Politics

Until well into the nineteenth century, Tsimshian-speaking peoples regulated individual behaviour and conducted community affairs through the institution of the housegroup and through the leadership of hereditary chiefs and matriarchs. This system was challenged by the federal government’s appointment of Indian agents and the imposition of a system of elected band councils in each community, with the number of councillors determined by population. Besides undermining local structures of selfgovernment, the new arrangements placed control over all matters concerning relations with the federal and provincial governments in the hands of a few people (sometimes as few as three). At first, the communities simply adapted the system so that it perpetuated their own by electing one of the leading hereditary chiefs to the post of chief councillor; however, the chiefs were often forced to rely on individuals who were familiar with the procedures, politics, and bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs, and the position of band manager was eventually created to fill this need. Ultimately, the interplay of the hereditary system, the elected system, and a local Indian agent with inordinate powers made routine decision making unnecessarily complicated and maximized the potential for divisions within each community and between communities, particularly since final approval of all decisions had to be granted by the federal government. Counterbalancing the forces of division were continuing respect for the role of the hereditary chiefs, matriarchs, and elders and perpetuation of the feast system.

In 1890 the Nisga’a organized a committee to fight for recognition of their land rights, and in 1913 they petitioned the Privy Council in England in pursuit of the same cause. Unsuccessful, they joined with the Coast Salish and other peoples to form the Allied Tribes of British Columbia in 1916, the first provincewide native organization. In 1926 the Allied Tribes presented their case to a joint SenateHouse committee of the Canadian Parliament, only to have all of their arguments rejected. The committee recommended that, instead of treaty payments, British Columbia natives should receive an annual grant of $100,000 (this recommendation was implemented, the grant becoming known as the “B.C. Special”), and another of its recommendations led to the passage of an amendment to the Indian Act making it illegal to raise funds to pursue land rights, a measure that was not repealed until 1951. The Allied Tribes folded soon after the report of the parliamentary committee, but in 1955 the Nisga’a reorganized their Land Committee into the Nisga’a Tribal Council (NTC).

The NTC’s campaign for land rights culminated in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1973 Calder case, named after the NTC president at the time. In a split decision, the court ruled that aboriginal title had existed in British Columbia; three judges concluded that such title still existed, three said that it had been extinguished by legislation, and the seventh did not express an opinion on the issue, ruling instead on a procedural matter. Following this decision, the federal government established the Office of Land Claims to negotiate settlements in all parts of the country not covered by treaty, including British Columbia. Talks between the goverment of Canada and the Nisga’a began in 1976; the British Columbia government did not formally become a party to these negotiations until 1991. An agreement in-principle was signed in 1996 and a formal treaty was achieved in August 1998. In return for abandoning future treaty claims and their tax-exempt status, the Nisga’a acquired control of almost 2000 square kilometres of land, powers of self-government, resource rights, and $300 million in cash. This historic treaty, the first in British Columbia history, will take effect on being formally ratified by the Nisga’a and the federal and provincial governments.

In the early 1970s, the Gitksan formed a tribal council with their neighbours the Wet’suwet’en in order to defend themselves against the increasing incursions of multinational mineral and logging companies and the efforts of governments to restrict traditional native economic practices. The Department of Fisheries especially was a target for court action since uniformed and armed fisheries officers routinely patrolled each housegroup’s fishing sites, charging people and seizing their nets and fish for the infraction of laws of questionable legality. The success of these court actions and similar ones throughout the province laid the foundation for policy changes concerning the aboriginal fishery that are currently under way. The Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en also addressed the issue of their land rights with an extensive research project documenting every aspect of their claims. At the same time, First Nations across Canada were pressing the federal government for change. Yet by the early 1980s it had become clear that, in spite of constitutional debates, numerous commissions, and on going meetings with all levels of government, there had been no significant progress. Although the federal government had set up a process through which land claims could be negotiated, it had concerned itself so far only with the Nisga’a. As well, the British Columbia government continued to refuse to acknowledge aboriginal title and to participate in negotiations.

It was in these circumstances that the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en launched a lawsuit in 1984 in which they asked for acknowledgment of their ownership to and jurisdiction over about 58,000 square kilometres of their traditional lands, a territory – rich in natural resources – stretching along the Skeena, Nass, Bulkley, and Babine watersheds in northwestern British Columbia, about 700 kilometres north of Vancouver.

Known as Delgamuukw, after one of the fifty-one hereditary chiefs acting as plaintiffs, this case reached the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 1991. In a controversial judgment, Chief Justice Allan McEachern dismissed the claims of the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en on the grounds that aboriginal title had been extinguished by the colony of British Columbia before Confederation, that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was inapplicable to British Columbia, and that the Gitksan and Wet’su-wet’en in pre-contact times were too primitive to have ever governed themselves in any meaningful sense. This decision was immediately appealed and was overturned by the Supreme Court in December 1997. In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that aboriginal title to lands not covered by treaty was not extinguished and that native people have a constitutional right to use these lands in whatever manner they see fit. Declaring that the B.C. Court of Appeal had erred in not taking native oral histories into account, the Supreme Court concluded that a new trial was necessary, though it added that a better outcome would be a negotiated settlement. At the time of writing, the federal and provincial governments have yet to announce their intentions.

For much of the 1980s the Gitksan were preoccupied with the Delgamuukw litigation. However, recently they have begun to focus more on other issues too, including the aboriginal fishery, education, health care, and devastation of the remaining Gitksan lands by logging. By 1992 the Tribal Council had changed its name to the Office of the Hereditary Chiefs to reflect its role as an integral part of the Gitksan system of governance.

The Tsimshian Tribal Council was formed in the 1980s. The member communities are considerably more disparate than are the members of either of the other tribal councils in terms of remoteness, size, economic opportunities, and historical experiences. Achieving integration among them has been a priority for the leadership. Now that the Tsimshian Tribal Council is operating effectively, issues in resource management – especially fisheries, treaty negotiation, and education – are being addressed.

While the hereditary chiefs and matriarchs continue to exercise leadership in many contexts, each of the Tsimshian, Nisga’a, and Gitksan communities has an elected council which administers local services (with all decisions still approved by the federal government). There are no mainstream political parties within the villages; councillors and chief councillors are elected on the basis of their past record and community ties. In general, family connections are important factors in these elections, as might be anticipated in small communities. In some villages the same chief and council have been in place for lengthy periods of time, while in others it is not unusual to have the entire slate replaced at each election; in several villages there are slates which alternate in replacing each other at each new election, an arrangement indicative of two fairly large blocks of votes with a middle “swing” constituency.

The tribal councils also have annual elected positions such as president, vice-president, treasurer, and board members. These positions are often contested, and the choices are considered with grave deliberation since the councils are responsible for land negotiations with the provincial and federal governments. The NTC is of the longest standing and manages the widest array of services. The Gitksan have a stable leadership and are expanding into new areas. The Tsimshian Tribal Council initially handled only land claims and resource-management issues, leaving capital works, education, and social services to the North Coast Tribal Council, an interim body established to assume the responsibilities of the local office of the Department of Indian Affairs. This body was phased out in 1996 and each village then assumed direct responsibility for its affairs.

All of the tribal councils are affiliated with the Canada-wide Assembly of First Nations and participate actively in its activities. The other major political body is the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, which is both a fishing union and a political-action organization; members of the Tsimshian-speaking groups were prominent in this body when it was formed a half-century ago, and their continuing presence in large numbers in the Brotherhood is reflective of their significant role in the fishing industry. More than 50 percent of the Brotherhood’s current executive is drawn from Nisga’a and Tsimshian communities.

Political relationships with nearby cities, regions, and the provincial and federal governments are generally managed through the tribal councils. Participation in provincial and federal politics is considerable though variable. In some communities the right to vote is exercised with enthusiasm, while in others almost no one votes and the external political system is often rejected. Two Nisga’a leaders have been elected to the provincial legislature, Larry Guno and Frank Calder.