Indigenous
The Quiet Remaking of Canada
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
B.C. residents sat up and took notice of this shocking change when the Eby government announced that it planned to embark on a plan of “co-governance” with its indigenous population – a plan that would have given 5% of B.C.’s population a veto over every aspect of public land useage in the province.
Most Canadians are unaware that a campaign to remake Canada is underway. The conception of that most Canadians have of their country – that it is, one nation, in which citizens of different ethnic, religious and racial groups are all treated equally, under one set of laws – is being fundamentally transformed. B.C. residents sat up and took notice of this shocking change when the Eby government announced that it planned to embark on a plan of “co-governance” with its indigenous population – a plan that would have given 5% of B.C.’s population a veto over every aspect of public land useage in the province.
An emphatic “No” from an overwhelming majority of citizens put an end to this scheme – at least temporarily.
But the Eby government continues to move forward with its plan to transform the province into a multitude of semi-autonomous indigenous nations to accommodate that 5% of the indigenous B.C. population. It is proceeding with a plan that recognizes the Haida nation’s aboriginal title to the entire area of the traditional Haida territory. It would basically make Haida Gwaii into what would in essence be a semi-independent nation, ruled by Haida tribal law.
Many of us are familiar with that exceptionally beautiful part of Canada, where the Haida have lived for thousands of years. Misty Haida Gwaii, formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands, is a magical place. Until now, it has been a part of Canada. How would this Haida agreement change that?
Non-Haida residents of Haida Gwaii are probably asking themselves that question. Although they are being told that their fee simple ownership and other rights will not be affected by the Haida agreement, is that true? If one must be Haida by DNA to fully participate in decisions, how can it be argued that non Haida residents have rights equal to a Haida?
For example, the Supreme Court ruled in the Vuntut Gwitchin case that, based on the allegedly greater need of maintaining so-called Indigenous cultural “difference”, individual Indigenous Canadians can now be deprived by their band governments of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on their home reserves and self-governing territories. Simply put, the law of the collective- namely tribal law- will apply.
So, tribal law takes precedence over Canadian law. And will a non-Haida resident be deprived of rights that he would enjoy anywhere else in Canada? For that matter, will an indigenous, but non-Haida, resident have equal rights to a Haida, if he can’t vote in Haida elections? Will this plan dilute, or even eliminate, fee simple ownership for some.
Or this: Does a provincial government even have the power to make such an agreement in the first place? After all Section 91(24) of our Constitution Act gives the federal government responsibility for status Indians.
These are but a few of the many questions that has B.C. residents asking many questions. In fact, the proposed Haida agreement will likely be front and centre in the upcoming provincial election, and could usher in decades of litigation and uncertainty.
But the Eby government has made it clear that the Haida agreement will be the template for others that will follow. Considering the fact that there are at least 200 separate indigenous communities in B.C. this would be a very ambitious undertaking – especially in light of the fact that most of those 200 or so communities are tiny, and almost all are dependent on taxpayers for their continued existence.
Eby is responding to the Supreme Court’s astounding decision that aboriginal title existed, unless it had been surrendered by treaty. The court relied on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to come to this decision. This was after what was the longest trial in the history of B.C. wherein the trial judge in that case, Chief Justice Allan McEachern, had written a masterful decision finding that aboriginal title did not exist as claimed by the indigenous parties to the action. The Supreme Court went on in subsequent  cases to transform Canadian indigenous law and expand section 35 in a manner that emphasized the need for “reconciliation”, the primacy of the collective over the rights of the individual for indigenous people, and the need for indigenous “nation to nation” separateness, instead of assimilation. All of this was done by judicial fiat, with absolutely no input from the Canadian public. Senior Ontario lawyer, Peter Best, describes this radical transformation of Canada in his epic work, “There Is No Difference”.
The unfortunate decision by both the federal government and the B.C. government to adopt UNDRIP, (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples) and B.C.’s provincial version, DRIPA, (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) further muddied the waters.
What British Columbia will look like in 10 years is anyone’s guess, if the hundreds of indigenous communities in B.C. are successful in obtaining agreements similar to what the Haida negotiate. It also seems very likely that indigenous communities in other parts of Canada will see what the B.C. communities achieved, and want the same additional autonomy and land rights for themselves. In the treaty areas of Canada, namely mainly the prairies and parts of the north, the treaties, in theory, settle the issue. But, if the B.C. Indians succeed in obtaining superior entitlements, the treaty Indians will almost certainly agitate for “modern treaties” that include what the Haida received.
And the citizens of eastern Canada, who believe that their indigenous claims have been permanently settled long ago, are probably in for a rude shock. In “A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy” the late Gordon Gibson quotes a former senior bureaucrat in Indian Affairs who insisted on remaining anonymous. That source says bluntly that all of Canada will be at play if Canada does indeed become the “patchwork of tiny Bantustans” that journalist and visionary Jon Kay predicted in 2001, if we keep going down this “nation to nation” path.
In fact, it is quite possible that every one of the 600 or so indigenous communities in Canada will end up with at least as much “separateness” as the Haida obtained. Canada will be fundamentally transformed into a crazy quilt of mainly dependent reserves governed by tribal law. Surely the Fathers of Confederation didn’t work so hard to end up with such a backward, fractured Canada?
As we see this fundamental transformation taking place in B.C., and then heading eastward, I suspect that Canadians who do not want such a future for their country  will start to ask themselves how we arrived at this point. How can a nation be fundamentally transformed with no input from the citizens? Don’t the Canadian people have to be consulted, as we watch our country being transformed by judicial fiat and tribal law? Doesn’t a constitutional process have to be invoked, as happened in the failed Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accords?
Most Canadians believe that history has not been kind to indigenous people, and that indigenous have legitimate claims that need to be addressed. But most Canadians also believe that Canada is one country, in which everyone should be equal.
Canadians also firmly believe that Canada should not be divided into racial enclaves, where different sets of laws are applied to different racial or ethnic groups. In fact, most Canadians would probably support the sub-title of the late Gordon Gibson book cited above: “Respect the Collective – Support the Individual”. Canadians want to see indigenous people succeed, and they support indigenous people in their fierce determination to hold on to their indigenous identity and culture. But they want indigenous people to succeed as Canadians – not in a Canada that has been carved up into racial ghettos, like slices of a cheap pizza.
The Haida agreement is the first highly visible slice – a symbol of a semi-independent “nation” within Canada, that will be governed by rights of the collective tribal law – as opposed to the rights of the individual. That takes us back thousands of years. Before the Haida agreement inspires hundreds of other such racial mini-states within Canada, should Canadians not have a say in what our country is becoming?
Or will we continue to let unelected judges, and faceless bureaucrats, determine our fate?
Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Economy
CANADA MUST REVIVE A “PIPELINE WEST” – Indigenous Ownership and Investment in Energy Projects are Critical to Canada’s Oil Customer Diversification
From EnergyNow.Ca
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.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
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).
Chinese Narco Suspect Caught in Private Meeting with Trudeau, Investigated by DEA, Linked to Panama, Caribbean, Mexico – Police Sources
Brookfield’s Deep Ties to Chinese Land, Loans, and Green Deals—And a Real Estate Tycoon With CCP Links—Raise Questions as Carney Takes Over from Trudeau
Doug Ford needs to ditch the net-zero pipedreams
Flu Vaccine Exposed: The Shocking NIH Discovery They Don’t Want You to Know
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoCarney’s Cap on Alberta Energy Costing Canada Billions
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoManufacturers Endorse Pierre Poilievre for Prime Minister
-
Community2 days agoSPARC Caring Adult Nominations now open!
-
Business2 days agoPossible Criminal Charges for US Institute for Peace Officials who barricade office in effort to thwart DOGE
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoPoilievre’s big tax cut helps working Canadians
-
Business2 days ago28 energy leaders call for eliminating ALL energy subsidies—even ones they benefit from
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s massive oil and gas reserves keep growing – here’s why
-
International2 days agoPope Francis appears frail as he returns to Vatican following 38-day hospital stay