The Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have a lot in common with Canada's hereditary chief. They are “caretakers of the people and the culture” (Hereditary Chief) while she similarly “gives a sense of stability and continuity by acting as a focus for national identity, unity and pride.” (The Role of the Monarchy) Traditional leadership for the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leaders is more about responsibility than authority. (Hereditary Chief) This responsibility is paralleled by Canada’s hereditary leader, who has no executive role but plays an important part in the life of the nation by undertaking duties that have developed over a thousand years (The Role of the Monarchy).
The parallels between the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs and the hereditary chief of the Canadian nation of Canada are not as solid in relation to the land. While Indigenous hereditary leadership is intrinsically tied to a territory and the land (Elected VS Hereditary Chiefs), Canada's hereditary chief is the symbolic caretaker of so much territory that it would be impossible for her to have a deep connection with it all. To be fair, if the Wet’suwet’en leaders had control over one sixth of the planet’s surface they probably would be less concerned about 190 kilometres of pipeline in the arm pit of Canada.
But despite there being no documented official spiritual connection to the land Canada’s two future hereditary chiefs, Charles and William, are both very outspoken and active on environmental issues. If they were allowed to take sides they might indeed side with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs on the issue of the pipeline, as does the mainstream Canadian media.
For the mainstream perspective I read one MacLean’s Magazine opinion piece and skimmed twelve CBC articles to discover that they were all very supportive of the anti-pipeline protests. But I was refreshingly surprised to find that Kathleen Martens of APTN, in her February 11 and 14 articles “Member of Wet’suwet’en Nation requests rare all-clans meeting to discuss ongoing action" and “Wet’suwet’en chief wants Nation to come up with own solution in pipeline dispute” gave the most balanced coverage of all Indigenous sides of the debate (Martens Feb 11, Feb 14).
The mainstream articles all mention gratuitously as a passing attempt at balance that twenty elected band councils signed benefits agreements. But both MacLean’s and the CBC seemed to deliberately avoid publishing quotes from Indigenous leaders that are opposed to the protests.
The MacLean’s article by Amber Bracken, “The Wet’suwet’en are More United than Pipeline Backers Want You to Think” declares, “When the determination of whether pipeline work should continue has been represented as a democratic exercise, “majority rules” becomes an easy conclusion. Canadian social conditioning assumes democratic systems are fundamentally fairer. (Bracken) Bracken offers no fairer alternative to democracy here but she seems to be implying that the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs are an example of such an alternative. But Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs told APTN that, “People who are opposed to the project – even though we respect their position on the matter – should respect the fact that the majority of the First Nations support the project through their elected officials (Martens Feb 14)."
Bracken writes “Ahead of the impending RCMP enforcement of Coastal GasLink pipeline’s temporary injunction in late 2018, the Wet’suwet’en held a Bahlat feast, to decide what to do. After hours of protocol and discussion the hereditary chiefs announced they would block pipeline workers. Decisions like this underpin the Wet’suwet’en’s hereditary chiefs stand against all pipelines … (Bracken). But Andrew George told Martens that he thinks the Wet’suwet’en Nation would have influenced the hereditary chiefs to approve the project if the government had come to the Wet’suwet’en Feast Hall to make a presentation. “A nation-to-nation talk is the missing piece in all of this. Instead of a gas company issuing Aboriginal rights and title (Martens Feb 11).” Additionally, Resource Works quotes Theresa Tait-Day, who is Wi-hali-iyte, a hereditary chief in her clan; “A few House Chiefs cannot make decisions for our nation. Everyone in our nation is equal and has a voice that deserves to be heard (Activist-backed male chiefs)."
Bracken says, “The Wet’suwet’en are not a nation divided, … both sets of chiefs are on the side of their people but have differing opinions on the best route to a better life. (Bracken) But this statement could be applied to any conflict between the people of any nation, such as both sides of the French Revolution. She adds, “Each set of leaders has unique jurisdiction, in the same way that municipal and provincial governments do. The band chiefs govern their reserves while the hereditary chiefs aim to assert self-governance over their land. (Bracken). But if the land is a resource that could bring many members of a nation out of poverty then maybe the needs of the people override that of the land.
Bracken quotes a survey from a company that no longer exists and which did not publish its findings that 83 per cent of the 2000 Witset members were against the pipeline. (Bracken) But on February 19 a meeting of 200 pro-pipeline members of the Wet'suwet'en Nation gave up three hours of their afternoon to pack a movie theatre in the community of Houston, a town of about 3,000 people in north-western B.C., in the heart of the Wet'suwet'en Nation. (Bakx) If 6.5% of the population would go to a pro-pipeline meeting then many more would actually support the project.
Bracken tells us that the Wet’suwet’en Matrilineal Coalition was formed in 2015 by Gloria George, Darlene Glaim and Theresa Tait-Day, and that LNG Canada, Coastal Gaslink, and the Provincial Ministry of Reconciliation and Relations funded the organization with $180,000. Bracken quotes a letter written by Darlene Glaim that explains that the WMC was formed expressly to sign a benefits agreement on behalf of the clans, after the hereditary chiefs would not. But Bracken conveniently misquotes Glaim’s letter, which does not use the word “sign” but rather “negotiate”. The word “sign” gives the false impression that the WMC was meant to override the authority of those that could finalize an agreement.
Kathleen Martens does not mention the Wet’suwet’en Matrilineal Coalition in either of her articles, and I could find no record of any APTN reportage on this organization or on any of its founders. Amber Bracken deals with the WMC so briefly that it was necessary to research them through other sources such as Resource Works, The Globe and Mail, the JLS Report and Head Topics.
Tait-Day explains that she and the other matriarchs created the WMC after it became clear there was political division between the Office of the Wet’suwet’en representing hereditary chiefs, and the elected chiefs and councils representing the nation’s five different bands. The WMC was formed to co-ordinate and facilitate economic development and to share information with and give voice to all Wet-suwet’en members, a silent majority of whom they say are in favour of reaping economic benefits from the pipeline project (Activist backed male chiefs). They wanted to give voice to what they consider to be the silent majority. Ms. Glaim and Ms. George said that it is time to bridge the divisions between hereditary chiefs and elected band council leaders who support the pipeline. “The WMC is trying to bring Wet’suwet’en members together, to build a more democratic partnership between the hereditary chiefs and the elected band councils, and to collectively include all Wet’suwet’en members to facilitate decision-making for our nation” (Jang).
Bracken’s only indication of the credentials of the WMC founders is to write, “At the time, Glaim held a hereditary title (Bracken).” It seems that it is because Bracken is trying to paint a picture of unity within Wet’suwet’en that she does not mention in her article that Darlene Glaim and the two other founders of the Wet’suwet’en Matrilineal Coalition were stripped of their hereditary titles by the dominant chiefs.
Darlene Glaim held the hereditary title of Woos for Grizzly House under the Gitdumden clan. Hereditary house chiefs say Frank Alec took over the title of Woos at a ceremony on March 2, 2019 but Glaim said many Wet’suwet’en members see her as the true Woos (Jang).
Theresa Tait-Day still considers herself a hereditary wing chief (sub-chief), with the position Wi’haliy’te in House Beside The Fire under the Laksilyu clan (Jang).
Gloria George from the Laksamshu Clan said she has been the genuine Smogelgem, the head hereditary chief of the Wet’suwet’en’s Sun House since 2009 (Activist-backed male chiefs).
The chiefs say they stripped the three matriarchs of their hereditary titles because they created WMC without proper authority to back the pipeline project. Warner Naziel, who laid claim to the title Smogelgem in 2016 said George crossed the line when she aligned her herself with CGL. “After we realized that she was representing herself to government and industry as having the authority of a head chief and also the backing of the clan, our clan held a feast and formally rescinded the title Smogelgem.
According to a JLS post from March 5, 2019 all clan meetings are formally announced and then recorded but there is no record of a Laksamshu clan meeting of all of the hereditary chiefs that could have legitimately stripped George’s hereditary title. (Seagull)
George told The Globe and Mail that she acted appropriately when she waited before inheriting the title of Smogelgem from her brother Leonard George who died in 2006. She was given her house chief title at a ceremony in 2009. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en recognized her as Smogelgem from 2009 to 2016. “House chief titles are held for life, and after the death of the holder are passed tin the matrilineage … Titles are only removed in extreme scenarios such as murder.” (Activist-backed male chiefs) “We are not stripped like bark off a tree.” (Jang)
She disputes Mr. Naziel’s claim to the hereditary title. “House Chiefs from outside a house cannot take another House Chief’s name, which is connected to a house territory His roots are in Owl House, but the Smogelgem title is under Sun House (Jang).”
Ms. Tait-Day said, “The male hereditary chiefs have no authority to remove any one of their names”. The effect was to shut women out of the decision-making process. The Wet’suwet’en are largely poor, Tait-Day observes, with many concrete problems that money, jobs and skills training associated with the natural resources industry can help solve. “We want to share our wealth and live in prosperity.” She said of anti-pipeline protesters from outside of Wet’suwet’en that, “It’s none of their business (Selley).”
The three women have been ostracized behind the scenes by anti-pipeline protesters. They have felt the repercussions of being shunned and have been excluded from important gatherings. (Jang)
Bracken says that Premier Horgan recently said reconciliation discussions with the hereditary chiefs are ongoing, but Wet’suwet’en opposed to the pipeline say reconciliation is dead. (Bracken) However, Ry Moran of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation in Winnipeg told Martens, “This is what reconciliation looks like … Reconciliation is not easy. It is frequently messy. And while the country is struggling to get its bearings, he said a framework already exists in the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which has been endorsed but not adopted by Canada and formally implemented by B.C. (Martens).
Former area NDP-MP Nathan Cullen said the chiefs and councillors have been shut out of the present debate. “Typically, in these agreements with band councils, the company or the government include a non-disclosure clause. That means, once signed, the band council can’t talk about it.” Cullen said it’s wrong to view their silence as approval (Martens Feb 14).
Martens interviewed Andrew George of the Gidimt’en Grizzly House within the Wet’suwet’en Bear Clan, whose hereditary title is Skit’den meaning Wise Man. George said, “The professional protesters, who wrongfully use Wet’suwet’en ancestry as the means to advance their agenda, are putting Wet’suwet’en community members at risk (Martens Feb 14).” He asserts that participating in the protests or opposing them does not reflect the true governance of the Wet’suwet’en on either side. He says that what is happening with the youth is spreading out of control (Martens Feb 11). He said he appreciates what the youth are doing in support of their cause but feels someone needs to provide guidance. “We are afraid something bad might happen”. He is calling on the Wet’suwet’en Nation to take charge in the crisis (Martens Feb 11).
Concern for the safety of youth who are chaining themselves to police cars and stopping trains across the country prompted him to propose a rare all-clans meeting in the Wet’suwet’en Feast Hall, a sacred place where hereditary business is debated and decided. that would give each House group an opportunity to speak. The meeting was suggested in a letter sent to Indigenous and non-Indigenous elected and hereditary chiefs and politicians (Martens Feb 11). He wants to bring the whole Nation together and close the doors. He said some hereditary chiefs, who have had their titles for more than 50 years, have also been left out of the process and share his concerns (Martens Feb 11).
George says, “We are the proper rights holders based on Section 35 and Delgamuukw.” “Section 35” refers to section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982:
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons (Constitution Act).
“Delgamuukw" refers to the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of “Delgamuukw v. British Columbia” or Delgamuukw v. The Queen (Delgamuukw v. British Columbia). The hereditary Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en chiefs, including Smogelgem Leonard George, claimed ownership of their unceded territories in British Columbia. The court ruled that Indigenous people have valid claims to ancestral lands that were never ceded by treaty and the hereditary chiefs were recognized as representing them in the first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title in the country (Bracken) (Jang).
Andrew George says, “The only people that can issue Aboriginal rights and title are the Wet’suwet’en.” Canada’s Supreme Court acknowledged their traditional governance system and names of hereditary leaders in the decision. “We did win the recognition of our Aboriginal rights and title (Martens Feb 11).” But that case did not map the boundaries of where their title applies (Bracken). George adds, “It’s been waiting to be enshrined into law. But resource extraction continues (Martens Feb 11)."
Martens finishes with quotes from Dale Swampy, who suggests this won’t be the last dispute of its kind. He says there are at least 400 chiefs of the 634 First Nations across Canada that want to work with the natural resource industry (Martens Feb 14).
Swampy doubts the majority of protesters are Indigenous. He claims that poor Native people on the streets of Vancouver and Calgary are being offered hundreds of dollars to protest against the pipeline in order to counterbalance the fact that the majority of protestors are white. He adds that they are offered much more if they would wear a headdress. He says, “These corrupt environmentalists are taking advantage of our poor people, putting them in front of RCMP.” APTN has not been able to verify this claim (Martens Feb 14).
As a former street person I can confirm that the homeless could be paid to protest but it would be impossible to pay them to not speak about it afterwards. The word on the street would spread like wildfire. The fact that only Swampy is repeating a claim that would be common knowledge if true strongly suggests that it is merely a conspiracy theory.
One thing that both of these articles have in common is an assertion that Indigenous people on both sides of the pipeline dispute agree that the issue should be resolved within the nation of Wet'suwet'en without the involvement of the provincial and federal governments. I agree and think that there is a very good chance that if the Wet'suwet'en could work out their issues in sovereign self government then the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs would be elevated to the same level of respect as Canada’s hereditary chief, with the same absence of governing power for the same reasons.
Places are empowered by the people that live on them. If the people have no power then the place is only land. Democracy is not in itself a colonial idea but rather one of the many inventions that came out of the Industrial Age and in that sense democracy is about as colonial as electricity. The European colonies in the Americas were not formed by democracies but by nations ruled by hereditary chiefs. For the first one hundred and fifty years of North American colonization very few colonists had ever heard the words “democracy” or "vote". When elections finally began to sporadically happen only landowners had the power to vote and election days were often accompanied by violence and sometimes murder (A History of the Vote in Canada). At the time of Canadian Confederation democracy was still a fairly new idea and the fledgling nation was trying to find a balance between government by the people and loyalty to the hereditary chief. When the Indian Act was passed Canada’s attitude towards democracy was like that of someone that has recently quit smoking towards those around them that still smoke. Canada imposed democracy on Indigenous nations, which was ironically a very undemocratic thing to do. Given that democracy for all of the people of a nation is still a relatively new idea it is understandable that it is still flawed. But despite Canada’s democratic drawbacks and even though we have a long way to go before reconciliation with all of the Indigenous nations within our nation, Canada is nonetheless consistently recognized as the most democratic country in the Americas. On a world scale, in the 2019 Democracy Index Canada shared seventh place with Denmark. Besides relatively fair electoral systems what most of the top democratic countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Canada have in common is that they still have hereditary chiefs. On the surface this appears ironic but perhaps it is because of the presence in the background of our democracy of a symbolic figure representing the nation’s traditions and heritage that democracy works. If we elevate our hereditary chiefs to embody the past on our behalf then as individuals we become free to progress into the future.
Works Cited
“Activist-backed male chiefs’ attempt to ‘unperson’ female leaders ends up in court.” Resource
Works, 13 June 2019, resourceworks.com/unperson-chiefs
“A History of the Vote in Canada.” Elections Canada, 11 February 2020,
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?
section=res&dir=his&document=chap1&lang=e
Bakx, Kyle. “‘It’s none of their business’: The Wet’suwet’en people who want the protesters to stop.”
CBC, 20 February 2020, cbc.ca/news/business/wet-suwet-en-coastal-gas-link-pipeline-lng-
1.5469401
Bracken, Amber. “The Wet’suwet’en are more united than pipeline backers want you to think.”
MacLean’s, 14 February 2020, macleans.ca/opinion/the-wetsuweten-are-more-united-than-
pipeline-backers-want-you-to-think/
“Constitution Act 1982.” Government of Canada, laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/
“Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.” Supreme Court of Canada, 11 December 1997, scc-
csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1569/index.do
“Elected VS Hereditary Chiefs: What’s the Difference in Indigenous Communities?” CTV News, 11
January 2019, bc.ctvnews.ca/elected-vs-hereditary-chiefs-what-s-the-difference-in-indigenous-
communities-1.4247466
“Hereditary Chief Definition and 5 FAQs.” Indigenous Corporate Training Inc., 1 March 2016,
ictinc.ca/blog/hereditary-chief-definition-and-5-faqs
Jang, Brent. “Wet’suwet’en chief defends move to strip title from Coastal Gas Link supporter.” The
Globe and Mail, 27 February 2019, theglobeandmail.com/business/article-wetsuweten-chief-
defends-move-to-strip-title-from-coastal-gaslink/
Martens, Kathleen. “Member of Wet’suwet’en Nation Requests Rare All-Clans Meeting To Discuss
Ongoing Action.” APTN News, 11 February 2020, aptnnews.ca/2020/02/11/member-of-
wetsuweten-nation-requests-rare-all-clans-meeting-to-discuss-ongoing-action/?
fbclid=IwAR3l5bixEKCp-GEdclMfYjOEaSYGmSDPEYD0SZxWOIB_TOu3jaxWIwf6yWQ Martens, Kathleen. “Wet’suwet’en Chief Wants Nation To Come Up With Own Solution In Pipeline
Dispute.” APTN News, 14 February 2020, aptnnews.ca/2020/02/14/indigenous-rights/
“The Role of the Monarchy.” Royal UK, royal.uk/role-monarchy
Seagull, J.L. “In defense of the Wet’suwet’en Matrilineal Coalition.” 27 February 2019,
jlsreport.com/2019/02/27/in-defense-of-the-wetsuweten-matrilineal-coalition/
Selley, Chris. “Canada on the brink of terminal gridlock.” 15 February 2010,
headtopics.com/ca/chris-selley-canada-on-the-brink-of-terminal-gridlock-11313825
No comments:
Post a Comment