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 Center Square

By Chris Woodward

A trial is underway in North Dakota in a lawsuit against Greenpeace over its support for protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Filed by Texas-based Energy Transfer, the lawsuit alleges Greenpeace in 2016 engaged in or supported unlawful behavior by protesters of the pipeline, while also spreading false claims about it. Greenpeace, according to Energy Transfer, spread falsehoods about the pipeline and conspired to escalate what were small, peaceful protests illegal activity that halted the project in 2016.

Energy Transfer – which is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages – claims the alleged actions caused more than $100 million in financial difficulties for the pipeline.

Greenpeace denies any wrongdoing, arguing the case is about Americans’ First Amendments rights to free speech and to peacefully protest, and about corporations trying to silence critics.

Energy Transfer told The Center Square that its lawsuit “is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused” the company.

“It is not about free speech,” Energy Transfer said in an emailed statement to The Center Square. “Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech. We look forward to proving our case and we trust the North Dakota legal system to do that.”

Last week, Greenpeace filed for a change of venue, claiming that the environmental group may not get a fair trial in Morton County, where the trial is being held.

“The Greenpeace defendants have said from the start of this case that it should be heard away from where the events happened,” said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace, in another statement emailed to The Center Square. “After three motions for a venue change were refused, we now feel compelled to ask the Supreme Court of North Dakota to relieve the local community from the burden of this case and ensure the fairness of the trial cannot be questioned.”

The pipeline was completed in 2017 after several months of delays.

Greenpeace has voiced concerns about the environmental impacts that the Dakota Access Pipeline will have in areas where it is installed. Energy Transfer/Dakota Access Pipeline says that, among other things, safety is its top priority and that it is committed to being a good neighbor, business partner, and valued member of local communities that the energy company says will benefit economically.