Frontier Centre for Public Policy
The Smallwood solution
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
All Canadians deserve decent housing, and indigenous people have exactly the same legal right to house ownership, or home rental, as any other Canadian. That legal right is zero.
$875,000 for every indigenous man, woman and child living in a rural First Nations community. That is approximately what Canadian taxpayers will have to pay if a report commissioned by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is accepted. According to the report 349 billion dollars is needed to provide the housing and infrastructure required for the approximately 400,000 status Indians still living in Canada’s 635 or so First Nations communities. ($349,000,000,000 divided by 400,000 = ~$875,000).
St Theresa Point First Nation is typical of many of such communities. It is a remote First Nation community in northern Manitoba. CBC recently did a story about it. One person interviewed was Christina Wood, who lives in a deteriorating house with 23 family members. Most other people in the community live in similar squalor. Nobody in the community has purchased their own house, and all rely on the federal government to provide housing for them. Few people in the community have paid employment. Those that do have salaries that come in one way or another from the taxpayer.
But St. Theresa Point is a growing community in the sense that birth rates are high, and few people have the skills or motivation needed to be successfully employed in Winnipeg, or other job centres. Social pathologies, such as alcohol and other drug addictions are rampant in the community. Suicide rates are high.
St. Theresa Point is one of hundreds of such indigenous communities in Canada. This is not to say that all such First Nations communities are poor. In fact, some are wealthy. Those lucky enough to be located in or near Vancouver, for example, located next to oil and gas, or on a diamond mine do very well. Some, like Chief Clarence Louis’ Osoyoos community have successfully taken advantage of geography and opportunity and created successful places where employed residents live rich lives.
Unfortunately, most are not like that. They look a lot more like St. Theresa Point. And the AFN now says that 350 billion dollars are needed to keep those communities going.
Meanwhile, all of Canada is in the grip of a serious housing crisis. There are many causes for this, including the massive increase in new immigrants, foreign students and asylum seekers, all of whom have to live somewhere. There are various proposals being considered to respond to this problem. None of those plans come anywhere near to suggesting that $875,000 of public funds should be spent on every Canadian man, woman or child who needs housing. The public treasury would not sustain such an assault.
All Canadians deserve decent housing, and indigenous people have exactly the same legal right to house ownership, or home rental, as any other Canadian. That legal right is zero. Our constitution does not give Canadians – indigenous or non-indigenous- any legal right to publicly funded home ownership, or any right to publicly funded rental property. And no treaty even mentions housing. In all cases it is assumed that Canadians – indigenous and non-indigenous – will provide for themselves. This is the brutal reality. We are on our own when it comes to housing. There are government programs that assist low income people to buy or rent homes, but they are quite limited, and depend on a person qualifying in various ways.
But indigenous people do not have any preferred right to housing. The chiefs and treaty commissioners who signed the treaties expected indigenous people to provide for their own housing in exactly the same way that all other Canadians were expected to provide for their own housing. In fact, the treaty makers, chiefs and treaty commissioners – assumed that indigenous people would support themselves just like every other Canadian. There was no such thing as welfare then.
Our leaders today face difficult decisions about how to spend limited public funds to try and help struggling Canadians find adequate housing in which to raise their families, and get to and from their places of employment. Indigenous Canadians deserve exactly as much help in this regard as everyone else. Finding sensible, affordable ways to do this is vitally important if Canada is to thrive.
And one of hundreds of these difficult and expensive housing decisions our leaders must deal with now is how to respond to this new demand for 350 billion dollars – a demand that would result in indigenous Canadians receiving hundreds of times more housing help than other Canadians.
Our leaders know that authorising massive spending like that in uneconomic communities is completely unfair to other Canadians – for one thing doing so means that there would be no money left for urban housing assistance. They also know that pouring massive amounts of money into uneconomic, dysfunctional communities like St. Theresa’s Point – the “unguarded concentration camps” Farley Mowat described long ago- only keeps generations of young indigenous people locked in hopeless dependency.
In short, they know that the 350 billion dollar demand makes no sense.
Our leaders know that, but they won’t say that. In fact it is not hard to predict how politicians will respond to the 350 billion dollar demand. None of their responses will look even remotely like what I have written above. Instead, they will say soothing things, while pushing the enormous problem down the road. Eventually, when forced by circumstances to actually make spending decisions they will provide stopgap “bandage” funding. And perhaps come up with pretend “loan guarantee” schemes – loans they know will never be repaid. Massive loan defaults in the future will be an enormous problem for our children and grandchildren. But today’s leaders will be gone by then.
So, in a decade or so communities, like St. Theresa Point, will still be there. Any new housing that has been built will already be deteriorating and inadequate. The communities will remain dependent. The young people will be trapped in hopeless dependency.
And the chiefs will be making new money demands.
At some point this country will have to confront the reality that most of Canada’s First Nations reserves, particularly the remote ones, are not sustainable. Better plans to educate and provide job skills to the younger generations in those communities, and assist them to move to job centres, will have to be found. Continuing to pretend that this massive problem will sort itself out by passing UNDRIP legislation, or pretending that those depressed communities are “nations” is only delaying the inevitable.
When Joey Smallwood told the Newfoundland fishermen, who had lived in their outports for generations, that they must move for their own good, there was much pain. But the communities could no longer support themselves, and it had to be done. Entire communities moved. It worked out.
The northern First Nations communities are no different. The ancestors of the residents of those communities supported themselves by fishing and hunting. It was an honourable life. But it is gone. The young people there now will have to move, build new lives, and become self-supporting like their ancestors.
Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Alberta moves to remove books after disturbing content, too graphic for media to view, was found in schools
Should elementary school children be given books to read with harsh insults against minorities, depictions of oral sex, and other disturbingly graphic and explicit content?
Such books have been in some Alberta elementary schools for a while, and in many school libraries across Canada.
In late May, the Alberta government announced it would establish new guidelines regarding age-appropriate materials in its schools. A government press release included quotes with disturbing content, but at a press conference, Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides said some book illustrations could not be shown.
“I would show these images to all of you here and to the media, but they are too graphic for a live-stream media event. These examples … illustrate the kind of content that raises concerns amongst parents,” Nicolaides said.
You don’t say? This seems like the sort of stuff no one, except a pervert in a park, would dream of showing to a child. Ironically, the inability to publicize such graphic materials is part of the reason they have been shown to children with little public awareness.
Citizens’ group Action4Canada (A4C) has claimed its activism played a pivotal role in the Alberta decision. The organization has compiled a 36-page document online with examples of objectionable content in Canadian schools. Among the worst is Identical by Ellen Hopkins, which includes graphic descriptions of a little girl being molested by her father.
A4C founder Tanya Gaw has repeatedly tried to raise concerns about objectionable books with school boards, often without success. In some cases, she isn’t even allowed on the agenda if she states her topic upfront. When she is permitted to speak, she’s frequently cut off as soon as she begins quoting from the books, preventing the content from entering the public record.
In January 2023, Gaw made an online presentation to a school board in Mission, B.C. regarding materials in their schools. As she began to screenshare what was there, some board members objected, saying such permission had not been given in advance.
One month later, the board banned Action4Canada from making any further presentations. In later media interviews, the board chair justified the decision by saying Gaw’s PowerPoint contained some graphic and “inappropriate images.”
Exactly, and that is the problem. A recent check showed Mission’s school division only removed four of 15 books A4C objected to. Gaw is just glad “Identical” is one of them.
Pierre Barns, a father from Abbotsford, B.C., made it his mission to notify school boards across Canada what was on their school shelves. An online search was all it took to confirm. A “reply all” from a board member at the Halton School District in Ontario was most ironic.
“I am concerned. This individual has included links to publications and videos which may contain illegal content,” she wrote.
“I’m not sure how to investigate the content of the email safely. Would you please advise us whether or not this person ought to be reported to police? Is there some action we should take?”
There probably was action they should have taken, such as removing the books, but that never happened. Later, they defended a biologically male teacher in their school division who made international headlines by wearing large prosthetic breasts to school.
The Alberta government has committed to conducting public consultations before implementing new policies. It’s a good time for parents and citizens there and in other provinces to speak up. A young mind is a terrible thing to corrupt, but unfortunately, some schools are part of this corrosive effort.
Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
From the Frontier Institute for Public Policy
Research VP Marco Navarro-Genie warns that Canada’s future hinges on building energy infrastructure, not just expanding pipelines but forging a true North American energy alliance. With global demand rising and authoritarian regimes weaponizing energy, Ottawa’s dithering costs Canada $70 million daily. Sovereignty isn’t secured by speeches but by infrastructure. Until Canada sheds its regulatory paralysis, it will remain a discount supplier in a high stakes geopolitical game. Time to build.
Canada has energy the world is begging for, but ideology and red tape are holding us back
As Prime Minister Mark Carney met with U.S. President Donald Trump recently, energy should have been the issue behind every headline, whether mentioned or not. Canada’s future as a sovereign, economically resilient country will depend in no small part on whether the country seizes this moment or stalls out again in a fog of regulatory inertia and political ambivalence. Canada holds an underleveraged strategic card: the potential to be the world’s most reliable democratic energy supplier. Recent trade figures show Chinese imports of Canadian crude hit a record 7.3 million barrels in March, a direct result of newly expanded access to the Pacific via the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX), a federally owned pipeline project that now connects Alberta crude to global markets through British Columbia’s coast. But one pipeline does not make a national strategy. Demand in Asia is growing fast. India is among the hungriest, but Canada’s infrastructure is nowhere near meeting that demand.
This matters not just for Canada, but for the United States as well. In a world where energy markets are weaponized and strategic reserves manipulated by authoritarian regimes, the case for a coordinated North American energy alliance is stronger than ever. Such an alliance should not erode national sovereignty. It should reinforce it, allowing Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to insulate themselves collectively from supply shocks and geopolitical blackmail while projecting democratic strength abroad.
But for that alliance to work, Canada must be a credible partner, not merely a junior supplier shackled by Ottawa-induced internal bottlenecks. While the U.S. has leveraged its shale revolution, LNG capacity and permitting reforms to pursue energy dominance, Canada dithers. Projects languish. Investment flees. And meanwhile, Canadian oil continues to flow south at a steep discount, only to be refined and resold, often back to us or our trading partners, at full global prices.
Yes, you read that right. Canada’s oil and gas is sold at a discount to U.S. customers, and that discount costs Canada more than $70 million every single day. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has developed a real-time tracker to monitor these losses. This pricing gap exists because Canada lacks sufficient pipeline infrastructure to access overseas buyers directly, forcing producers to sell to the U.S., often at below-market rates.
Such massive losses should be unacceptable to any government serious about economic growth, geopolitical influence or environmental integrity. Yet Ottawa continues to speak the language of ambition while legislating the mechanics of paralysis. Stephen Guilbault’s statement that Canada already has enough pipelines speaks to more paralysis..
Canada’s energy infrastructure challenges are not just economic; they are matters of national defence. No country can claim to be secure while relying on another’s pipelines to transport its energy across its own territory. No country can afford to leave its wealth-producing regions boxed in by regulatory choke points or political resistance dressed as environmental virtue.
Our energy economy is fragmented. Western hydrocarbons are stuck inland and must pass through the U.S. to reach Eastern Canada or global markets eastward. This weakens national unity and leaves us exposed to foreign leverage. It also creates strategic vulnerabilities for our allies. American industries depend on Canadian crude. So do U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. And while American officials continue to treat energy as a tool of diplomacy and economic leverage, using energy exports to build alliances and reduce reliance on unstable regimes, Canada treats it as a domestic liability.
We need to shift the frame. Infrastructure isn’t just about steel in the ground; it’s the backbone of strategic autonomy. Pipelines, export terminals and utility corridors would allow Canada to claim its place in the emerging geopolitical order. They would also signal to global investors that Canada is open for business and capable of delivering returns without political obstruction.
The U.S. wants a stable, competent partner to help meet global energy needs. Increasingly, so does the rest of the world. But until we address our internal dysfunction and build, we’re stuck. Stuck watching global opportunities pass us by. Stuck selling low while others sell high. Stuck in a conversation about sovereignty we’re not structurally equipped to address, let alone win.
When Carney meets with Trump again, he would do well to remember that economic independence, not rhetorical unity, is the bedrock of sovereignty. Without infrastructure, Canada brings only words to a hard-power conversation.
Paraphrasing Thomas Hobbes, energy covenants without infrastructure are but words. It’s time to stop posturing and start building.
Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles after violent attacks on ICE agents
LA Mayor Karen Bass Makes New Demands Of Trump At Monday Night Press Conference
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
RFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
