Why the path forward in BC depends on resolving leadership authority among First Nations.

     I want to talk about the situation with pipelines in Northern British Columbia. The public conversation often gets reduced to environmental concerns or economic opportunity. Those topics matter, although there is another more important part of the story that deserves serious attention. It has to do with how leadership decisions are made inside First Nations communities.

     Whenever a major project is proposed, we end up facing the same question. Who has the authority to give approval or to refuse it? Is it the elected band council? Is it the hereditary chiefs? Is it a shared model? The rest of the country regularly receives mixed signals, and the uncertainty creates tension for everyone involved.

     I try to approach this with a sense of fairness. First Nations communities have the full right to choose the leadership model that reflects them. Self-determination means they decide how their governance works. They should not have outsiders dictating the structure. Clarity is still necessary. Decisions that affect entire territories need a defined authority. Uncertainty creates friction. It influences negotiations with governments and companies. It complicates planning for environmental protection and economic development. It also affects everyday life inside those communities.

     I believe it is reasonable to say that First Nations need to settle this question within their own systems. A clear process would help. An agreed upon structure would help even more. They might choose hereditary leadership for certain responsibilities and elected councils for others. They might choose a blended model that fits their culture. The choice belongs to them. My point is that a decision needs to be made along with a reasonable timeline to make it.

     This ongoing state of internal disagreement does not help anyone. When an elected council signs an agreement and hereditary leaders reject it, confusion follows. Projects are stalled. Relationships become strained. Community members are left trying to interpret conflicting directions. It becomes difficult for the rest of Canada to understand who has the final word.

     I understand that this situation has deep roots. The overlapping systems were shaped by colonial actions. The Indian Act imposed a new governance structure on top of long-standing hereditary authority. That has created generations of complexity. The weight of that history is real. Communities are carrying the burden of it. Even so, the future requires clarity. People deserve a leadership model that reflects who they are today and who they hope to be in the years ahead.

     There is another layer that matters. The country is working hard to advance Truth and Reconciliation. We are trying to understand and acknowledge the history of colonialism and the harm caused to Indigenous peoples. These are important commitments. Progress becomes difficult when there is no clear path within the communities we are working with. Reconciliation relies on partnership and partnership relies on knowing who speaks for the community.

     My belief is that a clear process, supported by a reasonable, firm timeline, would help everyone move forward with confidence. Environmental protection could be planned with certainty. Economic discussions could take place without guessing whose signature carries the authority. Most importantly, Indigenous citizens would have clarity about who represents them on the issues that matter most.      Canada wants and needs to move forward in a way that is respectful and collaborative. The foundation for that progress begins with a simple but essential question. Who speaks for the Indigenous Nations?