A majority of Canadians think that Canada is broken after years of stagnant incomes, affordability challenges, rising crime, government failures on basic functions like healthcare and immigration, and a deepening cultural malaise. But decline is a choice, and better public policies are needed to overcome Canada’s many challenges. Kickstart Canada brings together leading voices in academia, think tanks, and business to lay out an optimistic vision for Canada’s future, providing the policy ideas that governments need to ensure a bright future for all Canadians.

In 2015, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau campaigned on a platform that emphasized a renewed “nation-to-nation” relationship with Indigenous Peoples based on mutual respect, recognition of rights, and cooperative partnership.

He said that his government would work to end the “paternalistic, colonial” approaches that had historically characterized Canada’s relationship with Indigenous Peoples. This language was meant to signify a new era in Canadian governance with Indigenous Peoples, focusing on reconciliation and empowerment rather than control and assimilation.

Fast forward to today. After winning the election nearly a decade ago, Trudeau has failed to follow through on his promises to Indigenous Peoples, eroding trust, slowing reconciliation, and perpetuating social and economic disparities. This has led to criticism of his Liberal government’s seriousness in improving the lives of Indigenous Peoples—did they mean what they said? Or was this merely performative allyship? The persistence of key problems like access to clean drinking water has undermined confidence in subsequent commitments.

First off, a real commitment to Indigenous reconciliation would involve recognizing Indigenous sovereignty through legislative reform, addressing critical infrastructure like clean water, health care, reliable energy, roads, fire protection, access to telecommunication and connectivity with sustained investment, and ensuring nation-to-nation dialogue with Indigenous Peoples. This would require concrete actions, accountability, and, most importantly, actual results.

But First Nations can’t achieve this without government action.

The biggest impediment that First Nations face in achieving these goals is the lack of control over their own governance due to the prolonged effects of paternalism. This includes restrictive federal policies, underfunding, and a dependence on government systems that often limit self-determination.

Overcoming these challenges requires rebuilding nationhood, securing legal and financial sovereignty, and addressing the deep-rooted economic disparities that hinder progress.

Unlike immigrant communities who often build wealth within one or two generations after moving to Canada, these governance failures prevent First Nations from accumulating and transferring wealth across generations, perpetuating cycles of poverty.

Merely amending a section or two of the Indian Act every 20 years or so, as both Liberal and Conservative governments have done since its inception in 1876, doesn’t respond to the magnitude and urgency of the issues before us—and, most importantly, it doesn’t set First Nations (and the country) on a more prosperous path.

“Kickstarting” a new nation-to-nation relationship and shifting the course of the past 150-plus years under the Indian Act requires bold vision and action through several governance-focused mechanisms, many of which have already been successfully implemented across the country.

Modern treaties

Modern treaties establish a framework for self-governance, land ownership, and resource management. These treaties are negotiated to reflect current realities while recognizing Indigenous sovereignty and jurisdiction. It’s been done before. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1974) and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993) have successfully shifted governance authority from the federal government to Indigenous Nations, opening the avenue to exercise self-determination.

Self-government agreements

First Nations negotiate self-government agreements with federal and provincial governments, establishing the legal authority for First Nations to govern their own affairs. These agreements often cover areas such as education, health care, resource management, and justice, among others. Again, it’s been done before: the Nisga’a Final Agreement (2000) and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Agreements (1993). These agreements allow First Nations to develop and enforce their own laws and manage their own resources, independent of the Indian Act.

Regional governance models 

First Nations form tribal councils or regional governance bodies that represent multiple communities and provide centralized governance services, such as health, education, and economic development. These bodies work in partnership with federal and provincial governments but operate autonomously. Once again, it’s been done before. Many First Nations have established tribal councils or regional bodies, such as the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) in Quebec, which governs Cree communities in the James Bay region. These councils function independently of the Indian Act and focus on collective governance.

Indigenous-led customary governments

First Nations revitalize governance systems based on their long-standing legal principles, laws, governance, and leadership structures. These governments assert sovereignty and self-determination by implementing their own constitutions and governance frameworks. A more recent example, the Tŝilhqot’in Nation has asserted sovereignty through court rulings (like the landmark Tŝilhqot’in decision in 2014) and has moved to govern based on its customary laws, bypassing the Indian Act entirely.

Nation-to-Nation agreements 

Bilateral agreements are established between First Nations and the federal government, recognizing First Nations as sovereign entities and engaging in equal partnership. These agreements outline jurisdictional powers, governance frameworks, and resource management strategies. In another recent example, the concept is still emerging, the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement (2022) gives 23 First Nations in Ontario increased autonomy over governance, including citizenship, elections, and government operations, outside of the Indian Act.

Reconciliation agreements 

The first of its kind, the Haida Nation and the British Columbia Treaty Commission are opting for a different approach than the traditional treaty-making process. Rather than signing on to a modern treaty, which they argue could diminish their sovereignty, the Haida Nation is pursuing reconciliation agreements with provincial and federal governments that focus on co-management of lands and resources while recognizing the Haida Nation’s inherent rights and governance over the unceded territory. The Haida Nation has indicated this approach ensures it maintains sovereignty without the limitations and certainty of a traditional treaty.

Renegotiating treaties

Renegotiating a treaty for modern application would include updating clauses of a historic treaty to address issues like governance, land rights, resource management, and points involving day-to-day life like education and health while maintaining the original spirit of the agreement. This process would adapt the treaty to modern legal, governance, and economic contexts without replacing it entirely or rewriting it. Treaty 8, originally signed in 1899, has not been formally renegotiated as a whole treaty, but specific aspects of it have been addressed through modern agreements and legal settlements. In this case, it was undertaken in response to resource development in B.C., such as hydroelectric dams, mining, and oil and gas exploration.

And while this has yet to be undertaken within the context of whole treaty renewal, the 21 Nations within the Robinson-Huron Treaty would be best positioned to lead here in light of their tremendous leadership in affirming a key economic clause within their 1850 treaty.

Embracing economic freedom

Despite the setbacks and false starts, Indigenous Peoples are not deterred by a lagging government. Far from it. There are, after all, other partners to turn to. There is a renewed energy among many First Nations, buoyed by the growing willingness of industry to forge business partnerships with them, leading to a resurgence of growth and prosperity in their communities—levels of success not seen in decades.

While many governance solutions have been tried, and some yet to be tried pending a bolder and more visionary government, there is one alternative approach, albeit a temporary one, to shifting the governance framework: an economic-focused one.

This one has First Nations focus on building a robust local economy that is fully self-sustaining, reducing dependence on federal government support and rendering the Indian Act almost irrelevant. By achieving economic independence through resource management, entrepreneurship, and community-driven development, a First Nation can assert greater autonomy and sovereignty in practice.

The Fort McKay First Nation is a prime example of a self-sustaining local economy largely independent of federal government control. In the heart of Alberta’s oilsands, Fort McKay has leveraged its location to create profitable partnerships with major energy companies, developing a thriving economy centred on the oil and gas industry. This economic success has allowed Fort McKay to assert greater autonomy over its affairs and reduce reliance on federal funding and the Indian Act.

Acknowledging that, geographically, few First Nations can benefit from the oil and gas industry, there are other leading examples such as the Osoyoos Indian Band in B.C., which has leveraged the opportunities from its territory and developed successful business ventures in vineyards, tourism, and construction, creating significant economic independence from federal oversight. The Membertou First Nation in Nova Scotia thrives through diversification in fisheries, gaming, hospitality, and technology sectors.

The proposal here reflects a Canadian Conservative legacy. Brian Mulroney, prime minister from 1984 to 1993, had a significant impact on First Nations governance through his engagement with Indigenous communities and issues during his tenure. His government played a key role in advancing the recognition of Indigenous self-governance, most notably through the inclusion of Indigenous leaders in the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, which acknowledged Indigenous Peoples’ inherent right to self-government, but which was (unfortunately) rejected in a referendum.

Mulroney also championed modern treaty negotiations, leading to agreements like the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which paved the way for the creation of the self-governing territory of Nunavut. Additionally, his establishment of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1991 highlighted the need for a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, focusing on Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination.

The oil and gas industry in particular can be credited for keeping business moving by forming meaningful partnerships with First Nations over the past 15 to 20 years, recognizing that those who are most impacted by development projects should be the first to benefit.

But even here, significant challenges remain. Financial barriers, deeply rooted in the Indian Act, are currently preventing First Nations from accessing competitive borrowing options for resource development, limiting opportunities for growth.

And sure, while loan guarantee programs like the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation are being implemented provincially and now federally thanks to the exhaustive advocacy work of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, and these serve as a reliable workaround solution to the choke-hold of the Indian Act, the fundamental problem remains.

It’s clear that what served the government’s objectives back in 1876 no longer serves us today—neither First Nations, the Crown, nor industry.

At last count, there were 25 finalized and active self-government agreements across Canada involving 43 of the 634 First Nations, with roughly 50 self-government agreements being actively currently negotiated. These numbers reveal that more than 90 percent of First Nations remain strapped by the Indian Act, the majority of which sit within the territories of “historic” treaties. While these treaties remain legally active today, they are administered (quite poorly) through federal departments—so poorly that the Crown is increasingly held to account by courts at all levels, as seen earlier this summer when the Supreme Court of Canada issued a legal judgement against the Crown for failing to uphold its obligations as set out in the Robinson Treaties.

It is an understatement to say that Canada must address the outdated policies it created in 1876’s Indian Act with a great deal of urgency. The time is now to end paternalism and move beyond this core governance issue—in any form that restores First Nations autonomy. First Nations and Canadian prosperity is counting on it.

Last year, I thought it would be a romantic Hawaiian honeymoon destination to visit America’s most famous battleship. The beautiful 80-year-old, 45,000-ton USS Missouri played a key role in the Second World War’s invasion of Iwo Jima, the Korean War—and, incredibly, even the first Gulf War. Most importantly, however, 79 years ago today, a tiny spot on its 1.2 acres of teak deck was the site of Japan signing its document of surrender, which formally ended the Second World War.

It was a defining moment, marking the conclusion of a six year long conflict that killed 75 million people and reshaped the modern world. It was also a moment that marked one of the most monumental Canadian screw-ups in history.

As the Globe and Mail described it nearly 80 years ago, it “will rank high among the historic bobbles of our time.”

A floating spectacle

According to my American tour guide, it was the USS Missouri, eight decades ago, that played the leading role in a triumphant display of American dominance, featuring a fighter aircraft armada and 250 warships anchored in Tokyo Bay. The German surrender four months earlier was a solemn affair. The surrender in Japan would be a spectacle.

The exhausted and recently atom-bombed Japanese delegation was brought onboard and immediately blinded by the flashbulbs of 300 invited journalists. Only a few days earlier the hundreds of soldiers straining their necks to catch a glimpse of their defeated foes, had been readying themselves for “Operation Downfall”—the invasion of Japan. But that was before Emperor Hirohito defied his generals and finally submitted to the Allies.

The humiliated Japanese were led to a table and chairs and greeted by the top brass from all the Allied nations, led by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur who had orchestrated the affair. Every Allied power (the U.S., the U.K., France, the Netherlands, China, the Soviet Union, Australia, and New Zealand) was represented by a general, marshal, or admiral. Every country except for Canada.

Signing the “Japanese Instrument of Surrender” for Canada, arguably one of the most important documents in history, was one Colonel Lawrence Moore Cosgrave.

As our American guide explained to me, my new wife, and our fellow tourists, Canada did not have a high-ranking officer available in the region. The man who should have been representing us was Major-General Bert Hoffmeister, a distinguished veteran in the Italian campaign who had helped lead the epic capture of Ortona.

But Bert was stuck in Vancouver.

So, Canada had to settle for Cosgrave, our Australian military attaché—a man who only had one functioning eye and who one of the American generals on board described as, “An elderly masher of the gigolo type.”

This was a significant moment for our country. In their heroic 1941 defence of Hong Kong, Canadians were the first to declare war on Japan and took part in one of the first-ever battles in the Pacific. We lost nearly 300 men in the process. More than 260 Canadian prisoners of war later died in Japanese custody from starvation, sickness, forced labour, and horrific abuse. Some emaciated Allied soldiers were even at the signing ceremony, their protruding rib cages in full view of their former captors. Canada’s signature on that surrender document would be some measure of revenge.

A famous flub

Sadly, it was not to be. Cosgrave would make his mark on history—but in all the wrong ways. When it was Canada’s turn to sign the Japanese copy of the surrender document, instead of putting his signature on the designated line above “The Dominion of Canada,” Cosgrave accidentally wrote it on the line below, where France was meant to sign. Observers questioned if Cosgrave had been distracted. Others blamed his partial blindness. Still others speculated if he was drunk.

“There was a sense of this big ceremony we had set up. Everything is supposed to go off right. And then, ‘oops’,” Michael Pass, a historian and expert in Canadian-Japanese relations told me in an interview.

“[H]istory cruelly remembers him only as the man whose brief walk on the world stage was marred by a misplaced signature,” wrote veteran reporter Geoff Ellwand years later.

With his blunder, Colonel Cosgrave set off a chain reaction of confusion. The French and Dutch were then forced to sign on the wrong line, relegating the Kiwis to the empty space at the bottom of the page.

When the Japanese eventually came to retrieve the document that marked the defeat of their empire, the ship’s captain said they “started to question something on it.” The perturbed party wondered whether the document was legal. They seemingly refused to accept it, botched by Canadian hands. As minutes ticked by, and the end of the war was delayed, the USS Missouri ran the risk of becoming the site of an international incident.

“The Canadian messed it up,” announced our American tour guide. I stared down at the deck avoiding the gaze of fellow tourists we had proudly told we were from Toronto. I spent the time doing the mental math, concluding that every hour, visitors to the Missouri were being told Canada screwed up signing one of history’s most important documents. We were an international laughingstock. But were we really?

Canadian Colonel Cosgrave

It was only by ignoring American tour guides, going back to my honeymoon hotel room, and digging deeper into Canadian history that I learned that rather than laughing at Clumsy Cosgrave, we should be thanking him.

Lawrence Moore Cosgrave, born in Toronto in 1890, truly served his country not during the Second World War but during the First World War. That blind eye of his? It was likely the result of him surviving the first-ever gas attack in Ypres, while still managing to help fend off a German attack. He would also fight at Vimy Ridge, the Somme, and Passchendaele. Cosgrave emerged on the other side of the Great War with a Distinguished Service Order (twice) for “conspicuous gallantry in action”. France awarded him the Croix de Guerre, for his feats of bravery.

Deeply damaged by the “soul-deadening trench warfare,” he then took to writing about his experience. He may have been inspired to write by his friend Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, the famous Canadian poet soldier, who shared a dugout with him on the Western Front. The story goes that McRae wrote “In Flanders Fields” on a scrap of paper on Cosgrave’s back during a break in the shooting.

Cosgrave would go on to work as a Canadian trade commissioner in China, before settling in Australia as our military attaché. Being stationed in the region, he witnessed firsthand the devastation the war’s final months had had on Japanese civilians. He felt deeply sorry for them. Then, one day, he got an impromptu call to sign some important paperwork.

“Cosgrove had a pretty distinguished career, all things considered. The fact that we remember him for five minutes on the deck of a battleship in 1945, to the exclusion of everything else is pretty unfair to him,” admits historian Pass.

Quick revisions

Back on the deck of the USS Missouri 1945, the international delegations were at a loss for what to do next. Had Canada’s momentary blunder made the surrender invalid? Would they have to consult a Tokyo lawyer? Should they pick up arms and start fighting again?

As chaos began to set in, General MacArthur’s quick-witted chief of staff Richard Sutherland sprang into action. Armed only with his fountain pen he hastily scratched out the now incorrect country titles, painstakingly wrote the titles out himself, and signed his own initials next to the corrections.

Before they had time to protest, Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and General Yoshijiro Umezu were handed their leather-bound capitulation package and whisked off the Missouri’s gangplank, into their waiting boat.

“Now it’s all fine. Now it’s all fixed,” said Sutherland, reassuring the Japanese, officially ending the Second World War and ushering in a new era of peace.

“A mighty air armada passed over our heads, the Marine Band played California, Here I Come and Sidewalks of New York, and everyone was happy, except Japan,” Canadian naval officer George Gayman, who was accompanying Cosgrave, wrote in his journal that day.

A place in the history books

With that, a monumental mistake basically became a historical footnote.

“It was annoying. It ruined the solemnness of the ceremony,” explains Pass, who insists Cosgrave should be cut some slack. “It was embarrassing. It didn’t reflect well on Cosgrave and perhaps on Canada as well. But it was not terribly consequential. Life went on.”

Life did go on, but unfortunately for Cosgrave, his mistake would follow him across the Pacific Ocean. While the official dispatch to Prime Minister Mackenzie King did not mention his representative’s foul-up, the Allied press made sure to record it.

“Colonel Cosgrove emerges as the feature player in an incident [that]…put a touch of humor in the gravest ceremony of our time,” said the Globe and Mail.

Cosgrave’s infamous mistake would haunt him and define him. He was teased repeatedly, teasing he would grow sick of. But, eventually, he appeared to be forgiven and was able to laugh at himself.

When he passed away in Quebec in 1971, at the age of 80, Cosgrave’s New York Times obituary described him solely as the man who “delayed the conclusion of the armistice” by signing on the wrong line. The Japanese surrender document, with Cosgrave’s (“not so handy”) handiwork, is now prominently displayed at Japan’s Edo-Tokyo Museum for more tourists to see.

But Cosgrave’s letter to a diplomatic colleague about being summoned to the end of the Second War, 79 years ago today is grateful. He takes it all in stride.

“Twill always remain the highlight of my not uneventful career.”