Re: Douglas Todd: Powers of hereditary chiefs test many First Nations
Sun columnist Douglas Todd explores the conflicts that arise when hereditary chiefs involve themselves in decisions that are made by their communities’ elected band councils. He gives examples of the wide differences among First Nations in how their unelected (Todd’s point) hereditary chiefs are central to conflict.
Sign up to know what's really happening by reading daily editorials and commentary by British Columbia's opinion leaders
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Vancouver Sun Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox.
He makes a point of showing how celebrities support the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in opposing the Coastal GasLink pipeline, calling it one of North America’s hottest environmental battles. He points out that the “mostly female elected chiefs” along the 670-kilometre route support the pipeline.
It is worthwhile to ask ourselves why does such conflict arise?
The answer lies in the reference Todd makes to Thomas King’s “The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America.” In his book, King states, “We have nothing much in common. We’re all aboriginal and we have the drum. That’s about it.”
Well, we have more that the drum in common, in that virtually all us, as members of Canada’s 600 First Nations, including the 200 in B.C., are “Indians”. The Indian Act says so. Colonial (tired of this word yet?) governments and churches took away our self-identity, our cultures, our languages, and our traditional forms of governance. A sorry history.
The Indian Act made us homogeneous. It defines us from cradle to grave. However, an Indian is an Indian is an Indian is only true in law. We’re different in our roots, in our original languages, our cultures, and how we governed ourselves. What to do?
My grandfather was an unelected, hereditary chief. He engaged with the Indian Reserve Commissioner in the early 1900s. He put his name to the Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe alongside the names of his fellow chiefs, saying that, “We are aware the B.C. government claims our country, like all other Indian territories in B.C., but we deny their right to it.”
The department of Indian affairs recognized him as the chief of our “band” — an Indian Act term — because it was convenient. When he passed away, his son replaced him in a family meeting.
Now, we hold elections. But, here’s the rub: Our elected leadership owes their first allegiance in 2023 to a minister of the federal crown. The minister must approve and acknowledge the authority of our elected chief and council. The council signs funding agreements and must provide annual audits — to the minister. Nowhere does the Indian Act say that the council must account to their people.
Todd points out that legal agreements signed by elected band chiefs and councils are valid only as they pertain to Indian reserves, rather than all the First Nations territory. Quite so. For most First Nations in B.C., therefore, there is a void of First Nations jurisdiction except on Indian reserves.
So now we have a situation where elected “band” councils have presumed to extend their authorities past the reserve boundaries to include their entire traditional territories. The result is a highly defined governing system that was designed to administer to their band members and is now dealing with matters affecting their people’s title and rights. This is fine, if it’s supported by their people.
Conflicts will continue until First Nations clarify their jurisdictions and authorities over their traditional territories, and this clarification is acknowledged and accepted by Canada. This will be made difficult because of Canada’s fiduciary obligation for “Indians”.
What with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the historic weight of court cases favouring Aboriginal rights, and quickly evolving political landscape in B.C. (and Canada), the time is right for a national discussion about how to dispense with the Indian Act in favour of returning jurisdictions to aboriginal peoples.
Does this mean treaty? For some First Nations, yes. However, in B.C. we have had Sechelt and Westbank and other First Nations lift themselves out from under the Indian Act. Provincial consultation policies already reflect an awareness of a First Nation’s title area. The challenge, therefore, is to give First Nations the jurisdictional room to exercise their inherent right of self-government throughout their territories. It’s time.
Eppa (Gerard Peters), Mount Currie
Letters to the editor should be sent to sunletters@vancouversun.com.
More news, fewer ads: Our in-depth journalism is possible thanks to the support of our subscribers. For just $3.50 per week, you can get unlimited, ad-lite access to The Vancouver Sun, The Province, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. Support us by subscribing today: The Vancouver Sun | The Province.