If you live west of the Ontario/Manitoba border, it seems not a month goes by the Trudeau government doesn’t do something to make you mad. Therefore, when Justice Minister David Lametti said earlier this week he would ‘look into’ rescinding the legislation by which the prairie provinces enjoy natural resource rights, westerners were predictably — and justifiably — furious..Was the ‘Just Transition’ an insufficient assault upon their energy industry that Ottawa would now just take control of it so the Liberals could wind it down faster as they pursued their climate-change grail?.Saskatchewan’s Premier Scott Moe and Manitoba’s Premier Heather Stefanson joined Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in an unusually blunt response that captured the public mood, demanding Prime Minister Trudeau confirm Lametti was not speaking for his government when he said that..Of course, no such assurance has been received.. David Lametti Justice Minister David Lametti .The prime minister merely said Lametti’s remarks had been misrepresented. (Ah, those rubes on the Prairies. Why do they always experience things differently?).The truth of the matter is Lametti’s remarks were not at all misrepresented. What has yet to be fully acknowledged, however, is their full significance..Not to overstate the case, the discussion could lead to asking questions about Canada and the nature of Canada, that in my view this government cannot be trusted to handle. What, after all, can one expect from a prime minister who doesn't even see Canada as a country but rather as some kind of post-national entity? Would such a prime minister remember it was on his own father's watch the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act (that makes resources a provincial mandate) became explicitly part of the Canadian constitution during the repatriation of the British North America Act? Probably not. But, as the Natural Resources Canada website helpfully explains: “The 1982 amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867 explicitly recognized provinces’ and territories’ constitutional rights to manage their own non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and electrical energy. This includes the power to levy mining taxes and royalties.” (The Canadian and provincial legislation on the transfer agreements were also entrenched by British legislation, which was the recognized method of constitutional amendment at the time. The Constitution Act of 1982 thus reinforced what was already the status quo.).In other words, what Lametti was committing to was 'looking into' an amendment to the Canadian constitution..But, this is beyond odd. As Justice minister, Lametti would know licking your elbow is easier than amending Canada’s constitution. And, were such a thing even contemplated, the prime minister himself would have grabbed the headline..So what just happened here?.There is a momentum to relations between indigenous organizations and government that started more than 30 years ago with the costless courtesy of referring to Indian bands as ‘First Nations,’ and the Indians themselves as indigenous people. (Even though legally, they remain Indians under the Indian Act.) Since then, Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the Indian Residential School system. Huge amounts of money were paid out to settle compensation claims. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued 94 recommendations to which freshly-elected Prime Minister Trudeau committed while the ink was yet wet. In due course, more money changed hands..The IRS legacy being what it was, the justice system was instructed to go easy on indigenous offenders, and judges brainwashed to find justice in the unequal administration of the law..We embraced the equally costless courtesy of land acknowledgements, these slightly guilty assertions that wherever we came from, we recognize we're on somebody’s ancestral land..Later, Trudeau would insist upon Canada’s ratification of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP,) something his predecessor had deferred indefinitely, while the legal implications were determined. Now, it will be up to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide what new obligations UNDRIP will place upon developers; meanwhile, Trudeau has used other UN initiatives to reserve vast tracts of land as protected and conserved areas, usually placing them under the stewardship of the nearest indigenous government..And since 2020, some First Nations constructed a narrative of missing and murdered children at residential schools that earned common acceptance out of all proportion to the evidence offered..Thus, on the day Lametti made his ill-received remarks, and with all of the above back of mind, he had been meeting with Assembly of First Nations leaders. The question was put to him as to whether the federal government would repeal the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act..Even partisan Conservatives should spare Lametti a little sympathy: It must have been an awkward moment. Possibly, he was kidding around — this is the same minister who talked about bringing tanks to The Hill during the Convoy. (We assume he was just joking...) And he supposedly said it with a smile, so was he merely trying to dodge a provocative question without giving offence? For had he said a flat no, the other side would have made it a bad story for him. (If he was, it didn't work and he merely succeeded in giving major offence to Western Canadians. Sarcasm seldom works.).Certainly, he couldn't have said ‘yes,’ which would have been to agree in essence Canada as we know it might be illegitimate. For, if Ottawa would not stand behind the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act, logically why should it or anybody else stand behind any other part of the constitution? Or anything else?.Then, where ‘momentum’ might take us, is up to the imagination. No doubt in the imagination of the most adventurous indigenous activists, those costless land acknowledgements become more than a mere courtesy….The reaction of the Western premiers was totally appropriate. The Trudeau government for which Lametti speaks repeatedly demonstrated its disdain for Westerners and its hostility to the resource-based economy upon which we depend. And certainly, were it possible by some political fluke to remove the provinces’ right to administer their own resources without crashing the Constitution, the federal government would use the powers it thereby took to itself, to make janitors of us all..But, that’s not what this was about. And the question we must now address is this: At a time when the federal government has never been more unsure of itself and who it is supposed to represent, will the Western premiers who were commendably swift to rebuke it, actually organize themselves to treat this constitutional dilemma with the gravity it deserves? Because it won't be going away...
If you live west of the Ontario/Manitoba border, it seems not a month goes by the Trudeau government doesn’t do something to make you mad. Therefore, when Justice Minister David Lametti said earlier this week he would ‘look into’ rescinding the legislation by which the prairie provinces enjoy natural resource rights, westerners were predictably — and justifiably — furious..Was the ‘Just Transition’ an insufficient assault upon their energy industry that Ottawa would now just take control of it so the Liberals could wind it down faster as they pursued their climate-change grail?.Saskatchewan’s Premier Scott Moe and Manitoba’s Premier Heather Stefanson joined Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in an unusually blunt response that captured the public mood, demanding Prime Minister Trudeau confirm Lametti was not speaking for his government when he said that..Of course, no such assurance has been received.. David Lametti Justice Minister David Lametti .The prime minister merely said Lametti’s remarks had been misrepresented. (Ah, those rubes on the Prairies. Why do they always experience things differently?).The truth of the matter is Lametti’s remarks were not at all misrepresented. What has yet to be fully acknowledged, however, is their full significance..Not to overstate the case, the discussion could lead to asking questions about Canada and the nature of Canada, that in my view this government cannot be trusted to handle. What, after all, can one expect from a prime minister who doesn't even see Canada as a country but rather as some kind of post-national entity? Would such a prime minister remember it was on his own father's watch the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act (that makes resources a provincial mandate) became explicitly part of the Canadian constitution during the repatriation of the British North America Act? Probably not. But, as the Natural Resources Canada website helpfully explains: “The 1982 amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867 explicitly recognized provinces’ and territories’ constitutional rights to manage their own non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and electrical energy. This includes the power to levy mining taxes and royalties.” (The Canadian and provincial legislation on the transfer agreements were also entrenched by British legislation, which was the recognized method of constitutional amendment at the time. The Constitution Act of 1982 thus reinforced what was already the status quo.).In other words, what Lametti was committing to was 'looking into' an amendment to the Canadian constitution..But, this is beyond odd. As Justice minister, Lametti would know licking your elbow is easier than amending Canada’s constitution. And, were such a thing even contemplated, the prime minister himself would have grabbed the headline..So what just happened here?.There is a momentum to relations between indigenous organizations and government that started more than 30 years ago with the costless courtesy of referring to Indian bands as ‘First Nations,’ and the Indians themselves as indigenous people. (Even though legally, they remain Indians under the Indian Act.) Since then, Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the Indian Residential School system. Huge amounts of money were paid out to settle compensation claims. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued 94 recommendations to which freshly-elected Prime Minister Trudeau committed while the ink was yet wet. In due course, more money changed hands..The IRS legacy being what it was, the justice system was instructed to go easy on indigenous offenders, and judges brainwashed to find justice in the unequal administration of the law..We embraced the equally costless courtesy of land acknowledgements, these slightly guilty assertions that wherever we came from, we recognize we're on somebody’s ancestral land..Later, Trudeau would insist upon Canada’s ratification of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP,) something his predecessor had deferred indefinitely, while the legal implications were determined. Now, it will be up to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide what new obligations UNDRIP will place upon developers; meanwhile, Trudeau has used other UN initiatives to reserve vast tracts of land as protected and conserved areas, usually placing them under the stewardship of the nearest indigenous government..And since 2020, some First Nations constructed a narrative of missing and murdered children at residential schools that earned common acceptance out of all proportion to the evidence offered..Thus, on the day Lametti made his ill-received remarks, and with all of the above back of mind, he had been meeting with Assembly of First Nations leaders. The question was put to him as to whether the federal government would repeal the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act..Even partisan Conservatives should spare Lametti a little sympathy: It must have been an awkward moment. Possibly, he was kidding around — this is the same minister who talked about bringing tanks to The Hill during the Convoy. (We assume he was just joking...) And he supposedly said it with a smile, so was he merely trying to dodge a provocative question without giving offence? For had he said a flat no, the other side would have made it a bad story for him. (If he was, it didn't work and he merely succeeded in giving major offence to Western Canadians. Sarcasm seldom works.).Certainly, he couldn't have said ‘yes,’ which would have been to agree in essence Canada as we know it might be illegitimate. For, if Ottawa would not stand behind the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act, logically why should it or anybody else stand behind any other part of the constitution? Or anything else?.Then, where ‘momentum’ might take us, is up to the imagination. No doubt in the imagination of the most adventurous indigenous activists, those costless land acknowledgements become more than a mere courtesy….The reaction of the Western premiers was totally appropriate. The Trudeau government for which Lametti speaks repeatedly demonstrated its disdain for Westerners and its hostility to the resource-based economy upon which we depend. And certainly, were it possible by some political fluke to remove the provinces’ right to administer their own resources without crashing the Constitution, the federal government would use the powers it thereby took to itself, to make janitors of us all..But, that’s not what this was about. And the question we must now address is this: At a time when the federal government has never been more unsure of itself and who it is supposed to represent, will the Western premiers who were commendably swift to rebuke it, actually organize themselves to treat this constitutional dilemma with the gravity it deserves? Because it won't be going away...
