The Written Word
for April 8, 2001

Last Friday I interviewed Chiefs Manuel of the Shuswap Nation and Leonard of the Kamloops Indian Band and two facts came forth that really shouldn’t surprise us but which, when you think on it, are pretty chilling. Chief Leonard made it clear that while the fee simple holdings of non natives were not on the table, all the rest of BC, which is to say all crown land, was. Chief Manuel stated that since section 35 Of the Constitution Act of 1982, as amended, came into effect there were indeed three levels of government in Canada – federal, provincial, and aboriginal. Many of us have been saying this for years but until now, it has been denied.

Now Chief Leonard did not say that all Crown land belonged to natives – but she did say that it was all subject to Aboriginal claims. That puts every forest license, every mining claim and every water license not on fee simple land – which is to say about 90% of the province - subject to prior rights of native bands.

The unhappy part is that both chiefs are undoubtedly right. While I support the lawsuit taken by the BC Liberal Party and others to have the self government part of Nisga’a struck down by the courts, on the ground that it is in effect a constitutional amendment without the proper process having taken place, I think they’ll lose. I think the courts will say that since section 35 guarantees pre existing native rights, that such rights included self government, and that Nisga’a is simply putting onto paper what those rights were.

The ramifications of all this are pretty serious. For one thing, this notion will spread right across the country. Those on the other side of the Rockies have huffily assumed that Nisga’a is just a BC problem. Boy, oh boy, have they got some surprises in store as band after band, across the country, demands it’s own form of self government and citizenship!

For another thing, all who deplore the notion of hyphenated Canadians can now turn to something else to fret about for if Chief Manuel is right, aboriginal-Canadian is a hyphenated status that has constitutional endorsement. If one assumes that the same applies to Quebeckers of French origin, we will have at least three hyphenated groups assuming that English speaking Canadians so qualify.

Might this not lead us into what has hitherto been a politically incorrect debate? Should we not, in Trudeau’s dismissive remark about Joe Clark some years ago, consider ourselves like a nation of shopping centers?

I’m not saying that the recognition of minority rights, in itself, means that the country is politically fractured. We have recognized French rights since 1775 but assumed that this, in itself, didn’t create two nations inside one political unit. But if we go so far as to establish another constitutionalized form of government, and we continue to devolve more and more power to Quebec, including the right to veto all constitutional changes, hadn’t we better stand back and take a look at the entire country?

Was, for example, Rene Levesque simply before his time when he talked about sovereignty-association? If the answer to separation is more and more devolution of powers to Quebec, why not a recognition of her partnership as a sovereign nation with another sovereign nation?

What would follow, of course, is that British Columbia would seek the same status. While it’s true that British Columbia’s distinctiveness does not match that of Quebec’s, that’s simply a matter of degree because BC certainly is distinctive in its history, geography, demography, and its economy. In practical terms its trade with Asia and the United States will continue to grow as against trade with the rest of Canada.

It’s sad to think that, again in Trudeau’s terms, Canada is going out not with a bang but a whimper but that seems to be what’s happening. As each year passes, we have less and less in common. Only overall Canadian citizenship, as diluted, will be common to all. That was all that citizens of the Roman Empire had in the end and it wasn’t enough.

I suppose what is most troubling is that all this is taking place without any real debate on the issues and certainly without any leadership.