Editorial:

Recently an historic agreement was signed between the government of Canada and the Nisga’a people. Native land claims and native sovereignty have been hot topics for some time now. The aboriginal peoples of B.C. in particular have argued that their land was stolen from them and they should get it back and be given compensation to boot. A few years ago one such claim was rejected by the B.C. Supreme Court in a ruling that said the native peoples were conquered and their rights were expunged in the conquest. Now the mood has swung the other way.

So where ought libertarians to stand on this issue? Many conservative commentators like B.C. Report columnist Mel Smith and some Reform Party MPs have criticized the Nisga’a deal as giving too much power to the Nisga’a and for diminishing the power of the federal government! What fools! As libertarians, we can only applaud such historic events that further weaken the burdensome federal state.

Ultimately libertarians would like to see sovereignty extended to every individual citizen. Each individual would have the right as a sovereign entity to be free from aggression by outside forces, including the government. The extension of some sovereignty to native peoples (and by extension the dilution of the sovereignty of the state) can only be seen as a good thing.

If there is a fly in the ointment of the sovereignty agreement for the Nisga’a, it is that the sovereignty recognized is a collective sovereignty for the Nisga’a as a whole. Far better that each individual Nisga’a be personally compensated for past injustices.

Currently the governments of Canada and B.C. "own" about 90% of the land area of the province. The natives have expressly declared that they have no designs on any privately held property, only government property. What better way to privatize the province, indeed, to privatize Canada than by dividing up all the government owned land in Canada and giving it exclusively to individual aboriginal Canadians. Each native would then be free to decide for him or herself what to do with the property - farm it, log it, keep it in its natural state or sell it.

Environmentalists have long held that native cultures are better stewards of the land. If natives gained complete control of all crown land, could the greenies then carp if some natives sold off their land to forest companies or other private interests? Undoubtedly some natives would sell off land to forest companies. Some would develop it . And some would pool their resources and preserve it in its natural state. In any event, the radical luddite environmentalist would probably discover to his chagrin that natives are no more a homogeneous bloc than the rest of us. What irony that would be!

Personally, I’d much rather see all crown land privatized by giving it to our native peoples and redressing old wrongs than to see it remain in the inept hands of government. So cheer on the native sovereignty movement. It is a step in the right direction. (For a contrary view see Jack Boulogne’s article)

- Marco den Ouden, Editor

Return to West Coast Libertarian Vol. 16 # 3 Index Page