Woke Watch Canada is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.
By Nina Green
In a recent interview on the Jill Bennett Show, Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of the BC Assembly of First Nations, claimed that he and the other members of the First Nations Leadership Council legally represent BC First Nations under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution (see attached transcript).
From the interview:
[Jill Bennett]
But the Premier himself even said that the court interpretation of this has opened up the province to be vulnerable, and opened up the province to more litigation. Now we have the Premier pulling back. He’s now saying that he and several First Nations leaders will go and discuss this. These discussions are all going to be held in secret. How is that fair? How is that a process that works, given that First Nations leaders, not elected officials in our government, are going to be in these secret meetings and deciding on this legislation?
[Terry Teegee]
Well, First Nations leaders, chiefs, are elected to their communities. I’m elected by a number of Chiefs and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit, are all elected by chiefs, so let’s get that straight.
[Jill Bennett]
Right, but you’re not elected by the people of BC.
[Terry Teegee]
But ultimately, we’re representing First Nations people here under Section 35 that have rights.
Terry Teegee is confused. The duty to consult under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, (1) is only owed by the BC government to individual Indian Bands, not to Indian activist lobby groups, and (2) does not apply to legislation, including DRIPA. In other words, the only bodies with which the BC government is legally obligated to consult are individual BC Indian Bands. The BC government is not legally obliged to consult with Indian activist lobby ‘groups’ who misleadingly purport to collectively represent the Bands - ‘groups’ such as the First Nations Leadership Council, the First Nations Summit, the BC Assembly of First Nations and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. And even more importantly, the BC government is not legally obliged under Section 35 to consult with anyone at any stage of the development of legislation, which of course includes DRIPA.
Terry Teegee justifies the involvement of himself and the other members of the First Nations Leadership Council in negotiations with the BC government on the basis that they are ‘all elected by chiefs’ (see above). That justification doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
On its website, the First Nations Leadership Council says it consists of:
One (1) representative from the BC Assembly of First Nations comprising the B.C. Regional Chief;
Three (3) representatives from the First Nations Summit comprising the elected Task Group Members;
Three (3) representatives from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs comprising the President, Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer, selected by the Council from amongst their members.
By its own admission, the First Nations Leadership Council is not a legal entity of any kind. It is not federally or provincially incorporated, nor is it a society under the BC Societies Act. As admitted on its website, it is merely 7 individual BC citizens selected on the basis of the positions they hold in three Indian activist lobby groups. The 7 individuals who call themselves the First Nations Leadership Council thus have no legal authority to negotiate with the BC government behind closed doors and under non-disclosure agreements, much less to co-govern the province, as Terry Teegee claimed they are already doing in his interview with Jill Bennett (see discussion later in this email).
What about the legal status of the three Indian activist lobby groups who appoint these 7 individuals - the First Nations Summit, the BC Assembly of First Nations, and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs? Are they legal entities, and if so, what powers do they have to co-govern the province?
(1) Like the First Nations Leadership Council, the First Nations Summit also lacks legal status. There is no mention on its website that it is incorporated either federally or provincially, or that it is a society under the BC Societies Act. Since it lacks legal status, it has no mechanism by which it could legally hold elections, and its current ‘representatives’ to the First Nations Leadership Council - Robert Phillips, Hugh Braker, and Shana Thomas - are thus completely without authority, and represent no one.
(2) The BC Assembly of First Nations states on its website that it is a society registered under the BC Societies Act. As such, it has a constitution and by-laws (see attachment). Needless to say, the stated purposes of its constitution do not include co-governance of the province of British Columbia, as its Regional Chief, Terry Teegee, now claims. In purporting to send its representative, Terry Teegee, under the guise of the First Nations Leadership Council, to ‘get in a room’ with the BC government to negotiate legislation and co-govern the province, the BCAFN appears to be in violation not only of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution and the Supreme Court of Canada Mikisew decision, but also of the objectives stated in its own constitution under the Societies Act. This raises the question of whether the society which legally underpins the BC Assembly of First Nations should be dissolved, as it goes without saying that the BC government cannot legally permit a society which it created under the BC Societies Act to hold itself out as co-governing the province.
(3) Like the BC Assembly of First Nations, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs is also a society incorporated under the BC Societies Act. Fewer than 50% of BC’s 203 Indian Bands are members. Like the BCAFN, the UBCIC is governed by a constitution and by-laws (see attachment) which of course do not state that its objective as a society is to co-govern the province of British Columbia. The same can thus be said of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs as of the BC Assembly of First Nations. In purporting to send its representatives, Stewart Phillip and Marilyn Slett, under the guise of the First Nations Leadership Council, to negotiate legislation with the BC government, and to co-govern the province, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs appears to be in violation not only of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution and the Supreme Court of Canada Mikisew decision, but also of the objectives stated in its own constitution, raising the question of whether the society underpinning the UBCIC should be dissolved.
In summary, Terry Teegee’s justification for the involvement of the First Nations Leadership Council in secret negotiations with the BC government on DRIPA on the basis that the FNLC’s members are ‘all elected by chiefs’ (see above) doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The First Nations Leadership Council is a mere facade. It is not a legal entity, and one of its ‘member’ groups, the First Nations Summit, is also not a legal entity. Its other two ‘member’ groups, the BC Assembly of First Nations and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, are legal entities in that they are societies incorporated by the BC government under the Societies Act, but the idea that societies incorporated by the BC government can legally send representatives to the First Nations Leadership Council to co-govern the province is not only unconstitutional but preposterous. Any society incorporated under the BC Societies Act which entertains such overreaching ambitions should be dissolved.
How long has co-governance been going on?
Jill Bennett raised the co-governance issue in her recent interview with Terry Teegee. His answer suggests that, so far as he is concerned, co-governance has been in effect since 2019, when DRIPA was enacted into BC law, because, as he states, co-governance in which no government had a veto was the purpose of DRIPA (see attachment).
From the Jill Bennett interview:
[Jill Bennett]
The phrase co-govern has been used a lot in the last few days, and the, and many legal experts saying that we are now in a position in BC where roughly 200 First Nations are co-governing this province with the BC government. Is that true?
[Terry Teegee]
Yes, that’s exactly right. When we passed this legislation in November of 2019, it was that no government had a veto, so ultimately we have to get into a room, and First Nations have to get in a room and to negotiations table to make decisions on these important, really it is putting a spotlight on how development occurs. [bolding added]
Well ultimately I think we have to come back as First Nations Leadership Council. We are mandated by our chiefs, and we’ll come back to our First Nations chiefs, talk to them about some of these issues, and then come back with the provincial government and start discussing a process to move forward and get a better understanding of this issue that Premier David Eby has of legal liability and legal risk, and our side of the table as well in regards to what’s the best way forward to really, I think, we, by, before the fall session to work out some of these issues.
By his own admission, Terry Teegee played an instrumental role in the negotiations which led up to the passage of DRIPA by the BC Legislature in 2019. During his campaign for re-election as BCAFN Regional Chief, his website lauded his accomplishment in getting DRIPA to the finish line:
As Regional Chief, he was an instrumental voice in the development and historic passing of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
In his reply to Jill Bennett, Terry Teegee stated unambiguously that DRIPA’s intended purpose when it was passed in the BC Legislature in 2019 was to ensure that no government would have a veto. In other words, the central premise of DRIPA, as far as Indian activists are concerned, is that the BC Legislature can no longer have control over legislation. The BC Legislature must co-govern. It cannot legislate without the consent of the First Nations Leadership Council, an entity with no legal status which has interposed itself as an ‘intermediary’ between the BC government and the 203 Indian Bands with which the BC government actually has a legal relationship under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution and the law as articulated in Supreme Court of Canada decisions. According to Terry Teegee, the BC government must negotiate legislation with the First Nations Leadership Council. Moreover according to Teegee, if the government seeks input from the 203 Indian Bands with which the BC government actually does have a legal relationship, that input must be funnelled through the First Nations Leadership Council, with which the BC government has no legal relationship and which, as noted above, merely consists of 7 individual BC citizens who legally represent no one in terms of negotiating with the BC government.
As Aboriginal law expert Geoffrey Moyse has stated:
And again, my fundamental point is, it’s not only chaotic. When First Nations Leadership Council can take the government away to a side table in secret, and negotiate what a piece of legislation’s going to look like, we’ve crossed some kind of line democratically.
We have indeed crossed ‘some kind of line democratically’, and in fact constitutionally, in BC, and the BC government needs to get back onto the right side of that line. It cannot possibly do so by negotiating unconstitutionally in secret with Terry Teegee, and 6 other individuals who legally represent no one, under the facade of the First Nations Leadership Council.
Yet on 20 April 2026 the BC government chose to do just that when it issued a joint statement with the First Nations Leadership Council withdrawing DRIPA from the BC Legislature’s consideration during the current spring session in order to enter into secret negotiations with the FNLC concerning DRIPA in preparation for the fall legislative session.
The government’s press release reads:
Premier David Eby and the First Nations Leadership Council have released the following statement regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA):
“The Government of B.C. will not be introducing legislation to suspend or amend DRIPA or UN Declaration-related provisions in the Interpretation Act, in the spring legislative session.
“The government and First Nations Leadership Council are committed to working together with all First Nations leaders on a path forward to discuss and consider the government’s stated legal concerns, while upholding the title and rights and human rights of First Nations.
“Together, we commit to genuine collaboration to find solutions as soon as possible, and before the fall legislative session.”
Given the fact that the First Nations Leadership Council is not a legal entity, the BC government’s decision is unconstitutional. In actual practice, it amounts to the BC government deciding to enter into secret negotiations with Terry Teegee, Stewart Philip, Marilyn Slett, Robert Phillips and Hugh Braker as individual BC citizens, since the FNLC legally represents no one, and cannot legally interpose itself between the BC and government and the 203 BC Indian Bands with which the BC government has a duty to consult. Moreover even the BC government’s duty to consult with individual Indian Bands does not include consultation at any stage of the development of legislation, and thus does not include a duty to consult on DRIPA. Legislation, including DRIPA, is solely the responsibility of the elected Members of the BC Legislature, and the BC government should get on with doing its job.
Thanks for reading. For more from this author, read Why did Ottawa lose the Cowichan case, and how can it win the appeal?
Follow Woke Watch Canada on X - @WokeWatchCanada
Or, by contributing to our Donor Box:
The Indigenous lobby groups are led by men who hide their salaries, which are paid mostly by taxpayers. They pretend to run BC because politicians mollycoddle any Indigenous Mafia person that crosses their path. Nina Green shows that these lobbyists have no legal power to squeeze us for “consultation” money.
I deeply appreciate your work on this issue and how you incisively show the lack of legal and moral foundation beneath FNLC et al. as well as behind Eby's recent decisions to treat these lobby groups as co-governors of BC. Keep doing this vital work - the tide is slowly turning because of people like you.