ROTHENBURGER: ‘No’ can’t be the only answer in pipeline disputes

But, as a broader examination of the situation evolves, we know at least one Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief supports the pipeline. We also know many more elected bands and councils along the route, including the elected band council of the Wet’suwet’en, support the pipeline because of economic benefits.

The issue of hereditary vs. elected leaders is confusing to most British Columbians, who have been raised on democratic principles and had thought hereditary power was a thing of the past. Certainly, the current model of elected chiefs and councils among First Nations was introduced by colonials.

However, I’m highly skeptical that the elective system had, as claimed by B.C. cabinet minister Jennifer Rice, the “historic intention of annihilating Canada’s First Peoples.”

And Premier John Horgan had to issue a formal clarification of his remark about “the emerging hereditary model” in Wet’suwet’en territory. He meant, he said, “re-emerging.”

It would be easy to say elected indigenous leaders should have the final say over hereditary leaders but that’s not practical in this environment of confusion over who speaks for First Nations.

I like the way Burns Lake Chief Dan George approaches the issue. Referring to what he calls “economic reconciliation,” he concludes, “‘No’ is no longer the only answer.”

In other words, “compromise” should be a bigger part of our vocabulary. If only those who insist their way is the only way could see that.

I’m Mel Rothenburger, the Armchair Mayor.

——

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or the Jim Pattison Broadcast Group.

by Armchair Mayor

ROTHENBURGER: ‘No’ can’t be the only answer in pipeline disputes

Our Community