“We are the ones that we are waiting for” - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 127

Beyond stakeholders
The development of a distinctly Indigenous governing body is also based on the
need to be more than just “stakeholders” in the governance process. By taking
ownership of the governance process, the power shifts back to the tribes and bands
of the Coast Salish communities. Including governmental and non-governmental
representatives in the Coast Salish Gathering helps the Community meet their goals
while remaining in control of the governance process. It also supports a collaborative
governance process without weakening the cultural emphasis. One example of this
balance was the delineation of an “executive session” for which the room was
open only to Coast Salish members. Maintaining these clear boundaries situates
the Coast Salish people at the centre of their own governing process. It also provides
space for Coast Salish participants to speak freely within their own Community
and to continue to build trust between Communities.
Maintaining ownership over the governance process also allows the Gathering
participants to follow traditional protocol. Although multicultural training is
increasingly prevalent in governmental offices throughout the Pacific west (and
beyond), cultural inclusion can often lead to cultural misunderstandings. Despite
good intentions, sometimes this process of cultural inclusion comes off as cursory,
tokenized, or even insensitive.
One striking example of this occurred during a transboundary environmental
conference held in Seattle, Washington in 2005. In this case, the conference
organizers had invited members of the Tulalip tribe to provide a traditional
welcome at the conference, where they were to bless the four corners of the room.
As part of the ceremony, the Tulalip members shared the meaning and origin of
the song with the conference participants. The welcome took longer than was
allocated on the agenda, and the facilitator grew visibly agitated, looking at her watch
and pacing the room. After the Tulalip group had blessed only one corner, the
facilitator interrupted the ceremony and suggested that the group finish in the hallway
“because they were running behind schedule”. The Tulalip drum-leader brushed
off the suggestion with a laugh.
After an awkward public negotiation between the facilitator and Tulalip tribal
member, they finally agreed that the group would complete one more song. This
insensitive act was particularly poignant considering the conference literature had
replaced the Georgia Basin-Puget Sound logo with “The Salish Sea”. The public
overtures of the organizers to frame the conference in a Coast Salish perspec-
tive suggested a greater sensitivity to Indigenous issues. However, this incident,
coupled with the general lack of involvement of and engagement with issues
facing Indigenous communities, suggested otherwise. Since this incident, much
work has been done to revise these conferences for greater inclusion of Coast Salish
members in the planning. The 2014 conference, for example, was much more
inclusive and was very deliberate about consulting with, and integrating Indigenous
leadership into the planning process. However, the deficits of these earlier con-
ferences helped provide an incentive to prioritize the establishment of Indigenous-
led governance mechanisms.