their own source revenues. A 2016 Fraser study found at least 100 First Nations at that time had access to their own source revenues that exceeded government transfers.

To replicate such successes, Ottawa must fundamentally re-orient its Indigenous policy.

The federal government—in working with First Nations seeking freedom from the Indian Act and reserve system—must develop realistic economic viability plans before signing agreements. Ottawa must place economic success and viability at the centre of its Indigenous policy approach. New agreements must include for-profit corporate structures. Ottawa must provide Indigenous communities with the fiscal tools they need to succeed, including self-taxation powers and the ability to easily expand their land base for economic purposes.

Finally, Ottawa must recognize that future Indigenous economic viability hinges on the future of Canada’s resource economy. Governments must abandon green transition policies that run counter to future Indigenous viability.

First published here.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Rise in arson coincides with residential school murders claim

Published on

Morinville, Alberta’s 114 year old Jean Baptiste Catholic Church was destroyed by arson in June 2021

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Staggering Number of Churches Burned, More Than Thought

Blacklocks reports that since 2010, when the Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) commissioners began making the claim in interviews and in interim reports that thousands of indigenous children had died at residential schools under suspicious circumstances, more than 400 Christian churches have burned in Canada.

Those allegations were false, and based on a conspiracy theory.

But, the church burnings increased significantly after the May 27, 2021 Kamloops announcement ramped up that claim to an actual accusation by the Tk’emlups Indian band that 215 children had died under sinister circumstances, and were buried by priests in secrecy on the school grounds — “with the forced help of children, as young as six”.

Where did that Tk’emlups story come from? Most importantly, why would anyone believe such obvious nonsense?

The conspiracy theory that launched the entire missing children claim was largely created out of whole cloth by a defrocked United Church minister, named Kevin Annett.

For reasons that defy rational explanation this unusual man made it his life’s work to take the alcoholic ramblings of a few Vancouver east side street residents, polish them up, and present them as fact to the world.

For example, he repeated the story that Queen Elizabeth had kidnapped ten children from the Kamloops school, and those children were never seen again. He also repeated stories about priests clubbing students to death and throwing them into graves dug by other students, dead boys hanging on meathooks in barns, and babies thrown into furnaces by priests and nuns. Respected investigative reporter Terry Glavin, exposed Annett as a crank, and debunked Annett’s wild stories in detail in a 2008 Tyee article. Annett’s stories are so obviously fake that it seems incredible that anyone believed them. 

But they did. In fact some of the people who fell for these stories occupied important positions. One was Gary Merasty, a Member of Parliament. Merasty became so convinced that these claims, as presented in Kevin Annett’s most famous documentary, “Unrepentant” were true, that he was able to convince the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and other important politicians that the newly appointed TRC commissioners must look into Annett’s claims.

The newly appointed TRC commissioners unwisely accepted this new area of study, despite that fact that they had no mandate to do so. When the federal government refused their request for a mandate and funds to search for these phantom “missing children” they ignored the rebuff,  and pursued the subject anyway. 

It appears from their statements on the subject that they completely bought into the Annett conspiracy theory. Commissioner Murray Sinclair gave many interviews about these supposedly “missing children” and hinted frequently that dark forces were at play.

He even alleged — on absolutely no evidence — that so many deaths occurred at residential schools that the federal government conspired to keep the information from the Canadian public after 1920. Then he upped his death number — again with no evidence to support his claim — to over 6,000. All of this alarming rhetoric was heard across Canada, but particularly within increasingly outraged indigenous communities.

Following the Kamloops announcement he took this rhetoric up to alarming new heights — suggesting that “15-25,000, maybe more” deaths, some deliberate — took place at the schools.

For her part, Commissioner Marie Wilson actively promoted the myth that thousands of children came to the schools, and were never seen again. According to Wilson these children simply disappeared. (She did not explain why there was not even one complaint from a parent that their child had gone missing or discuss cause of death.)

The mainstream media, meanwhile, did not question any of these always improbable claims. Quite the contrary, they not only played along with these baseless claims, but actively encouraged them. It did not seem to occur to them that they were actively supporting a conspiracy theory.

So, it should really come as no surprise that on May 27, 2021 when Chief Casimir made her false claim — that the “remains of 215 former students of KIRS” had been found — there was absolutely no pushback or questioning of what should have seemed to Canadians like a bizarre claim. Instead, the media – including the once prestigious New York Times — actively amped up the rhetoric, and added their own claims about “mass graves found.” 

Trudeau and his ministers — especially Marc Miller — made matters immeasurably worse by immediately ordering all federal flags to be flown at half mast, and promising enormous amounts of money to any other indigenous community that wanted to make a similar claim.

The truth is that the TRC’s missing children wild goose chase had thoroughly captivated journalists, and entire indigenous communities, to the extent that the baseless Tk’emlups claim seemed to make sense to them. Justin Trudeau and his ministers were in that gaggle of gullibles. Canada became the laughing stock of the world for dumbly accepting these wild claims. 

All along, there have been a few brave souls who have tried to question a residential school narrative that was increasingly getting out of control.

Remember Senator Lynn Beyak? She was forced out of the senate essentially for telling the truth — namely that many children benefitted from their residential school educations, and that the TRC should have said so. She acknowledged that many children were hurt by their experiences there, but insisted that both the good and the bad should have been told. For that bit of common sense she was relentlessly attacked by a partisan media, expelled from the Conservative caucus, and forced into retirement. 

Most recently, a retired professor emeritus, Rod Clifton, who spoke about his positive experiences working at a northern residential school, and explained why the claims that residential school students were murdered and secretly buried could not possibly be true, had his True North interview removed by a social media company on the grounds that it was “hate speech”.

Never mind that he was recounting his personal experience at the school. Never mind that his wife and son are indigenous. The professor dared to speak against an orthodoxy that tolerates no dissent.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media reporting about residential schools has become increasingly extreme. Fabulists, like Kevin Annett and other opportunists, have built careers for themselves writing exaggerated, or even completely made up stories about residential school “horrors” and “atrocities.” Instead of being accurately portrayed as the flawed attempts at indigenous education that they were, they are now presented as virtual charnel houses, where children were tortured and murdered.

As stated, all of this heated rhetoric went into overdrive on May 27, 2021, when Chief Rosanne Casimir falsely claimed that “the remains of 215 children” had been found on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School (KIRS). In fact, no such remains had been found. The only “evidence” for her claim were stories the people in the community had told themselves, and radar blips (soil anomalies) that an inexperienced radar operator had misinterpreted as possible graves.

There was absolutely no reason why Casimir’s claim should have been taken seriously in 2021. Historical records clearly show that the children who died of disease or accident while attending residential school were all given Christian burials, with their deaths properly recorded. Most were buried by their families in their home communities. In short, there is no historical evidence that even one residential school student died under sinister circumstances, or was buried in secrecy. 

But instead of refuting Casimir’s claim, or asking even the most basic questions, the Trudeau government and its CBC ally simply accepted the claim as true.

And since that time, both the Trudeau government and CBC have doubled down on their refusal to correct the misinformation that they have promoted.

In fact, the Senate is now considering ways to make people like Senator Lynn Beyak and Professor Clifton criminals. They want to criminalize any “residential school denier” who dares to doubt the truth of anything that a residential school “survivor” has alleged.

This would include, for example, anyone who dared to disagree with the two Tk’emlups people who claim that they were the “children as young as six” who in the 1960s were forced to dig graves for priests who had somehow killed their comrades, and were now burying them in secrecy.

Those two people are still alive. Have they been interviewed by the RCMP? We do not know.

Why are their identities not being revealed by Casimir and her associates? Again, we do not know. Why has CBC, or others not interviewed these two people about their sensational claim? Again, we are offered no explanation by CBC. 

This would also mean that anyone disagreeing with any of the claims of “survivors” such as Billie Coombes, or any of Kevin Annett’s wild stories could face criminal prosecution. 

And why did Chief Casimir claim that the “remains of 215 children” had been found, when that was clearly a false claim. Only soil anomalies, which are almost certainly from a 1924 sewage trench were found. Why did it take three years for the T’Kumlups band to confess that no human remains were found?. 

Instead, we are left in limbo on the most sensational crime story in Canadian history. 215 — then thousands — of indigenous children were somehow killed and secretly buried at residential schools all across the country? (Former National Chief RoseAnne Archibald says “tens of thousands”, former TRC Commissioner Murray Sinclair says “15-25,000, maybe more.”) Rather than trying to investigate this story by vigorously questioning people making these sensational claims the RCMP sit on their hands in their offices, CBC steadfastly refuses to ask any questions. And our own government threatens to make criminals of any retired professors or others who dare  to ask questions about it.

Meanwhile, the Tk’emlups  band received (and apparently spent) $8,000,000 from the federal government for making a false claim. 

The TRC accused Canadian priests, nuns, teachers and staff at residential schools of somehow being responsible for the disappearance of thousands of indigenous children who attended the schools. That is a shocking accusation.  But it is even more shocking that the accusation was made with no real evidence to support it. Chief Rosannne Casimir went even further. She accused those people —who are no longer here to defend themselves — of murder and secret burial. Now, the federal government wants to stop Canadians from even talking about these sensational and baseless claims.

The next logical step for them is to stop Canadians from even knowing about it. That’s exactly what they are doing in every school in the country — misinforming every Canadian school child by telling them that the Kamloops claim is true.

And that is probably what Ottawa has in mind, with the new “digital safety officer” contemplated in Trudeau’s truly frightening Online Harms Act. Truth-telling senators and professors will be silenced. Then the truth will be what lies in unmarked graves.

The church burnings are only the outward manifestation of this larger evil. Canadians are being deliberately deceived by their own government, the indigenous leadership, and our own media. The Trudeau Liberals have actively pursued a policy that has both encouraged, and then kept alive a conspiracy theory — namely, that residential school priests, nuns and teachers were responsible for the deaths and secret burials of the children placed in their care. The indigenous leadership has exploited an obviously false claim — pocketing a mountain of tax dollars, while our moribund mainstream media sits in silence.

Lewis Carroll wrote about an upside down world in Alice in Wonderland. He would immediately understand what is happening in Canada today.

We have a sitting government actively promoting a conspiracy theory, while threatening to criminalize anyone who tries to expose it. We have an RCMP that refuses to do its job, and conduct an investigation that would quickly tell Canadians that there are no secretly buried children at Kamloops. We have CBC and most of the mainstream media asking no questions about the biggest news story in Canadian history. And we have countless grifter writers and academics who are building their careers repeating ghost stories, and pretending that they are telling the truth.

And the Tk’emlups band gets $8,000,000 for lying, while a professor and senator get cancelled for telling the truth.

As Jon Kay notes in his recent Quillette essay, an officially sanctioned lie — and that is exactly what the Kamloops claim has become — cannot endure forever.

At some point Canada must come to its senses.

First published in the Western Standard here.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Business

As Ottawa meddles with pension funds, Albertans should consider provincial pension plan

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie 

Who Should Control Canada’s Pension Wealth?

Ottawa wants to compel large pools of Canadian money to be invested in Canada, instead of allowing investment funds to find the best return for Canadian investors.

Last week, another scandalous and potentially corrupt string of federal activities popped up.

This one has deep implications for pension plans in Canada, including the debate about an Alberta Pension Plan. Mark Carney’s double game of politics and profit enhances the drive to patriate Alberta’s pension wealth.

At issue is a report in the media saying that Brookfield may be looking to raise a $50 billion fund with contributions from Canada’s pension funds and an additional $10 billion from the federal government.

This report has drawn significant attention for several reasons. Toronto-based Brookfield is one of the world’s largest alternative investment management companies, claiming about one trillion in assets under management. Their portfolio spans real estate, renewable energy, infrastructure, and private equity, making them a significant player in domestic and international markets. The magnitude of Brookfield’s investments places them at the forefront of global financial movements, giving considerable weight to any fund they propose to establish.

The second reason is that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have voiced their ambitions to boost home-grown investments. One of the government’s strategies includes tapping into Stephen Poloz, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada. Poloz succeeded Mark Carney as the head of the bank. The Liberal government has tasked Poloz with leading a working group to identify “incentives” that would “encourage” institutional investors to keep their capital in Canada.

Moreover, Finance Minister Freeland has suggested implementing new regulations to ensure that more of Canada’s substantial pension fund reserves, which amount to an impressive $1.8 trillion, are allocated toward Canadian ventures. This comes when a staggering 73% of Canadian pension funds are invested abroad.

On its face, a plan to invest more Canadian wealth in Canada might sound reasonable. However, the plan avoids the crucial question of why money experts prefer investing outside Canada. Considering that question, one must consider the Trudeau government’s economic record.

Put differently, Ottawa is looking for ways to compel large pools of Canadian money to be invested in Canada instead of allowing investment funds to find the best return for Canadian investors. Those large cash pools typically belong to hard-working Canadians, such as teachers’ pensions. They would be forced to earn less for their pension money.

Forcing such large sums to remain in Canada would mask the continuous slump in productivity in the Canadian economy.

Given current economic policies and layers of taxation that do not exist elsewhere (such as the unpopular carbon taxes), Canadian companies are less competitive. Forcing pools of money to stay in Canada rather than seeking the best return for their clients offers an artificial boost that makes Ottawa policies seem less harmful.

It is, therefore, a politically motivated move. That level of government intervention historically always results in disastrous consequences. Politics directing traffic for the movement of capital rarely achieves good outcomes. The real issue is sagging productivity.

But that is only half the problem. The other significant issue is ethics.

Prime Minister Trudeau has recently named Mark Carney as his special economic advisor. Carney is the Chair of Asset Management and Head of Transition Investing at Brookfield.  The Brookfield website shows Carney is responsible for “developing products for investors.”  Carney is also the most mentioned name among people likely to succeed Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

In short, the man who closely advises the government of Canada on how to compel gargantuan pools of money to be invested in Canada conveniently oversees the development of the “product” for the private Toronto firm, through which that money would be forced to be invested in Canada. Furthermore, the same firm reportedly seeks (read lobbying) from the federal government an infusion of $10 billion for the new fund.

As a Liberal and a potential party leader, given Justin Trudeau’s fortunes, Mark Carney could become prime minister in the immediate future. This means that Carney would benefit from creating new rules forcing investment money to stay in the country in two ways: As a leading man at Brookfield, Carney and the firm stand to make tens of millions from the policy. Second, as a carbon tax enthusiast, once squarely in political office, Carney would benefit from masking the ill, underproductive effects of the radical green agenda and carbon taxes he supports.

When Alberta progressives oppose the desire of many Albertans to patriate Alberta pension funds to the province, they cite concerns that the province might use the funds for political purposes, undermining the maximum return. This is not an outlandish concern, in some respects, given the history of the Alberta Heritage Fund.

However, it is not an exclusive danger inherent to the Alberta government. It does not warrant the presupposition that the federal government is a better steward of Alberta’s pension wealth, as demonstrated by the developments above. All things being equal, and unless human nature is outlawed by federal statute, the risks are the same.

But if something goes wrong with Albertans’ pension wealth, would they rather deal with people in Alberta than people in Ottawa, half a continent away Raising Alberta voices in Ottawa when Ottawa has been bent on doing the opposite of what is good for Albertans has never produced good results or reversed the nefarious effects on Albertans.

Ottawa politicians will do what is best for Laurentians every single time. The history of the Dominion, from the national policy to Crow rates and the National Energy Policy to Carbon Taxes, shows Ottawa policies always favour vote-rich Laurentia first and foremost.

Mark Carney’s product development for Brookfield shows, at worst, that Alberta’s pension wealth is just as much as risk with federal policies driven by political motivations. This one would be doubly bad because it is meant to serve and benefit Carney and his Bay Street friends as much as it is designed to help his future colleagues in Ottawa. And on both counts, Carney would benefit as a financier and politician.

Albertans should take their money and run.

Marco Navarro-Genie is Vice President Research with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of COVID-19: The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2020).

Continue Reading

Trending

X