'A dream come true': Heiltsuk Nation voting to adopt written constitution
Waterfall was taken to residential school at age 12, she says and had to spend years relearning her culture, language and history.
Now a knowledge-keeper and Order of B.C. recipient, she is one of the people who drew on her learnings to help shape the new constitution, which is being voted on by members of the Heiltsuk First Nation on British Columbia's Central Coast.
A statement from the nation says the historic referendum follows nearly two decades of development and consultation, including six months of engagement with more than 2,000 Heiltsuk members in Bella Bella, Nanaimo and Vancouver.
If approved, it says the constitution will help the nation "reclaim its power."
"Prior to [colonization], we had a really vibrant infrastructure that included our oral constitution," Waterfall said in an interview with CBC Radio West host Sarah Penton.
"We had a justice system where we had our own laws... built by consensus. Everybody, even children, knew what their roles and responsibility were."
Much of this was wiped out, she said, by the imposition of the Indian Act and the outlawing of those cultural traditions.
But, she said, "we're now at a place" for it to be restored.
Marilyn Slett, elected Chief of the Heiltsuk, says the nation is proud of the work that has gone into "reconstituting" its governance system with the written constitution, which lays out a legal framework for Heiltsuk governance, rights, responsibilities and law-making.
The statement says the constitution would help provide clarity for the nation and those it chooses to do business with, clearing up questions around decision-making in Heiltsuk territory that had previously been left to the courts.
It says the constitution also enshrines collaboration between elected Heiltsuk officials and ancient forms of governance, such as hereditary chiefs.
"We have never ceded, surrendered or extinguished our inherent right to govern the Hailzaqv people and our [territory]," hereditary chief Frank Brown says.
The written constitution reflects the nation's "paramount values," he says. "It is intended to support and guide current and future generations in the governance of our nation, and we eagerly await the outcome of this historic referendum."
Other nations to adopt written constitutions include the Nisga'a Lisims and Haida, both of which have taken control over much of their self-government including education systems, child care and management of natural resources.
Waterfall says just as in the past, much of the constitution is focused on the role of consensus-building when it comes to making decisions.
"Everybody would come together and talk about it until we came to a foundational understanding," she said of the past. "That process is embedded in our constitution."
Also key, she said, is the importance of women in the community for building and reinforcing traditional laws.
The Heiltsuk Nation's membership received voting packages on Jan. 6.
Voting opened Thursday and it's set to continue until Feb. 20, says the statement issued Thursday.
If it is approved by a majority of members, the statement says a ratification feast will be held in Bella Bella before the constitution takes effect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Observer
12 hours ago
- National Observer
BC court gives parliament 10-month deadline for the Indian Act comply with Charter
The BC Supreme Court has given the Canadian government until April 2026 to change the Indian Act to bring it into compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms after a successful legal challenge by descendants of people who renounced their status under the law. The court ruled that provisions of the act that denied status to people with a "family history of enfranchisement," where their parents or grandparents gave up their status and the benefits it entails, infringed upon the plaintiffs' Charter rights. The ruling says the Canadian government agreed with the plaintiffs that the registration provisions of the act perpetuated "disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination" tied to enfranchisement by denying people the benefits of Indian status due to their family history. Lawyer Ryan Beaton says the ruling comes eight years after he first met one of the plaintiffs, Sharon Nicholas, whose grandfather gave up his status in 1944 to spare his children from going to residential schools. Beaton says when people like Nicholas' grandfather became enfranchised, their children also lost their status, and she had been working for decades on the issue before challenging it in court. Beaton says a related class-action lawsuit filed this month in Federal Court is seeking damages from the Canadian government over lost benefits related to the denial of status under the law, and the class is estimated to include between 5,000 and 10,000 people. He says the ruling has been "incredibly gratifying" for Nicholas. "So for her it's been, you know, a 40-year journey to get to this point. She's an incredible person," Beaton said. "She came in with a whole lot of research. She taught me a lot about not just her family's history but the way the Indian Act registration provisions have affected her family." He says the case was somewhat unusual because the Canadian government admitted that the law as written wasn't in line with the Charter, sparing the plaintiffs a trial after they originally filed their lawsuit in 2021. Beaton says there were many reasons people gave up their status, but the law meant their descendants lost out on benefits such as treaty settlement funds doled out to First Nations members. "In those days, if you were Indian, you could not vote, you could not own certain forms of property, your kids had to go to residential school," he said. "So to get out from those disadvantages, some people chose to renounce their Indian status." He says Parliament had attempted to fix the law in the past, but it didn't succeed. The plaintiffs have "to get the change through the courts if it's not coming through Parliament," he said. The court gave Parliament until April 2026 to bring the act into compliance with the Charter, which could be a "legislative solution" that will apply across the country rather than just within BC, Beaton said.
CBC
a day ago
- CBC
B.C. court gives Parliament 10-month deadline to make Indian Act comply with Charter
The B.C. Supreme Court has given the Canadian government until April 2026 to change the Indian Act to bring it into compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms after a successful legal challenge by descendants of people who renounced their status under the law. The court ruled that provisions of the act that denied status to people with a "family history of enfranchisement," where their parents or grandparents gave up their status and the benefits it entails, infringed upon the plaintiffs' Charter rights. The ruling says the Canadian government agreed with the plaintiffs that the registration provisions of the act perpetuated "disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination" tied to enfranchisement by denying people the benefits of Indian status due to their family history. Lawyer Ryan Beaton says the ruling comes eight years after he first met one of the plaintiffs, Sharon Nicholas, whose grandfather gave up his status in 1944 to spare his children from going to residential schools. Beaton says when people like Nicholas' grandfather became enfranchised, their children also lost their status, and Nicholas had been working for decades on the issue before challenging it in court. Beaton says a related class-action lawsuit filed this month in Federal Court is seeking damages from the Canadian government over lost benefits related to the denial of status under the law, and the class is estimated to include between 5,000 and 10,000 people. He says the ruling has been "incredibly gratifying" for Nicholas. "So for her it's been, you know, a 40-year journey to get to this point. She's an incredible person," Beaton said. "She came in with a whole lot of research. She taught me a lot about not just her family's history but the way the Indian Act registration provisions have affected her family." He says the case was somewhat unusual because the Canadian government admitted that the law, as written, wasn't in line with the Charter, sparing the plaintiffs a trial after they originally filed their lawsuit in 2021. Beaton says there were many reasons people gave up their status, but the law meant their descendants lost out on benefits such as treaty settlement funds doled out to First Nations members. "In those days, if you were Indian, you could not vote, you could not own certain forms of property, your kids had to go to residential school," he said. "So to get out from those disadvantages, some people chose to renounce their Indian status." He says Parliament had attempted to fix the law in the past, but it didn't succeed. The plaintiffs have "to get the change through the courts if it's not coming through Parliament," he said. The court gave Parliament until April 2026 to bring the act into compliance with the Charter, which could be a "legislative solution" that will apply across the country rather than just within B.C., Beaton said.
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
B.C. court gives parliament 10-month deadline to make Indian Act comply with Charter
The Law Courts building, which is home to B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, is seen in Vancouver, on Thursday, Nov. 23, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck The B.C. Supreme Court has given the Canadian government until April 2026 to change the Indian Act to bring it into compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms after a successful legal challenge by descendants of people who renounced their status under the law. The court ruled that provisions of the act that denied status to people with a 'family history of enfranchisement,' where their parents or grandparents gave up their status and the benefits it entails, infringed upon the plaintiffs' Charter rights. The ruling says the Canadian government agreed with the plaintiffs that the registration provisions of the act perpetuated 'disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination' tied to enfranchisement by denying people the benefits of Indian status due to their family history. Lawyer Ryan Beaton says the ruling comes eight years after he first met one of the plaintiffs, Sharon Nicholas, whose grandfather gave up his status in 1944 to spare his children from going to residential schools. Beaton says when people like Nicholas' grandfather became enfranchised, their children also lost their status, and she had been working for decades on the issue before challenging it in court. Beaton says a related class-action lawsuit filed this month in Federal Court is seeking damages from the Canadian government over lost benefits related to the denial of status under the law, and the class is estimated to include between 5,000 and 10,000 people. He says the ruling has been 'incredibly gratifying' for Nicholas. 'So for her it's been, you know, a 40-year journey to get to this point. She's an incredible person,' Beaton said. 'She came in with a whole lot of research. She taught me a lot about not just her family's history but the way the Indian Act registration provisions have affected her family.' He says the case was somewhat unusual because the Canadian government admitted that the law as written wasn't in line with the Charter, sparing the plaintiffs a trial after they originally filed their lawsuit in 2021. Beaton says there were many reasons people gave up their status, but the law meant their descendants lost out on benefits such as treaty settlement funds doled out to First Nations members. 'In those days, if you were Indian, you could not vote, you could not own certain forms of property, your kids had to go to residential school,' he said. 'So to get out from those disadvantages, some people chose to renounce their Indian status.' He says Parliament had attempted to fix the law in the past, but it didn't succeed. The plaintiffs have 'to get the change through the courts if it's not coming through Parliament,' he said. The court gave Parliament until April 2026 to bring the act into compliance with the Charter, which could be a 'legislative solution' that will apply across the country rather than just within B.C., Beaton said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 20, 2025.
