Sounds like the system working as intended, unfortunately.
So … nothing’s changed.
As if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was just expensive PR.
Is this one of those hereditary chiefs vs band council things? Is the federal government properly consulting with band councils, but not hereditary chiefs? Or do these numbered treaties establish chiefs as a legally important position? I only know enough to know that this stuff is really tough to untangle.
I reckon that the perpetual suitability of drinking water is an implicit part of just about every land treaty with first nations. Ensuring safe water supply is literally the least we can do.
Unfortunately, many media outlets do not understand the differences and serve only to further confuse their viewers on the topic. The only source I would trust regarding any indigenous topics is APTN. The linked video briefly describes the differences between elected and hereditary chiefs in Wet’suwet’en law, though this may be different with other tribal law systems.
I will only add that the elected chiefs, representing their respective reserves, have a conflict of interest since the funding they rely on to provide for their people comes from the government, which is obviously not on their side. For them, it was either endorse the pipeline or lose funding from the government, which would probably mean losing their land.
Also, this video talks about RCMP disinformation tactics using the media to misrepresent the people who’s land is being taken away as criminals.
I really hate to even think this, and I can’t speak for the chiefs in question so this might be borderline slander, but a number of band councils and chiefs are just as bad at misappropriating funds and running slapdash administration as the government.
And if were anyone other than the federal Liberals, I’d believe it, but the LPC certainly isn’t above graft-laden public-relations acts.
Just as bad? They are often some of the most corrupt people in the nation.
