FEATURED COMMENT – Is plaque being installed to honour the wrong person?
Sir Wilfred Laurier.
Re: New plaque to be unveiled commemorating Laurier meeting
What exactly is being honoured here. Another broken promise? Maybe rather than a Sir Wilfrid Laurier plaque we place one for James Teit, and Secwépemc leader like Ron Ignace, who articulated a vision for just relations based on Indigenous law, reciprocity, and mutual sovereignty.
On August 25, 1910, in Kamloops, chiefs from the Secwépemc, Sylix, and Nlaka’pamux Nations presented Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier with a document known as the “Memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier.” This pivotal document, often referred to as the “Laurier Memorial,” outlined their grievances against the governments of British Columbia and Canada, particularly regarding the misappropriation of their lands, the lack of treaties, and the denial of their sovereignty and land title rights. The chiefs, with the assistance of ethnologist James Teit, articulated a vision for just relations based on Indigenous law, reciprocity, and mutual sovereignty.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Laurier directly addressed or resolved the specific grievances outlined in the Memorial during his tenure. Laurier received the document while on a campaign tour for re-election and reportedly promised to meet with the chiefs to discuss their concerns. However, he lost the federal election in 1911 to Sir Robert Borden, who did not follow through on Laurier’s promise. The grievances, including demands for recognition of land title and rights, remained unaddressed by the federal government at the time.
The Memorial itself became a significant document for Indigenous advocacy, often described as the “Magna Carta” of the Secwépemc Nation by leaders like Ron Ignace, and it continues to be referenced in modern discussions of Indigenous-settler relations. Subsequent Canadian policies, such as Section 141 of the Indian Act, which restricted Indigenous legal advocacy, further hindered progress on these issues. Thus, while Laurier acknowledged the Memorial, no concrete actions were taken to address the chiefs’ demands before his government ended.
WALTER TRKLA
The reverence held for Laurier by First Nations appears largely to be because he conveniently fits the story about the chiefs who so eloquently appealed to him about their grievances. While Laurier listened to what they said, he didn’t act, perhaps due to time constraints on his time in office, as you have pointed out. It’s also true that residential schools were expanded on his watch, that he implemented a head tax on Chinese immigrants, and that he wanted to ban blacks from entering the country. It can be argued that Sir John A. Macdonald, whose legacy has endured so much disfavour, was far more supportive of indigenous rights than was Laurier. Maybe the wrong statues are being taken down. – EDITOR
ArmchairMayor.ca 
The Laurier Memorial, presented on August 25, 1910, in Kamloops by chiefs from the Secwépemc, Sylix, and Nlaka’pamux Nations, was a collective effort that articulated a vision for just relations based on Indigenous law, reciprocity, and mutual sovereignty. The chiefs themselves were the primary authors of the document’s core message, drawing on their oral traditions, legal systems, and lived experiences to express their grievances about land misappropriation, lack of treaties, and denial of sovereignty.
James Teit, an ethnologist and interpreter who had lived among the Nlaka’pamux and was trusted by the chiefs, played a crucial role in assisting with the drafting and translation of the Memorial into English to ensure its clarity and impact for a non-Indigenous audience, particularly Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier. Teit’s deep familiarity with Indigenous languages and cultures, gained through years of ethnographic work and his marriage into an Nlaka’pamux family, allowed him to faithfully convey the chiefs’ intent, but the vision and demands originated with the chiefs.
Your point about Laurier’s legacy is well-taken. While the Memorial’s presentation is often cited as a moment of reverence for Laurier among some First Nations, his government’s actions—or lack thereof—complicate this view. Laurier’s administration did not address the Memorial’s demands, and his tenure saw the expansion of residential schools, the implementation of the Chinese head tax, and discussions of restrictive immigration policies, including proposals to limit Black immigration. In contrast, Sir John A. Macdonald’s policies, while deeply flawed and tied to assimilationist agendas like the Indian Act, included moments of engagement with Indigenous leaders and treaty-making (e.g., the Numbered Treaties), which some argue showed a degree of recognition of Indigenous rights, however imperfect. The debate over whose statues face scrutiny reflects these tensions, as historical figures are judged by both their symbolic gestures and concrete actions. The Laurier Memorial stands as a testament to Indigenous agency, not Laurier’s responsiveness, highlighting the chiefs’ sophisticated articulation of sovereignty and justice.
LikeLike