Yes, B.C.’s Land Act changes give First Nations veto over use of Crown Land

Nathan Cullen says there’s no veto. Cullen, British Columbia’s Minister of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship, plans to give First Nations joint decision-making authority over Crown land. His NDP government recently opened consultations on its proposal to amend the B.C. Land Act, under which the minister grants leases, licences, permits, rights-of-way and land sales. The amendments will give legal effect to agreements with Indigenous governing bodies. Those agreements will share decision-making power “through joint or consent models” with some or all of B.C.’s more than 200 First Nations.

Yes, First Nations will have a veto.

Cullen denies it. “There is no veto in these amendments,” he told the Nanaimo News Bulletin last week. He accused critics of fearmongering and misinformation. “My worry is that for some of the political actors here on the right, this is an element of dog-whistle politics.”

But Cullen has a problem. Any activity that requires your consent is an activity over which you have a veto. If a contract requires approval of both parties before something can happen, “no” by one means “no” for both. The same is true in other areas of law such as sexual conduct, which requires consent. If you withhold your consent, you have vetoed the activity. “Joint decision-making,” “consent,” and “veto” come out to the same thing.

Land use decisions are subject to the same logic. The B.C. government will give First Nations joint decision-making power, when and where agreements are entered into. Its own consultation materials say so. This issue has blown up in the media, and the government has hastily amended its consultation webpage to soothe discontent (“The proposed amendments to the Land Act will not lead to broad, sweeping, or automatic changes (or) provide a ‘veto.’”) Nothing to see here folks. But its documentation continues to describe “shared decision-making through joint or consent models.”

These proposals should not surprise anyone. In 2019, the B.C. legislature passed Bill 41, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). It requires the government to take “all measures necessary” to make the laws of British Columbia consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).

UNDRIP is a declaration of the U.N. General Assembly passed in 2007. It says that Indigenous people 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.”

On its own, UNDRIP is non-binding and unenforceable. But DRIPA seeks to incorporate UNDRIP into B.C. law, obligating the government to achieve its aspirations. Mere consultation with First Nations, which Section 35 of the Constitution requires, won’t cut it under UNDRIP. Under Section 7 of DRIPA, agreements to be made with indigenous groups are to establish joint decision-making or to require consent of the Indigenous group. Either Cullen creates a First Nations veto or falls short of the goalposts in DRIPA. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Some commentators warned against these dangers long ago. For example, shortly after DRIPA was passed in 2019, Vancouver lawyer Robin Junger wrote in the Vancouver Sun, “It will likely be impossible for government to live up to the expectations that Indigenous groups will now reasonably hold, without fundamentally affecting the rights and interests of third parties.” Unfortunately, few wanted to tackle that thorny question head on at the time. All three political parties in B.C. voted in favour of DRIPA, which passed unanimously.

For a taste of how Land Act changes could work, ask some B.C. residents who have private docks. In Pender Harbour, for instance, the shishalh Nation and the province have jointly developed a “Dock Management Plan” to try and impose various new and onerous rules on private property owners (including red “no go” zones and rules that will make many existing docks and boat houses non-compliant). Property owners with long-standing docks in full legal compliance will have no right to negotiate, to be consulted, or to be grandfathered. Land Act amendments may hardwire this plan into B.C. law.

Yet Cullen insists that no veto will exist since aggrieved parties can apply to a court for judicial review. “[An agreement] holds both parties—B.C. and whichever nation we enter into an agreement (with)—to the same standard of judicial review, administrative fairness, all the things that courts protect when someone is going through an application or a tendering process,” he told Business in Vancouver.

This is nonsense on stilts. By that standard, no government official has final authority under any statute. All statutory decisions are potentially subject to judicial review, including decisions of Cullen himself as the minister responsible for the Land Act. He doesn’t have a veto? Of course he does. Moreover, courts on judicial review generally defer to statutory decision-makers. And they don’t change decisions but merely send them back to be made again. The argument that First Nations won’t have a veto because their decisions can be challenged on judicial review is legal jibber jabber.

When the U.N. passed UNDRIP in 2007, people said they can’t be serious. When the B.C. legislature passed DRIPA in 2019, people said they can’t be serious. The B.C. government now proposes to give First Nations a veto over the use of Crown land. Don’t worry, they can’t be serious.

Author:

Bruce Pardy

Professor of Law, Queen’s University

Related Topics:#BCCrownLand #BCLandAct #BrucePardy #FraserInstitute

Up Next

From The Border To Kevin O’Leary, Canada Is Freaking Out Americans

Don't Miss

Government policies diminish Alberta in eyes of investors

Todayville

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

Charlie Kirk and the Fragility of Civic Peace

Business / 13 hours ago

UN, Gates Foundation push for digital ID across 50 nations by 2028

Business / 13 hours ago

Netherlands Seizes Chinese-Owned Chipmaker in Unprecedented Security Move

Business

Carney government plans to muddy the fiscal waters in upcoming budget

Published on October 11, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Rather than directly spend money on critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports or even electricity grids—things that traditionally are considered capital investments—the government plans to spend money on subsidies and tax breaks to corporations (i.e. corporate welfare) under the umbrella of “capital investment”

The Carney government’s long-awaited first budget is almost here—expected Nov. 4—but Canadians may not recognize what they get. Early on, the new government promised a new approach to spending. Thanks to a decade of record-breaking spending under Justin Trudeau, the federal deficit sits at a projected $48.3 billion while total debt has eclipsed $2.1 trillion. But the Carney government’s plan announced this week appears to rely on accounting maneuvers rather than any substantive spending reductions.

According to the latest details released by the government, the Carney government will separate spending into two categories: “operating spending” and “capital investment.” Within this framework, the government plans to balance the “operating budget” within three years.

But of course, if the government eventually balances the operating budget, that doesn’t mean it will stop borrowing money to pay for“capital investment”—a new category of spending the government can define and expand whenever it deems necessary.

Currently, according to the government, capital investment will include any spending or tax expenditures (e.g. tax credits and deductions) that “contribute to capital formation”—the creation of assets (such as machinery or equipment) that improve the ability of workers to produce goods and services.

In other words, rather than directly spend money on critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports or even electricity grids—things that traditionally are considered capital investments—the government plans to spend money on subsidies and tax breaks to corporations (i.e. corporate welfare) under the umbrella of “capital investment,” so long as this spending will somehow “encourage” capital formation. But clearly, corporate welfare doesn’t belong in the same category as the expansion of a critical port, for example, and the government shouldn’t pretend that it does.

Put simply, because the term “capital investment” is so broad and malleable, the government can seemingly use it whenever it wants. For example, to meet NATO’s spending target of 2 per cent of GDP, a key point of contention in Carney’s negotiations with President Trump, the Carney government could (inaccurately) categorize some defence spending as capital spending. And in fact, the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer—Ottawa’s fiscal watchdog—views the Carney government’s definition as “overly expansive” and suggests the inclusion of corporate tax breaks and subsidies will “overstate” the government’s actual contribution to the creation of capital.

This approach by the Carney government will not help Canadians understand the true state of federal finances. While Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne recently said that the “deficit and the debt will be recorded in the same manner as in previous budgets,” on budget day and beyond the government will undoubtedly focus on the operating budget when communicating to Canadians. So, the government will only tell part of the story.

After years of fiscal mismanagement with large increases in spending and debt under the Trudeau government, Canadians need a government willing to make the tough decisions necessary to get federal finances back in shape. But the Carney government appears poised to shirk accountability and use tricks to cloud the true state of federal finances.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Automotive

Governments continue to support irrational ‘electric vehicle’ policies

Published on October 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Another day, another electric vehicle (EV) fantasy failure. The Quebec government is “pulling the plug” on its relationship with the Northvolt EV battery company (which is now bankrupt), and will try to recoup some of its $270 million loss on the project. Quebec’s “investment” was in support of a planned $7 billion “megaproject” battery manufacturing facility on Montreal’s South Shore. (As an aside, what normal people would call gambling with taxpayer money, governments call “investments.” But that’s another story.)

Anyway, for those who have not followed this latest EV-burn out, back in September 2023, the Legault government announced plans to “invest” $510 million in the project, which was to be located in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville. The government subsequently granted Northvolt a $240 million loan guarantee to buy the land for the plant, then injected another $270 million directly into Northvolt. According to the Financial Post, “Quebec has lost $270 million on its equity investment… but still had a senior secured loan tied to the land acquired to build the plant, which totals nearly $260 million with interest and fees.” In other words, Quebec taxpayers lost big.

But Northvolt is just the latest in a litany of failure by Canadian governments and their dreams of an EV future free of dreaded fossil fuels. I know, politicians say that it’s a battle against climate change, but that’s silly. Canada is such a small emitter of greenhouse gases that nothing it could do, including shutting down the entire national economy, would significantly alter the trajectory of the climate. Anything Canada might achieve would be cancelled out by economic growth in China in a matter of weeks.

So back to the litany of failed or failing EV-dream projects. To date (from about 2020) it goes like this: Ford (2024), Umicore battery (2024), Honda (2025),General Motors CAMI (2025), Lion Electric (2025), Northvolt (2025). And this does not count projects still limping along after major setbacks such as Stellantis and Volkswagen.

One has to wonder how many tombstones of dead EV fantasy projects will be needed before Canada’s climate-obsessed governments get a clue: people are not playing. Car buyers are not snapping up these vehicles as government predicted; the technologies and manufacturing ability are not showing up as government predicted; declining cost curves are not showing up as government predicted; taxpayer-subsidized projects keep dying; the U.S. market for Canada’s EV tech that government predicted has been Trumped out of existence (e.g. the Trump administration has scrapped EV mandates and federal subsidies for EV purchases); and government is taking the money for all these failed predictions from Canadian workers who can’t afford EVs. It really is a policy travesty.

And yet, like a bad dream, Canada’s governments (including the Carney government) are still backing an irrational policy to force EVs into the marketplace. For example, Ottawa stills mandates that all new light-duty vehicle sales be EVs by 2035. This despite Canadian automakers earnest pleas for the government to scrap the mandate.

Canada’s EV policy is quickly coming to resemble something out of dysfunctional-heroic fiction. We are the Don Quixotes, tilting futilely at EV windmills, and Captain Ahabs, trying to slay the dreaded white whale of fossil-fuelled transportation with our EV harpoons. Really, isn’t it time governments took a look at reality and cut their losses? Canada’s taxpayers would surely appreciate the break.