Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Indigenous

B.C.’s plan to ‘reconcile’ by giving First Nations a veto on land use

Published

8 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Bruce Pardy

UNDRIP-inspired land law reforms are poised to turn province into an untenable host for mining, forestry and much more.

We live in strange times. A new generation of political leaders seems determined to cripple their own societies. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, of course, comes to mind. But in Canada, he is not alone. In British Columbia, NDP Premier David Eby is preparing to bring his province to its knees.

The B.C. government plans to share management of Crown land with First Nations. The scheme will apply not to limited sections of public land here and there, but across the province. The government quietly opened public consultations on the proposal last week. According to the scant materials, the government will amend the B.C. Land Act to incorporate agreements with Indigenous governing bodies.

These agreements will empower B.C.’s hundreds of First Nations to make joint decisions with the minister responsible for the Land Act, the main law under which the provincial government grants leases, licences, permits and rights-of-way over Crown land. That means that First Nations will have a veto over how most of B.C. is used. Joint management can be expected to apply to mining, hydro projects, farming, forestry, docks and communication towers, just to start. Activities at the heart of B.C.’s economy will be at risk.

In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP states, among other things, that Indigenous people own the land and resources of the countries in which they live. They have “the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired … to own, use, develop and control.”

At the time, Canada sensibly voted “no,” along with the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Eleven countries abstained. In 2016, Trudeau’s government reversed Canada’s objection.

As a General Assembly declaration, UNDRIP is not binding in international law nor enforceable in domestic courts. But in 2019, under the leadership of Eby’s predecessor John Horgan, the B.C. legislature passed Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The act requires the government of B.C. to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” Eby’s joint management plan is the next step in this project.

Long before UNDRIP, the Supreme Court of Canada created a constitutional “duty to consult” with Aboriginal peoples. The court said that the “honour of the Crown” governs the relationship between the government and Aboriginal people. The Crown’s fiduciary duties include a duty to consult whenever proposed action may adversely affect established or asserted Aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution. This duty is notoriously uncertain, onerous and time-consuming. It has become an albatross around the neck of the Canadian resource industry. The courts seem unable to specify what the duty to consult requires, except after the fact.

Now, the B.C. government aims to make things even more unpredictable. Whatever the contours of the right to be consulted, the Supreme Court at least has been clear that it does not constitute a veto. Eby will create one.

Shortly before the B.C. legislature passed Bill 41 in November 2019, the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia sponsored an Aboriginal Law Conference featuring several Indigenous proponents of the bill. They promised that the new law would render the province unrecognizable.

It will “set up a whole new norm,“ “give teeth to (UNDRIP),” and move the province away, if “not fully,” from the Westminster model of governance. The veto to be conferred on Indigenous interest groups, they said, will mean that “consent will not be given very often, if at all.”

“We’re not talking small changes; we’re talking big changes,” one speaker suggested, adding that money provided by the government so far hasn’t been enough.

“Compensation for sacred sites, for lands taken, for relocation … it’s going to be an overwhelming number of compensation claims … and so I’m hoping that the province is ready for that…. Life (in B.C.) can and will change.”

For many, it is likely to change for the worse. B.C. could become an untenable host for land-based, resource-related enterprise. Impenetrable layers of red tape would entangle applications for leases and licenses. The price for First Nations approvals could be an increasing share of royalties and kickbacks, without which consent will be refused. Both governments and First Nations will siphon an ever-larger piece of a shrinking pie.

The government’s timeline is short. Written submissions will be accepted until the end of March, and anyone giving feedback will be limited by how little information the B.C. government has offered in the consultation. Bureaucrats will begin drafting amendments to the Land Act in early February, and the government plans to introduce a bill in April or May.

If you are feeling grateful not to live in B.C., don’t count your chickens. In 2021, Parliament passed its own version of B.C.’s Bill 41, the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It requires the federal government to “take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” An action plan outlining more than 100 specific measures was released in 2023.

In a speech to the B.C. Business Council in 2016, I argued that our leaders could not do a better job of preventing Canadian business from succeeding in the global economy. I underestimated them. Their determination and ingenuity know no bounds.

Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe, professor of law at Queen’s University, and senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canadian Energy Centre

Saskatchewan Indigenous leaders urging need for access to natural gas

Published on

Piapot First Nation near Regina, Saskatchewan. Photo courtesy Piapot First Nation/Facebook

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Cody Ciona and Deborah Jaremko

“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”

Indigenous communities across Canada need access to natural gas to reduce energy poverty, says a new report by Energy for a Secure Future (ESF).

It’s a serious issue that needs to be addressed, say Indigenous community and business leaders in Saskatchewan.

“We’re here today to implore upon the federal government that we need the installation of natural gas and access to natural gas so that we can have safe and reliable service,” said Guy Lonechild, CEO of the Regina-based First Nations Power Authority, on a March 11 ESF webinar.

Last year, 20 Saskatchewan communities moved a resolution at the Assembly of First Nations’ annual general assembly calling on the federal government to “immediately enhance” First Nations financial supports for “more desirable energy security measures such as natural gas for home heating.”

“We’ve been calling it heat poverty because that’s what it really is…our families are finding that they have to either choose between buying groceries or heating their home,” Chief Christine Longjohn of Sturgeon Lake First Nation said in the ESF report.

“We should be able to live comfortably within our homes. We want to be just like every other homeowner that has that choice to be able to use natural gas.”

At least 333 First Nations communities across Canada are not connected to natural gas utilities, according to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).

ESF says that while there are many federal programs that help cover the upfront costs of accessing electricity, primarily from renewable sources, there are no comparable ones to support natural gas access.

“Most Canadian and Indigenous communities support actions to address climate change. However, the policy priority of reducing fossil fuel use has had unintended consequences,” the ESF report said.

“Recent funding support has been directed not at improving reliability or affordability of the energy, but rather at sustainability.”

Natural gas costs less than half — or even a quarter — of electricity prices in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, according to CER data.

“Natural gas is something NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] will not fund. It’s not considered a renewable for them,” said Chief Mark Fox of the Piapot First Nation, located about 50 kilometres northeast of Regina.

“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”

According to ESF, some Indigenous communities compare the challenge of natural gas access to the multiyear effort to raise awareness and, ultimately funding, to address poor water quality and access on reserve.

“Natural gas is the new water,” Lonechild said.

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

John Rustad’s Residential School Claim Is False And Dangerous

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

When politicians misrepresent facts or historical events, whether out of ignorance or political expediency, they do a disservice to the truth and public trust. On Feb. 24, 2025, B.C. Conservative Party Leader John Rustad reportedly told Global News that “more than 4,000 children did not return home” from residential schools because “those children died in residential schools.” As researcher Nina Green points out, this statement is demonstrably false and contradicts the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) final report.

Sadly, Rustad is not the only one making such claims. Similar statements, portrayed as facts, are repeated by politicians who should know better.

The truth, according to the TRC, is that 423 named children died on the premises of residential schools between 1867 and 2000. That is a tragedy, and we must expand our understanding of how and why these deaths occurred. To learn from tragedies, we must acknowledge and reflect on them. But to truly understand, we must accept what is true rather than bending or distorting it. Repeating the claim that “more than 4,000” children died in residential schools, as Rustad and others have uncritically reported, misrepresents reality.

The vastly inflated number, according to Green, originates from the University of Manitoba’s National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), which has misrepresented the data by including children who died after leaving school—in hospitals, in accidents at home, and even well into adulthood. This distortion has led to widespread misrepresentation, misleading policymakers and the public.

Why does this matter?

Canada’s history with Indigenous residential schools is deeply painful. Abuses, neglect and forced assimilation were real in many instances. However, distorting the facts about residential school deaths promotes a false narrative of genocide that does not serve justice—in fact, this false narrative undermines it. If reconciliation means anything, it must be built on truth, not contrived political narratives.

By repeating the claim that more than 4,000 children died at residential schools, Rustad is spreading falsehoods and stoking division. This figure has been used to justify claims of mass graves, leading to international headlines and widespread outrage that harm present generations of Indigenous people. Yet, nearly four years after the first claims of unmarked graves, no remains have been excavated or verified.

Rustad is not a private citizen—he is a public figure whose words carry weight. As such, he is responsible for ensuring that the information he disseminates is accurate. Rustad is failing in his duty to the public. Depending on his motivation, he contributes to a culture in which historical accuracy is sacrificed for political expediency.

Some may argue that the exact number of students who died at residential schools is not important. But truth is not negotiable. If we accept exaggerated claims in one instance, we set a dangerous pattern for historical distortions. The truth should not be ideological or political.

If Rustad is serious about Indigenous issues, he should demand transparency from the University of Manitoba and its NCTR. Instead of accepting misleading figures, he should call for the full release of the TRC records, as was promised in 2013.

Leaders like Rustad must be held accountable. Falsehoods, no matter how well-intentioned, do not advance reconciliation. They erode trust, divide Canadians, and ultimately undermine the cause they claim to support. All Canadians deserve much better.

Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is coauthor of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Trending

X