Please stop repeating CGL's misdirection: "The company says they have 20 signed agreements with elected bands..."
The following was a letter to APTN News, which I copied to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and my MP in Ottawa South.
It is repeated on their website: Land rights defenders weigh in on CGL incident on Wet’suwet’en territory
I'm a settler of Irish, Scottish and French descent, currently living on unceded, unsurrendered Territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. My mother was born in Paris, Ontario, part of the Haldimand Tract. I have loyalty to this land that has sustained me, and solidarity with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (the oldest participatory democracy, not the Six Nations band council bureaucrats) and Anishinabek nations.
Even I, who fully recognizes I am not Indigenous and have never been naturalized to this continent, find it offensive each time APTN repeats the colonial misdirection about Indian Act Band Councils without the required disclaimers. This offensive misdirection was repeated again on this evening's newscast, apparently to remind viewers of the existence of worthless "agreements" that CGL has with "elected bands".
Indian Act band councils are created, regulated and funded by the Government of Canada.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/
The phrase "elected" should never be repeated, as that is colonial propaganda to falsely suggest since there was an "election" that the body might be democratic. These councils are responsible to the Canadian Government, not Indigenous citizens, and thus are not representative governments. Elected parts of the federal government bureaucracy are still federal government bureaucrats.
The position of Pope is "elected", but that does not change the fact that The Vatican is an absolute monarchy.
These councils are in a trivially obvious conflict of interest when it comes to any issue where there may be conflict between the interests of the Canadian Crown (and its corporations) and Indigenous governments. This was the entire purpose of the additions of s.25 and s.35 of the Canada Act 1982, to clarify that the Canadian federal government, or any of its delegates, cannot simply take control over Indigenous lands.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/11/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/11/schedule/B/paragraph/25
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/11/schedule/B/paragraph/35
Some of the same individual people may be part of an Indigenous government and a band council. However, an Indian Act band council as that council does not have jurisdiction outside of what the Federal Government has jurisdiction on and has delegated to part of its own bureaucracy. An Indian Act band council, a subsidiary part of the Canadian Federal government, constitutionally cannot have jurisdiction over treaty land under Constitution s.35 or land where treaties were not created under Charter s.25 which clarifies the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763 is part of Canadian law.
The fact that Indian Act Band councils administrate policy on reservations is because the British granted the Canadian Federal government jurisdiction over "24. Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/30-31/3/section/91
Please stop helping ongoing colonization on this continent. If you are quoting from a government or corporate statement, please make use of a disclaimer before or after to clarify that Indian Act band councils are part of the Canadian Government bureaucracy, and thus can not have jurisdiction over issues not part of federal responsibility.
There may not currently be clarity about who represents the Wet'suwet'en peoples. This is a problem caused by the Government of Canada, so the Governments of Canada (federal or provincial - with Municipal governments being provincial corporations) should never benefit from harm to existing Indigenous governance that the federal government caused.
Settler governments which had any respect for their own laws or internationally recognized human rights would have had federal courts issue an injunction against CGL and the British Columbia government. The injunction would be to cease all authorizations of land use and operations until the s.25/s.35 Indigenous Government representatives are lawfully clarified and the correct governing bodies have granted Free, Prior and Informed Consent for any activities on their land. If the appropriate bodies don't exist currently, then the fiduciary duty of the Canadian Crown is to help them be re-established, with the injunction remaining in place.
This isn't only a matter of recognizing UNDRIP, but of recognition of the Royal Proclamation 1763, the Canadian Constitution, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thank you for reading,
For anyone who read this and didn't know before that the Canadian Constitution granted the federal government jurisdiction over "Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians", please think about that for a moment.
Could you imagine the German constitution granted a specific level of government jurisdiction over "Jews, and lands reserved for the Jews"?
This is the real Canada, and not the "Canada the good" marketing material most of us settlers grew up with.
This was an excellent article with important nuance that is not widely understood.
Where I would find (some) disagreement is on the subject of whether those band governments are representative. While the Bands and Councils are a creation of the Federal Government, most bands have moved to Self defined electoral processes and leadership structures, and are not using the Indian Act 2 year band council election method. In creating custom codes, I would argue these bands are creating representative structures which hold meaningful democratic status. And I would even extend that to say many of the bands choosing to remain in the Indian Act electoral process, or the First Nations Voting Act, do so with intent - though you could certainly point to particularly small communities as lacking the administrative capacity to do so.
I'd say that is exceptionally true of many of the BC Nations that are the topic of this debate, as they have had government systems created most recently and generally have created processes and institutions which are most distinct from the Indian Act.
Regarding the closing line
Could you imagine the German constitution granted a specific level of government jurisdiction over "Jews, and lands reserved for the Jews"?
I think the important differentiation is that, as you point out elsewhere, "Indian" is not an ethnic group as "Jews" are, but is rather a legal status that is self revocable. With that in mind, this is an extension of the opening to the constitution which grants Canada sovereignty over all subjects of the crown where those aspects have not been moved to Provincial Jurisdiction, and a recognition that those of status and such lands are not under Provincial Jurisdiction.
Lastly, small quip, the Vatican is theocracy.