Indigenous
Canada’s Indigenous Model is Not Sustainable

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
The stated purpose of the extra indigenous spending that has always been there, and the virtual explosion on indigenous spending since 2015 is meant to fix that problem. But these massive expenditures have now reached the point where they risk destabilizing the country.
Canada’s parliamentary budget officer, Yves Giroux has spoken out about the alarming rise in Canada’s contingent liabilities related to indigenous claims. Todays estimated 76 billion dollars is many times the 15 billion dollars it was when the Liberals took power in 2015.
This is one part only of the massive increase in spending on indigenous matters that has taken place since then.
Federal spending per indigenous person has always been much higher than spending per non-indigenous person. The higher level of spending has been justified because most indigenous people do much worse on virtually every health and social indicator than the mainstream population. Their health is poorer, and their lives are shorter.
This disparity was generally known as Canada’s “Indian problem”. That term is no longer fashionable, and the extra spending is now said to be necessary to achieve “reconciliation”. Regardless of the terms, what is clear is that since Confederation there has always existed a large rural and urban indigenous underclass that does poorly compared to the mainstream. The stated purpose of the extra indigenous spending that has always been there, and the virtual explosion on indigenous spending since 2015 is meant to fix that problem. But these massive expenditures have now reached the point where they risk destabilizing the country.
Perhaps it’s time for Canadians to ask if the “nation to nation” reconciliation plan that spending is based on is working. Is it fixing the problem?
A recent CBC report proves that it is not. Instead, the problems are getting worse.
The CBC investigated an indigenous community at St. Theresa Point where 24 people sometime share one house. Almost all of the houses in the community are crumbling and need to be replaced. Families struggle to achieve basic hygiene. Living conditions resemble what one would expect to find in a third world community, and not in wealthy, modern Canada.
St. Theresa Point is typical of hundreds of other Indian remote reserves. Most are almost totally dependent on the federal government for their survival. There is virtually no real employment. The poorest people in those communities are directly dependent on welfare checks, but even the chief, councillors and other employees receive their paycheques from the transfer payments sent by Ottawa. In reality almost everyone in the community is on welfare of some type.
Unlike in other rural communities, people on poor reserves tend not to move when economic opportunities decline. In small-town Canada, the rules are simple: If the towns or farms can’t supply enough jobs, one moves to the city where the jobs and careers are. But on remote reserves, most people stay put, even if there are no jobs or careers there for them. And most of those who do move to the city do not do well. A lack of education, poor job skills, and lack of motivation usually consign reserve residents who move to the mean parts of town where many end up in gangs, crime and prostitution. The result is that the people who stay in uneconomic remote reserves become more and more dependent. Low education levels sink even further. And succeeding generations become ever less likely to be able to provide for themselves and their families.
To make matters much worse, addiction problems are endemic. At one time, alcohol was the drug of choice. Now, amphetamines, fentanyl, and prescription drugs have been added to the list, with the family violence, sexual abuse, crime, teenage pregnancy and fetal alcohol births that inevitably follow from chronic drug use.
And reserve populations are growing. Although status Indians living on reserves currently comprise only about 1% of the total population, they are the country’s fastest growing demographic. The cost of operating these communities is crippling now, but in a few years, it will be completely unsustainable. Pretending that these desperately poor reserves are sovereign “nations” that will somehow magically become prosperous and self-supporting is a cruel joke on the young people hopelessly trapped on them. The prospect of hundreds of dependent reserves teeming with, unemployed, and largely unemployable young people, with massive social problems, is a frightening dystopia – hundreds of Gaza strips. But it is where we are headed. To make things even worse, the government-promoted false genocide and “missing children” narratives have made many of these people very angry.
Although there is no treaty right, or any other right to free housing on a reserve the reality is that if the government did not provide housing for the reserve residents, they would be unable to provide housing for themselves. The strange result is that Canadian taxpayers – many of whom will never be able to afford to buy a house themselves – pay through their tax dollars for houses for the rapidly growing reserve population. These houses deteriorate quickly, because they are considered “free” by the residents, and have to be fixed and replaced in a wasteful and expensive cycle.
And it is a national disgrace that most reserves are dead ends for most of the young people born into them.
The late Farley Mowat described northern indigenous settlements as “unguarded concentration camps”. That might be a somewhat harsh way to describe reserves, but at best most are human warehouses, plagued with social problems. The young people living there deserve some hope, and Canada’s current plan for them offers them none.
So, Canada’s current indigenous plan is clearly not working. Is there a better plan for success?
Maybe we should ask Wab Kinew, Manitoba’s new premier. He is indigenous and highly successful. How did he get there?
The formula is actually not complicated. It has nothing to do with massive welfare giveaways, “nation to nation” utopias, or incredibly expensive “reconciliation” projects. It definitely has nothing to do with staying in a community that lacks economic opportunities, and waiting for handouts. It involves education, hard work, and going where the jobs are. Kinew’s parents realized that a stable home and education were key. Wab did the rest. He worked his way up the ladder in the usual way, and went where the jobs were. He did that with his indigenous identity intact.
Not every young person has Kinew’s talent, but everyone can follow the formula that made Kinew, and many other indigenous achievers successful.
The alternative – spending ever increasing amounts on a steadily increasing list of demands from a growing dependent reserve population is not an option. We don’t need the parliamentary budget officer to tell us that it is not sustainable.
As for remote, uneconomic reserves, like St. Theresa Point, they should be gradually and humanely closed down. It has been recognized for many years that reserves long ago had served their purpose, and should be phased out. As far back as 1911, it was said:
“Department officials were increasingly coming to the view that reserves had outlived their usefulness. Frank Pedley suggested that they resulted in the isolation and segregation of Indians, and thereby hindered progress…and encouraged the tribal form of government.”
The reserve system was not ended in 1911 because the chiefs and ruling families refused to give up their privileged positions. It isn’t happening today for the same reasons. We still have the same Indian Act and reserve system that has held indigenous people back for almost 150 years. (Senior Ontario lawyer, Peter Best, describes the toxicity of the reserve system in his important book, There Is No Difference)
So, the long-term plan should be to find a way to overcome that resistance, and find a fair way to phase out reserves, and the antiquated Indian Act. The reserves that are economically viable can merge into existing rural municipalities, or become stand-alone municipalities. Opportunities should be made available for young people from uneconomic communities to move to job centres, and receive help to succeed there.
In the meantime, the example of Wab Kinew is proof that there has never been a better time or place than today’s Canada to be an educated and ambitious young indigenous person who is willing to study, work hard, and go where the jobs are.
Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and senior fellow at Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Watch Brian on Return to Reason here.
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.”
-
Automotive1 day ago
Canadians’ Interest in Buying an EV Falls for Third Year in a Row
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump tells Zelensky: Accept peace or risk ‘losing the whole country’
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Poilievre Campaigning To Build A Canadian Economic Fortress
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
As PM Poilievre would cancel summer holidays for MP’s so Ottawa can finally get back to work
-
armed forces18 hours ago
Yet another struggling soldier says Veteran Affairs Canada offered him euthanasia
-
conflict17 hours ago
Why are the globalists so opposed to Trump’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine?
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre’s Conservatives promise to repeal policy allowing male criminals in female jails
-
Alberta8 hours ago
Governments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion