Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Fraser Institute

Legal rights should not depend on lineage—Indigenous or otherwise

Published

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Bruce Pardy

Once upon a time, legal rights depended on who your parents were. The ruler was the son of the ruler before him. If your parents were serfs, you were a serf, too. Lineage was destiny.

A judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court recently found that the Cowichan First Nation holds Aboriginal title over 800 acres of government land in Richmond, B.C. But that’s not all. Wherever Aboriginal title is found to exist, said the court, it is a “prior and senior right” to fee simple title, whether public or private. That means it trumps the property you have in your house, farm or factory.

If the Cowichan decision holds up on appeal, it would mean private property is not secure anywhere a claim for Aboriginal title is made in Canada including B.C. and New Brunswick. In November, a judge of the New Brunswick King’s Bench suggested that where such a claim succeeds, the court may instruct the government to expropriate the private property and hand it over to the Aboriginal group. Don’t dismiss these decisions as isolated or not having national implications. They are the logical extension of the Supreme Court of Canada’s extensive Aboriginal law jurisprudence.

They are also consistent with core Canadian beliefs. Special status for Aboriginal people is deeply ingrained in Canadian culture and enshrined in the Constitution. Aboriginal rights are widely regarded as the natural and proper order of things. But in fact, they are the opposite. In a free country governed by the rule of law, Aboriginal rights should not exist.

Invasion, migration and mixing is the history of humanity. The Romans invaded the British Isles in 55 B.C. and conquered the place about 100 years later, on their second try. By 500 A.D., Saxons had established themselves as the dominant power. In 1066, the Normans overthrew the Saxon kingdom. Today, British law does not have different rights for descendants of Romans, Saxons and Normans. The people are British.

It wouldn’t have seemed that way in 1066. When aliens force their way into a territory, the inhabitants understandably resist. They try to preserve the memory that the place belongs to them. But over centuries, things change. People mix, culturally and genetically. Descendants of inhabitants and invaders marry and procreate. Their offspring do the same. More people from other different places arrive and mix, too. Everyone born there is native to the place. The culture is neither what existed before the invasion nor what the invaders brought with them. No one alive remembers either. The culture in which they live is a distinctive derivative.

Once upon a time, legal rights depended on who your parents were. The ruler was the son of the ruler before him. If your parents were serfs, you were a serf, too. Lineage was destiny. But like the culture, the law evolved. Eventually, everyone got the vote and the right to run for office. Everyone could own property and was free to buy and sell it. Everyone could marry who they chose, and divorce as they saw fit.

But in Canada, this old idea has been reconstituted as a progressive imperative. Under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, the legally privileged group is Aboriginal, not European. Indigenous people have the same legal rights as any other Canadian citizen. But they also have rights no one else may claim. Depending on their lineage and group affiliations, they may have treaty rights. They may be entitled to tax exemptions. They may receive exclusive benefits. They may claim positions on governing bodies and in institutions reserved only for them. They may be entitled to procedures and considerations in criminal sentencing that no one else receives. Their group may be granted Aboriginal title on land from which other Canadians are excluded.

This special status has not benefited most Aboriginal people. But it has enriched their elites who administer the substantial largesse that flows from government coffers. Aboriginal property is a group right controlled by Aboriginal leaders. Individual Indigenous people do not own plots of land on reserves or on lands subject to Aboriginal title.

Dependency endures because governments and many Indigenous leaders want it that way. Former Mount Royal University professor Frances Widdowson, among others, has argued that we can trace persistently poor social conditions experienced by many Indigenous people to a thriving “Aboriginal industry.” Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions and individuals—chiefs, leaders, consultants, managers, bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers and others—have a vested interest in the existing system of Aboriginal rights and status as special groups. Section 35, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, constitutionally entrenches this system. The recent Cowichan decision is just one of its consequences.

Let’s say the truth out loud. The British and the French conquered the territory now known as Canada. They weren’t invited, and they couldn’t have been persuaded to leave. They came with numbers and technology that overwhelmed the cultures that were there at the time, many of which were engaged in violent conflicts with their neighbours. Many people on the continent were not the first inhabitants of their territories. Treaties made with the Crown made the best of a bad situation. Lands not surrendered by treaty were no less subsumed by the new people, culture and country.

Most importantly, none of this matters now. Generations have passed. We are all Canadian citizens mixed together. Some people have Aboriginal lineage, some have British or French, some have both, and many have none of the above. It’s time to reject the idea that legal rights depend on lineage. In a free country, laws apply not to distinctive peoples, but to people.

Bruce Pardy

Professor of Law, Queen’s University

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

Ottawa must eliminate harmful regulations to spur private investment in pipelines

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

The Carney government recently revealed the first five major development projects it deems to be in the “national interest” for fast-tracked assessment and approval. The list includes a liquified natural gas plant expansion in Kitimat, British Columbia, a small modular reactor in Ontario, upgrades to the Port of Montreal, a copper mine in Saskatchewan, and the Red Chris Mine in B.C. But notably, no new oil pipelines made the list. While the government attributes this absence to a lack of private-sector proponents, this reasoning is disingenuous and overlooks how Canada’s regulatory regime creates uncertainty and deters investment in the energy sector.

For context, most of Canada’s energy is produced in the Prairies. Building pipelines to coastal terminals is key to increase access to global markets for oil and natural gas, which are our top exports. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and almost all natural gas exports were headed to a single trading partner, the United States.

In the wake of Trump’s tariffs against Canadian exports, Carney pledged to cut red tape and accelerate major project approvals to diversify our trade. But his government has repealed none of the regulations that create uncertainty, raise compliance costs and deter investment in the energy sector.

Instead, the government introduced Bill C-5, granting cabinet discretionary power to decide which projects undergo full regulatory assessments and which get fast-tracked, based on their perceived contribution to the “national interest.” So rather than providing predictable rules for all entrepreneurs and businesses, Ottawa created an opaque process where companies must lobby cabinet to prove their projects meet subjective criteria to circumvent the laws and regulations that apply to everyone else. This creates more uncertainty, not less.

Meanwhile, the regulatory barriers that discourage private-sector investment in the energy sector remain firmly in place. Take Bill C-69, which introduced vague criteria into the evaluation of major energy projects including the impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors,” leading the legislation to be commonly known as the “no-more pipelines bill.”

Other regulations are similarly designed to reduce the demand for new pipelines either by restricting the use of coastal ports or forcing a curtailment of oil and gas production. Bill C-48, for instance, limits Canadian exports to Asia by banning large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast. And the 2023 methane emissions regulations targeting the oil and gas sector impose costs of more than $100 million to the industry, likely leading to reduced production.

Moreover, last year, Ottawa proposed to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector. Multiple studies from independent organizations indicate this emissions cap will effectively force a reduction in oil and gas production, consequently undermining the case for private investment in more pipelines. If our energy sector is forced to produce less, it’s not clear why more pipelines would be required.

Not surprisingly, Canada has gained a negative reputation for its regulatory barriers. According to a 2023 survey of oil and gas investors, 68 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over environmental regulations deterred investment in Canada. And 59 per cent said the cost of regulatory compliance deterred investment.

These investor concerns reflect a sharp decline in actual investment. Between 2014 and 2023, investment in the energy sector fell from $84.0 billion to $37.2 billion (inflation-adjusted), a drop of 56 per cent.

Rather than relying on a closed-door process where government picks winners and losers, the federal government should establish a transparent and competitive regulatory framework to attract investment. If the Carney government is serious about encouraging private proponents to build pipelines, diversifying exports and unlocking Canada’s potential as a global energy leader, it must eliminate the regulatory hurdles plaguing the energy sector.

Julio Mejia

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Labour disputes loom large over Canadian economy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Fred McMahon

With labour disputes on the rise, Team Canada faces our greatest economic challenges in decades. It’s a bad look when team members jump the bench for the walk-out/lock-out penalty box—elbows up on the team, not on the ice.

Economic difficulties have escalated in recent years—miserable productivity growth, COVID and its inflation-drenched recovery, the uninvited U.S. trade war, and a government spending spree that left Canada deeply in debt and exacerbated all other difficulties.

Over the same period, labour disputes grew. Hours lost to disputes have been trending down for decades, but up since 2015. For the nine preceding years, the average hours lost annually was 224,000; for the nine years since, it’s been 190,000, but increasing over the years. In 2016, 74,000 hours were lost compared to 362,900 hours in 2023 and 293,600 last year.

Ironically, work stoppages typically occur only if they can wreck havoc on the Canadian economy. They hit sectors where customers and clients have little or no alternative. When customers have choices, they’ll walk away from a shutdown supplier. That encourages workers and businesses to figure out a solution before a strike.

Disputes in transportation and government services are particularly damaging. When Air Canada grounds flights, people and businesses already have tickets and plans. Options are limited and pricey. There is only one Port of Montreal. If it shuts down, there are no other Ports of Montreal. Cargo diversion is, well, limited and pricey. When government employees go on strike, people can’t turn to another government for service.

In 2023 and 2024, Canada suffered 62 transportation such work stoppages, including at the ports of Montreal and Vancouver, Canada’s two largest railways, and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

More disputes are on the way. Canada Post workers recently walked off the job hours after the federal government announced a major move from door-to-door delivery to community mailboxes. In British Columbia, civil servants are on the picket line. Public service unions are preparing to fight efforts to bring federal finances under control. And Air Canada and its flight attendants are now in arbitration after attendants rejected Air Canada’s most recent offer by 99.1 per cent.

As Keith Creel, CEO of Canadian Pacific Kansas City, wrote: “Canada’s message to the world is not one of efficiency, affordability and reliability. Lately, and repeatedly, it’s been the opposite: Disruptions. Delays. Diversions.” This is not a good for Team Canada when Canada needs new investment and entrepreneurship.

Everyone involved in a labour dispute loses. That means Canada losses. Air Canada says its recent strike, three-days long, cost the company $375 million. Employees and customers lose through foregone pay.

More than half a million passengers were directly affected, piling up the losses. Worse is the ripple affect on those not directly affected. When any part of the transportation network is impaired, business and people suffer. The economy is further damaged as investors become skittish about Canadian uncertainty, exacerbating economic difficulties.

Things may get worse. Canada’s economy is shrinking due to the trade war and our own economic mismanagement. That means there’s less stuff to go around. People’s pay on average has to shrink. The economy is not producing enough for everyone to make up “lost wages.” If all wages go up, the economy doesn’t magically start producing more. Instead, money buys less, inflation grows, economic damage intensifies, and there’s even less stuff to go around.

Resentment deepens as workers fight each other over the limited supply of stuff. Those who win make those who lose pay a disproportionate slice of the cost.

Three ways could eliminate or reduce these costs. One is to end unionization in government and essential services. Let the market decide wages. If pay is too low, employees leave for other opportunities, forcing employers to up pay. Another is to incentivize unions to resolve disputes before strikes, for example, by allowing replacement workers. The third is requiring mandatory arbitration, which has an admirable record in Canada of resolving disputes. Legislation should take into account reasonable complaints, whether employers or workers are favoured, and address them.

If Canada’s employers and unions can’t get their act together, only action will avoid dead-loss damage to the Canadian economy, leaving the rest of us as drive-by victims of labour bickering.

Fred McMahon

Senior Fellow, Dr. Michael A. Walker Chair in Economic Freedom
Continue Reading

Trending

X