As he announces his refusal to sign on to the pipeline accord recently reached by Premiers Ford, Smith and Moe, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew appears to be wearing two hats.First, he wears his premier’s hat. He knows that any pipeline project must pass through Manitoba, and he is refusing to let it pass unless his terms are accepted.Here’s what he said: “Our government will not treat consultation as a box to check after decisions are made,” said Kinew on Wednesday. “We believe reconciliation requires shared decision-making from the start.”But the second hat Kinew appears to don is the feathered headdress of an Indian chief. He seems to be announcing that he will champion the cause of the 400,000 or so status Indians (also called registered Indians) who make up the 634 Indian bands (First Nations) who live on Canada’s 3,100 Indian reserves. Those 400,000 status Indians make up just one per cent of Canada’s population. But they are demanding that the 634 Indian bands should each be “consulted” and then agree to a project before it can proceed. From past experience, we know that “consultation” with even one Indian band can take years. And even then, consultation can result in no agreement because the “consultee” refuses to come up with a sum big enough to please the “consulter.” Simply put, what Kinew is proposing would give each and every one of those 634 Indian bands an effective veto over any project that comes anywhere near any of their reserves..And yes, you read that right about the "one per cent." One per cent of the Canadian population is demanding an effective veto over the economic fate of the entire country. Each of the 634 Indian bands would have to agree, or construction of a pipeline couldn’t even start. Even if one Indian band refused to agree, construction could not proceed. Even if construction had started and one chief wasn’t getting what he wanted, that construction would come to a screeching halt. And that says nothing about the various protestors who would attach themselves to renegade factions within reserves, and interfere with impunity from our politicized RCMP and intimidated political leaders.But it’s actually even worse than that. Because, as we saw during the Wet’suwet’en protests, there are also any number of “hereditary chiefs” who can announce themselves, and insert themselves into negotiations and protests — with positions that are at odds with the elected chiefs. The fellow who proclaimed his chief status in those Wet’suwet’in protests turned out to be a grifter with a long history of obtaining government funds by questionable means, but that did not stop a federal cabinet minister from travelling to his stomping grounds, and meeting with him for hours. All it takes is for someone to dress up in an imagined Indian costume, and CBC reporters, and Liberal cabinet ministers, will give that person as much media time as he desires. How much money that particular “hereditary chief” personally got as a result of that meeting is not known.Exactly how many of these “hereditary chiefs” there are is unknown to everyone, including the indigenous communities themselves. Somewhat as in the Middle Ages, where someone would suddenly appear, and claim to be the rightful king, “hereditary chiefs” can pop up, pronounce themselves “chiefs,” and force their way into negotiations..And it doesn’t get any better. It is unclear even what territories each Indian band aspires to control, because competing Indian bands often claim the same territories as their own. It isn’t unusual for three or four groups to all claim the same territory. The boundaries of all of these “traditional territories” — namely the land surrounding reserves — are defined by these chiefs and hereditary chiefs according to their own historical and political visions that particular day. The passage of UNDRIP has only deepened the confusion and uncertainty surrounding all of this.What this all translates to is that “consulting” with all of the factions involved, and then litigating the negotiations that weren’t successful would effectively kill any hope that a pipeline could be started indefinitely. One can only imagine the long line of cases snaking their way interminably through the court system — delighting the lawyers, but disgusting hopeful premiers and potential developers. It would also make a mockery of Prime Minister Carney’s Bill C-5 - The One Canadian Economy Act, and his Indigenous Advisory Council proposal..The chiefs’ obstruction also highlights the extreme importance of getting rid of the ruinous UNDRIP legislation that Parliament foolishly voted for in the false belief that there was substance to the chiefs’ nonsense claim that evil priests had secretly buried indigenous children at Kamloops. Carney must take immediate steps to repeal UNDRIP.But, according to Kinew, “reconciliation” requires that we just listen to the chiefs and that the 1% be given that effective veto. And somehow, according to Kinew’s logic, the appropriate person to lead the chiefs and hereditary chiefs to that glorious victory, is none other than Wab himself.Here is my message to Premier, or Chief, Kinew: 'You, sir, are full of buffalo excrement. Indians living on reserves have a right to be consulted about projects that might affect the land surrounding their reserves, but that’s all. It is not “their land” any more than in the sense in which every Canadian citizen “owns” Canadian land. The Indians have the same right as every other Canadian to participate in the political process to determine how that land should be used. But, as our Supreme Court has said, they do not have a veto.'.Yes, there is a duty to consult the Indian bands on proposals that might affect their limited right to hunt, fish or trap on the “traditional territories” — namely the land surrounding their reserves, where they traditionally hunted.But the Supreme Court decided long ago that those rights were limited “usufructuary” rights that were terminated when the land was needed for any purpose by the government. Under the numbered treaties the Indians surrendered all of their rights to their former hunting territories in exchange for consideration, including the reserves they agreed to live on. They were also given use the “traditional territories” surrounding their reserves for hunting, fishing and trapping, until they were needed for other purposes by the government.There is simply no substance to new arguments that the treaties were just “agreements to share land”, or that the land they surrendered was “stolen land”. .The person who supervised the signing of most of the treaties, Alexander Morris, wrote a book detailing how carefully these treaties were explained to the Indians, and how eagerly they wanted the treaties (including an account of a group of Indians chasing his treaty group in canoes, because they were worried that the treaties might be signed without them.)For example, here is the clear and plain language used in Treaty 6, whereby the Indians surrendered all of their rights to their former hunting grounds:“The Plain and Wood Cree Tribes of Indians, and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges, whatsoever, to the lands…”And here is the paragraph granting the Indians the right to hunt and fish on the land surrendered, unless and until the land was needed by the government for another purpose:“Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government.”The other treaties all have similar wording..To conclude, Kinew’s claim that the one per cent of the population who live on reserves have control over what happens on virtually all Crown land has no foundation in law. If they were given such powers, it would spell the economic suicide of the country.But, let’s be honest about that “one per cent.” The great majority of them who live on Canada’s Indian reserves are unemployed, poorly educated people with no power and no money, apart from the government cheques that support them. The chiefs, councillors from those ruling families, who purport to hold the entire Canadian economy hostage — and are supported at a much higher level by taxpayers — are a tiny fraction of that one per cent. These are the same people who have kept themselves rich, by exploiting the poverty of the Indian underclass. Wab Kinew is effectively acting as consigliere to those few thousand wealthy indigenous families, who leverage the poverty of their own people and weaponize “reconciliation” to feather their own nests.The sad fact is that the combination of an activist Supreme Court, and ten years of Justin Trudeau, have resulted in pampered chiefs with entirely unrealistic expectations. The overwhelming majority of Canadians understand that we must undertake major resource development projects if we want to restore the economic health of this country. As reported by Juno News, Canada’s debt is set to reach $2.3 trillion..We are a nation in trouble and ordinary Canadians are increasingly appalled at the selfishness and venality of these privileged chiefs, who don’t appear to recognize that they are killing the goose that lays their golden egg. As Cory Morgan notes in his recent Epoch Times article, 75% of Canadians support the building of an east/west energy corridor. The premiers and chiefs who are on the wrong side of that strong consensus, will pay a steep price for their obstinacy.The chiefs had better get on board, and not try to derail the newfound determination to get our economy moving. And Wab Kinew had better do a rethink, take off his headdress, and put his premier’s hat back on. He is in danger of making himself look like just another one of those opportunists.Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
