From the Fraser Institute

By John Ibbitson

According to Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative government would permit First Nations to directly receive tax revenues from resource development on their ancestral territories. Political leaders of all parties should commit to such direct taxation. Because time is short.

Faced with the prospect of tariffs and other hostile American actions, Canada must build new energy infrastructure, mine critical minerals and diversify trade.

First Nations participation is critical to these plans. But too often, proposed infrastructure and resource projects on their territories become mired in lengthy negotiations that benefit only bureaucrats and lawyers. The First Nations Resource Charge (FNRC), a brainchild of the First Nations Tax Commission, could help cut through some of that red tape.

Currently, First Nations, the federal government and businesses negotiate agreements through a variety of mechanisms that establish the financial, environmental and cultural terms for a proposed development. As part of any agreement, Ottawa collects tax revenue from the project, then remits a portion of that revenue to the First Nation. The process is bureaucratic, time-consuming and paternalistic.

Under one version of the proposed charge, the First Nation would directly collect a portion of the federal corporate tax from the developer. The federal government, in turn, would issue the corporation an equivalent tax credit.

In effect, Ottawa would transfer tax points to First Nations.

“The Resource Charge doesn’t mean we won’t say no to bad projects where the costs to us are too high,” said Chief Darren Blaney of B.C’s Homalco First Nation, when the Conservatives first laid out the proposal last year. “It could mean, however, that good projects happen faster. This is what we all want.”

Poilievre referenced the proposed tax transfer in his Feb. 15 rally when he vowed to remove regulatory obstacles to fast-track resource development projects.

“We will incentivize Indigenous leaders to support these projects by letting companies pay a share of their federal corporate taxes to local First Nations,” he declared. “I want the First Nations people of Canada to be the richest people in the world.”

The First Nations Tax Commission first came up with the idea. Poilievre’s federal Conservatives are the first political party to embrace it. But there’s no reason why support for resource charges could not be bipartisan.

Mark Carney, the frontrunning candidate to succeed Justin Trudeau as Liberal Leader and prime minister, has vowed to use “all of the powers of the federal government… to accelerate the major projects that we need.” Supporting the FNRC would further that goal.

That said, resistance has already emerged.

“Most Indigenous leaders would see right through (what Poilievre said) because we’ve been around that corner a few times,” Dawn Martin-Hill, professor emeritus of Indigenous Studies at McMaster University, told the Canadian Press. “Selling your soul to have what other Canadians have, which is access to clean drinking water coming out of your tap, is highly problematic.”

But Prof. Martin-Hill inadvertently makes the case for the FNRC. Municipal governments raise funds by taxing the property of individuals and businesses and using the revenue to, among other things, provide clean drinking water. A First Nation that taxed a business operating on its territory, and used the revenue to provide clean drinking water for people on reserve, would simply be doing what governments are supposed to do.

Existing agreements, though cumbersome, have brought major new revenues to some reserves. The FNRC could increase revenues and First Nations autonomy.

Given the complexities of the tax code, and the limited administrative capacity of some First Nations, some agreements might see the federal government continuing to collect taxes and then remitting the First Nation’s portion to that government. The goal would be to ensure that revenues streams are transparent, predictable and support the greatest possible autonomy for each First Nation.

Any government committed to implementing the FNRC should convene a working group of First Nations leaders, private-sector executives and government officials to work out a framework agreement.

If the Conservatives win the next election, the working group could be part of a task force on tax reform that Poilievre said he intends to establish.

The FNRC would be voluntary. Communities could opt in or opt out. Provincial governments might also participate, sharing a portion of their taxes with First Nations.

If it works, a First Nations Resource Charge could speed the approval of lumber, mining, pipelines and other resource-related projects on the traditional lands of First Nations. It could provide reserves with stable and autonomous funding.

It’s an idea worth trying, regardless of which party forms the next government.

John Ibbitson

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The federal government could save up to $10.7 billion this fiscal year by ending eight ineffective spending programs, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Canada’s federal finances have deteriorated markedly over the last decade, largely due to a rapid run up in spending, deficits and debt,” said Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

“As previous governments have done before, a comprehensive line-by-line review of Ottawa’s spending is required to identify those programs or initiatives that are not fulfilling their purpose, or are not providing good value for tax dollars.”

The study, Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions to Federal Government Spending, highlights eight federal programs where government spending
does not appear to be accomplishing its stated goals, or where government funding is unnecessary:

– $1.5 billion — Regional Development Agencies
– $1.7 billion — Federal support for journalism
– $587.6 million — Federal support for electric vehicle production and purchases
– $340.0 million — Two Billion Trees program
– $3.5 billion — Canada Infrastructure Bank
– $2.4 billion — Strategic Innovation Fund
– $202.3 million — Global Innovation Clusters
– $530.0 million — Green Municipal Fund

Critically, eliminating these eight programs could reduce federal government spending by $10.7 billion in 2024-25: “Though just a starting point, a savings of $10.7 billion would meaningfully improve federal finances and help Ottawa put the country’s finances back on a stable footing,” Fuss said.

This study is part of a larger series of collected essays on federal policy reforms, Federal Blueprint for Prosperity, edited by Fraser Institute Senior Fellows Jock Finlayson and Lawrence Schembri.

The essay series, also released today, details federal policy reforms in health care, environmental and energy regulations, tax policy, immigration, housing, trade, etc. to increase prosperity for Canadians and improve living standards.

To learn more and to read the entire collected essay series, visit www.fraserinstitute.org.

Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions in Federal Government Spending

• A marked deterioration in the state of Canada’s finances, driven largely by rapidly increasing spending, has created a need to review federal government spending to identify programs that are inefficient and/or ineffective. This study highlights eight spending areas that have easily identifiable problems, and should be a starting point for a more comprehensive review.
• The eight spending areas identified are: Regional Development Agencies, Government Supports for Journalism, Federal Support for Electric Vehicle Production and Purchases, the 2 Billion Trees Program, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Strategic Innovation Fund, the Global Innovation Clusters, and the Green Municipal Fund.
• These programs represent instances where government spending does not appear to be accomplishing the stated goals, and where government involvement is questionable.
• For instance, despite research suggesting business subsidies do little to promote widespread economic growth, the seven regional development agencies report vague objectives and results that make it difficult for government officials or Parliamentarians to assess the efficacy of the spending.
• Since the Canada Infrastructure Bank was first established in 2017, it has approved up to $13.2 billion in investments across 76 projects, but only two projects have been completed. These projects represent just $93.2 million (or 0.71 percent) of the total approved investments.
• The federal government could save $10.7 billion in 2024–25 alone if it eliminated spending in these eight areas. This amount would be impactful in improving the state of Canada’s finances, and more savings could be achieved through a comprehensive review of all spending.