Bird’s Eye View: Kawacatoose Signing: Full Control or Part Time Financial Freedom? (Opinion)

Kawacatoose Chief Darin Poorman (photo credit: Josee St Onge – CBC Radio Canada)

Editor’s note: The following is an opinion piece from Blogger Jay Bird and does not reflect the views of RezX Magazine. “Bird’s Eye View” is his own blog where he regularly shares his views on a variety of topics.

Kawacatoose vs. AANDC – Part-Time Financial Freedom Fighters?

“Under the Indian Act, First Nations communities have to go through the Ministry of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs to get permission to use their own money and finalize business contracts related to oil and gas reserves. Now that the Kawacatoose First Nation has opted into the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, it can manage its own finances, including royalties from oil, mining and gas.” (Alia Dharssi, http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/21/saskatchewan-band-becomes-first-of-first-nations-to-take-full-control-of-natural-resource-royalties/)

I am going to be honest, this is all quite confusing. Here is an easy way to understand what is happening on Kawacatoose with signing onto this legislation.

Indian Affairs (The Crown) currently controls ALL your finances. Kawacatoose signed into this Act to take control of SOME of their finances – Oil, Gas, and Mining. This removes the 3rd party (Crown) from the equation and they can make investments with these industries as an ‘owner’ and spend the royalties. That is it.

According to Doug Rae “The Act has been promoted as a method whereby a First Nation can take control of its on-reserve oil and gas resources and thus enhance the economic rent from these resources.”

So why did Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt call this band ‘pioneer’s’? What was pioneered exactly? Let’s examine that.

They didn’t escape Federal oversight:

• Kawacatoose has the powers of owner but is not the owner. They have become agents of the Crown, still title holder, in management of its mineral lands

• As owner, they now bare (sic) the liability for environmental or resource conservation matters

• Canada (Feds) will still take a portion of economic rents accrued from mineral resources extracted on the land (revenue sharing)

• Kawacatoose only has control of these rents accrued from Oil, Gas, and Mining – not their overall Indian Affairs monies/trust account

(Thanks to Doug Rae’s blog : http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/blog_dr_fnogmma_sept2009.pdf for providing the bulk of this information in bullet points.)

All that was ‘pioneered’ was Kawacatoose signed onto a deal to remove a 3rd party hindrance (Crown) when making deals concerning industry. They also managed to get the 3rd party out of how they spend these royalties. I can applaud that.

But this is far from an escape from Indian Act controls and Crown interference.

Being owner is not exactly being land title holder. This means the Crown is still going to get some of the monies from industry on this land – as title holder. It’s kind of like the Crown getting rent from us as we collect rent from industry. Seems like a tax system if you ask me.

Kawacatoose now assumes liability (or costs) for anything environmental or conservation related to said industry they court onto the lands. This means they have to pay out of pocket for spills/clean-up or other regulations. I guess this about right since they are now ‘pseudo owner’ and ‘pseudo partner’. The Crown escapes the costs of spills/clean-up or regulations while still being title holder to the land.

And what about the Province? Are we to expect the Provinces to say nothing about resource revenue sharing, which they swore they’d not have with Indigenous bands, as potash companies court Kawacatoose minerals? I would think as an owner, Kawacatoose would have to kick dollars to the Province, just like any business would, or maybe the Federal government will take higher rents to pay the Province in their share. Ooooh, double taxation system.

I think some of this is good, I also think some of this offers little in the ways of actual ownership. When I buy something, like a house, I don’t let another party own the title. There is a bigger problem here and it’s getting glazed over: the Indian Act is still running the show.

By Jay Bird, Bird’s Eye View Blog (Opinion)