Tribal governance on north coast causes debate

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — Pacific Northwest LNG project is the focal point of another First Nations dispute.

A Business in Vancouver report raises both legal and political questions that ultimately go to whom represents the people on-off-reserve land use issues, when First Nations have both hereditary governance and elected chiefs and band councils.

Until recently, the north coast Lax Kw’alaams band appeared to be unified in its opposition to the natural gas liquefaction and export facility on Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert. Not only had they rejected a $1.2-billion land and cash offer to support the project, but they had also launched a title claim on the proposed Lelu Island site of the LNG facility.

But a newly-elected mayor has written to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency since then, expressing conditional support for the project led by Malaysian state-owned Petronas.

Questions have been circulating about his authority, with a number of hereditary chiefs arguing they’re the proper title holders to all parts of the territory such as Lelu Island and in this regard band councils don’t have any jurisdictional authority.

In the story, Doug Eyford, an aboriginal law expert and former federal chief treaty negotiator, says, “I’m not sure I buy into the theory that because this project is being built on Lelu Island, and Lelu island isn’t part of a reserve, then the Indian Act created chief and council aren’t capable of indicating whether the community supports it or not.”

But aboriginal law specialist Robin Junger says it’s fairly common for the band not to represent the First Nation in respect of rights and title issues in cases where the community has its own historic hereditary governance system.

He suggests this case illustrates just how difficult it will be for the federal government to deliver on its commitment to rebuild relationships with First Nations in order to get their consent for major projects like this one.