Ottawa has spent nearly $18 billion settling Indigenous ‘specific claims’ since 2015

Since 2015, the federal government has paid nearly $18 billion settling an increasing number of ‘specific claims’ by First Nations, including more than $7 billion last year alone, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think tank.

“Specific claims are for past treaty breaches, and as such, their number should be finite. But instead of declining over time, the number of claims keeps growing as lucrative settlements are reached, which in turn prompts even more claims,” said Tom Flanagan, Fraser Institute senior fellow, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary and author of Specific Claims—an Out-of-Control Program.

The study reveals details about “specific claims,” which began in 1974 and are filed by First Nations who claim that Canadian governments—past or present—violated the Indian Act or historic treaty agreements, such as when governments purchased reserve land for railway lines or hydro projects. Most “specific claims” date back 100 years or more. Specific claims are contrasted with comprehensive claims, which arise from the absence of a treaty.

Crucially, the number of specific claims and the value of the settlement paid out have increased dramatically since 2015.

In 2015/16, 11 ‘specific claims’ were filed with the federal government, and the total value of the settlements was $27 million (in 2024 dollars, to adjust for inflation). The number of claims increased virtually every year since so that by 2024/25, 69 ‘specific claims’ were filed, and the value of the settlements in 2024/25 was $7.061 billion. All told, from 2015/16 to 2024/25, the value of all ‘specific claims’ settlements was $17.9 billion (inflation adjusted).

“First Nations have had 50 years to study their history, looking for violations of treaty and legislation. That is more than enough time for the discovery of legitimate grievances,” Flanagan said.

“Ottawa should set a deadline for filing specific claims so that the government and First Nations leaders can focus instead on programs that would do more to improve the living standards and prosperity for both current and future Indigenous peoples.”

Specific Claims: An Out-of-Control Program

Specific claims are based on the government’s alleged failure to abide by provisions of the Indian Act or a treaty.
The federal government began to entertain such claims in 1974. The number and value of claims increased gradually until 2017, when both started to rise at an extraordinary rate.
In fiscal year 2024/25, the government settled 69 claims for an astonishing total of $7.1 billion dollars.
The evidence suggests at least two causes for this sudden acceleration. One was the new approach of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government toward settling Indigenous claims, an approach adopted in 2015 and formalized by Minister of Justice Jodi Wilson-Raybould’s 2019 practice directive. Under the new policy, the Department of Justice was instructed to negotiate rather than litigate claims.
Another factor was the recognition, beginning around 2017, of “cows and plows” claims based on the allegation that agricultural assistance promised in early treaties—seed grain, cattle, agricultural implements—never arrived or was of poor quality.
The specific-claims process should be terminated. Fifty years is long enough to discover legitimate grievances.
The government should announce a short but reasonable period, say three years, for new claims to be submitted. Claims that have already been submitted should be processed, but with more rigorous instructions to the Department of Justice for legal scrutiny.
The government should also require more transparency about what happens to these settlements. At present, much of the revenue paid out disappears into First Nations’ “settlement trusts”, for which there is no public disclosure.

Read The Full Study

Tom Flanagan

Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Distinguished Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary

Up Next

Alberta Trailblazing On Property Rights Protections

Don't Miss

Taiwan Criticizes CBC Correction on United Front Buddhist Land Story, Citing PRC Political Pressure

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

Trump’s Strike on Iran Reshapes Global Power Balance, Deals First Blow to Beijing and CRINK Axis

National / 12 hours ago

Preston Manning: “Appearing to Cope” – Is This The Best We Can Do?

armed forces / 13 hours ago

How Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?

armed forces

How Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?

Published on June 22, 2025

Todayville

David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

To my great surprise I recently noticed that, despite being deeply engaged in wars against at least four determined enemies, Israel doesn’t spend all that much more on their military than Canada does on its forces. What might that tell us about government efficiency?

There’s fairly universal agreement that Canada doesn’t spend enough on its military. But before we can even ask how much we should be spending, we should understand how much we’re already spending. And figuring that out isn’t nearly as easy as I’d expected.

Subscribe to The Audit

According to the 2025–26 Expenditures by Purpose data released by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence (DND) was allocated $35.7 billion (CAN). However, the New York Times recently reported that Primer Minister Carney’s $9.3 billion increase would bring the total defence-related spending to $62.7 billion – which suggests that, prior to the increase, we were set to spend $53.4 billion (CAN).

So I’ll work with both of those figures: $35.7 billion ($26 billion USD) and the pre-announcement $53.4 billion ($39 billion USD). By contrast, Israel currently spends around $37 billion (USD) on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) which is in the neighborhood of 18 percent of their total budget.¹ The IDF is (literally) getting a much bigger bang for their buck.²

I’m going to compare the military inventories of both countries to get a sense of what a dollar of government spending can get you. I understand that this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison and there are many complicating factors here. But I think the exercise could lead us to some useful insights. First off, here’s a very rough estimate of existing inventories:

I’m sure there are plenty of caveats we could apply to those numbers, including how much of that equipment is actually fit for service on any given day. But they’ll have to do.

In addition, there are currently 68,000 regular troops in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) along with 22,500 reserves, while the IDF employs 169,500 regular troops and 465,000 reserves. They also cost money.

Based on some very rough estimates,³ I’d assess the value of IDF assets at around 2.6 times the value of comparable CAF assets. That means that the IDF – using their procurement systems – would need to spend just $14.4 billion (USD) to purchase the equivalent of the current set of CAF assets.

Now compare that with our actual (pre-increase) expenditures of either $26 billion USD or $39 billion USD and it seems that we’re overspending by either 80 percent or 270 percent.

I think we’d be wise to wonder why that is.

Subscribe to The Audit

For full context, Israel receives around $3.8 billion (USD) in military aid annually from the U.S.

Speaking of which, for simplicity, I completely left the ongoing costs of ordinance out of my calculations.

If you’re really interested, you can see my calculations here.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Business

Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

Published on June 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.

The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:

• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.

• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.

• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.

• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.

“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.

“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Four Climate Fallacies

This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.