DOHM: Co-governance began a while ago — and nobody voted for it

One year ago, I hopped in the car and drove up to Camrose, Alberta, leaving behind an Okanagan summer to work in the Battle-River Crowfoot by election. I did not have any political campaign experience or know if I would get hired. I went anyway. 

Why? 

Because I thought Damien Kurek’s decision to vacate his seat as fast as possible, after receiving one of the most decisive mandates in the country, was an insult to our democracy. I also saw it as an affront to the spirit of the Lobbying Act, since Kurek serendipitously found a position working as “not a lobbyist” at Upstream Strategy Group shortly after stepping aside for the party leader. 

Our exercise against self-serving politics was unsuccessful, but it was not futile. Nearly 1 in 10 voters wrote Bonnie’s name down on their ballot, and more importantly, people across Canada realized that us nobodies can make a difference if we choose to step into the arena. 

Fast forward to now. 

Much of the last legislative session was spent in tumult over what has become known as Premier Eby’s “DRIPA flip flops.” His climbdown from originally proposing amendments to the legislation, to instead spending the summer behind closed doors with Indigenous political executives of the First Nations Leadership Council made headlines across the country. The drama culminated with legal experts and columnists concluding that “co-governance” with First Nations was now underway.

This characterization may have been shocking to some. Is governance authority in British Columbia really being shared with groups who are unelected by over 95% of the public? 

The answer is yes. But it began long before this session's DRIPA saga. 

The evidence of co-governance has been hiding in plain sight; it is glaringly obvious if you stop reading government announcements and policy documents as meaningless word salad, and instead understand that they do have meaning and that they mean exactly what they say. 

For example, regarding the Haida agreement: 

“Future provincial legislation will be required to provide for how the two governments’ laws and jurisdictions will be reconciled.” 

This states clearly that the province recognizes the Haida Nation as a jurisdiction on par with its own, and furthermore that the parallel jurisdiction has the authority to bind its own future legislative agenda. 

Emergency management legislation announcement states that “the regulations, including local authority and post-emergency financial assistance, will be developed in consultation and co-operation with First Nations” and that “municipalities and regional districts must include available Indigenous knowledge,” outlining how a $200-million fund would support “the development and alignment of provincial laws with [UNDRIP]” in this regard.

Other examples include convening the BC-First Nations Water Table, which includes representatives from the province and delegates from First Nations: 

“This announcement formalizes the BCFNWT’s role co-managing the Watershed Security Fund and further co-development of BC’s watershed security strategy,” facilitated by a $100-million investment. 

Similar language is woven through virtually every government press release and engage BC announcement. In fact, there is even a dedicated webpage describing “how [every ministry and sector of government] are to work together with Indigenous Peoples in developing provincial laws, policies and practices.”

It is therefore really no wonder that when asked directly by host Jill Bennett if BC was being co-governed by First Nations, AFN Regional Chief Terry Teegee responded directly, “Yes, that’s exactly right.”

Teegee even went on to explain how Indigenous political organizations’ right to govern the province is effectively on par with that of our democratically elected government, and asserted that this was the intent of the DRIPA legislation, contrary to statements made in the legislature by the former Minister Scott Fraser. 

Teegee’s statements should not have been shocking at all. In fact, they were entirely accurate in the sense that they reflect reality: the laws and policies of this province have been crafted through co-governance for several years already. 

But that does not make it any less absurd. 

“Non-Indigenous” British Columbians, as we are now labeled, do not have the right to vote for Terry Teegee or any other member of Indigenous political lobbying organizations. Not even all Indigenous British Columbians have that right either, as Teegee is elected by other First Nations Chiefs —

meaning about 200 people. 

Allowing co-governance with Indigenous political executives such as the FNLC therefore appears to be an illegitimate delegation and concentration of power even with regards to the representation of First Nations people in BC. This model of co-governance materially disenfranchises virtually every person in the province. 

I, for one, cannot recall when my right to hold those in power to account through elections was forfeit. There exists no cause or reasoning that can justify the erosion of the most basic mechanism underpinning democratic governance – not reconciliation, not treaty rights, not rights granted through legislation, and certainly not threats of collective resistance and lawsuits, blockades of critical infrastructure, or non-cooperation with nation building projects. 

It is absurd to believe that British Columbians can or should be cajoled, shamed, or threatened into accepting further disenfranchisement. 

Democratic governance is not a natural state for society. The maintenance of true democracy requires an adversarial and tenacious press, an independent and impartial judiciary that exercises restraint, a broad and reasonably well educated middle class, plus one more crucial thing: that regular nobodies be willing to step into the arena and hold politicians to account when they fail to uphold their duties. 

Elected representatives in our legislature hold the exclusive responsibility to write laws, collect and allocate revenues, and scrutinize the legislative work of their colleagues before it becomes provincial law. 

No politician, whether it be David Eby or Damien Kurek, should be allowed to disregard or delegate the mandate entrusted to them by voters. And if they do, democracy requires that nobodies step into the arena to remind the decision makers who they work for.

Laurisa Dohm is a BC-based consultant and policy advisor. She holds an M.Sc from Gothenburg University.