Putting government mismanagement of Indigenous affairs in the rear-view mirror

From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI)

By Ken Coates for Inside Policy

The failures of governance on Indigenous affairs represents an unhappy situation where the problem is, simultaneously, too much government and too little governance

In an era of a mounting number of interconnected complex and difficult problems, one feels sorry for the politicians and civil servants attempting to produce policies, programs, and funding that will make real and sustained progress. We are often confronted with the frightening realization that government, as it is currently structured and directed, is simply not up to the challenges of the 21st century. This is certainly the case with Indigenous affairs in Canada, where the federal government struggles to find the right path forward.

The socio-economic data is clear. Indigenous peoples lag well behind the non-Indigenous population on almost all measures: personal income, access to clean water, educational outcomes, rates of incarceration, health outcomes, opioid deaths, tuberculosis cases, overcrowded homes, and many others. Language loss is endemic, many communities struggle with intergenerational conflict, too many cultural traditions are at risk, and long-term systemic poverty continues to take its toll.

Most Canadians think that the government of Canada is doing a great deal – some people think too much – to address Indigenous challenges and opportunities. They point, as the government often does, to billions of dollars in annual expenditures, formal and public apologies, major court judgments in favour of Indigenous defendants, a seat at a growing number of political tables, and concessions on language, values, and priorities.

The juxtaposition of these two realities is troubling – despite the massive expenditures on Indigenous affairs there are continued and major shortcomings in First Nations, Métis, and Inuit outcomes and achievements. Frustration burns deep in many Indigenous communities, as it does among the general population. Canadians at large have heard the many apologies, hundreds of program announcements, billions in spending, and the near-constant uncertainty of legal processes, and they too are deeply concerned about the failure of decades of concerted government efforts to make things better.

Of course, there have been major achievements. While media coverage focuses on conflict and despair, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities have made substantial improvements, even with the current difficulties in mind. Post-secondary attendance remains strong, with continuing challenges with the high school to PSE transition. Indigenous entrepreneurship is a bright spot in the Canadian economy. Modern treaties and self-government agreements are changing how the government manages Indigenous policies, funding, and decision-making. And impact and benefit agreements have secured Indigenous communities an important place in resource and infrastructure development.

But frustrations with the government of Canada’s management of Indigenous affairs continues. Communities complain of long-delayed negotiations, difficulties with payments, the omnipresent influence of the Indian Act, files lingering on the desk of the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, the inability to get promised money out the door quickly and efficiently, the imposition of complicated accountability provisions, and many other problems. Even major settlements, like the $40 billion allocated to address shortcomings in child and family services, has been bogged down in unrewarding negotiations.

The failures of governance on Indigenous affairs represents an unhappy situation where the problem is, simultaneously, too much government and too little governance. Starting well before Confederation, paternalism became the hallmark of federal policy towards Indigenous peoples. Government officials believed that they knew best and managed Indigenous affairs with scant consideration of Indigenous ideas and goals – and often with a firm, manipulative hand. To the degree that Indigenous peoples escaped the dominance of Ottawa, it was largely due to the shortage of government workers and money, which meant that most northern peoples were left largely alone until the 1950s.

In the 1950s and 1960s, in a massive wave of self-justified paternalism, government intervention expanded rapidly. Indigenous peoples were required to live in government-established and run settlements, typically in government-built houses and under the control of a growing cadre of paternalistic Indian Agents. Residential and day school education became standard fare – as did acute language loss and the disruption of harvesting activity and traditional cultures. Welfare dependency, extremely rare before the mid-1950s, replaced harvesting and the mixed economy as the economic foundations of Indigenous life, with all of the controls and intrusions that attend any reliance on government cheques.

Well-meaning state officials inherited the paternalism of their predecessors, believing that government-designed and -run programs would provide Indigenous communities with pathways to the mainstream economy and the benefits of the dominant society. A few achievements stand out, but generally the effort did not work. Indigenous communities were transformed into frustrated supplicants, relying on a steady stream of applications and approval processes to provide what were typically short-term grants that would fund core community operations.

The arrangements prioritized federal budget-making and administration over Indigenous decision-making and community priority-setting. The budgets grew dramatically. Federal officials made countless announcements. The number of federal civil servants grew dramatically. And individual Indigenous people continued to suffer. Through decades in which state funding and programming continued to expand, the gap between Indigenous well-being and non-Indigenous social and economic conditions scarcely narrowed at all. What did grow dramatically was social dysfunction, self-harm, and family disarray.

It turned out that too much government “help” could be as bad as neglect and inattention to Indigenous needs. Ottawa continued to supply earnest and well-meant programs, but they were built with diminishing enthusiasm from Indigenous peoples. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities understood what the government of Canada did not: that community control was much more important and effective than Ottawa-centred policy-making. Much of the Indigenous effort since the 1970s has focused on righting the imbalance, establishing more self-government processes, expanding own-source revenues, and returning to Indigenous peoples the autonomy that had sustained them for centuries.

Indigenous peoples have their own agendas – and they have largely succeeded in changing the core foundations of Indigenous governance in Canada. Modern treaties have, for some people, eliminated some of the more pernicious aspects of the Indian Act and its associated bureaucracies. Self-governing First Nations are become more common and increasingly successful. The Inuit secured their own territory – Nunavut – and acquired considerable autonomy in Labrador and northern Quebec. Impact and benefit agreements and resource revenue sharing have given communities the funding they require to establish their own spending priorities. Duty-to-consult and accommodate provisions have given Indigenous communities a major role in determining the shape and nature of resource development. Major Supreme Court of Canada decisions continue to extend Indigenous authority.

This story of Indigenous re-empowerment has not yet fully unfolded, although the returns to date have been more than promising. Self-governing First Nations in the Canadian North and elsewhere have used their autonomy to very good effect. Communities near the oil sands in Alberta have used their involvement in resource extraction to create substantial autonomy for themselves. Near-urban and urban First Nations are supporting metropolitan redevelopment. Joint ventures and economic cooperation have become the norm rather than the exception. Struggles continue; generations of paternalism and government oversight are not overcome in a flash.

But the primary lesson is simple. State paternalism has been a force for disruption and manipulation of Indigenous communities. Re-empowerment, autonomy, and economic independence have demonstrated the potential to rebuild, enhance, and strengthen First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities. Decades of government mismanagement of Indigenous affairs must be put in the rear-view mirror. It is time for the re-empowerment of Indigenous communities to become the new normal.

Indigenous realities have changed dramatically, particularly related to Indigenous rights, expectations, capacity, financial settlements and community expectations. Government administration and policy-making, as current constituted, is not sufficiently community-centric, properly funded, appropriately responsive or driven by Indigenous imperatives. Despite generations of large-scale spending and many programs and announcements, basic conditions are far too often seriously substandard and real progress slow and unimpressive. With Indigenous people and their governments in the forefront, Indigenous governance and support requires a dramatic rethinking and Indigenous empowerment in order to respond properly to the challenges and opportunities of the 21^st century.

Ken Coates is a Distinguished Fellow and Director of Indigenous Affairs at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a Professor of Indigenous Governance at Yukon University

Related Topics:#IndigenousAffairs #InsidePolicy #KenCoates #MacdonaldLaurierInstitute

Up Next

Unspeakable Terror, Unfathomable Treachery: Exposing The Despicables

Don't Miss

Housing completions not keeping pace with population

Todayville

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.

Follow Author

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 3 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Alberta / 6 hours ago

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Economy

CANADA MUST REVIVE A “PIPELINE WEST” – Indigenous Ownership and Investment in Energy Projects are Critical to Canada’s Oil Customer Diversification

Published on March 22, 2025

Todayville

From EnergyNow.Ca

By Maureen McCall

Interesting events renewed discussions around pipeline projects when Alberta Premier, Daniel Smith made social media comments on Jan 21.2025 that Canada should have more nation-building projects and revive Northern Gateway.

It inspired an immediate comment from the President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip expressing interest in reviving the project. “If we don’t build that kind of infrastructure, Trump will,” Phillip said. “And there won’t be any consideration for the environment, for the rule of law… I think we can do better.”

The next day, Chief Phillip retracted the comment leaving questions about the 180-degree pivot.

Some proponents of Indigenous development, like Calvin Helin, a member of the Tsimshian Nation and Principal at INDsight Advisers, a lawyer who specializes in commercial and Indigenous law and best-selling author, thought the event raised questions about influence.

“Environmental groups have infiltrated some Indigenous organizations,” Helin said in an interview. “They managed to support a government that championed their agendas, particularly agendas involving Alberta – 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 to weaken Canada’s position.”

Helin stressed that in 2025, the energy industry clearly understands the mandate to deal seriously with Indigenous interests, with Indigenous leaders coming forward to support natural resource development while respecting the environment. He suggested that Indigenous inclusion and recognition at the outset is essential for energy projects in 2025 and beyond.

Back in 2018-2019, Helin proposed the Eagle Spirit Corridor a $50 -billion First Nations majority-owned Canadian four pipeline corridor after the Northern Gateway Pipeline was under consideration.

Helin had consulted early with Indigenous groups and proposed a robust natural resource corridor from Bruderheim, AB to Grassy Point, BC. The project involved the support of 32 First Nations from the outset. A variety of shared services were proposed to make the corridor more economical than a pipeline. Helin expected the project would create tens of thousands of jobs over the long term, as well as generate tax revenue and royalties, but it was killed by the federal government’s Bill C-48 tanker ban which stopped companies from using terminals along BC’s north coast to ship oil. The project was ultimately abandoned.

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project for a twin pipeline from Bruderheim, AB, to Kitimat, BC, was also stopped by Bill C-48. Both Eagle Spirit and Northern Gateway chose the north BC coast for transportation to Asian markets for the deeper waters that could accommodate larger-capacity crude oil tankers.

The routes of the Eagle Spirit and Northern Gateway pipelines/corridors are quite similar with Eagle Spirit’s route extending a bit farther north in the final leg, as in the maps below.

Recent threats of tariffs on Canadian imports made by U.S. President Trump have stimulated calls to revive pipeline projects to tidewater, including Northern Gateway.

In direct reference to Northern Gateway, Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel has stated to media that Canada would have to designate major pipeline projects as legally required “in the national interest” before companies will consider investing again.

After the cancellation of Northern Gateway, Dale Swampy,the Indigenous leader who helped to establish the Northern Gateway Aboriginal Equity Partners group (AEP), formed the National Coalition of Chiefs(NCC), a group of pro-development First Nation Chiefs who advocate for the development of oil and gas resources in their communities.

Dale Swampy, President of the NCC says it still makes good sense to get a pipeline devoted to bitumen to the West Coast and that Canada has been “putting all its eggs in one basket” for 50 years and has been selling to just one customer while “everybody else in the oil industry, including the U.S., is getting into the global competitive market.”

The Canadian Energy Centre reports that the oil and gas industry is not going into decline over the next decade and in fact, the demand for oil and gas in emerging and developing economies will remain robust through 2050. In light of the multiple effects of U.S. tariffs, Canadian pipelines to tidewater are seen as urgent. Swampy advocates for policy change and the revival of the Northern Gateway project powered by Indigenous equity investment.

“First, we have got to get rid of the oil tanker ban (C-48),” Swampy said. “We’ve got to get more fluid regulatory processes so that we can get projects built in a reasonable timeline so that it doesn’t cost us billions more, waiting for the regular regulatory process to be complete- like TMX. You’ve also got to get the proponents back to the table. We had 31 of the 40 communities already signed on last time. I believe that we can get them signed on again.”

He continues to work with industry to develop an Indigenous-led bitumen pipeline project to the west coast. “We can get this project built if it’s led by First Nations.”

He says other Indigenous leaders are starting to realize the benefits of cooperating with natural resource development, whether it’s mining or the BC LNG projects that he says are now more widely accepted by First Nations.

Stephen Buffalo, President and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada (IRC) agrees.

“I talk about ripple effects,” Buffalo said. “When Jason Kenney was Premier of Alberta, and the Trans Mountain expansion was a big discussion, he wanted to ensure that First Nations had an opportunity to be some sort of equity owner in projects. With the lack of investment capital, he created the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation with the province as a government backstop.”

Buffalo says the IRC has assembled just over $800 million in government backstop for First Nations to participate in projects which found strong proponents. And those projects are related to natural resource development. He acknowledged that some communities – some of them in BC, don’t see the big picture of what Indigenous Opportunities Corporations can allow them to do.

“You shouldn’t get in the way of others that really need access to healthcare and education and want to develop their communities. I always tell people, our land base, that we were given under the Indian Act, isn’t changing what our populations are. We need housing, and we need the infrastructure, which includes clean water.”

He sees the urgent need for First Nations to get out of poverty and alliances to develop natural resources are key.

“ When we landlock our resources, the U.S. economy seems to get better. Now we’re dependent on the U.S. We have to send our oil to the U.S. at a huge discount. Could or should we have Northern Gateway? Absolutely. Should we have Energy East? Absolutely. We’re importing oil, but we have it at home. Why do we need to import it?”

Buffalo agreed that project discussions and regulations have huge value, but the slowness of the discussion, including pushback from environmental groups that influence discussions is negatively impacting First Nation development. In the case of regulations like Bill C-59, the anti-greenwashing bill, Buffalo says it has silenced many of the members of the Indian Resource Council.

“I’m just looking after our communities,” Buffalo says, “the ones that are never written about, talked about, the ones that don’t have clean water, that don’t have adequate housing, that are lacking education foundations, that are lacking good health care. When government regulatory bodies are making decisions, they’re making decisions for those people that they don’t ever see or ever talk to.”

My discussions with Calvin Helin, Stephen Buffalo and Dale Swampy resulted in a few policy suggestions for 2025 and beyond.

Repeal Bill C- 69 – It not only blocks all pipelines but stops mines, refineries, export plants and other energy infrastructure that First Nations want to invest in. C-69 is unconstitutional- as ruled on October 13.2023 by Canada’s top court.
Cut Taxes in Response to U.S. Tariffs– Tax cuts on investment and energy can neutralize the cost of the tariffs with lower taxes and incentivize investment in Canadian projects. Eliminate the Carbon Tax- Carbon tax elimination has been popular with First Nation leaders who have stated the tax has put us at a strategic disadvantage to other countries.
Repeal Bill C-59, the anti-green-washing bill, which according to Stephen Buffalo has silenced many of the members of the Indian Resource Council and Bill C-48 – the Tanker Ban.
Greenlight LNG Plants and related infrastructure– Canada sells gas exports uniquely to the U.S. There is a strong business case for sales to Asian and European markets. In a recent Canadian Energy Ventures webcast it was revealed that Natural Gas is sold as LNG to Europe at 16X the price Canada sells its gas to the U.S. First Nations are successfully involved in Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG in BC.
Cut Regulatory Delay & Speed Up Approvals – Delay undermines investor confidence that projects can be completed in reasonable timelines.
Reconciliation– Issue clear guidelines on what constitutes meaningful consultation. Industry can treat Indigenous peoples as partners and continue to advance economic reconciliation, including equity partnerships.

Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

John Rustad’s Residential School Claim Is False And Dangerous

Published on March 17, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

When politicians misrepresent facts or historical events, whether out of ignorance or political expediency, they do a disservice to the truth and public trust. On Feb. 24, 2025, B.C. Conservative Party Leader John Rustad reportedly told Global News that “more than 4,000 children did not return home” from residential schools because “those children died in residential schools.” As researcher Nina Green points out, this statement is demonstrably false and contradicts the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) final report.

Sadly, Rustad is not the only one making such claims. Similar statements, portrayed as facts, are repeated by politicians who should know better.

The truth, according to the TRC, is that 423 named children died on the premises of residential schools between 1867 and 2000. That is a tragedy, and we must expand our understanding of how and why these deaths occurred. To learn from tragedies, we must acknowledge and reflect on them. But to truly understand, we must accept what is true rather than bending or distorting it. Repeating the claim that “more than 4,000” children died in residential schools, as Rustad and others have uncritically reported, misrepresents reality.

The vastly inflated number, according to Green, originates from the University of Manitoba’s National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), which has misrepresented the data by including children who died after leaving school—in hospitals, in accidents at home, and even well into adulthood. This distortion has led to widespread misrepresentation, misleading policymakers and the public.

Why does this matter?

Canada’s history with Indigenous residential schools is deeply painful. Abuses, neglect and forced assimilation were real in many instances. However, distorting the facts about residential school deaths promotes a false narrative of genocide that does not serve justice—in fact, this false narrative undermines it. If reconciliation means anything, it must be built on truth, not contrived political narratives.

By repeating the claim that more than 4,000 children died at residential schools, Rustad is spreading falsehoods and stoking division. This figure has been used to justify claims of mass graves, leading to international headlines and widespread outrage that harm present generations of Indigenous people. Yet, nearly four years after the first claims of unmarked graves, no remains have been excavated or verified.

Rustad is not a private citizen—he is a public figure whose words carry weight. As such, he is responsible for ensuring that the information he disseminates is accurate. Rustad is failing in his duty to the public. Depending on his motivation, he contributes to a culture in which historical accuracy is sacrificed for political expediency.

Some may argue that the exact number of students who died at residential schools is not important. But truth is not negotiable. If we accept exaggerated claims in one instance, we set a dangerous pattern for historical distortions. The truth should not be ideological or political.

If Rustad is serious about Indigenous issues, he should demand transparency from the University of Manitoba and its NCTR. Instead of accepting misleading figures, he should call for the full release of the TRC records, as was promised in 2013.

Leaders like Rustad must be held accountable. Falsehoods, no matter how well-intentioned, do not advance reconciliation. They erode trust, divide Canadians, and ultimately undermine the cause they claim to support. All Canadians deserve much better.

Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is coauthor of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).