Cameron v. Albrich: Inherent Aboriginal Sovereignty Or In[co]herent Aboriginal Sovereignty?

In Cameron v. Albrich, Ray Cameron, of the Ashcroft Indian Band, contested in the British Columbia Supreme Court, the band membership of 74 individuals (of a 250 member band).  He claimed that they had not been properly added to the band list.  The Chief, Greg Blain, was one of those 74 defendants.  Ultimately the judge dismissed the action, with costs, holding that Cameron did not have standing.  

Apart from one plaintiff contesting the membership of nearly a third of his band, this case is also interesting because it serves as an illuminating contrast to Indian law in the United States. 

This case agreed with a previous Federal Court of Canada decision (Ermineskin v. Ermineskin Band Council, [1995] 96 F.T.R. 181) which held that “the rules which the Ermineskin Band Council apply in exercising authority over Band membership are a ‘manifestation’ of the powers conferred by the Government of Canada under the aegis of section 10 of the Indian Act. … [T]he authority being exercised by the Band Council is derived from the Indian Act).”

Contrastingly, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, held that the source of tribe’s power (in that instance, to prosecute and punish a non-member Indian defendent) was inherent tribal sovereignty rather than delegated federal authority.

Since the adoption of the Constitution in 1982, the Canadian government has recognized that aboriginals have a right to self-government.  However, the headway made by aboriginals in that respect is negligible.  Perhaps it would be beneficial for Canada to start truly recognizing that aboriginals have an inherent right to govern themselves based on an inherent tribal sovereignty, rather than a right that is based on an insulting “manifestation of the powers conferred by the Government of Canada under the aegis of section 10 of the Indian Act….”

4 thoughts on “Cameron v. Albrich: Inherent Aboriginal Sovereignty Or In[co]herent Aboriginal Sovereignty?

  1. Ray Cameron August 2, 2011 / 2:35 am

    For a number of reasons i was shocked by the judgement handed down by the supreme court. The council for me had clearly demonstrated that Chief Greg Blain had siezed control of the Ashcroft Indian band’s membership list. The judge acknowledged in his summation that chief and council were not conducting themselves in compliance with Ashcroft Indian bands membership rules. In the same summation the judge stated that Chief Greg Blain couldn’t possibly have access to membership and voters lists. There are many such discrepencies in the judges summation. I only wish I could provide you with the transcripts and full summation of the judges decision. You could then decide for yourself if I ever had a chance at all.

  2. vannessa May 22, 2012 / 12:37 pm

    It has taken a very long time but finally the people of Ashcroft Indian Band got the merits of this case heard and on May 16th a federal court judge agreed, that chief greg blain and the councillors are severely in breach of their duty and obligation to maintain the membership in accordance with the section 10 Ashcroft Indian Band Rules and regulations. These 74 people will have to apply for membership as per the rules and regulations. Congratulations Ray and the people of ashcroft indian band.

  3. Dar October 30, 2012 / 5:57 pm

    Well it now seems Mr. Cameron has switched from the good side to the evil side. Who knew throwing his fellow men and women team mates under the bus, in this fight against Mr. Blain would leave such an ugly mark to be seen for years and years. Greed is such an awful sin. Wear it well Mr. Cameron.

  4. vannessa reid March 12, 2013 / 11:56 am

    Greed. NO! Mr.Cameron gains nothing from this except a hefty lawyer bill, so to say he is evil or greedy is just plain WRONG. It seems that Dar has some mid conceptions about the whole issue. For one thing Mr.Cameron was only the spokesperson for the majority of the band membership. Since it was not possible to say 100 people were taking this to court the group got together at a public meeting and declared that Mr.Cameron would be the one to be the spokesperson for the people. Saying Mr.Cameron is evil or greedy is saying that the members of the Ashcroft band are all greedy and evil. Maybe if you were actually apart of the band or community that has been affected by this you would see that Mr.Cameron was only attempting to do the right thing for the future of the band. Which in the end he did just that.

Comments are closed.