Indigenous voters must decide whether to play short or long game

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/02/2025 (225 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

As a federal election looms, Canadians are — for the first time — getting a fairly clear vision of what their future relationships with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people could look like.

Two moments, illustrating these paths, were on display this week.

The first occurred last week, at the federal Conservative Party “Canada First” rally in Ottawa.

Unlike previous iterations of his party, leader Pierre Poilievre has consistently mentioned First Nations in the lead up to this year’s federal election.

He has promised, ironically, to fulfill many of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s commitments — to end water advisories on reserves, fund searches at former residential school sites, and abolish the Indian Act, for example — but his approach will be through “economic reconciliation.”

On Feb. 15, he announced an optional First Nations Resource Charge that “cedes federal tax room so communities will no longer need to send all their revenues to Ottawa and then ask for it back.”

Under a Poilievre government, entities who develop resources on First Nations would — if the local chief and council chooses — pay directly to the community a portion of what they would have paid in federal taxes, allowing leadership to spend revenue on “clean drinking water and a better future for their people.”

“I want the First Nations people of Canada to be the richest people in the world,” Poilievre announced.

The problem is, under that proposed program, First Nations would receive less money in the long run.

In order for First Nations development projects to proceed in Canada, something called an Impact Benefit Agreement must be in place — this dictates how money and jobs are distributed, environmental cleanup, and initiatives to ensure a community “benefits” from a project.

On this last point: this is how a First Nation ensures a positive legacy is left, whether it be a community or youth centre, a health or elder program, or a language and cultural initiative to help the community transition.

Poilievre’s resource charge idea would remove a problematic middle man but reduces obligations to a First Nation into a cash payment — money the federal government legally has to pay the community anyways.

Arguably, First Nations do make less when the federal government administers them, but this short-term profit will come with long-term cost.

A brief gain with longer consequence, in fact, is a hallmark of Poilievre’s platform when it comes to First Nations. This is particularly evident in his promise to remove Bill C-69, which legally requires all development projects in Canada be assessed for their environmental, health, social and economic impacts alongside Indigenous rights.

The other primary characteristic of Poilievre’s Indigenous platform is that two groups of Indigenous peoples are basically missing: Inuit and Métis.

He has regularly upset Inuit by making jokes about appointing “Santa Claus” as Canada’s “Arctic ambassador” and installing a military base in Nunavut — much to the surprise of Inuit leaders there.

Meanwhile, the Tory leader has no plan (yet) to engage with Métis communities.

Still, it’s worth noting, on the federal Conservative website, around a dozen First Nations leaders (mostly from BC) endorse Poilievre’s First Nations Resource Charge.

Which brings me to the other federal option for Canadians.

On Monday, Trudeau signed an agreement to recognize the Haida nation’s Aboriginal title over the archipelago of Haida Gwaii — the island off of British Columbia’s northern coast.

Over the next five years, the Chiix̲uujin/ Chaaw K̲aawgaa ‘Big Tide (Low Water)’ Haida Title Lands Agreement dictates how Haida leaders and the federal government will negotiate how to transfer jurisdiction of the territory to Haida authorities.

The agreement requires legislation and eventually will dictate how governance works, courts interpret law and economic development occurs.

The agreement does not impact currently held private property interests and municipal governments and “confirms” the ongoing “delivery of federal public services.”

If you want my prediction: if successful, this will be the creation of Canada’s fourth territory — the last being when Nunavut was created in 1999.

As of yet, Liberal leadership hopefuls Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland haven’t commented on the agreement. Carney was endorsed by Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Gary Anandasangaree (who announced the signing) and Freeland has been a part of Trudeau’s most progressive cabinet for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in history — ending more than two thirds of water advisories on First Nations, negotiating the first treaty with the Manitoba Métis Federation and the first Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee. Trudeau’s Liberals have also passed half a dozen bills entrenching Indigenous rights in Canada.

Whether it’s Carney or Freeland, the Liberals are on a long-term, slow path of negotiating, legislating, and, hopefully, forging difficult paths of reconciliation.

The Haida agreement, as one of those examples, will take a great deal of time but will eventually ensure long-term self-governance, sustainability and sovereignty of the Haida people.

Maybe even a new Canadian territory.

Two choices, two directions. One short, one long.

One election.

niigaan.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca