Indigenous
The Quiet Remaking of Canada

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
B.C. residents sat up and took notice of this shocking change when the Eby government announced that it planned to embark on a plan of “co-governance” with its indigenous population – a plan that would have given 5% of B.C.’s population a veto over every aspect of public land useage in the province.
Most Canadians are unaware that a campaign to remake Canada is underway. The conception of that most Canadians have of their country – that it is, one nation, in which citizens of different ethnic, religious and racial groups are all treated equally, under one set of laws – is being fundamentally transformed. B.C. residents sat up and took notice of this shocking change when the Eby government announced that it planned to embark on a plan of “co-governance” with its indigenous population – a plan that would have given 5% of B.C.’s population a veto over every aspect of public land useage in the province.
An emphatic “No” from an overwhelming majority of citizens put an end to this scheme – at least temporarily.
But the Eby government continues to move forward with its plan to transform the province into a multitude of semi-autonomous indigenous nations to accommodate that 5% of the indigenous B.C. population. It is proceeding with a plan that recognizes the Haida nation’s aboriginal title to the entire area of the traditional Haida territory. It would basically make Haida Gwaii into what would in essence be a semi-independent nation, ruled by Haida tribal law.
Many of us are familiar with that exceptionally beautiful part of Canada, where the Haida have lived for thousands of years. Misty Haida Gwaii, formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands, is a magical place. Until now, it has been a part of Canada. How would this Haida agreement change that?
Non-Haida residents of Haida Gwaii are probably asking themselves that question. Although they are being told that their fee simple ownership and other rights will not be affected by the Haida agreement, is that true? If one must be Haida by DNA to fully participate in decisions, how can it be argued that non Haida residents have rights equal to a Haida?
For example, the Supreme Court ruled in the Vuntut Gwitchin case that, based on the allegedly greater need of maintaining so-called Indigenous cultural “difference”, individual Indigenous Canadians can now be deprived by their band governments of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on their home reserves and self-governing territories. Simply put, the law of the collective- namely tribal law- will apply.
So, tribal law takes precedence over Canadian law. And will a non-Haida resident be deprived of rights that he would enjoy anywhere else in Canada? For that matter, will an indigenous, but non-Haida, resident have equal rights to a Haida, if he can’t vote in Haida elections? Will this plan dilute, or even eliminate, fee simple ownership for some.
Or this: Does a provincial government even have the power to make such an agreement in the first place? After all Section 91(24) of our Constitution Act gives the federal government responsibility for status Indians.
These are but a few of the many questions that has B.C. residents asking many questions. In fact, the proposed Haida agreement will likely be front and centre in the upcoming provincial election, and could usher in decades of litigation and uncertainty.
But the Eby government has made it clear that the Haida agreement will be the template for others that will follow. Considering the fact that there are at least 200 separate indigenous communities in B.C. this would be a very ambitious undertaking – especially in light of the fact that most of those 200 or so communities are tiny, and almost all are dependent on taxpayers for their continued existence.
Eby is responding to the Supreme Court’s astounding decision that aboriginal title existed, unless it had been surrendered by treaty. The court relied on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to come to this decision. This was after what was the longest trial in the history of B.C. wherein the trial judge in that case, Chief Justice Allan McEachern, had written a masterful decision finding that aboriginal title did not exist as claimed by the indigenous parties to the action. The Supreme Court went on in subsequent cases to transform Canadian indigenous law and expand section 35 in a manner that emphasized the need for “reconciliation”, the primacy of the collective over the rights of the individual for indigenous people, and the need for indigenous “nation to nation” separateness, instead of assimilation. All of this was done by judicial fiat, with absolutely no input from the Canadian public. Senior Ontario lawyer, Peter Best, describes this radical transformation of Canada in his epic work, “There Is No Difference”.
The unfortunate decision by both the federal government and the B.C. government to adopt UNDRIP, (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples) and B.C.’s provincial version, DRIPA, (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) further muddied the waters.
What British Columbia will look like in 10 years is anyone’s guess, if the hundreds of indigenous communities in B.C. are successful in obtaining agreements similar to what the Haida negotiate. It also seems very likely that indigenous communities in other parts of Canada will see what the B.C. communities achieved, and want the same additional autonomy and land rights for themselves. In the treaty areas of Canada, namely mainly the prairies and parts of the north, the treaties, in theory, settle the issue. But, if the B.C. Indians succeed in obtaining superior entitlements, the treaty Indians will almost certainly agitate for “modern treaties” that include what the Haida received.
And the citizens of eastern Canada, who believe that their indigenous claims have been permanently settled long ago, are probably in for a rude shock. In “A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy” the late Gordon Gibson quotes a former senior bureaucrat in Indian Affairs who insisted on remaining anonymous. That source says bluntly that all of Canada will be at play if Canada does indeed become the “patchwork of tiny Bantustans” that journalist and visionary Jon Kay predicted in 2001, if we keep going down this “nation to nation” path.
In fact, it is quite possible that every one of the 600 or so indigenous communities in Canada will end up with at least as much “separateness” as the Haida obtained. Canada will be fundamentally transformed into a crazy quilt of mainly dependent reserves governed by tribal law. Surely the Fathers of Confederation didn’t work so hard to end up with such a backward, fractured Canada?
As we see this fundamental transformation taking place in B.C., and then heading eastward, I suspect that Canadians who do not want such a future for their country will start to ask themselves how we arrived at this point. How can a nation be fundamentally transformed with no input from the citizens? Don’t the Canadian people have to be consulted, as we watch our country being transformed by judicial fiat and tribal law? Doesn’t a constitutional process have to be invoked, as happened in the failed Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accords?
Most Canadians believe that history has not been kind to indigenous people, and that indigenous have legitimate claims that need to be addressed. But most Canadians also believe that Canada is one country, in which everyone should be equal.
Canadians also firmly believe that Canada should not be divided into racial enclaves, where different sets of laws are applied to different racial or ethnic groups. In fact, most Canadians would probably support the sub-title of the late Gordon Gibson book cited above: “Respect the Collective – Support the Individual”. Canadians want to see indigenous people succeed, and they support indigenous people in their fierce determination to hold on to their indigenous identity and culture. But they want indigenous people to succeed as Canadians – not in a Canada that has been carved up into racial ghettos, like slices of a cheap pizza.
The Haida agreement is the first highly visible slice – a symbol of a semi-independent “nation” within Canada, that will be governed by rights of the collective tribal law – as opposed to the rights of the individual. That takes us back thousands of years. Before the Haida agreement inspires hundreds of other such racial mini-states within Canada, should Canadians not have a say in what our country is becoming?
Or will we continue to let unelected judges, and faceless bureaucrats, determine our fate?
Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Energy
Indigenous-led Projects Hold Key To Canada’s Energy Future

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Indigenous leaders call for policy reforms and Indigenous equity ownership to unlock Canada’s energy potential
A surprising twist in Canada’s pipeline debate emerged on Jan. 21, 2025, when Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called for a revival of the Northern Gateway pipeline.
Unexpectedly, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, voiced support, warning that if Canada doesn’t act, Donald Trump will. Yet just a day later, Phillip abruptly retracted his statement, raising fresh questions about external influence and the future of Indigenous participation in energy development.
Northern Gateway, a pipeline once proposed to carry Alberta oilsands crude to the B.C. coast for export to Asia, was cancelled in 2016 after years of environmental opposition and legal challenges. Its demise became a symbol of Canada’s broader struggles to balance resource development, environmental concerns and Indigenous rights. Now, amid rising global energy demand and growing Indigenous interest in ownership stakes, calls to revive the project are resurfacing, with political, legal and economic implications.
Adding to the intrigue, Phillip has long been a vocal critic of major resource projects, including Northern Gateway, making his initial endorsement all the more surprising.
Some observers, like Calvin Helin, a member of the Tsimshian Nation and principal at INDsight Advisers, see deeper forces at work. A lawyer specializing in commercial and Indigenous law and a best-selling author, Helin believes the incident highlights how environmental activists are shaping the conversation.
“Environmental groups have infiltrated some Indigenous organizations,” Helin said in an interview. “They managed to support a government that championed their agendas, particularly Alberta-focused objectives like the coastal pipeline ban and changes to the regulatory approval system. In this era of Trump, all they’ve managed to do is weaken Canada’s position.”
Nonetheless, Helin emphasized that the energy industry has learned the importance of genuine engagement with Indigenous interests. He pointed out that Indigenous leaders increasingly support responsible natural resource development. Inclusion and recognition from the outset, Helin argued, are essential for energy projects in 2025 and beyond.
After the cancellation of Northern Gateway, Indigenous leader Dale Swampy, who helped establish the Northern Gateway Aboriginal Equity Partners, formed the National Coalition of Chiefs, a pro-development alliance of First Nation chiefs advocating for oil and gas development in their communities.
Swampy continues to champion the idea of a pipeline dedicated solely to moving bitumen to the coast, arguing that Canada has been “putting all its eggs in one basket” by selling almost exclusively to the United States while competitors, including the U.S. itself, have entered global markets.
According to the Canadian Energy Centre, global demand for oil and gas in emerging and developing economies is expected to remain robust through 2050. With the added pressures of U.S. tariffs, conversations about Canadian pipelines to tidewater have gained urgency. Swampy advocates for a policy reset and the revival of Northern Gateway, this time powered by Indigenous equity investment.
“First, we’ve got to get rid of the oil tanker ban (Bill C-48),” Swampy said. “We need more fluid regulatory processes so we can build projects on a reasonable timeline, without costing us billions more waiting for approvals—like TMX (Trans Mountain Expansion Project). And you’ve got to get the proponents back to the table. Last time, 31 of the 40 communities were already signed on. I believe we can get them on board again.”
Swampy continues to work with industry partners to develop an Indigenous-led bitumen pipeline to the West Coast. “We can get this project built if it’s led by First Nations.”
He also noted that other Indigenous leaders are increasingly recognizing the benefits of collaborating on resource development, whether in mining or B.C. LNG projects, which he says enjoy widespread First Nations support.
Discussions with Helin, Swampy and other Indigenous leaders resulted in the following policy recommendations for 2025 and beyond.
- Repeal Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act. It blocks not only pipelines but also mines, refineries, export plants and other energy infrastructure in which First Nations want to invest. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled it unconstitutional on Oct. 13, 2023.
- Cut taxes to offset U.S. tariffs. Reducing taxes on investment and energy projects can neutralize tariff impacts and attract new investment. Eliminate the carbon tax, which Indigenous leaders argue has placed Canada at a strategic disadvantage globally.
- Repeal Bill C-59, the so-called greenwashing bill. According to Stephen Buffalo, president and chief executive officer of the Indian Resource Council of Canada, this legislation has silenced many voices within the Indigenous energy community.
- Approve LNG plants and related infrastructure. Canada currently sells gas exports almost exclusively to the United States, but there’s a strong business case for expanding to Asian and European markets. In a recent Canadian Energy Ventures webcast, it was revealed that LNG sold to Europe fetches up to 16 times the price Canada receives from U.S. sales. First Nations are already successfully involved in Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG in B.C.
- Cut regulatory delays. Prolonged approval timelines erode investor confidence. Streamlining processes can help projects proceed in reasonable timeframes.
Finally, clarify reconciliation guidelines. Clearly define what constitutes meaningful consultation. Industry must treat Indigenous peoples as true partners, advancing economic reconciliation through equity partnerships.
A social media stir over Northern Gateway has reignited debate over Indigenous ownership in Canada’s energy future. While some leaders waver, others like Helin and Swampy make a compelling case: Indigenous-led projects are crucial for Canada’s economic and energy security. Their message is clear — repeal restrictive policies, accelerate project approvals and embrace Indigenous equity. If Ottawa removes the roadblocks, Canada can unlock its full energy potential.
Maureen McCall is an energy business analyst and Fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy. She writes on energy issues for EnergyNow and the BOE Report. She has 20 years of experience as a business analyst for national and international energy companies in Canada.
Canadian Energy Centre
First Nations in Manitoba pushing for LNG exports from Hudson’s Bay

From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
NeeStaNan project would use port location selected by Canadian government more than 100 years ago
Building a port on Hudson’s Bay to ship natural resources harvested across Western Canada to the world has been a long-held dream of Canadian politicians, starting with Sir Wilfred Laurier.
Since 1931, a small deepwater port has operated at Churchill, Manitoba, primarily shipping grain but more recently expanding handling of critical minerals and fertilizers.
A group of 11 First Nations in Manitoba plans to build an additional industrial terminal nearby at Port Nelson to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe and potash to Brazil.
Robyn Lore, a director with project backer NeeStaNan, which is Cree for “all of us,” said it makes more sense to ship Canadian LNG to Europe from an Arctic port than it does to send Canadian natural gas all the way to the U.S. Gulf Coast to be exported as LNG to the same place – which is happening today.
“There is absolutely a business case for sending our LNG directly to European markets rather than sending our natural gas down to the Gulf Coast and having them liquefy it and ship it over,” Lore said. “It’s in Canada’s interest to do this.”
Over 100 years ago, the Port Nelson location at the south end of Hudson’s Bay on the Nelson River was the first to be considered for a Canadian Arctic port.
In 1912, a Port Nelson project was selected to proceed rather than a port at Churchill, about 280 kilometres north.
The Port Nelson site was earmarked by federal government engineers as the most cost-effective location for a terminal to ship Canadian resources overseas.
Construction started but was marred by building challenges due to violent winter storms that beached supply ships and badly damaged the dredge used to deepen the waters around the port.
By 1918, the project was abandoned.
In the 1920s, Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King chose Churchill as the new location for a port on Hudson’s Bay, where it was built and continues to operate today between late July and early November when it is not iced in.
Lore sees using modern technology at Port Nelson including dredging or extending a floating wharf to overcome the challenges that stopped the project from proceeding more than a century ago.
He said natural gas could travel to the terminal through a 1,000-kilometre spur line off TC Energy’s Canadian Mainline by using Manitoba Hydro’s existing right of way.
A second option proposes shipping natural gas through Pembina Pipeline’s Alliance system to Regina, where it could be liquefied and shipped by rail to Port Nelson.
The original rail bed to Port Nelson still exists, and about 150 kilometers of track would have to be laid to reach the proposed site, Lore said.
“Our vision is for a rail line that can handle 150-car trains with loads of 120 tonnes per car running at 80 kilometers per hour. That’s doable on the line from Amery to Port Nelson. It makes the economics work for shippers,” said Lore.
Port Nelson could be used around the year because saltwater ice is easier to break through using modern icebreakers than freshwater ice that impacts Churchill between November and May.
Lore, however, is quick to quell the notion NeeStaNan is competing against the existing port.
“We want our project to proceed on its merits and collaborate with other ports for greater efficiency,” he said.
“It makes sense for Manitoba, and it makes sense for Canada, even more than it did for Laurier more than 100 years ago.”
-
Automotive2 days ago
Hyundai moves SUV production to U.S.
-
Entertainment2 days ago
Pedro Pascal launches attack on J.K. Rowling over biological sex views
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
As PM Poilievre would cancel summer holidays for MP’s so Ottawa can finally get back to work
-
armed forces23 hours ago
Yet another struggling soldier says Veteran Affairs Canada offered him euthanasia
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre Campaigning To Build A Canadian Economic Fortress
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
The Cost of Underselling Canadian Oil and Gas to the USA
-
Automotive2 days ago
Canadians’ Interest in Buying an EV Falls for Third Year in a Row
-
conflict22 hours ago
Why are the globalists so opposed to Trump’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine?