The Red Road of capitalism

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s state visit to China wrapped up last week, as the two countries agreed to work together to develop Canadian resources to feed hungry Chinese markets.
The visit marks a strange economic partnership. Canada, of course, abides by the free-market system where companies decide where and what to develop, as the market dictates. And China, on the other end of the spectrum, believes firmly in state-controlled development, where government-owned companies develop where and what the government tells them to develop, but still compete in the international free-market.
Most economists view those two systems as the next great battle of ideas. The western world’s free-market has long been the champion, after defeating communism and spreading around the world. Now a growing number of experts argue that the China model, of state-owned companies competing in the global market, is the new great contender and that the Asian economies using this model will soon be running the world.
What everyone seems to be overlooking is a new, middle ground style of development emerging in First Nations across Canada.
This middle-ground capitalism does not yet have a name, or any champions in the economist world. But that has not stopped it spreading, as First Nation leaders realize it makes sense to combine some of the best things of the free-market system with the best things of the state-controlled system.
It seems it is only a matter of time before the rest of Canada, and the world, catches on.
Pretty much everyone agrees that companies and big corporations are usually more efficient and effective than government-owned companies. That is basically the argument for why communism failed – government-run companies were not innovative or efficient, and so they could not compete with private companies.
In the First Nations model of development, companies are given the freedom to do their work. Whether it is building a hydro power plant, digging a mine or operating an airline, the private sector is encouraged to use its expertise to help the First Nation start and run the business.
On the other side of the coin, the free-market system often ignores the effect that industry has on local economies, local people and the environment. Corporations are encouraged to make profits above all else, often leaving devastated communities and environmental destruction behind.
That is the argument for the Chinese style of development – a government can best look after local people, and the long-term future of the nation, when it plans and controls development.
This is what makes the Canadian First Nations model of development so unique, and so exciting. In this model the First Nation partners with the private company – usually a 50-50 partnership, or with the First Nation keeping 51 per cent of the shares and control over the direction, scale and pace of development. That gives the local government the ability to maximize benefits for local people – whether it is in training opportunities, jobs or long-term environmental protection.  
These types of partnerships are springing up in First Nations all over the country. In northern Ontario, the most recent example is the Constance Lake–Northland Power partnership, where the company uses its expertise to build hydro projects, and the First Nation uses its knowledge of the local land and people to ensure that development is done for the maximum long-term benefit of the First Nation. It is a true partnership, and both sides benefit.
Late last year, four Saskatchewan First Nations partnered with Saturn Minerals to form a First Nations-run mining exploration company. Here is what the partner agreement said in that case: 
“First Nations have a clear and defined interest in participating in and benefiting from the development of natural resources on their ancestral lands. Exploration, mining and energy entities have a clear and defined interest in participating in and benefiting from the development of the same natural resources. (The partnership) is to be a conduit through which these complimentary interests meet for mutual benefit.”
The question remains: can a country like Canada enter into a similar partnership with industry, where the partners meet “for mutual benefit?”
A partnership where Canada retains 51 per cent of the project’s ownership, in order to set a long-term vision for the development, while the industry partner uses its expertise to complete the project in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible?
Considering how First Nations across Canada are creating this new type of development model from scratch, shouldn’t Canada be able to follow?