Population growth hopeful sign for NS reserves


By Joseph Quesnel, AIMS Fellow

Some new Census data from Statistics Canada about Nova Scotia may hold opportunity and promise for the province’s Indigenous communities.

The first release of data from the 2016 census is showing more evidence of a population exodus from the province towards other provinces. According to a Chronicle-Herald news story, Nova Scotia showed an overall population growth rate of 0.2 per cent, which translated into just 2,000 new residents. The Atlantic province’s rate was much lower than the national rate of five per cent growth. New Brunswick was even lower as it decreased by 0.5 per cent. PEI only increased by 1.9 per cent and Newfoundland and Labrador only increased by one per cent.

However, the lower population growth is not uniform across Nova Scotia. Although some rural regions showed some decline, there were other rural areas that did not. In particular, many First Nations in Nova Scotia showed increases much higher than the provincial average. For example, Membertou First Nation, an Indigenous community in Cape Breton, enjoyed an 11.3 per cent growth rate. This compares to the province of Cape Breton which saw a decrease of 3.2 per cent over the same period.

Eskasoni First Nation, the largest Indigenous community in Nova Scotia, experienced 3.4 per cent population growth. This is not unlike most other Indigenous communities across Canada, where the youth population is booming, much higher than in other non-Aboriginal communities.

Clearly, younger First Nations in Nova Scotia are attached to their communities and families. Policy makers must be taking advantage of this booming younger demographic within Nova Scotia reserves. Those young people are going to need jobs and opportunities.

Perhaps some inspiration can be drawn from other regions of Canada. Just recently, the CBC reported that a trade school for First Nation students just opened in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Many of those students will come from isolated Northern reserves with few opportunities, beyond band jobs. Education officials and First Nation leaders have often had to deal with funding and jurisdictional issues related to Indigenous schooling, mainly because it is a federal responsibility. One student in the CBC piece mentioned how he wanted to be the first qualified mechanic on his reserve. The piece also questions why there are any impediments to young community members learning how to start their own hair dressing business or bakery.

Opening trade schools and programs for First Nation students in Nova Scotia and all over Atlantic Canada would provide opportunities for the growing population of young people, many of whom are not necessarily interested in college or university. It would also create an entrepreneurial spirit that is needed on so many reserves.

See also: AIMS President Marco Navarro-Génie quoted in the Globe and Mail recently about census data and Atlantic Canadian demographics. Link here.

Partnerships key to Energy East, other projects

Energy East Route. Source: National Energy Board

By Joseph Quesnel, AIMS Fellow

Now that US President Donald Trump has given the green light to the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline project, Atlantic provinces as well as Indigenous communities should still push for the Energy East pipeline, as it will generate many economic benefits for all involved.

According to the Globe and Mail, some oil and gas analysts viewed Energy East as “Plan B” should Keystone XL be rejected. The new pipeline would move up to 1.1 million barrels a day to Saint John, New Brunswick from Alberta.

A Senate Committee report released in December 2016 recommended that the Strait of Canso superport be the ultimate destination of the pipeline instead of Saint John. The report highlighted how partnerships with Indigenous communities along the proposed pipeline route should be considered, including benefit sharing and equity stakes for the groups involved.

However, whether the pipeline ends in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia would be moot if the pipeline itself were in jeopardy.

Atlantic governments and Atlantic-based Indigenous communities need to all work together to make sure that the Energy East pipeline is seen as viable and that these two levels of government ensure a fair regulatory process for the project to proceed. The project already faces hurdles from Quebec politicians and First Nation leaders.

Some energy research analysts believe that both the B.C.-based Trans Mountain pipeline and the Energy East are advantageous because they expand new markets for Canadian crude beyond just the United States, as Keystone XL intends to do. They argue the renewed protectionism on the part of the new US administration makes the case for a west-to-east project that much more critical.

Government consultation policies with First Nations, or the lack thereof in some cases, are presenting problems for resource development projects. Many Indigenous communities feel they are receiving very little in return for serious environmental risk to their traditional territories. The Energy East pipeline approval process has benefited tremendously from Indigenous input along the proposed route. TransCanada has made hundreds of route changes to accommodate those concerns.

Partnering with First Nations is the path forward on Canada’s strategy for building any new pipelines. This is true in a national context, and especially in Atlantic Canada with regard to Energy East. The time is now for Atlantic First Nations to show their good faith in helping assist resource development. The answer for these impoverished communities is for better deals, rather than opposing all deals.

Supply management: a costly endeavor

SM.pngSource: Trevor Tombe, Twitter @TrevorTombe

By Alex Whalen, AIMS Operations Manager

The viability of supply management has come into discussion lately due to the new Trump Presidency. Dalhousie University’s Dean of Management, Sylvain Charlebois, a food expert, recently issued a press release examining the potential effects of Trump policy on the Canadian Dairy Industry.

Following Dr. Charlebois’ announcement, AIMS President Marco Navarro-Génie appeared on the Sheldon MacLeod Show. Dr. Navarro discussed the economics of supply management and why they are prejudicial against consumers. The simple explanation is that in Canada some industries, dairy being most prominent, have a restriction on production. The result is more profit for the producers at the cost of a higher price for everyday consumers.

This leads one to wonder: how do producers get away with such a scam? The answer lies in the distribution of costs and benefits. The costs of supply management are large in the aggregate, but relatively small on any individual purchase. A few extra pennies per transaction is not enough to outrage the public, even if the total costs are enormous. On the other side, the benefits of supply management are large and distributed among a small number of vocal, organized, and politically strong producers.

This phenomenon is analogous to the issue of inter-provincial trade, which has made it into the public lexicon only sporadically. The costs of not allowing Quebec beer into New Brunswick, for example, are small on a per-transaction basis, but large in the aggregate. The benefits accrue to a single entity, NB liquor, and in other cases, to Quebec’s SAQ, the LCBO, etc.

Recent trade deals reveal just how bad things have gotten. While we see occasional lip service paid to abolishing supply management, the provisions included in actual deals are paltry. For example, the recently negotiated CETA allowed for just 2% of the Canadian cheese market being opened up to foreign producers. Such reforms are merely symbolic and do not match the intensity of the problem.

For economists, demolishing inter-provincial trade barriers and phasing out supply management are as close to consensus items as you may find. However, the problem is not economic, it is political. The answer to these issues lies in the broader consumer base realizing it is being conned to the benefit of a select few. Such anti-market interference is unjust and consumers should demand better.