Heiltsuk Nation ratification feast brings written constitution into force
Marilyn Slett, the nation's elected chief, called it a 'monumental day' that comes after two decades of development and consultation.
'It's hard to put into words how big it is. It's definitely a day of celebration and reflection on everything that brought us to the day,' Slett said of the feast, which is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m.
The Heiltsuk Nation approved the adoption of a written constitution for the First Nation on British Columbia's central coast in February. That followed six months of engagement with more than 2,000 Heiltsuk members in Bella Bella, Nanaimo and Vancouver.
The nation said 67 per cent of the 725 people who voted on the referendum were in favour of the constitution.
The constitution will help provide clarity for its own members and those it chooses to do business with, Slett said, which will clear up questions around decision-making in Heiltsuk territory that have previously been left to the courts.
Slett explained that the constitution will develop 'core laws' for the nation, which will cover issues such as land management and language.
The nation said in February that 'questions of paramountcy' with respect to other sets of laws would need to be worked out.
Slett said the adoption of a written constitution is an act of 'reclaiming' the nation's role in its own governance.
'It's a pathway for our community to move beyond the Indian Act and move forward and grow and reach our full capacity that our ancestors always dreamed of,' Slett said in an interview ahead of the event.
British Columbia's Indigenous Relations Minister Christine Boyle said in a statement that the province 'recognizes the hard work the Heiltsuk Nation community has put into a constitutional ratification.'
The minister said the province will continue to work with the nation to make tangible steps toward reconciliation.
'Our shared work has set a foundation for a good path forward and we look forward to continuing this work together,' Boyle said.
The ratification event will feature speeches from leaders as well as ceremonial dances, Slett said.
It will be held at the nations Big House in Bella Bella, which serves as a gathering place for cultural and ceremonial activities.
The nation says in a post to its website that the structure was built with funding from the federal government as a 'commitment to reconciliation.' The nation will also be hosting a three-day celebration to mark its anniversary starting Saturday.
Boyle's office has confirmed she will be in attendance.
Slett said Boyle is scheduled to meet with leaders as well as partake in the celebrations, which she believes is important for reconciliation.
'It's important for the minister to visit our community when we're doing this important work, and to understand our community and develop that relationship,' Slett said.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 30, 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
24 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
B.C. court gives parliament 10-month deadline to make Indian Act comply with Charter
VANCOUVER - 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.
Winnipeg Free Press
24 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
B.C. court gives parliament 10-month deadline to make Indian Act comply with Charter
VANCOUVER – 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.
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
B.C. NDP sticking to secretive ways, if replies to complaints over shíshálh deal are any indication
VICTORIA — This time last year the New Democrats signed a secret deal with the shíshálh Nation on the Sunshine Coast, providing $104 million over five years, six square kilometres of public land and other far-reaching terms. The agreement was withheld from the public until well after Oct. 19 provincial election. When the terms were finally announced on Jan. 29 of this year, the New Democrats tried to portray the news as a mere update on an agreement from 2018. But the money, land transfer, and commitments to negotiate Aboriginal title and exclusive decision-making for the Indigenous nation went beyond the earlier terms. The 44-page text was also redacted in parts, raising suspicions. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Not until an online public information session on March 20 did the New Democrats acknowledge the coverup. The telling admission came from Randene Neill, cabinet minister for water, land and resource stewardship and the new NDP MLA for Powell River- Sunshine Coast. 'I was not aware of the agreement when I was a candidate,' the former journalist confessed. She learned about it after Premier David Eby appointed her to cabinet in December. 'One reason I got into politics included the feeling that you haven't been heard,' Neill told her community. The belated release of the terms had contributed to 'mistrust.' At the same session, the deputy minister of Indigenous relations and reconciliation, Tom McCarthy, claimed 'we simply ran out of time.' The agreement was signed Aug. 16, 2024. In the five-week gap before the government moved to caretaker mode for the election, the New Democrats put out 200 positive news releases to boost their re-election chances. But they also withheld news of a cash and land transfer negotiated in complete secrecy, without a moment of public consultation. 'We should have found a way to get this out the door before the election,' the deputy minister conceded. 'We have to do better than that. We will do better.' By the time he said that, the damage was done. Government staffers pulled together the public feedback from March 20 and a followup session on March 31. Even after they edited out 'disrespectful and derogatory language,' the surviving comments and questions were blistering. • 'How come you kept your talks a secret till after the election?' • 'You really do insult our intelligence by saying you ran out of time, absolutely no one believes you.' • 'The provincial government has clearly prioritized reconciliation between the shíshálh Nation and itself over residents.' • 'Remember that you also represent the non-First Nations people that live on the Coast.' Yet there was little sign of contrition from Indigenous Relations Minister Christine Boyle when she was challenged over the belated release of the shishalh agreement during debate on her budget April 30. The agreement was announced 'as soon as we could after ministers were sworn in and briefed and we could prepare a joint announcement and shared celebration,' she claimed. Boyle did concede that 'we could have found a way to announce the renewal before the election. My commitment is to provide more timely information about these types of agreements to support public confidence in the work that we're doing together.' But when pressed for details of what the government signed a year ago, she disclosed little beyond the $104 million in funding for economic development, a cultural centre and housing, and related provisions announced Jan. 29. As for the six square kilometres of public land, those had yet to be identified. When they were, the province and the First Nation 'will engage with local governments and interest holders in the area and consider other nations, groups and the public.' That's a lot of acreage, observed Conservative MLA Scott McInnis. Would the government also disclose the market value of the land, so the public knows what was being handed over on its behalf? Probably not, said Boyle. 'These land transfer agreements don't typically include the assessed value of the land, but they do include detailed maps.' The MLA asked how government negotiators determine the mix of land and dollars included in such agreements. 'We're spending public money here — tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases — and transferring vast amounts of public land,' said McInnis. 'Did they just kind of pull numbers out of somewhere and present offers to nations?' There was a mix of considerations replied Boyle and every First Nation is different. 'I feel like the minister is avoiding this,' said McInnis. 'Is it publicly available that people can see how these agreements are formed and based on what criteria?' 'The simple answer is no,' replied the minister, slamming the door on further disclosures. 'The agreements are public. But our negotiation mandates are confidential to protect the public interest.' Boyle has since been shuffled to the housing ministry and replaced in Indigenous Relations by Spencer Chandra Herbert. But Boyle was and is one of the best-connected members of the cabinet. I have no doubt that she was speaking for a premier and cabinet inclined to disclose as little as possible about the deals they make with Indigenous nations. vpalmer@
