True reconciliation means acknowledging our right to develop our lands as we see fit
Speculation has swirled for months that Ottawa is planning to introduce a new Indigenous loan guarantee program, and last week’s fiscal update confirmed that more details will be included in the next federal budget. I am not totally against this idea, as it could help Indigenous groups overcome historical barriers to raising capital, particularly through borrowing. However, there has also been speculation that certain industries could be excluded from loan eligibility, in accordance with the government’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment framework. This is not OK.
If the government follows through with its plan to roll out a new Indigenous-tailored financial program, it should respect our right to self-determination, which encompasses our autonomy to make investment decisions based on our own, internally defined objectives.
For instance, we are well within our rights to pursue investment opportunities in the energy sector, which offers a path to prosperity for many Indigenous communities. Indigenous-Canadians who work in oil and gas extraction currently make almost three times more than their peers. Quite frankly, it would be irresponsible for us to not seek out new energy investments, given the potential for good-paying energy jobs to lift scores of Indigenous families out of poverty.
A new loan guarantee program would, in theory, provide Indigenous nations with the resources to build our own path forward. But if the loan program were handled by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, as budget 2023 suggested, loans for oil and gas development may be excluded. Applying ESG requirements to the program would have a similar effect.
Such conditions would put remote communities at a disadvantage relative to those located near large urban centres. And communities that are dependent on energy projects for their economic well-being would be left in the lurch.This would be a step away from reconciliation. The federal government should not be able to pick and choose for us which projects we partner on — this is paternalism of the worst sort. Decisions about our lands and the projects built on them should be ours to make — and ours alone.
We have long made decisions about projects in our territories — decisions that balance economic development with stewardship of land and water. The Trudeau government has pledged, repeatedly, to value mutual respect and restorative justice. We need to remind them of that.
Right now, the most important thing the federal government can do is respect the right of all Indigenous communities to self-determination. We have a limited window of opportunity to persuade the Liberal government to include oil and natural gas extraction projects on the list of eligible loan guarantees, and make sure that our inherent right to make decisions about projects on our lands is respected.
This is also an opportunity to forge a much-needed and long-overdue relationship between the Tsimshian, Nisga’a, Haida, Haisla, Heiltsuk, Wet’suwet’en, Gitxsan, Tahltan, Tse’Khene, T’exelcemc and Carrier Sekani people, and build an Indigenous economic corridor stretching from British Columbia to Newfoundland.This loan guarantee program could help lift thousands of Indigenous-Canadians out of poverty, and bring prosperity to our people for generations to come, through inter-generational knowledge and wealth transfer. When our communities prosper, Canada prospers, but we cannot do that without the rest of the country’s help.
This is an opportunity for the federal government to bridge the divide and make Canada the economic powerhouse it ought to be. This loan guarantee program can serve as a much-needed catalyst. We should have the opportunity to invest in any project that has the potential to bring prosperity to our communities, including projects in the oil and gas industry.
Indigenous communities want to be a part of Canada, not apart from Canada. Give us the tools and we’ll finish the job.
Chris Sankey is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a businessman and former elected councillor for the Lax Kw Alaams First Nation.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
Taxpayers are glad to see Parks Canada backing away from a $12-million deer cull on Sidney Island.
“Parks Canada’s plan to blow $12-million on a deer cull was ridiculous from day one,” said Carson Binda, B.C. Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Parks Canada is right to cancel the project, but it’s worrying that it took them this much wasted money to figure it out.”
Parks Canada used so-called sharpshooters in helicopters, firing down on invasive fallow deer from above, during phase one of the cull which occurred last December. The so-called sharpshooters killed 84 deer, but only 63 were the correct species. The cost for phase one came in at $834,000, roughly $10,000 per deer.
Subsequently, Parks Canada erected fencing made of fish nets around the 12-square-kilometer Island to trap the deer, in anticipation for a second round of culls which were scheduled for Nov. 15.
Several animals became entangled in the netting, painfully thrashing themselves to death.
“Seeing deer thrashing to death because of bureaucratic incompetence is heartbreaking,” Binda said. “Parks Canada needs to explain how this happened and how much taxpayer cash was wasted on this project before the cancellation.”
Residents of Sidney Island and local hunters have been culling deer on the island for years, for free. Last fall 54 deer were culled by local hunters at no cost to the taxpayer.
“Local hunters filling their freezers at no cost to the taxpayer is obviously better than Parks Canada blowing millions of dollars to shoot the wrong deer from helicopters and leaving others to suffer in a net,” Binda said. “Hopefully the bureaucrats learn from their mistakes with this boondoggle.”
In this episode of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Inside Policy Talks podcast, Senior Fellow and National Security Project Lead Alex Dalziel explores the underreported issue of trade-based money laundering (TBML) with Dr. Jamie Ferrill, the head of financial crime studies at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia and a former Canada Border Services Agency officer.
The discussion focuses on how organized crime groups use global trade transactions to disguise illicit proceeds and the threat this presents to the Canada’s trade relationship with the US and beyond.
Definition of TBML: Trade-based money laundering disguises criminal proceeds by moving value through trade transactions instead of transferring physical cash. Criminals (usually) exploit international trade by manipulating trade documents, engaging in phantom shipping, and altering invoices to disguise illicit funds as legitimate commerce, bypassing conventional financial scrutiny. As Dr. Ferrill explains, “we have dirty money that’s been generated through things like drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms trafficking, sex trafficking, and that money needs to be cleaned in one way or another. Trade is one of the ways that that’s done.”
APervasive Problem: TBML is challenging to detect due to the vast scale and complexity of global trade, making it an attractive channel for organized crime groups. Although global estimates are imprecise, the Financial Action Task Force and The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) suggests 2-5% of GDP could be tied to money laundering, representing trillions of dollars annually. In Canada, this could mean over $70 billion in potentially laundered funds each year. Despite the scope of TBML, Canada has seen no successful prosecutions for criminal money laundering through trade, highlighting significant gaps in identifying, investigating and prosecuting these complex cases.
Canada’sVulnerabilities: Along with the sheer volume and complexity of global trade, Canada’s vulnerabilities stem from gaps in anti-money laundering regulation, particularly in high-risk sectors like real estate, luxury goods, and legal services, where criminals exploit weak oversight. Global trade exemplifies the vulnerabilities in oversight, where gaps and limited controls create substantial opportunities for money laundering. A lack of comprehensive export controls also limits Canada’s ability to monitor goods leaving the country effectively. Dr. Ferrill notes that “If we’re seen as this weak link in the process, that’s going to have significant implications on trade partnerships,” underscoring the potential political risks to bilateral trade if Canada fails to address these issues.
International and Private Sector Cooperation: Combating TBML effectively requires strong international cooperation, particularly between Canada and key trade partners like the U.S. The private sector—including freight forwarders, customs brokers, and financial institutions—plays a crucial role in spotting suspicious activities along the supply chain. As Dr. Ferrill emphasizes, “Canada and the U.S. can definitely work together more efficiently and effectively to share and then come up with some better strategies,” pointing to the need for increased collaboration to strengthen oversight and disrupt these transnational crime networks.
Looking to further understand the threat of transnational organized crime to Canada’s borders?
