The divine right of chiefs
Who are these hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nations who are stopping the Coastal Gaslink pipeline in northern British Columbia? And who gave these chiefs the right to high- handedly override the desires of the native Canadians over whom they claim dominion? Like the paternalistic rulers of Western nations of old who claimed to rule by divine right — France’s Louis XVI and Russia’s Tsar Nicholas II were their countries’ last specimens — the hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nations are unaccountable anachronisms divorced from the needs of their people.
The desire for development by Canada’s Wet’suwet’en natives could not be more evident. All five Wet’suwet’en bands along the Coastal Gaslink pipeline route endorse the project for its economic and social benefits, as seen in public opinion and the votes of all five of their band councils. Neither are the five Wet’suwet’en bands outliers in their desire for advancement. All 20 band councils along the pipeline route — those most affected — back the project. According to Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, “We believe there are as many as 400 chiefs across the country that want to work with the natural resource industry — including alongside the CGL pipeline right- of- way.” As even a Wet’suwet’en hereditary subchief, concedes, “The truth is most of our members are for the pipeline.”
Natives want the economic opportunities that can add meaning to their lives and end the poverty and despair that have afflicted their communities. They see the possibilities in the Wet’suwet’en community of Witset, where “you have multi-generational unemployment and we now have guys who are getting off social security. It’s lifechanging,” says Troy Young, a Wet’suwet’en who employs some 50 natives building a work camp and other infrastructure in anticipation that the pipeline will proceed.
They also see the inspiring success that development brought to nations like the Quebec Cree, whose population is booming thanks to high life expectancy, low infant mortality, and a suicide rate no higher than the Quebec average. Because of development, the Cree culture is vibrant, the Cree language is taught in their schools, traditional hunting thrives along with modernity, family and community ties are strong and the Quebec Cree control their own destiny. Native communities who don’t have the economic independence to protect their culture and traditions — including the Ontario Cree who live just across the border — are all too often dysfunctional and in despair, suffering from high rates of suicide and population decline.
Despite the boon that development and its accompanying opportunities offer natives, the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs say “no.” Unlike the elected chiefs who legislate for the Indian reservations, the unelected hereditary chiefs rule the hinterlands, beyond the reservations, through an Aboriginal version of the divine right of kings. In exercising this sweeping power, they purport to be protecting their communities from the ravages of development, such as by deeming construction camps loathsome — one hereditary chief called them “dangerous places. They fly in and fly out, they have no social responsibility to where they are.”
But their high- sounding arguments ring hollow. For one thing, pipelines are common and, as one Wet’suwet’en put it in an interview with The Canadian Press, “It’s not a strange thing to have a pipeline in our territory. We have had a pipeline in our area since the mid-’60s and it hasn’t caused any harm to our environment.” For another, hereditary chiefs have long OK’D development projects in exchange for payments to native organizations. The main difference now, as has become clear, is that the hereditary chiefs are instead in the pockets of the anti- pipeline U. S. Tides Foundation, which funds their activities, and others in the well-heeled environmental lobby. For a third, charges are rife that the hereditary chiefs are acting more like back- stabbing politicians than lofty leaders who are above the fray. Initially, only five of 13 hereditary chefs opposed the project, with three proponents playing a conciliatory role by attempting to bring the different parties together. Those three — all female — were soon stripped of their hereditary titles by hardliners, who replaced them with males more to their liking. Hardline positions were then imposed on all.
Do the unaccountable hereditary chiefs embody the First Nations over whom they exercise sovereignty? Or should sovereignty rest with the natives themselves, in a system of governance whose leaders serve the public will instead of the other way around? The only way to find out — short of the bloody revolutions that ended the divine right of kings in Western nations — is through a referendum.
The Indian Act, which the white man imposed on natives shortly after confederation, and which has satisfied neither white nor native ever since, has no mechanism to allow natives to overthrow their unelected overlords. Neither do the courts. Canada’s parliament has the sole responsibility to amend the Indian Act to give Aboriginals the right to self- determination, which begins with giving them the ability to choose representative government. The referendum result for native governance could be divine.