Seeking An Economic Solution To the Question of Who Owns the Land
If I tried to burn some railroad tracks in Canada, my fate would be clear and immediate. As soon as information about my despicable act was known to the authorities, I would be summarily arrested. The same would occur were I to try to prevent pipeline construction by blockading a highway. The Canadian courts might go easy on me, since this would be my first offense, but, then again, they might not, in these troubled times. No one would “negotiate” with me. Any negotiation I would be involved in would occur between my lawyer and the prosecutor. If I demanded to deal directly with Justin Trudeau, I might not end up in jail. More likely, a mental institution.
Suppose I demanded that the RCMP “pull back” and leave me alone, free to pursue my blockading activities. They should depart from my august presence. Perhaps this might even work, for a time. They would be so doubled up with laughter I might ward them off for a few moments. But they would quickly recover, and then out would come the handcuffs.
Why is it that I would be treated so differently than the heredity chiefs of the native bands who were engaged in this self-same behavior I had (hypothetically) exhibited? The answer is obvious. I, too, could lay claim to sovereignty, but they actually enjoy more than just a little bit of this status.
What the hereditary Wet’suwet’en chiefs claim, and to a significant degree actually enjoy, is more powerful, even, than that wielded by the provincial governments. According to the federalist doctrine which undergirds Canadian law and actual practice, if a dispute broke out between the premier of a province and Ottawa, it is clear which level of government would prevail. When there was talk of Quebec seceding from the union, the federal government was generous and supportive. They provided not unreasonable conditions under which this could legally occur. But they need not have done so. Instead, the prime minister might well have taken the tack adopted by the Spanish central government regarding a similar desire on the part of the Catalonians: absolute refusal, coupled with imprisonment for those they regarded as rebels.
British Columbia and Alberta, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and the other provinces are sovereign within their own territories, but not vis a vis the federal government. The same cannot be said for the native tribes. They enjoy at least a modicum of the sovereignty that provincial governments do not have, do not even claim.
How did this strange state of affairs come to be? What is the background for the tribal claim that they would negotiate, only, with their political equal who represents much of Canada, but not their part of it, the prime minister? Why was this demand not immediately met with scorn and derision on the part of all and sundry? How could the Wet’suwet’en chiefs, with a straight face, in all seriousness, demand that the RCMP be removed, forthwith, from their sovereign territory?
This is all due to the fact that they not only claim a modicum of sovereignty, but actually enjoy more than just a little bit of it.
There cannot be two spiders in the same web, at least not for long. There cannot be two sovereign nations ruling over the same territory. That is a recipe for disaster. Until and unless this political contradiction is settled one way or the other, it will be the fate of Canada to be plagued by these sorts of conflagrations. This pipeline protest was not the first of these episodes to occur, nor will it be the last.
How might a resolution of the present imbroglio occur? One possibility would be to treat the native peoples exactly in the same manner as all other Canadians. They would have no more rights than any other citizen, and no fewer either. Tribal lands would be dealt with as would any other territory or capital good in the country. If members wanted to secede, they could do so on a proportional basis, taking with them, or selling, or being given, 1/n of the value of the entire holding. This is the way members of other multi-owner operations are dealt with, for example those who hold stock in a given corporation.
Under this resolution, there would be no more largesse, courtesy of the long suffering Canadian taxpayer, which enables tribal chiefs to be paid million dollar annual salaries. Native persons would have no more tribal rights than any other group of people, such as Asians, blacks, whites, gays, straights, Jews, Christians, athletes, non athletes, chess players, non chess players, etc. No more gambling establishments for tribal members, only. Everyone could now get in on this industry.
The other path would be to get serious about native people’s sovereignty. Treat them exactly the way Canada deals with its other sovereign neighbors: the U.S., Russia, the U.K., Iceland, etc. The Great White North makes no welfare payments to any of these other sovereign nations, nor would tribal members continue to receive any. Foreign aid? Maybe. Welfare? No. Then, of course, Canadians would no more be able to run pipelines on their territory without permission, than they would be able to do so on the land of any other sovereign power.
