Pipelines, energy and natural resources

[Brad Sallows]

Indigenous peoples enjoy a right to self determination. This is codified in both international law to which Canada is a signatory, as well as in our own domestic law implementing that treaty. The right to self determination in their systems of governments isn’t limited by a caveat of (but only if we think they’re making good decisions). That’s exactly the kind of paternalism we’re trying to put behind.

Indigenous groups get the same freedom we have enjoyed- to fly or fumble their way to democratization, to hold up leaders who aren’t that great, and to learn over extended periods what systems work for them. So yes that means that an individual band, tribe etc are free to uphold systems of hereditary chiefs I definitely should they so choose. I don’t like it either, but whether you or I likes it is legally inconsequential.

As I wrote, "should". We part emphatically on the status of peoples in their nations. As I've written before, there should only be one status of citizenship, and "self-determination" should be limited to local (municipal/district) governance, and those rules of governance should apply to all people in Canada (eg. all local governments). Those governments would be free to make poor decisions within that framework. Canada has a duty to ensure no citizen is subject to an archaic illiberal form of government, especially any provision based on the accident of birth (right to run for office, right to vote in local elections, etc), which is exactly the kind of irrationality we should be trying to put behind us wherever we find it.

The law is something people create; it isn't an insurmountable barrier.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It is not histrionics. I deliberately chose an inflammatory example. You have just conceded that, in fact, the criminal code trumps UNDRIP, so we agree that there are limits to self determination. What we are now debating (and I believe is the crux of the matter) is where those limits are. We seem to agree that First Nations have autonomy to decide what happens on their land- except that surely has limits, too? If a First Nation was to decide to invite China to set up a military base on their reserve, Canada would rightly object, because that threatens Canada’s territorial integrity, right? So by that logic, can a single First Nation block a infrastructure project of national importance, just because?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Some good news for the Yukon's economy ...

Yukon eyes $7.6B in annual growth from proposed grid link to B.C.​

Potential benefits of the proposed Yukon-B.C. grid connection outlined in a Yukon Development Corporation report released Oct. 1

A proposed high-voltage transmission line connecting the Yukon to the North American power grid could unlock billions in economic growth, create thousands of jobs and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report from the Yukon Development Corporation (YDC).

The $4-billion project, still in early planning, would link the Yukon’s isolated energy system to the Western continental grid at Bob Quinn Lake, B.C.

If built, the Yukon-B.C. grid connect could generate up to $7.6 billion annually in long-term economic benefits, support 36,000 jobs over 50 years and help replace nearly five million litres of diesel fuel each year in six northern communities, according to the report.

The Yukon currently operates on a stand-alone power system, relying mostly on hydroelectricity, diesel generators and liquefied natural gas. The proposed 765-kilometre transmission line would be the territory’s first connection to the broader North American grid, improving energy reliability.

The project took a step forward on May 23, when former Yukon premier Ranj Pillai and B.C. premier David Eby signed a memorandum of understanding to guide early-stage planning.

According to YDC’s report released Oct. 1, the transmission line could unlock 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy potential, enough to generate $2 billion in annual clean electricity revenue. It could also support electrification of homes and vehicles, helping stabilize electricity supply and make clean energy more accessible in remote communities.

Mineral-rich regions in the Yukon and B.C. could unlock an estimated $181.2 billion in growth to the mining sector, especially for deposits considered critical to Canada’s technology, defence and clean energy sectors. The report estimates the project could displace up to nine million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, roughly 1.3 per cent of Canada’s total emissions.

Yukon eyes $7.6B in annual growth from proposed grid link to B.C.

Potential benefits of the proposed Yukon-B.C. grid connection outlined in a Yukon Development Corporation report released Oct. 1

www.yukon-news.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

Indigenous governments are also quite limited territorially. People can choose to leave the geographic community and live elsewhere. Many do. Nobody is forced to ‘live and labour’ there any more than anyone else in Canada is wherever they should happen to live.

And there is one of the sticky points. Governments are arbitrary creations, but individuals are not (we cannot control whom any person gets as ancestors). Stipulating for the moment that those individuals have particular rights, it is nonsense that they can lose any part of them by moving. It is nonsense that people can marry into or be adopted into such a framework. It lays bare that "aboriginal rights" is just "perpetuation of this government in this place as it was when outsiders first encountered it".

 

[Kirkhill]

And there is one of the sticky points. Governments are arbitrary creations, but individuals are not (we cannot control whom any person gets as ancestors). Stipulating for the moment that those individuals have particular rights, it is nonsense that they can lose any part of them by moving. It is nonsense that people can marry into or be adopted into such a framework. It lays bare that "aboriginal rights" is just "perpetuation of this government in this place as it was when outsiders first encountered it".

In a free society sub groups get to organize themselves as they see fit. So long as they don't contravene the laws/values of the larger society.

Muslims going to mosques and selecting their Imams by whatever mechanism they choose is not my affair. Them holding courts that produce verdicts counter to the laws that I am required to obey is my affair. Imams uttering unlawful words and acting unlawfully is my affair.

Especially since they have all proclaimed themselves to be Canadians and thus bound by Canadian law, even if they don't feel bound by their words. We, under our laws, are entitled to hold them to their word, as we do every other Canadian and visitor to our country.

Likewise for the folks that were here before the Vikings and the Inuit and have agreed treaties recognizing Canadian law and have agreed with their treaty partners on a method of choosing their negotiating representatives, to wit, band councils.

In my opinion the problem arises with those bands/nations who can legitimately claim that they have no contract, no treaty, with Canada.

They are a separate case to those that don't like the terms of their contracts or the actions of their agreed representatives.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In my opinion the problem arises with those bands/nations who can legitimately claim that they have no contract, no treaty, with Canada.

Why?

Why should the country (federal government) not sweep aside all of the baggage of the colonial era, particularly the parts that were concocted to protect private trading interests or the whims of a monarch? Confront the ugly truth: the land was conquered* and a new nation eventually established - fortunately, one grounded mostly in recognizably liberal principles of governance and on the direct path to inherit pretty much all of the benefits of the bleeding edges of technical and social progress. This persists until the new nation is itself conquered or fails to adequately uphold its principles. Until then, it must continuously adapt - preferably within the limits of difficult-to-change liberal constitutional principles of governance - to serve the interests of the present, not the past.

*A society is conquered and exists only by the tolerance of the conquerers if it fails to successfully defend itself or fails to make the attempt or manages to attain some kind of negotiated status. To the last point, treaties cannot (and should not) be expected to endure eternally. Eventually circumstantial changes render them obsolete. My position is that we are well past that point. The provisions have become burdensome or potentially burdensome to the interests of the country, and are demonstrably not serving the peoples on either side well. Re-negotiation of status is an option, but I decline any result that does not produce one status of citizenship, one framework of local governance, etc (all my usual points).

 

[Kirkhill]

Why?

Why should the country (federal government) not sweep aside all of the baggage of the colonial era, particularly the parts that were concocted to protect private trading interests or the whims of a monarch? Confront the ugly truth: the land was conquered* and a new nation eventually established - fortunately, one grounded mostly in recognizably liberal principles of governance and on the direct path to inherit pretty much all of the benefits of the bleeding edges of technical and social progress. This persists until the new nation is itself conquered or fails to adequately uphold its principles. Until then, it must continuously adapt - preferably within the limits of difficult-to-change liberal constitutional principles of governance - to serve the interests of the present, not the past.

*A society is conquered and exists only by the tolerance of the conquerers if it fails to successfully defend itself or fails to make the attempt or manages to attain some kind of negotiated status. To the last point, treaties cannot (and should not) be expected to endure eternally. Eventually circumstantial changes render them obsolete. My position is that we are well past that point. The provisions have become burdensome or potentially burdensome to the interests of the country, and are demonstrably not serving the peoples on either side well. Re-negotiation of status is an option, but I decline any result that does not produce one status of citizenship, one framework of local governance, etc (all my usual points).

Because that was then and this is now and we live in a transition zone. Interesting times. As always.

 

[brihard]

Why?

Why should the country (federal government) not sweep aside all of the baggage of the colonial era, particularly the parts that were concocted to protect private trading interests or the whims of a monarch? Confront the ugly truth: the land was conquered* and a new nation eventually established - fortunately, one grounded mostly in recognizably liberal principles of governance and on the direct path to inherit pretty much all of the benefits of the bleeding edges of technical and social progress. This persists until the new nation is itself conquered or fails to adequately uphold its principles. Until then, it must continuously adapt - preferably within the limits of difficult-to-change liberal constitutional principles of governance - to serve the interests of the present, not the past.

*A society is conquered and exists only by the tolerance of the conquerers if it fails to successfully defend itself or fails to make the attempt or manages to attain some kind of negotiated status. To the last point, treaties cannot (and should not) be expected to endure eternally. Eventually circumstantial changes render them obsolete. My position is that we are well past that point. The provisions have become burdensome or potentially burdensome to the interests of the country, and are demonstrably not serving the peoples on either side well. Re-negotiation of status is an option, but I decline any result that does not produce one status of citizenship, one framework of local governance, etc (all my usual points).

So, again, it would be illegal. The more you keep talking the more ways you find for it to be so. On top of violations off UNDRIP as international law and the UNDRIP act

Literally the whole point is to reduce the extent to which colonial era practices and policies are imposed upon people who pre-exist, and were badly treated by, those colonial power structures. Conquest stopped being a recognized legitimate way or transposing state power onto territory or populations a long time ago. You’re looking to now suggest we complete partial conquests that petered out incomplete, legally and socially, long ago.for a ton of reasons that should be super obvious that’s legally and ethically wrong and it will not be done.

Canada has chosen to adopt and to abide by laws regarding how we work with our indigenous peoples. There’s room for interpretation in some of that, but interference in and subjugation over their internal governance has long been completely off the table.

While you may be keen to take up the White Man’s Burden and throw us headlong into another Oka or Gustafson lake, there’s zero chance law or policy is going to support or allow that. Please try to deal with the world and the law as it has actually evolved and in which we live in this century. Canada sucked in how it dealt with indigenous people for a long time, and we’re trying to do better. It’s not now time to resume taking steps backwards and force them into our concept of progress or of ‘right’ government. They have the right to figure all that out on their own and to move in their own directions.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And if those directions are contrary to the very fibre of Canada, what then?

These are not inconsequential questions. For better or worse, we have now created a legal framework where blood quanta matters and your accident of birth gives you legally differential treatment in Canada (I am leaving aside the question of whether the legally differential treatment is better or worse as, frankly, irrelevant). For how many years, decades or generations will this system perpetuate?

To tie this back to pipelines, energy and resource development, are First Nations in a legally, morally and ethically correct to block developments that are in the national interest, that they don’t approve of (for whatever reason)? Does that not amount to a veto- possibly enacted by (hypothetically) a small group of hereditary chiefs/elders that then impact 40 million other Canadians in a very real way? I get that the Treaty landscape in BC is a mess compared to, say, the prairies or Ontario, but who actually controls the land in BC- private owners, the Province, the Feds or whichever band claims a historical right? Who wins?

 

[brihard]

And if those directions are contrary to the very fibre of Canada, what then?

These are not inconsequential questions. For better or worse, we have now created a legal framework where blood quanta matters and your accident of birth gives you legally differential treatment in Canada (I am leaving aside the question of whether the legally differential treatment is better or worse as, frankly, irrelevant). For how many years, decades or generations will this system perpetuate?

To tie this back to pipelines, energy and resource development, are First Nations in a legally, morally and ethically correct to block developments that are in the national interest, that they don’t approve of (for whatever reason)? Does that not amount to a veto- possibly enacted by (hypothetically) a small group of hereditary chiefs/elders that then impact 40 million other Canadians in a very real way? I get that the Treaty landscape in BC is a mess compared to, say, the prairies or Ontario, but who actually controls the land in BC- private owners, the Province, the Feds or whichever band claims a historical right? Who wins?

Canada would need to make some profound constitutional changes to have a leg to stand on condemning hereditary political power. Given that we have a legal responsibility to not interfere with their internal political affairs, should some tribes or bands choose to stick with hereditary powers for the foreseeable future, or even very far into the future, that’s up to them. Doesn’t matter what you or I think.

As I said in an earlier reply, the question on duty to consult, and the consequential impact on national infrastructure development, is related but distinct. Smarter and better paid people than I are working those problems.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Indigenous peoples enjoy a right to self determination. This is codified in both international law to which Canada is a signatory, as well as in our own domestic law implementing that treaty. The right to self determination in their systems of governments isn’t limited by a caveat of (but only if we think they’re making good decisions). That’s exactly the kind of paternalism we’re trying to put behind.

Indigenous groups get the same freedom we have enjoyed- to fly or fumble their way to democratization, to hold up leaders who aren’t that great, and to learn over extended periods what systems work for them. So yes that means that an individual band, tribe etc are free to uphold systems of hereditary chiefs I definitely should they so choose. I don’t like it either, but whether you or I likes it is legally inconsequential.

Just don't point out that those "hereditary chiefs" were likely the majority of slave owners, particularly on the West Coast.

 

[brihard]

Just don't point out that those "hereditary chiefs" were likely the majority of slave owners, particularly on the West Coast.

Oh, go for it. But I believe we don’t do the ‘sins of our ancestors’ thing here, right?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Oh, go for it. But I believe we don’t do the ‘sins of our ancestors’ thing here, right?

We don’t, no. But, it is interesting that you brought that up. Am I guilty for the “sins” of my ancestor for emigrating to Canada?

I am neither a “colonist”, nor a “settler”, either. I was born here.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Oh, go for it. But I believe we don’t do the ‘sins of our ancestors’ thing here, right?

Only for the Colonist side, don't ask about indigenous kids taken into slavery pre or just post contact by other indigenous groups at Truth and Reconciliation day.

 

[Kirkhill]

Personal appreciation time.

I would not object to the Federal government acting within the law and using armed force to push through a pipeline on lands covered by Canadian law ... in Alberta, Quebec or BC. This presupposes that the pipeline has been lawfully approved.

I would object to the same force being applied to the same pipeline being forced through Alaska or any other foreign, ie non-Canadian, lands.

The same objection applies to any lands not contracted to the Canadian government by its owner. And that is how I perceive much of Northern BC.

Consequently I am less interested in persuading David Eby than I am in finding persuadable local owners to work with.

The world is full of opportunities if you look for them. Even if constrained by existing contracts.

....

The word dominion is worth considering. It has come to mean, imply and infer lots of things.

It could have meant ownership but there were and are other words that could have been chosen.

My personal preference is to situate it in the historical context.

George III, in my view, did not claim North America. What he did was tell all Brits and all other colonial nations that he was claiming a monopoly on the continent. That only he would be permitted to negotiate with the original inhabitants, the owners of the land.

In modern context, for me, that means that the Government of Canada, in right of the Crown, reserves the right to negotiate treaties with the locals. That excludes modern Brits, as well as Yanks, Chinese and Russians. And the Government of Canada should be willing to preserve that monopoly by armed force.

It also means that the people of BC, just like the people of the 13 colonies are constrained in the lands they can claim and develop in the absence of a treaty/contract.

...

Perhaps Danielle can offer Northern BC better terms than David.

 

[MilEME09]

Indigenous peoples enjoy a right to self determination. This is codified in both international law to which Canada is a signatory, as well as in our own domestic law implementing that treaty. The right to self determination in their systems of governments isn’t limited by a caveat of (but only if we think they’re making good decisions). That’s exactly the kind of paternalism we’re trying to put behind.

Indigenous groups get the same freedom we have enjoyed- to fly or fumble their way to democratization, to hold up leaders who aren’t that great, and to learn over extended periods what systems work for them. So yes that means that an individual band, tribe etc are free to uphold systems of hereditary chiefs I definitely should they so choose. I don’t like it either, but whether you or I likes it is legally inconsequential.

Problem is these bands where they have and elected and a Hereditary chief saying two different things. If you wanna talk with the adults, make up your mind on who speaks for you.

 

[brihard]

We don’t, no. But, it is interesting that you brought that up. Am I guilty for the “sins” of my ancestor for emigrating to Canada?

I am neither a “colonist”, nor a “settler”, either. I was born here.

No, of course you aren’t, and nowhere have I suggested otherwise. My posts have for the most part just been pointing out - firmly - that we are constrained as a country both by domestic and by international law that prevent us from imposing much on indigenous self-governance. While our ancestors did some pretty shitty stuff as it pertains to Canada’s indigenous, in the present day what that means for you and me is that the things we might want to see Parliament and the executive do might not be able to be done. This is because of laws passed and treaties entered so that the future doesn’t go as sideways as the past. Make sense?

Problem is these bands where they have and elected and a Hereditary chief saying two different things. If you wanna talk with the adults, make up your mind on who speaks for you.

Yup. And they need to make their minds up on that issue, but that’s on them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So, again, it would be illegal.

So, again, I'm talking about first changing the laws. That can include withdrawing from treaties. So by definition it would not be "illegal".

Literally the whole point is to reduce the extent to which colonial era practices and policies are imposed upon people who pre-exist, and were badly treated by, those colonial power structures.

That has been paid for, many times over. There has always been an exchange, and never only a taking. I suppose the problem for most people is that they can't put a price on intangible benefits, of which being pulled up from approximately the Stone Age is the foremost.

Conquest stopped being a recognized legitimate way or transposing state power onto territory or populations a long time ago. You’re looking to now suggest we complete partial conquests that petered out incomplete, legally and socially, long ago.for a ton of reasons that should be super obvious that’s legally and ethically wrong and it will not be done.

I'm saying the conquest is done. Canada exists. The people trying to preserve disparate colonial structures are the ones on the ethically wrong side.

as it has actually evolved and in which we live in this century

All that separates us is that I don't see status quo as the end point of "evolved".

They have the right to figure all that out on their own and to move in their own directions.

"They" is doing a lot of unethical lifting there. "They" cannot simply rope in all the people who do not want to be part of that exercise, crippling the finite and unrepeatable lives of all those forced to endure it until the practices cease. Those people have the right to have higher levels of government step in and impose local government practices as good as any other Canadian's; and, those people have an equal right to everything claimed by or granted to the "they" on the basis of ancestry.

Identity politics is a shitty basis for anything. Conscripting people on the basis of identity - forcing them to submit to whatever group they are judged to be part of - is an intolerable insult to individual dignity.

 

[Brad Sallows]

To tie this back to pipelines, energy and resource development, are First Nations in a legally, morally and ethically correct to block developments that are in the national interest,

An alternative is to equalize in the other direction. Grant all Canadian communities the same powers within extended district boundaries.

Obviously the point of that would be to give effect to consequences that would highlight the absurd imbalances, and provoke fundamental reform.

 

[Kirkhill]

Problem is these bands where they have and elected and a Hereditary chief saying two different things. If you wanna talk with the adults, make up your mind on who speaks for you.

Is there anything preventing a band from electing their hereditaries to the council recognized by the Federal government under the Indian act? I am unaware of anything.

If the hereditaries are butthurt because their people don't trust them as effective agents that is not my fault.