Reconciliation Or a New Era of Exploitation?
Twenty Years After Haida Nation v. British Columbia: An Analysis of the Province’s Approach to Indigenous Land Sovereignty
By Kiran Gill
In 2008, Stephen Harper’s apology to survivors of residential schools was seen as a turning point in Crown-Indigenous relations. Following the apology, the federal and provincial governments shifted their approach to reconciliation and began offering official gestures of recognition. But the basis of the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples has not changed; the continuation of extractive land policies is but one of many examples of this failure. In British Columbia, where nearly all land is not covered by treaties, the economic exploitation of Indigenous lands is most acute.
Land is central to the concept of Indigenous nationhood, culture, knowledge and lifestyle. As a result, land has been integral to the fight for self-determination. In 2004, the Haida nation won a supreme court case against the province of British Columbia over a forestry project. Ostensibly, the province granted a tree farming permit for forestry on land to which the Haida claimed title. The Court found that when Indigenous peoples have claimed title, the Crown has a duty to consult with them and accommodate as required. Consequently, the Haida’s title claim has been recognized and the province has signed agreements with leadership to create a shared governance structure. Recognition of the Haida title was a first in Canadian history. Unfortunately it is an outlier, as most Indigenous lands in British Columbia are still exploited.
The Haida case was instrumental in establishing the duty to consult, but it accentuated the problem of representation in Indigenous communities. To whom does the Crown owe the duty to consult and accommodate? Hereditary chiefs, established through familial lineage, traditionally governed most Indigenous communities in Canada. The Indian Act (1876) created an alternate mode of Indigenous governance through band councils. Each First nation votes to elect a council made of a chief and councillors. Some Indigenous groups legitimize their hereditary chief through this process, others do not. Consequently, some communities have different individuals serving as elected and hereditary chief. Having two chiefs in one community creates a crisis of legitimacy. Governments are not a neutral arbiter in the relationship between hereditary chiefs and band councils, in fact, they often aggravate tensions by only recognizing the authority of band councils.
Wet’suwet’en territory in the North-West of British Columbia erupted into conflict in 2019 following a disagreement between hereditary chiefs and the band council. The band council approved a natural gas pipeline built by Coastal GasLink, but the hereditary chiefs rejected it on the grounds that the pipeline "threatened their peaceful existence”. Consequently, supporters of the hereditary chiefs blockaded roads and prevented Coastal GasLink employees from accessing the site. The British Columbia government escalated the situation by bringing in the RCMP’s Community-Industry Response Group to enforce an injunction against anyone impeding work on the project. By the time a militarized and heavily armed contingent of RCMP officers arrested and intimidated land defenders, it was already clear that the province was not remaining neutral, but instead using its powers to the fullest extent to protect its own interests.
Instead of working in good faith with Indigenous peoples, the provincial government decided to exploit a fissure amongst the Wet’suwet’en people. The government only consulted with the band council, signifying that they do not recognize hereditary leadership. In doing so, it legitimized a certain type of indigenous government. Furthermore, spending thirty-seven million dollars policing land defenders, not only delegitimizes Indigenous governance practices, but criminalizes them. Policing Indigenous people’s traditional practices is a regressive step that reveals how the British Columbia government’s approach to reconciliation prioritizes the exploitation of natural resources. Maintaining the exploitative status quo is simply more important than working towards true reconciliation.
Reconciliation, and by extension substantive consultation with Indigenous groups, is not in the financial interests of the province. The Coastal GasLink pipeline is part of a project to export Liquified Natural gas (LNG) abroad through an export terminal in Kitimat. In 2019, the Ministry of Finance estimated that over the project's lifetime twenty-three billion dollars in revenue would be generated for the province. Land defenders in Wet’suwet’en, Fairy Creek and elsewhere in the province stand in the way of continuing a colonial tradition of pillaging the land for economic gain. The province treats reconciliation as a performative step that they can acknowledge and then ignore. For reconciliation to have any real teeth, Indigenous forms of government will need to be recognized.
Disclaimer: Kiran Gill was formerly employed by Indigenous Services Canada. The views expressed in this article are solely his own.
Kiran Gill (he/him) is the Managing Editor of The Bell and an MPP Candidate at the Max Bell School of Public Policy. He is excited to lead The Bellwether team this year! At The Bell, Kiran is especially interested in telling stories about labour and indigenous policy. Prior to joining Max Bell Kiran worked in the federal public service.