Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

To Truly Help Indigenous Communities Prosper, We Must Put the Economic Horse Before the Political Cart

Published

5 months ago

9 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

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

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 4 hours ago

It’s on! Federal Election called for April 28

COVID-19 / 5 hours ago

10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried This Week

David Clinton / 6 hours ago

You’re Actually Voting for THEM? But why?

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on March 23, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Addictions

The Fentanyl Crisis Is A War, And Canada Is On The Wrong Side

Published on March 18, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Drug cartels, China, and Canada’s negligence are fueling the deadliest epidemic of our time

It took the threat of U.S. tariffs for Canada to wake up to the horrors of the fentanyl epidemic that is destroying young lives and shattering families. Canadians, who panicked over COVID-19 deaths, have hardly noticed that far more healthy Canadians and Americans are now dying from fentanyl overdoses than ever died from COVID.

Yet while Americans confront this deadly epidemic, Canada remains oblivious to how deeply the crisis has infiltrated our borders.

A grim milestone came in 2021 when U.S. opioid overdose deaths exceeded 100,000 in a single year. More than a million Americans have died from opioid overdoses since these highly addictive drugs first entered the market. Today, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 25.

Behind every kilogram of fentanyl lies half a million potential deaths. Behind every pill—a game of Russian roulette.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid so powerful that one kilogram can kill 500,000 people. Its extreme potency makes it both highly dangerous and easy to smuggle. A single backpack thrown across the border can carry $1 million worth of the drug. It is easy to see why so many opportunists are willing to risk their lives producing and selling it. Overdose statistics fail to capture the bodies found in deserts or those murdered in the vicious drug trade.

Fentanyl is produced for a few cents per pill but sold on the street for many times that, making it both profitable and a cheap high. Incredibly addictive, it is found in virtually all street drugs, giving “the most bang for the buck.” Made by amateurs, these drugs are carelessly laced with lethal doses. And because the pills look identical, users never know whether a dose will get them high—or kill them.

But Canada is not just a bystander in this crisis. A loophole in our border laws—the “de minimis” exemption—has turned Canada into a gateway for fentanyl entering U.S. communities. This exemption allows exporters to ship small packages valued at less than $800 directly to customers with minimal border inspection. Chinese exporters exploit this loophole to ship fentanyl precursors into Canada, where they are processed into pills or moved to Mexico under the supervision of Mexican drug cartels.

The Trump administration has pressed Canada to close this loophole. That it has existed for years, almost unnoticed, should shock us to the core.

The problem of fentanyl production within Canada should not be minimized. The RCMP reports that fentanyl labs are appearing across B.C., often producing methamphetamine alongside fentanyl. These small labs supply both domestic and international markets. The threat is real, and it is growing.

Exactly how many Canadians have died from fentanyl overdoses is unclear. However, with Canada’s population roughly one-ninth of the U.S., it is reasonable to estimate that Canadian deaths are approximately one-ninth of U.S. numbers.

But overdose numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. The number of lives wrecked by this drug is staggering. Parents watch their children—once vibrant and full of promise—disappear before their eyes. Their beauty fades, their minds unravel, and their lives collapse into the desperate cycle of chasing the next fix. Some escape. Many don’t. Until death takes them, that is.

The new Trump administration has promised to confront this carnage. “This is a drug war,” Peter Navarro, assistant to the president and director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, recently told reporters. “The Mexican cartels have expanded up to Canada, making fentanyl there and sending it down to the U.S. The Chinese are using Canada to send in small parcels below the radar. It’s important that Canadians understand we are trying to stop the killing of Americans by these deadly drugs.”

But while the U.S. acts, Canada hesitates. Trump is addressing the problem—Canada is enabling it.

The Trump administration also views Canada’s lax drug laws and casual attitude toward buying and selling even the most dangerous drugs as an exacerbating factor. However, on the fentanyl issue, it is clear Trump is determined to tackle a problem Canada has largely ignored. He should be commended for this, and Canada should start cleaning up its own mess.

Yet fentanyl smuggling from Canada is only part of a larger issue. Behind the drug trade lies an even more insidious enemy: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The importation of fentanyl precursors from China, facilitated by Mexican cartels, has turned Vancouver into a money-laundering hub for the CCP. Investigative reporters like Sam Cooper and Terry Glavin have revealed the depth of this corruption, despite the Hogue Commission’s failure to expose it fully.

Ryan P. Williams, president of the Claremont Institute, warns that “The fentanyl crisis is part of a larger campaign by the CCP to destabilize Western nations. They flood our streets with poison while corrupting our institutions from within. If Canada doesn’t confront this threat, it will lose not only lives—but its sovereignty.”

Our new “fentanyl czar,” appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, should not only address the drug crisis but also expose how deeply a hostile CCP has compromised Canada.

Tackling the fentanyl problem will be enormously difficult—likely impossible— for the Trump administration without cooperation from China, Mexico and even Canada. And forcing that cooperation is likely the first part of Trump’s plan.

Canada’s role may be small, but it must take full responsibility for securing its borders and confronting the fentanyl crisis. Trump has forced us to act. Now, if we are serious about restoring our nation’s integrity, we must break the CCP’s grip on our institutions.

In doing so, we will save Canadian lives.

Brian Giesbrecht is a retired Manitoba judge. He is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He was recently named the ‘Western Standard Columnist of the Year.’

Continue Reading

Trending

X