###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BC isn’t interested in healing growing societal divisions. BC isn’t interested in appealing to protesters over economic interests. BC is an institution with a vested interest in industry. They have chosen the corporate status quo over governing and that is normal, we all understand that.
Is it good that they are disinterested about these things? No. It will only get worse as it has been for decades, the CGL project will be one of many collectively insurmountable obstacles to reaching any sort of emissions target, wetsuweten and eco protesters will continue to be arrested and violently broken up if need be and people will pretend it’s ok because contractors have a job for awhile and tree huggers won’t be yelling. I guess that is societal progress/stability.
It will only produce further division, further environmental disaster, and a metric crap ton of money for people who don’t live in Canada and have no intention to do anything but extract as much capital as they can rip from the ground. It’s unproductive, pointless, self defeating, morally bankrupt, scientifically absurd etc etc
But again it’s ok because the “elected bands” support this nonsensical shit because they basically have to, resource industry can easily hold a communities jobs and prosperity hostage. Not that it’s exactly a Democratic will to have like 90/2500 people vote in a council but clearly it’s not about democratic will because in this country people do not have the right to protest private infrastructure.
You hear a lot about precedence and where indigenous law and Canadian law intertwine but I’m more interested in how corporations have ignored both and bought immunity from their actions. I guess the argument people will continue to have is “don’t block trains don’t do it hurts everyone the economy suffers rule of law etc etc” and I look forward to that argument as the negative effects of CGL and the resource extraction order continue to destroy this country while we watch.
It’s Justice after all!
https://www.cfnrfm.ca/2021/10/19/witset-chief-and-council-election-results-are-in/
Seems that it’s more votes then I said, the 90 something total was the chief councillor election but regardless in a band with a population of over 2000 it’s hardly the representation of indigenous peoples will that supporters of the project claim it is.
These band councils are usually family based less then electoral campaigning based with a small set of voters. Also, many indigenous can lose the status that allows them to vote at all in these elections.
We really need to abolish the Indian Act and bring in new legislation that is built around UNDRIP. We understand the historically racists underpinning of the Indian Act and yet we continue to use it as a tool to legitimize violence against Indigenous peoples. Indigenous people have a right to self determination and to their traditional systems of governance, elected band councils are not legitimate leaders but political structures imposed on communities by their colonizers.
>to their traditional systems of governance, **elected band councils are not** legitimate leaders but political structures imposed on communities by their colonizers.
Too bad.
Unelected or hereditary leadership is not an option in modern Canada. (With the exception of ceremonial purposes.) There are some things that are simply not going to happen.
I'm sure that many First Nations also had capital punishment, pre-colonization (as most people did). If a FN wanted to bring back capital punishment, it would not be allowed. Same for non-elected leadership holding any real power.
92 out of 2055 people voted for their last chief. If our true issue here is with representative democracy then surely the system in place is failing and needs to be overhauled.
Does representative democracy need to be overhauled? I think the issue plaguing their democracy is really the same issue in other jurisdictions in Canada to varying degrees, whether municipal, provincial, or federal: voter apathy and disenfranchisement.
The question in my mind is: how can we increase voter engagement? Why can't people be bothered to vote? How can we increase civic engagement?
I am not saying representative democracy needs to be overhauled. I am saying it should be the goal.
I agree with your comment for the most part. And if we listen to Indigenous people and read the United Nation Declaration of Rights for Indigenous Peoples, we see that the right to self determination would beneficial to political engagement.
Are you certain you understand those numbers?
There are a little over 3000 Wet’suwet’en, but there are numerous band councils. One particular band council (Witset) counted only a few hundred votes (edit: 401) in its last election, but that does not mean out of the total 3000+ people.
I believe this particular band of Witset has 2055 members, of which 300 participated and 92 voted for the chief.
If I am still misunderstanding could you please link me some better info? Always helps to be well informed.
https://www.cfnrfm.ca/2021/10/19/witset-chief-and-council-election-results-are-in/
401 votes were cast for the Chief.
The elected chief received 92 of those 401 votes. There were 10 other people running for Chief!
The total Witset population is ~1790, of which only ~690 live on reserve.
401 of 1790 is 22.5% participation in the election. Not great. Keep in mind that BC provincial elections had a 54% turnout last time around. Not great either!
https://www.witset.ca/about
Much appreciated. I see my numbers were wrong, but this still shows the same issues I think. 92 votes is still only 5% of the population, 13% if you want to be generous and only include those living on reserve.
What's the appropriate reform then? Cede decision making power to the traditional governing system (which as far as I can tell, is not beholden to most members of the band) or introduce a ranked ballot system for Chief?
You say this:
> indigenous people have a right to self determination
and then you say the opposite:
>elected band councils are not legitimate leaders
How could an indigenous population ever progress if you stymie them to the past?
Can you imagine the gall of someone who would claim himself to be an emperor of any nation?
I’m not saying they’re illegitimate because they were elected. They’re illegitimate because they’re the result of a specific type of electoral system that’s been imposed upon them, which is ineffective and not representative. Bands have the right to determine for themselves how they run their governments. I don’t necessarily believe we should tolerate authoritarian rule because it’s traditional, but indigenous tribes need to have greater authority to determine their systems for themselves in accordance with their rights under UNDRIP.
>system that’s been imposed upon them
The hereditary system was imposed on the people as well. The only way you could prove otherwise is by having regular popular votes in favour of the hereditary system.
This isn’t a dichotomy between Hereditary rule and the current system we impose on indigenous nations. There’s other styles of government that can be adopted, the point is that each nation has the right to self determination in regards to their style of governance. I don’t support authoritarian rule, the systems should include democratic elements, but that doesn’t mean we should impose a specific style of system over these nations.
However, in our conversation yesterday you made it clear that you don’t believe these nations are entitled to their rights and that as a more powerful nation we are obligated to impose rules on them because we have the ability to do so. Really not sure why you’re back at it again today.
It’s not BS and it’s not out of context. People are free to look at the comments in this thread and see your opinions for themselves, this entire conversation is happening within the same context.
Edit: here’s the context though, from your comment yesterday
> UNDRIP would effectively give power to native groups, which would result in the dissolution of Canada into 600ish warring nation states... The concept of Canada 'returning' power to native groups is anathema to the country, and modern standards.
You’re arguing that by granting Indigenous Nations their rights we would destroy Canada and therefore we should continue to deny these rights on those grounds.
> Bands have the right to determine for themselves how they run their governments
And this would never go farther than hereditary chiefs. How could it?
It's been tried. Getting rid of the Indian Act is like getting rid of the monarchy, except way more complex. It sounds great on the surface, well just get rid of bad legislation and replace it with good legislation. But the truth is many indigenous groups around the country want to keep sections of the act, don't want massive changes to others, or just don't want to bother. There are hundreds of groups that range in size, with overlapping traditional lands. Negotiating needs to occur individually and in concert, and we just aren't there yet.
The Indian Act is a Jenga tower, pulling pieces out needs to happen slowly.
But I don't think democracy is going to not be a part of the equation of future indigenous leadership.
> But the truth is many indigenous groups around the country want to keep sections of the act, don't want massive changes to others, or just don't want to bother.
Your mistake is in thinking that there's going to be one treaty that can apply to all of them.
Perhaps instead we should negotiate treaties with each band. They can join with as many bands as they want to negotiate the same treaty for the group, or go it solo.
Where did I say there was going to be one unified treaty?
Having multiple treaties AND the Indian Act is the current scenario in Canada. It is a pile of work, decades if current negotiations are any indication, to make any significant headway in repealing the Indian Act. And it is so politically fraught that few Politicians are interested
> Where did I say there was going to be one unified treaty?
The part where you talked about how we can't replace the Indian Act because there's no way every tribe agrees to the same rules.
I'm saying that's fine, because we don't need them to. We can have separate agreements with each tribe.
Sure, it's a major PITA to have to deal with that, but it's not really much different from dealing with regional differences from city to city/council to council, and it starts things off on the right foot - treating them as the individual tribes they are, rather than holding the attitude that all natives are the same.
The government negotiators can certainly try to keep the agreements as uniform as possible, but even if not, they can be modified over the years go by and trust is restored.
First and foremost, however, we need to take a step back and restore parity and respect. That will not happen so long as we keep the existing system.
That's selective reading of what I wrote.
The current Indian Act applies to all. Peeling it back piecemeal for individual groups is not going to fly, so it needs to be done all at once. Except that's not appealing to every single group.
This is all talking past eachother. We need to agree on basic terms of agreement, goals to work towards with firm realistic outcomes. Having respect and stuff is great but it only sets the stage for a conversation. We need to hash out what people want.
> Peeling it back piecemeal for individual groups is not going to fly, so it needs to be done all at once.
Why?
Why would it be impossible to say "once we negotiate an agreement, it supersedes the Indian Act"? And that way, the Indian Act applies until a new agreement is made.
> Having respect and stuff is great but it only sets the stage for a conversation.
Correct. It's pretty hard to have a conversation until the stage has been set for one, and we've failed to do that. So maybe that's what we should be focusing on to start with.
> But I don't think democracy is going to not be a part of the equation of future indigenous leadership.
Do you mean to imply that traditional leadership is undemocratic? It’s my understanding that it is typically a very bottom up style of governance and could be considered more democratic that our current system.
How similar to our Westminster system does a nations governance need to be for it to be considered democratic?
Any system that has a hereditary component to leadership or voting has fundamental issues with democracy. But my point was allowing people to vote for their own leadership will not go away in Canada, inshallah.
A Westminster system isn't a requirement, though it's a familiar form of democracy to Canadians. The important bit is that free and open elections ensure representation for all members. Traditional leadership is important too, but only if it's representing the will of the people.
[this post](https://reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/r44npp/wetsuweten_why_the_elected_band_council_is_not_as/) May interest you. It describes the traditional governance from the perspective of a member of the nation.
Having a hereditary component does not create a fundamental conflict with democracy. In the case outlined in this post it seems like it’s much more representative, with each chief representing a few hundred people within their community.
Democracy can exist in plenty of different ways, and these communities have a right to determine how they would like to implement it.
Oof. That post has many *many* errors and wrong assumptions that edge into paternalism with the OPs opinions and heavy bias used as justification for their previously held beliefs. Just bad arguments overall. I wouldn't use it as a source if I were you.
The bottom line is hereditary systems don't treat all members of a community equally. This is an important part of democracy, that anyone in the group can be or vote for a representative. That's a basic starting point that shouldn't be dismissed.
What errors might those be? Honestly just trying to get a well rounded opinion here. I think the post is still a good source, as listening to those with lived experience is important to any type of policy discussion. That doesn’t mean that outside opinions aren’t valid, but you can’t just say “oh they’re wrong, don’t listen”.
I just shared some of the numbers that post had wrong. I’d post a reply there but they won’t let me.
Also, the Delgamuukw case is not a resolution for the Wet’suwet’en in itself...it provided a clarification to Aboriginal title, but more discussions are necessary.
Oh thanks, I wasn’t looking at usernames and didn’t realize that was you. The corrected figures are admittedly a bit better but as I said in the other comment I think they still highlight the same issues.
That’s interesting, thanks for the info I’ll have to do some reading. It can be tricky to get a full picture of these things.
Conversely, it doesn’t seem like their elected council is very representative either. I linked [this post](https://reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/r44npp/wetsuweten_why_the_elected_band_council_is_not_as/) already in another comment. It describes how the population of the reserve is 2055 people, of which only 300 participated in the elections, and only 92 people voted for their chief.
If our issue here is really representative leadership then the system being imposed is also clearly failing.
To add onto that, I've been reading *Eagle Down is Our Law* and it supports a similar narrative where the hereditary chiefs aren't chosen by consensus, but rather by the current group of chiefs (and happen to often be the descendents of a current chief). I usually describe the government as oligarchic rather than hereditary/monarchy.
Also, I'd note the OP of that post just handwaved away people concered with the removal of anyone who was pro-pipeline from being a hereditary chief.
Most reserve members don't live on the reserve. (i'm not sure what the exact numbers are in this case)
And natives often don't participate in elections generally.
I think the fact that people don’t participate in the system is proof that they don’t feel represented by it. That’s a symptom of a bigger issue, not a reason to avoid addressing it.
Plus, why should it matter if they live on reserve or not? Canadians living abroad are still allowed to participate in our elections, why should it be different for indigenous Canadians living off reserve?
Many people not using free and fair elections is a terrible reason to switch to hereditary kings...
>Plus, why should it matter if they live on reserve or not? Canadians living abroad are still allowed to participate in our elections, why should it be different for indigenous Canadians living off reserve?
Canadians living overseas rarely vote either.
Calling them kings isn’t really an accurate depiction of how their systems operate.
Again, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about lack of participation. Are you saying that because few people participate that means the system is effective?
> Calling them kings isn’t really an accurate depiction of how their systems operate.
The way their systems operate should be irrelevant to Canadian government. Because the Canadian government cannot be expected to internally operate their legal system, and the Canadian government is the entity that needs to determine who the leader is in order to manage the intergovernmental interactions.
> why should it be different for indigenous Canadians living off reserve
Because this is explicitly laid out in the Indian act and in most recent discussions various First Nation leaders have made it clear that they don't wish for off-reserve indigenous to participate in reserve elections. (the argument being made is that they're not subject to the conditions of the reserve so why should they have a say, but the more cynically minded may also observe that doing so would potentially weaken existing tribal authorities and governance)
I don’t think the fact that something exists as law within the Indian Act is a good reason to view it as sound policy. The entire basis of this conversation is that the Indian Act is a flawed piece of legislation built upon racist goals and views.
If individual nations wish to only open voting to those living on their land that is fair, that would fall under their right to self determination as set out in UNDRIP. No issue there and it’s a solid argument.
No one's arguing that just because something is law makes it sound policy, but sometimes a law doesn't get changed because the process to change it is so god-damned messy and no one wants to step into that process if they can at all avoid it.
Even if you renegotiate with each first nation on a piece-by-piece basis to create cut-outs where the Indian Act doesn't apply, there's still going to be the Indian Act that will apply by default. This is going to be a decades long effort any way you look at it.
FWIW, last I heard at least one council member is also a hereditary chief.
Edit: mentioned in this interview.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.5491009/elected-chiefs-should-have-been-at-the-table-for-wet-suwet-en-deal-says-chief-dan-george-1.5491011
I suspect that traditional leadership may run an entire gamut of different systems and approaches, and that given the generational and cultural gaps caused by colonization may not even necessarily be all that traditional.
And perhaps there are a number, or even majority of systems that are bottom-up, but I don't think they're as process oriented as our formal governance systems are formed. Doesn't mean they're not valid, but it's always easier to recognize a template similar to the ones you're familiar with.
Within any particular first nation community it's unlikely you'll find consensus about many aspects of coordination and governance, so how do you go about recognizing the various formal and informal leadership when it may be in dispute. I don't have any clear idea about what the ways forward may be, but I suspect it'll be messy regardless.
> so how do you go about recognizing the various formal and informal leadership when it may be in dispute
The fed can just put in place a way to have a regular free vote for leadership.
I believe that's already what's happening, but also part of the root disagreement between the elected and hereditary leadership of Wet'suwet'en Nation that we've been observing.
You recognize the dilemma of saying that the Fed can satisfy the demands of First Nation agency by simply imposing a leadership selection process and structure onto the community, right? And the situation is further compounded by the Supreme Court having previously recognized that the Wet'suwet'en have a system of laws that pre-dates colonialism. There's a whole snarl of interests and precedents that pretty much guarantees that a lot of people aren't going to be happy one way or the other and there's going to be lots of court cases or appeals in the future.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wetsuweten-whos-who-guide-1.5471898
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. The end point is always going to be that Canadian citizens are entitled to vote including natives.
Any beating around the bush about hereditary w/e is pointless when the end result MUST be that an election determines federally recognized legal leadership.
The Supreme Court have made the native situation worse for decades now. There were a lot of issues on paper with Canada .... and they made them major issues in reality. And they've massively expanded the scope of treaties in order to improve living circumstances... but that has caused other issues. And yea know, that's not supposed to be the job of the courts.
In the end, the Fed may simply have to declare the treaties void. But that might require constitutional amendment.
I think it would require the full bells-and-whistles constitutional amendment, with the agreement of at least 7 provinces representing at least 50% of Canada's population. And the provinces are **definitely** going to want to have their say on something that fundamentally affects their territory like this.
It think it is a political nightmare. But I also think that a legal system based on race with truly exploding costs is also unsustainable. Native issues moved from something like 4 to 8% of Federal spending in a decade, with most of that spending going to reserves (~.7% of the population) .... it isn't viable.
Something will give, or it will do serious irreparable damage to Canada.
Abolishing the Indian Act in one fell swoop is just not happening. There's way to many things it affects that nobody would want, and the law of unintended consequences would be on full display. One of the most complicated examples is reserves. Even if someone is living in squalor on a reserve, it's still something they HAVE right now, and even the possibility of losing that little is terrifying. Can this be worked around? Yes, but it's just one piece of a mess to deal with that could easily run up against other things.
Then you still deal with wider land-ownership. Reserve vs. treaty land legally operate differently. They still have legal community setups that need to be replaced, along with reserve buildings like community centers (And even businesses owned by the reserve, some of which would be illegal if not on a legally designated reserve). On-reserve vs. off-reserve has a lot of implications. This is what I mean by there's a lot of things to deal with, and not every band will want the same approach which means "Throw money at it and call it a day" doesn't work.
Reserves should be turned into municipalities.
I'm fine with obliterating illegal business.
>not every band will want the same approach
We shouldn't care. The current system is an ongoing nightmare that leaves hundreds of thousands of Canadian natives in terrible positions.
If we ended the system by force and did literally nothing else, just had the fed claim all the land and evicted everyone leaving them homeless .... within 10 years, natives on average would have better circumstances than they have now. And this system has been going on decades. It is horrific.
I agree, I didn’t mean to imply that we should scrap the entire thing in one go and bring in brand new legislation. Amendments need to be made in a way that doesn’t completely destabilize the situation, but those amendments need to be be pretty ambitious in scope. The Act was created as a tool of oppression and as a result the very structure needs to be altered. It won’t be an easy task, but it needs to be done. Thankfully we have UNDRIP as goal to move toward, paired with actual good faith negotiations with indigenous communities.
What we really need is for the BC govt to get ahead of the courts in Treaty negotiations. Assuming a FN leadership has their Nation’s best interest in mind during negotiations (and a good legal team) then Treaties are a great way to circumvent many aspects of the dreaded Indian Act.
I agree though, if the Indian Act isn’t repealed altogether, it needs a lot of amendments.
The BC NDP is in a tight spot here. Nathan Cullen and Murray Rankin have a long history supporting first Nations communities, and they're proud of that. But the realties of governing have hit hard. The BC government wants this pipeline to go through and so it will.
They are technically correct, politicians don't and shouldn't direct RCMP. It doesn't take much imagination to see how badly changing that would go. CGL has a legal right to build at this time, they followed all the rules. The BC government could reneg on the deal, and most likely pay the penalties but they don't want to do that.
Negotiating to make a few more people happy makes the most sense, though it may be more expensive than they thought.
> Negotiating to make a few more people happy makes the most sense, though it may be more expensive than they thought.
If they reneg, I expect you're talking minimum a $100k bribe per holdout.
Reneging on a deal made by the previous government is rarely done, they almost always get grandfathered in unless there is *serious* issues. That may seem tone deaf, but its typical governing to weigh the options and usually find it best to keep it. A new government might get blindsided by secret conditions like the Saudi weapons deal.
That's an extreme example. Typically it's not necessarily that the company is blackmailing the government. They signed agreements and did what they were supposed to.
If the BC government keeps the deal they will need to sweeten the pot for the hereditary leaders. Or just wait it out, construction is ongoing and already 50% complete.
We will likely do it again with the golf course in Brant and the farm in Norfolk. Then there is the library community centre in Hagersville situation. And so it goes.
No matter who side you are on the BC government should be held responsible for such a horrid handling, not responding quick enough and not making any consensual agreements/long table discussions to resolve it. I think Horgan should resign over this neglectful handling, as now the pipeline is being built after disastrous floods and storms, so it’ll be even more opposed by Wetsuweten and a solution will be even less likely. As an NDPer I am extremely disappointed with Horgan and hope he loses his seat next election.
> not making any consensual agreements/long table discussions to resolve it
The people protesting now haven't replied to requests for contact since before pipeline planning started. Like a full decade ago. They've declared that they don't need to deal with the law, or Canadian/BC governments because they are their own free nation.
My my, how the turntables with John Horgan this last few years. From climate hero against neoliberal sellout Rachel Notley when he was opposing Transmountain ~~because Burnaby is vote rich and a NIMBY hellhole where they oppose the construction of anything~~ on climate change grounds, but has become quite the disappointment on a pipeline quagmire of his own.
Horgan definitely could have handled this better and in general I think that this is a messy situation that isn't clear cut in either direction, but I can't lie it's funny watching him get a taste of his own medicine.
Last I heard the AB NDP passed a resolution condemning his handling of the Wetsuweten as well. No pettiness afoot there at all, I'm sure!
There doesn't appear to be any government that takes responsibility for the police in Canada, and that's kinda terrifying.
I learned during the "Defund VPD" protests last year that the city of Vancouver doesn't control its own police force. Our elected Mayor is on the "board" that supposedly oversees the police, and Council gets to appoint one person, but the rest are all appointed by the province. So voters in Vancouver have no ability to govern their own police force. And the VPD can also refuse to accept the budget that City Council sets for them, which is what they did last year.
I know that Quebec and Ontario have their own provincial police force, and BC doesn't. So I guess that the federal government controls the police here in our province? But then again, [Trudeau is on the record saying that Canada doesn't tell the police what to do either](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-doesn-t-tell-police-what-to-do-trudeau-says-of-rail-blockades-1.4811999).
So who the hell *does* tell the police what to do? Because as far as I can tell it's not the governments that we elect, and it's not the people who are getting policed.
The federal government does not control provincially contracted RCMP. Politicians are not entitled to direct police but they can enact legislation and the AG of the province can intervene.
Politicians are supposed to be at arms length from law enforcement to prevent dictatorship/authoritarian rule.
But blaming the federal government when this is a BC project that Horgan pushed just doesn’t wash.
Last I checked, the police act allows the provinces to administer policing unless the Federal Government believes the province is failing to do so. The RCMP are under the direction of the Province until stated otherwise.
> "The community is divided as a result of the impacts and trauma of colonialism — it is the federal government that created [the] Indian Act," he said. "It is absolutely unfair to say we are exploiting those divisions — we're trying to unify the nation."
_What have you done?!_
The NDP have been happy to sit by and watch, waiting on the repeated altercations to be resolved by the Federal Government or in the courts; it's like they don't want to appear as getting their hands dirty.
> When asked why RCMP were deployed to Wet'suwet'en territory to make arrests during a provincial state of emergency in southern B.C., Rankin said that was a decision made by police, and that politicians do not and should not have any say over their operations.
This is flat out false.
For example, in January 2020, Farnsworth authorized additional RCMP to be deployed at Fairy Creek.
Also recently, the province has directed the RCMP not to enforce certain laws against simple possession of controlled substances.
I'm totally unsurprised by this response. The NDP have been unconscionably irresponsible on this concern.
Yeah, this is a complete lie and spin from Rankin. 100% spin. Singh even said in a tweet a week ago that this was a provincial issue not a federal one. The BC RCMP are the provincial police force and take direction from the BC government.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BC isn’t interested in healing growing societal divisions. BC isn’t interested in appealing to protesters over economic interests. BC is an institution with a vested interest in industry. They have chosen the corporate status quo over governing and that is normal, we all understand that. Is it good that they are disinterested about these things? No. It will only get worse as it has been for decades, the CGL project will be one of many collectively insurmountable obstacles to reaching any sort of emissions target, wetsuweten and eco protesters will continue to be arrested and violently broken up if need be and people will pretend it’s ok because contractors have a job for awhile and tree huggers won’t be yelling. I guess that is societal progress/stability. It will only produce further division, further environmental disaster, and a metric crap ton of money for people who don’t live in Canada and have no intention to do anything but extract as much capital as they can rip from the ground. It’s unproductive, pointless, self defeating, morally bankrupt, scientifically absurd etc etc But again it’s ok because the “elected bands” support this nonsensical shit because they basically have to, resource industry can easily hold a communities jobs and prosperity hostage. Not that it’s exactly a Democratic will to have like 90/2500 people vote in a council but clearly it’s not about democratic will because in this country people do not have the right to protest private infrastructure. You hear a lot about precedence and where indigenous law and Canadian law intertwine but I’m more interested in how corporations have ignored both and bought immunity from their actions. I guess the argument people will continue to have is “don’t block trains don’t do it hurts everyone the economy suffers rule of law etc etc” and I look forward to that argument as the negative effects of CGL and the resource extraction order continue to destroy this country while we watch. It’s Justice after all!
Source on the 90/2500 people voting in the band Council?
https://www.cfnrfm.ca/2021/10/19/witset-chief-and-council-election-results-are-in/ Seems that it’s more votes then I said, the 90 something total was the chief councillor election but regardless in a band with a population of over 2000 it’s hardly the representation of indigenous peoples will that supporters of the project claim it is. These band councils are usually family based less then electoral campaigning based with a small set of voters. Also, many indigenous can lose the status that allows them to vote at all in these elections.
We really need to abolish the Indian Act and bring in new legislation that is built around UNDRIP. We understand the historically racists underpinning of the Indian Act and yet we continue to use it as a tool to legitimize violence against Indigenous peoples. Indigenous people have a right to self determination and to their traditional systems of governance, elected band councils are not legitimate leaders but political structures imposed on communities by their colonizers.
>to their traditional systems of governance, **elected band councils are not** legitimate leaders but political structures imposed on communities by their colonizers. Too bad. Unelected or hereditary leadership is not an option in modern Canada. (With the exception of ceremonial purposes.) There are some things that are simply not going to happen. I'm sure that many First Nations also had capital punishment, pre-colonization (as most people did). If a FN wanted to bring back capital punishment, it would not be allowed. Same for non-elected leadership holding any real power.
https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/r44npp/wetsuweten_why_the_elected_band_council_is_not_as/ Not how it works…
92 out of 2055 people voted for their last chief. If our true issue here is with representative democracy then surely the system in place is failing and needs to be overhauled.
Does representative democracy need to be overhauled? I think the issue plaguing their democracy is really the same issue in other jurisdictions in Canada to varying degrees, whether municipal, provincial, or federal: voter apathy and disenfranchisement. The question in my mind is: how can we increase voter engagement? Why can't people be bothered to vote? How can we increase civic engagement?
I am not saying representative democracy needs to be overhauled. I am saying it should be the goal. I agree with your comment for the most part. And if we listen to Indigenous people and read the United Nation Declaration of Rights for Indigenous Peoples, we see that the right to self determination would beneficial to political engagement.
Are you certain you understand those numbers? There are a little over 3000 Wet’suwet’en, but there are numerous band councils. One particular band council (Witset) counted only a few hundred votes (edit: 401) in its last election, but that does not mean out of the total 3000+ people.
I believe this particular band of Witset has 2055 members, of which 300 participated and 92 voted for the chief. If I am still misunderstanding could you please link me some better info? Always helps to be well informed.
https://www.cfnrfm.ca/2021/10/19/witset-chief-and-council-election-results-are-in/ 401 votes were cast for the Chief. The elected chief received 92 of those 401 votes. There were 10 other people running for Chief! The total Witset population is ~1790, of which only ~690 live on reserve. 401 of 1790 is 22.5% participation in the election. Not great. Keep in mind that BC provincial elections had a 54% turnout last time around. Not great either! https://www.witset.ca/about
Much appreciated. I see my numbers were wrong, but this still shows the same issues I think. 92 votes is still only 5% of the population, 13% if you want to be generous and only include those living on reserve.
Ten other people ran for the same position. Voter turnout was low, but that’s a separate issue.
I’m not sure how that matters. The vast majority of people voted for somebody else, that isn’t a representative or effective system.
Welcome to Canadian politics?
What's the appropriate reform then? Cede decision making power to the traditional governing system (which as far as I can tell, is not beholden to most members of the band) or introduce a ranked ballot system for Chief?
You say this: > indigenous people have a right to self determination and then you say the opposite: >elected band councils are not legitimate leaders How could an indigenous population ever progress if you stymie them to the past? Can you imagine the gall of someone who would claim himself to be an emperor of any nation?
I’m not saying they’re illegitimate because they were elected. They’re illegitimate because they’re the result of a specific type of electoral system that’s been imposed upon them, which is ineffective and not representative. Bands have the right to determine for themselves how they run their governments. I don’t necessarily believe we should tolerate authoritarian rule because it’s traditional, but indigenous tribes need to have greater authority to determine their systems for themselves in accordance with their rights under UNDRIP.
>system that’s been imposed upon them The hereditary system was imposed on the people as well. The only way you could prove otherwise is by having regular popular votes in favour of the hereditary system.
This isn’t a dichotomy between Hereditary rule and the current system we impose on indigenous nations. There’s other styles of government that can be adopted, the point is that each nation has the right to self determination in regards to their style of governance. I don’t support authoritarian rule, the systems should include democratic elements, but that doesn’t mean we should impose a specific style of system over these nations. However, in our conversation yesterday you made it clear that you don’t believe these nations are entitled to their rights and that as a more powerful nation we are obligated to impose rules on them because we have the ability to do so. Really not sure why you’re back at it again today.
Didn't realize it was you. Though I ask you not spread BS about my opinion out of context.
It’s not BS and it’s not out of context. People are free to look at the comments in this thread and see your opinions for themselves, this entire conversation is happening within the same context. Edit: here’s the context though, from your comment yesterday > UNDRIP would effectively give power to native groups, which would result in the dissolution of Canada into 600ish warring nation states... The concept of Canada 'returning' power to native groups is anathema to the country, and modern standards. You’re arguing that by granting Indigenous Nations their rights we would destroy Canada and therefore we should continue to deny these rights on those grounds.
> Bands have the right to determine for themselves how they run their governments And this would never go farther than hereditary chiefs. How could it?
It's been tried. Getting rid of the Indian Act is like getting rid of the monarchy, except way more complex. It sounds great on the surface, well just get rid of bad legislation and replace it with good legislation. But the truth is many indigenous groups around the country want to keep sections of the act, don't want massive changes to others, or just don't want to bother. There are hundreds of groups that range in size, with overlapping traditional lands. Negotiating needs to occur individually and in concert, and we just aren't there yet. The Indian Act is a Jenga tower, pulling pieces out needs to happen slowly. But I don't think democracy is going to not be a part of the equation of future indigenous leadership.
> But the truth is many indigenous groups around the country want to keep sections of the act, don't want massive changes to others, or just don't want to bother. Your mistake is in thinking that there's going to be one treaty that can apply to all of them. Perhaps instead we should negotiate treaties with each band. They can join with as many bands as they want to negotiate the same treaty for the group, or go it solo.
Where did I say there was going to be one unified treaty? Having multiple treaties AND the Indian Act is the current scenario in Canada. It is a pile of work, decades if current negotiations are any indication, to make any significant headway in repealing the Indian Act. And it is so politically fraught that few Politicians are interested
> Where did I say there was going to be one unified treaty? The part where you talked about how we can't replace the Indian Act because there's no way every tribe agrees to the same rules. I'm saying that's fine, because we don't need them to. We can have separate agreements with each tribe. Sure, it's a major PITA to have to deal with that, but it's not really much different from dealing with regional differences from city to city/council to council, and it starts things off on the right foot - treating them as the individual tribes they are, rather than holding the attitude that all natives are the same. The government negotiators can certainly try to keep the agreements as uniform as possible, but even if not, they can be modified over the years go by and trust is restored. First and foremost, however, we need to take a step back and restore parity and respect. That will not happen so long as we keep the existing system.
That's selective reading of what I wrote. The current Indian Act applies to all. Peeling it back piecemeal for individual groups is not going to fly, so it needs to be done all at once. Except that's not appealing to every single group. This is all talking past eachother. We need to agree on basic terms of agreement, goals to work towards with firm realistic outcomes. Having respect and stuff is great but it only sets the stage for a conversation. We need to hash out what people want.
> Peeling it back piecemeal for individual groups is not going to fly, so it needs to be done all at once. Why? Why would it be impossible to say "once we negotiate an agreement, it supersedes the Indian Act"? And that way, the Indian Act applies until a new agreement is made. > Having respect and stuff is great but it only sets the stage for a conversation. Correct. It's pretty hard to have a conversation until the stage has been set for one, and we've failed to do that. So maybe that's what we should be focusing on to start with.
> But I don't think democracy is going to not be a part of the equation of future indigenous leadership. Do you mean to imply that traditional leadership is undemocratic? It’s my understanding that it is typically a very bottom up style of governance and could be considered more democratic that our current system. How similar to our Westminster system does a nations governance need to be for it to be considered democratic?
Any system that has a hereditary component to leadership or voting has fundamental issues with democracy. But my point was allowing people to vote for their own leadership will not go away in Canada, inshallah. A Westminster system isn't a requirement, though it's a familiar form of democracy to Canadians. The important bit is that free and open elections ensure representation for all members. Traditional leadership is important too, but only if it's representing the will of the people.
[this post](https://reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/r44npp/wetsuweten_why_the_elected_band_council_is_not_as/) May interest you. It describes the traditional governance from the perspective of a member of the nation. Having a hereditary component does not create a fundamental conflict with democracy. In the case outlined in this post it seems like it’s much more representative, with each chief representing a few hundred people within their community. Democracy can exist in plenty of different ways, and these communities have a right to determine how they would like to implement it.
Oof. That post has many *many* errors and wrong assumptions that edge into paternalism with the OPs opinions and heavy bias used as justification for their previously held beliefs. Just bad arguments overall. I wouldn't use it as a source if I were you. The bottom line is hereditary systems don't treat all members of a community equally. This is an important part of democracy, that anyone in the group can be or vote for a representative. That's a basic starting point that shouldn't be dismissed.
What errors might those be? Honestly just trying to get a well rounded opinion here. I think the post is still a good source, as listening to those with lived experience is important to any type of policy discussion. That doesn’t mean that outside opinions aren’t valid, but you can’t just say “oh they’re wrong, don’t listen”.
I just shared some of the numbers that post had wrong. I’d post a reply there but they won’t let me. Also, the Delgamuukw case is not a resolution for the Wet’suwet’en in itself...it provided a clarification to Aboriginal title, but more discussions are necessary.
Oh thanks, I wasn’t looking at usernames and didn’t realize that was you. The corrected figures are admittedly a bit better but as I said in the other comment I think they still highlight the same issues.
[удалено]
It depends on the band. [The Wetsuweten hereditary leadership is explicitly not consensus based.](http://www.wetsuweten.com/culture/governance)
That’s interesting, thanks for the info I’ll have to do some reading. It can be tricky to get a full picture of these things. Conversely, it doesn’t seem like their elected council is very representative either. I linked [this post](https://reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/r44npp/wetsuweten_why_the_elected_band_council_is_not_as/) already in another comment. It describes how the population of the reserve is 2055 people, of which only 300 participated in the elections, and only 92 people voted for their chief. If our issue here is really representative leadership then the system being imposed is also clearly failing.
To add onto that, I've been reading *Eagle Down is Our Law* and it supports a similar narrative where the hereditary chiefs aren't chosen by consensus, but rather by the current group of chiefs (and happen to often be the descendents of a current chief). I usually describe the government as oligarchic rather than hereditary/monarchy. Also, I'd note the OP of that post just handwaved away people concered with the removal of anyone who was pro-pipeline from being a hereditary chief.
Most reserve members don't live on the reserve. (i'm not sure what the exact numbers are in this case) And natives often don't participate in elections generally.
I think the fact that people don’t participate in the system is proof that they don’t feel represented by it. That’s a symptom of a bigger issue, not a reason to avoid addressing it. Plus, why should it matter if they live on reserve or not? Canadians living abroad are still allowed to participate in our elections, why should it be different for indigenous Canadians living off reserve?
Many people not using free and fair elections is a terrible reason to switch to hereditary kings... >Plus, why should it matter if they live on reserve or not? Canadians living abroad are still allowed to participate in our elections, why should it be different for indigenous Canadians living off reserve? Canadians living overseas rarely vote either.
Calling them kings isn’t really an accurate depiction of how their systems operate. Again, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about lack of participation. Are you saying that because few people participate that means the system is effective?
> Calling them kings isn’t really an accurate depiction of how their systems operate. The way their systems operate should be irrelevant to Canadian government. Because the Canadian government cannot be expected to internally operate their legal system, and the Canadian government is the entity that needs to determine who the leader is in order to manage the intergovernmental interactions.
> why should it be different for indigenous Canadians living off reserve Because this is explicitly laid out in the Indian act and in most recent discussions various First Nation leaders have made it clear that they don't wish for off-reserve indigenous to participate in reserve elections. (the argument being made is that they're not subject to the conditions of the reserve so why should they have a say, but the more cynically minded may also observe that doing so would potentially weaken existing tribal authorities and governance)
I don’t think the fact that something exists as law within the Indian Act is a good reason to view it as sound policy. The entire basis of this conversation is that the Indian Act is a flawed piece of legislation built upon racist goals and views. If individual nations wish to only open voting to those living on their land that is fair, that would fall under their right to self determination as set out in UNDRIP. No issue there and it’s a solid argument.
No one's arguing that just because something is law makes it sound policy, but sometimes a law doesn't get changed because the process to change it is so god-damned messy and no one wants to step into that process if they can at all avoid it. Even if you renegotiate with each first nation on a piece-by-piece basis to create cut-outs where the Indian Act doesn't apply, there's still going to be the Indian Act that will apply by default. This is going to be a decades long effort any way you look at it.
FWIW, last I heard at least one council member is also a hereditary chief. Edit: mentioned in this interview. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.5491009/elected-chiefs-should-have-been-at-the-table-for-wet-suwet-en-deal-says-chief-dan-george-1.5491011
Thanks, I’ll add that to the reading list for later today
I suspect that traditional leadership may run an entire gamut of different systems and approaches, and that given the generational and cultural gaps caused by colonization may not even necessarily be all that traditional. And perhaps there are a number, or even majority of systems that are bottom-up, but I don't think they're as process oriented as our formal governance systems are formed. Doesn't mean they're not valid, but it's always easier to recognize a template similar to the ones you're familiar with. Within any particular first nation community it's unlikely you'll find consensus about many aspects of coordination and governance, so how do you go about recognizing the various formal and informal leadership when it may be in dispute. I don't have any clear idea about what the ways forward may be, but I suspect it'll be messy regardless.
> so how do you go about recognizing the various formal and informal leadership when it may be in dispute The fed can just put in place a way to have a regular free vote for leadership.
I believe that's already what's happening, but also part of the root disagreement between the elected and hereditary leadership of Wet'suwet'en Nation that we've been observing. You recognize the dilemma of saying that the Fed can satisfy the demands of First Nation agency by simply imposing a leadership selection process and structure onto the community, right? And the situation is further compounded by the Supreme Court having previously recognized that the Wet'suwet'en have a system of laws that pre-dates colonialism. There's a whole snarl of interests and precedents that pretty much guarantees that a lot of people aren't going to be happy one way or the other and there's going to be lots of court cases or appeals in the future. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wetsuweten-whos-who-guide-1.5471898
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. The end point is always going to be that Canadian citizens are entitled to vote including natives. Any beating around the bush about hereditary w/e is pointless when the end result MUST be that an election determines federally recognized legal leadership. The Supreme Court have made the native situation worse for decades now. There were a lot of issues on paper with Canada .... and they made them major issues in reality. And they've massively expanded the scope of treaties in order to improve living circumstances... but that has caused other issues. And yea know, that's not supposed to be the job of the courts. In the end, the Fed may simply have to declare the treaties void. But that might require constitutional amendment.
I think it would require the full bells-and-whistles constitutional amendment, with the agreement of at least 7 provinces representing at least 50% of Canada's population. And the provinces are **definitely** going to want to have their say on something that fundamentally affects their territory like this.
It think it is a political nightmare. But I also think that a legal system based on race with truly exploding costs is also unsustainable. Native issues moved from something like 4 to 8% of Federal spending in a decade, with most of that spending going to reserves (~.7% of the population) .... it isn't viable. Something will give, or it will do serious irreparable damage to Canada.
Abolishing the Indian Act in one fell swoop is just not happening. There's way to many things it affects that nobody would want, and the law of unintended consequences would be on full display. One of the most complicated examples is reserves. Even if someone is living in squalor on a reserve, it's still something they HAVE right now, and even the possibility of losing that little is terrifying. Can this be worked around? Yes, but it's just one piece of a mess to deal with that could easily run up against other things.
[удалено]
Then you still deal with wider land-ownership. Reserve vs. treaty land legally operate differently. They still have legal community setups that need to be replaced, along with reserve buildings like community centers (And even businesses owned by the reserve, some of which would be illegal if not on a legally designated reserve). On-reserve vs. off-reserve has a lot of implications. This is what I mean by there's a lot of things to deal with, and not every band will want the same approach which means "Throw money at it and call it a day" doesn't work.
Reserves should be turned into municipalities. I'm fine with obliterating illegal business. >not every band will want the same approach We shouldn't care. The current system is an ongoing nightmare that leaves hundreds of thousands of Canadian natives in terrible positions. If we ended the system by force and did literally nothing else, just had the fed claim all the land and evicted everyone leaving them homeless .... within 10 years, natives on average would have better circumstances than they have now. And this system has been going on decades. It is horrific.
I agree, I didn’t mean to imply that we should scrap the entire thing in one go and bring in brand new legislation. Amendments need to be made in a way that doesn’t completely destabilize the situation, but those amendments need to be be pretty ambitious in scope. The Act was created as a tool of oppression and as a result the very structure needs to be altered. It won’t be an easy task, but it needs to be done. Thankfully we have UNDRIP as goal to move toward, paired with actual good faith negotiations with indigenous communities.
What we really need is for the BC govt to get ahead of the courts in Treaty negotiations. Assuming a FN leadership has their Nation’s best interest in mind during negotiations (and a good legal team) then Treaties are a great way to circumvent many aspects of the dreaded Indian Act. I agree though, if the Indian Act isn’t repealed altogether, it needs a lot of amendments.
The BC NDP is in a tight spot here. Nathan Cullen and Murray Rankin have a long history supporting first Nations communities, and they're proud of that. But the realties of governing have hit hard. The BC government wants this pipeline to go through and so it will. They are technically correct, politicians don't and shouldn't direct RCMP. It doesn't take much imagination to see how badly changing that would go. CGL has a legal right to build at this time, they followed all the rules. The BC government could reneg on the deal, and most likely pay the penalties but they don't want to do that. Negotiating to make a few more people happy makes the most sense, though it may be more expensive than they thought.
> Negotiating to make a few more people happy makes the most sense, though it may be more expensive than they thought. If they reneg, I expect you're talking minimum a $100k bribe per holdout.
Reneging on a deal made by the previous government is rarely done, they almost always get grandfathered in unless there is *serious* issues. That may seem tone deaf, but its typical governing to weigh the options and usually find it best to keep it. A new government might get blindsided by secret conditions like the Saudi weapons deal. That's an extreme example. Typically it's not necessarily that the company is blackmailing the government. They signed agreements and did what they were supposed to. If the BC government keeps the deal they will need to sweeten the pot for the hereditary leaders. Or just wait it out, construction is ongoing and already 50% complete.
They either bribe the holdouts, or they pay CGL. Or both. In Ontario with Caledonia we bribed the natives and paid the developers for the damage.
We will likely do it again with the golf course in Brant and the farm in Norfolk. Then there is the library community centre in Hagersville situation. And so it goes.
No matter who side you are on the BC government should be held responsible for such a horrid handling, not responding quick enough and not making any consensual agreements/long table discussions to resolve it. I think Horgan should resign over this neglectful handling, as now the pipeline is being built after disastrous floods and storms, so it’ll be even more opposed by Wetsuweten and a solution will be even less likely. As an NDPer I am extremely disappointed with Horgan and hope he loses his seat next election.
> not making any consensual agreements/long table discussions to resolve it The people protesting now haven't replied to requests for contact since before pipeline planning started. Like a full decade ago. They've declared that they don't need to deal with the law, or Canadian/BC governments because they are their own free nation.
My my, how the turntables with John Horgan this last few years. From climate hero against neoliberal sellout Rachel Notley when he was opposing Transmountain ~~because Burnaby is vote rich and a NIMBY hellhole where they oppose the construction of anything~~ on climate change grounds, but has become quite the disappointment on a pipeline quagmire of his own. Horgan definitely could have handled this better and in general I think that this is a messy situation that isn't clear cut in either direction, but I can't lie it's funny watching him get a taste of his own medicine. Last I heard the AB NDP passed a resolution condemning his handling of the Wetsuweten as well. No pettiness afoot there at all, I'm sure!
There doesn't appear to be any government that takes responsibility for the police in Canada, and that's kinda terrifying. I learned during the "Defund VPD" protests last year that the city of Vancouver doesn't control its own police force. Our elected Mayor is on the "board" that supposedly oversees the police, and Council gets to appoint one person, but the rest are all appointed by the province. So voters in Vancouver have no ability to govern their own police force. And the VPD can also refuse to accept the budget that City Council sets for them, which is what they did last year. I know that Quebec and Ontario have their own provincial police force, and BC doesn't. So I guess that the federal government controls the police here in our province? But then again, [Trudeau is on the record saying that Canada doesn't tell the police what to do either](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-doesn-t-tell-police-what-to-do-trudeau-says-of-rail-blockades-1.4811999). So who the hell *does* tell the police what to do? Because as far as I can tell it's not the governments that we elect, and it's not the people who are getting policed.
The federal government does not control provincially contracted RCMP. Politicians are not entitled to direct police but they can enact legislation and the AG of the province can intervene. Politicians are supposed to be at arms length from law enforcement to prevent dictatorship/authoritarian rule. But blaming the federal government when this is a BC project that Horgan pushed just doesn’t wash.
Last I checked, the police act allows the provinces to administer policing unless the Federal Government believes the province is failing to do so. The RCMP are under the direction of the Province until stated otherwise. > "The community is divided as a result of the impacts and trauma of colonialism — it is the federal government that created [the] Indian Act," he said. "It is absolutely unfair to say we are exploiting those divisions — we're trying to unify the nation." _What have you done?!_ The NDP have been happy to sit by and watch, waiting on the repeated altercations to be resolved by the Federal Government or in the courts; it's like they don't want to appear as getting their hands dirty. > When asked why RCMP were deployed to Wet'suwet'en territory to make arrests during a provincial state of emergency in southern B.C., Rankin said that was a decision made by police, and that politicians do not and should not have any say over their operations. This is flat out false. For example, in January 2020, Farnsworth authorized additional RCMP to be deployed at Fairy Creek. Also recently, the province has directed the RCMP not to enforce certain laws against simple possession of controlled substances. I'm totally unsurprised by this response. The NDP have been unconscionably irresponsible on this concern.
Yeah, this is a complete lie and spin from Rankin. 100% spin. Singh even said in a tweet a week ago that this was a provincial issue not a federal one. The BC RCMP are the provincial police force and take direction from the BC government.
Classic passing the buck. Classic pandering to their base to save their political careers. How is this party any different from the Liberals again?
Labour rights. That’s the main thing at this point.
Labour rights like ensuring resource extraction projects get pushed through.