Frontier Centre for Public Policy
To Truly Help Indigenous Communities Prosper, We Must Put the Economic Horse Before the Political Cart
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
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
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
It’s Time To Stop Church Arsons And What Fuels Them
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Religious freedoms and the right to worship have been a recognized hallmark of civilized societies for centuries. The preamble of Canada’s constitution says our country is built on the principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God and the rule of law. In defiance of both, almost 600 Canadian places of worship have suffered arson in recent years. Nothing could be more unCanadian.
The stats were revealed by Member of Parliament Marc Dalton following a formal inquiry to the federal government. The response showed 592 arsons had been set on places of worship between 2010 and 2022. they rose from 58 in 2020 to 90 in 2021, then down to 74 in 2022.
The peak coincides with claims made in May of 2021 that the remains of 215 school children had been discovered on the site of the former Kamloops Residential School.
Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a subsequent wave of church burnings “unacceptable and wrong” he also called their likely motivations “real and fully understandable.” This hardly doused the flames.
These arsons far outnumber those made on Canadian churches in the 1920s by the Ku Klux Klan, which opposed non-Protestants and non-whites. In those years the KKK desecrated Sarnia’s St. Joseph’s Catholic Church. They killed ten people when they set Saint-Boniface College in Winnipeg on fire. They also burned the Cathedral-Basilica of Notre-Dame de Quebec. In 1926, three Klan members were jailed after they blew up St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Barrie, Ont.
The Klan soon fizzled out, seemingly unlike these recent church burnings. The 110-year-old Notre-Dame-des-Sept-Allégresses Catholic church burned down in Trois-Rivières, Quebec last month, but whether arson was involved has not been confirmed.
The presence of bodies underneath the former residential school in Kamloops has not been confirmed either. A 1924 septic field could also account for soil anomalies found there by ground-penetrating radar. Eight million federal tax dollars spent to investigate the site have yielded no remains and details on how the money was spent are sketchy. It’s high time the site was excavated to confirm or rule out the graves and do autopsies on any corpses found there.
Federal funds also fuel the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), the Orwellian title for a group that fuels resentment against socially conservative organizations with negative characterizations. On August 7, CAHN published “40 Ways To Fight The Far-Right: Tactics for Community Activists in Canada” thanks to $640,000 from Ottawa.
“White boys and men make up the majority of people involved in hate-promoting movements,” the handbook explains. Pro-life and pro-parent groups, CAHN says, are among those “characterized by racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, anti-2SLGBTQ+ views, and pro-colonialist/ anti-Indigenous bigotry.”
CAHN says the Catholic-dominated, pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition is a “hate movement.” Liberty Coalition Canada, a legal defence organization, and the activist organization Action4Canada are similarly denigrated for their alleged belief that Canada was founded on Christian values and attempts to reassert such values.
Meanwhile, the CAHN guide advocates “antifascist” doxing, including infiltration of right-leaning organizations. getting people fired, and ending friendships.
Dalton’s Bill C-411 the “Anti-Arson Act” would do more to deter hate-motivated crimes than CAHN ever will. The legislation would punish those who set fires and explosions at religious places. A first offence would get a mandatory five-year jail sentence, while subsequent offenses would prompt seven years.
When respect for the supremacy of God and the rule of law fail, rights give way to wrongs. It’s time to stop the fires and the disputable claims that fuel them, and restore respect for people of faith, their right to worship, and their places of worship.
Lee Harding is a Research Associate for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Another Mass Grave?
No. One outrageous lie was quickly discounted, yet another lives on, to the detriment of everybody involved.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
The Kamloops claim didn’t come out of the blue. The TRC’s well-publicized “missing children” wild goose chase thoroughly indoctrinated indigenous communities. It convinced foolish people, like Casimir, Leah Gazan and Kimberley Murray, that thousands of “missing children” had been secretly buried all across Canada.
“My brother Rufus saw them take all those children and stand them up next to a big ditch, and then the soldiers shot them all and they all fell into that ditch. Some of the kids were still alive and they just poured the dirt in on top of them. Buried them alive.”
This mass murder happened in 1943 — not in Nazi-held Europe, but in Brantford, Ontario.
So, there you have it — the personal story of a residential school “survivor” describing the day the Canadian Army lined up 43 Indian children in front of a residential school at Brantford, Ontario, shot them and dumped their bodies into a mass grave. The May 27, 2021 announcement that the remains of 215 former students of the Kamloops residential school wasn’t the first time that a claim about sinister residential school deaths and clandestine burials had been made.
This Brantford story is obviously untrue. Any reasonably well-informed person with a lick of sense would know that at a glance.
But that didn’t stop the claim from making the social media rounds for years. According to the fact-check tens of thousands of people have read this bogus claim over the years, and many appear to have believed it completely. In fact, despite the fact checks proving that the claim was entirely false it continues to circulate today.
Both the Kamloops and Brantford claims came basically from the same place — the strange mind of a defrocked United Church Minister, Kevin Annett. It was Annett who created the bogus Brantford claim. In a strange twist, the picture at the top of the page — said to be from Brantford — is actually a photo of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, as it looked in the 1920s.
And it was Annett who inspired the TRC’s misguided “missing children/unmarked graves” wild goose chase that, in turn, inspired Chief Rosanne Casimir to make the Kamloops claim. Both claims were equally and obviously false: The Kamloops claim was that the “remains of 215 children were found.” In fact, only radar blips (anomalies) were detected- blips that turned out. to most likely be from previous excavations, and not graves. Casimir and Annett both knew that they were making false claims.
Annett’s bogus claims come from his imaginative reworking of stories of “survivors” that he publicized in his blogs, books, interviews and movies.
His most famous movie is Unrepentant. This movie has been viewed by tens of thousands of Canadians, particularly in indigenous communities, such as the Tk’emlups community at Kamloops.
It has won awards, and been praised by eminent people, such as Noam Chomsky. Despite being every bit as false as the claim that the Canadian army shot 43 indigenous children, it actually convinced Member of Parliament, Gary Merasty, that it was accurate history. It is nothing short of amazing that this highly suggestible MP was then able to convince the equally gullible, and newly appointed TRC commissioners that there were many thousands of such “missing children”, as Annett alleged.
The TRC commissioners then launched their “missing children/unmarked graves” campaign despite having no mandate from the federal government to do so. (Independent researcher, Nina Green, describes this in detail here.)
You see, the Kamloops claim didn’t come out of the blue. The TRC’s well-publicized “missing children” wild goose chase thoroughly indoctrinated indigenous communities. It convinced foolish people, like Casimir, Leah Gazan and Kimberley Murray, that thousands of “missing children” had been secretly buried all across Canada.
Indigenous people became hooked on these stories.
Annett’s most famous book is his 393 page opus, “Hidden No Longer.” That book introduced the idea that the deaths of these thousands of “missing children” (his estimates range from 50,000 to 250,000, depending on the telling) constituted genocide. It is absolutely shocking that our MPs actually voted to condemn Canada of genocide based essentially on Kevin Annett’s bogus claims.
Based on those same bogus claims Annett was hired by the Brantford Mohawk community in 2011 to dig up the graves that he claimed existed in the apple orchard area of their residential school. According to Annett, these were the graves of indigenous students who had been secretly killed and buried in the apple orchard at the school, with the forced help of fellow students.
Sound familiar? It should. That was essentially the same grisly tale repeated by Chief Rosanne Casimir years later in Kamloops. (See above.)
Except that the wiser folks within the Brantford Mohawk community twigged on to Annett’s tricks. And when Annett was found on the streets of Toronto, waving around chicken bones, and pretending that they were the bones of children he had unearthed at Brantford, the Mohawk elders came together and publicly denounced Annett as a fraud at a community meeting. They then banished him from their community.
Unfortunately, Casimir became a useful idiot for Annett — just as the gullible TRC commissioners did — and no such leadership has yet come forward from the wiser elements within the Kamloops indigenous community. Those folks are silent, while the more vocal contingent are still sticking to their story that the soil anomalies are the “remains of 215 children,” and not what they almost certainly are — 1924 septic excavations.
So, the questions should be asked: Is the claim that the Canadian army shot 43 indigenous children, and dumped them in a mass grave, any more or less believable than the claim that priests killed and secretly buried 215 children at Kamloops, (or any of the copycat claims that followed it?)
What is it about that Mohawk claim that gives it appeal to only the most gullible among us, while the equally improbable Kamloops claim is still taken seriously by so many people?
On the surface, both claims are outrageous, and have no real evidence to support them. Quite the contrary, every Canadian history book ever written is cogent evidence that both stories are false. But the Mohawk claim was dismissed as the nonsense it obviously was, while the Kamloops claim lives on.
At least part of the answer to those questions appears to be in the response of the government in power, and the media to the claims. If the Brantford claim had been met by a prime minister who immediately ordered that flags be lowered, and offered hundreds of millions of dollars to any other indigenous communities who wanted to make similar claim, no doubt that Brantford claim would have been taken seriously.
Or, if the Brantford claim had been made in a time when a highly ideological CBC would ask no questions, and blindly promote the claim, the results might have been entirely different. As it is, the Brantford claim died a merciful death, while the equally specious Kamloops genocide claim still languishes like a stinking albatross around the neck of every Canadian.
Although the international community is increasingly broadcasting the obvious fact that the Kamloops claim is bogus Canada’s media remains asleep. That is not likely to change until leadership changes in Ottawa, and at the CBC. Pierre Pollievre, when questioned on this topic, stated clearly that he stands for historical truth, accuracy, and a full investigation into all questions pertaining to claims about residential school deaths. Hopefully, that means that excavation and a full inquiry will follow.
But Tk’emlups indigenous elders better wake up, like the Mohawk elders did. You are not doing your communities a favour by letting politicians and journalists treat you like children, by pretending to believe your bizarre claims. These false claims are already doing great damage.
Fortunately, there are many thoughtful indigenous people who do not blindly accept the claims about murderous priests and secret burials.
Here is one such wise indigenous person. He is a priest, and he is willing to do what our federal government and our CBC failed to do from the beginning namely to intelligently discuss the issue.
Thoughtful people like this need to be involved in a full investigation that will clear the air about the Kamloops claim, and get Canada back on track.
Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
-
Business2 days ago
UN climate conference—it’s all about money
-
Business2 days ago
DEI gone?: GOP lawmakers prep to clean house in federal government
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
First Amendment Blues
-
Business2 days ago
Canada’s department of government efficiency: A blueprint
-
Business2 days ago
Federal government’s latest media bailout another bad idea
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Canada Pivots From ‘Diversity Is Our Strength,’ Locks Down Border Fearing Migrant Influx
-
Censorship Industrial Complex16 hours ago
G20’s Online Speech Clampdown Calls Set To Ignite Free Speech Fears