Land Act: Are the BC United embracing regressive policy of denial of First Nations rights and title?

Feb 7, 2024 | Blog, Community, Governance, Indigenous | 10 comments

Two weeks ago the BC NDP quietly launched a public consultation on proposed changes to the Land Act. While I have been publicly critical of the way Minister Nathan Cullen introduced the initiative, I am deeply disappointed by the response of the BC United who decided to re-embrace their former approach that is eerily reminiscent of their decades-old out-of-date policy of denial of First Nations rights and title.

The courts have told us time and again that it is the wrong approach and while it may be politically expedient in an election year to whip voters into a fear-drenched frenzy, it will come at tremendous cost to investment certainty in British Columbia.

BC United leader Kevin Falcon’s recent announcement, chasing BC Conservative leader John Rustad’s announcement, is shrouded in just enough rhetoric to make it sound equitable and appealing, however both political parties are sowing fear and division in British Columbia regarding Crown land and First Nations in the province.

Without legislation on the table to see exactly what the BC NDP are proposing, both Falcon and Rustad have engaged in a race-to-the-bottom by engaging in dangerous dogwhistle politics laced with misinformation, disinformation, and rhetoric. They attempt to re-write history and their process could set Crown-First Nations relations back decades. It will cost all British Columbians legally, and economically.

Last week, I was sharply critical of Minister Cullen (check out Vaughn Palmer’s article here). His public consultation process around proposed Land Act changes captured in Sections 6 & 7 of the Declaration Act created the space for Falcon and Rustad to exploit it for their own political benefit.

Need I remind Falcon that back in Fall 2019, the critics from his party canvassed these exact issues in the Declaration Act for days in committee stage of debate?

Need I remind him that following the debate, the Declaration Act was unanimously passed by the BC NDP, BC Green, BC United and BC Conservative MLAs?

Need I remind Rustad that he spoke in favour of it, and then voted for it?

This is the epitome of gross politics.

Minister Cullen unfortunately opened the door for the competing BC United and BC Conservatives to engage in dredging the depths of the political sludge at the expense of Indigenous people, and frankly, all British Columbians. It cast unnecessary shade over reconciliation and only profits high-priced lawyers who will be only too happy to keep the courts busy for decades to come.

The BC United announcement is based on a faulty premise that is highlighted in this tweet from Michael Lee, MLA for Vancouver-Langara. It’s premised on a consequential lie about the land in British Columbia.

While the words—“committed to reconciliation and true economic partnerships with First Nations,” and “Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program to provide greater access to capital to First Nations to support their equity ownership and participation in natural resource projects,”—may contain ideas with merit, neither will address the historic land question that is at the centre of jurisprudence fifty years in the making. MLA Lee, a lawyer, should know that.

As the Supreme Court of Canada determined in Tsilhqot’in, and the BC Supreme Court decided in Yahey, First Nations people have rights and title on the land base resulting from the legal fact that the land was not legally surrendered or ceded, and that historic treaties have not been honoured. We have inherited this wicked problem and no amount of running in the opposite direction will change that.

The Declaration Act began reconciling this inescapable history through shared decision-making, partnerships, and agreements that Minister Cullen’s contemplated Land Act amendments are supposed to make room for, rather than lengthy and costly court battles.

Don’t forget the judge in the Yahey decision shut down further oil and gas development until an agreement between the provincial government and First Nation was in place. The BC United’s proposal will create incredible uncertainty on the land base for investment decisions.

Has the BC NDP governments path to reconciliation be fraught with challenges? Yes, of course it has. Has it created issues between the province and First Nations? Yes, it has. Has it created problems between First Nations. Yes, it has. Is that reason to abandon it? Absolutely not.

It is clear that the traditional paternalistic decision-making—where the provincial government controls all revenues from the land, and decisions about natural resource extraction—is unacceptable legally and morally. First Nations rights and title will not be legally satisfied by loan guarantees, or easier access to capital that is controlled by the Crown government.

What the BC United proposes is designed to help them dive the bottom with the BC Conservatives, but it puts us further away from the social and economic certainty that is needed for our province to thrive.

I understand we have a long history in British Columbia of not trusting First Nations people with decisions about land and money. It is a particularly ugly and deeply embedded trope in our culture.

The result of restricting First Nations from accessing revenues they are legally entitled to has resulted in decades of legislated abject poverty on Indian Reserves. Which community benefits from the poverty in their First Nations neighbours? None.

Shame on the BC United—keep First Nations people out of your pathetic fight with the BC Conservatives—it is none of our business. First Nations people in British Columbia should not have to pay the price for your inability to get along.

Ultimately, the greatest price will be paid by all British Columbians, as rather than turning and facing our history, we see another example of their elected leaders chosing their own political advantage over their legal and ethical responsibilities.


  1. Bud

    Thank you Adam. Your message is clear, honourable, needed, and each of your comments support another step in the long climb to equality in the province.
    On the one hand, travelling across the country and returning home to BC, it seems that exposure to the truths of the past are inclusive and exposed (comparitively) as part of the public discourse, more so than the many other areas across the country.
    On the other hand, greed, consumption and hatred politics are governing the political will that takes an extraordinary amount of time to wade through in order to reach an understanding of how equality is the cornerstone of reshaping a sustainable future. Thankfully there are those, such as yourself, that have the courage to step up and unravel the truths.

  2. Stephen Lentz

    Beautiful writing. Knot in my stomach of fear that an anti faction will take hold.

  3. David Ramsay

    Well said Adam. It will be difficult for residents to face the truth that we are benefiting from not recognizing what “unceded” means.

  4. Gerry Gagnon

    “We are the true owners of British Columbia. The Indians across the province own everything — the rivers, the trees, the bugs, the animals. You name it. Subsurface rights, the air, the rain, the whole shot. That’s what we mean when we say we have aboriginal title to the land.”
    –James Gosnell, Chairman, Nisga’a Tribal Council, 1984
    Quoted in “Our home OR Native Land?” Melvin H. Smith, Crown Western, Victoria (1995)

  5. Elsje de Boer

    On every letter or email from an organization it says they live and/or work on unceded land. Why don’t they tell the truth: unceded land is STOLEN land. Are they proud of that?

  6. Wayne Osborne

    Adam said “not trusting First Nations people with decisions about land and money. ”

    If you think this is the overall issue, then you don’t understand the issue. The decision making is not being turned over to the first nation’s people, it is being turned over to their politicians. First Nations politicians are not more trustworthy than our conventional politicians.

    First Nations politicians do not answer to British Columbians but are expected to manage British Columbia’s natural resources? So basically, a minority population gets to dictate the utilization of BC’s natural resources? This is a circumvention of the democratic process, not a racist concern.

    All politicians are corruptible. The smaller the population that a politician answers to, the easier it is to manipulate and corrupt. This transfer of power feeds right into the hands of the global elites and makes their exploitation easier.

    BTW Adam, it is cheap politics to invest so many words into judging and bad mouthing the positions of your political opponents while failing to share your own actual political position on the issue. Where are your details, or is that above your paygrade?

    • adamolsen

      Thank you for your comment.
      It is important to acknowledge here that nobody has seen the legislation yet. However, it is likely similar to the amendments in other acts that we have seen in recent years, opening a space for the province to negotiate agreements with First Nations. Of course, we will debate the details and merits of the amendments when they are officially introduced in the coming weeks.
      BC and Canadian Courts have been telling governments that they need to come up with a remedy other than the courts for solving the land question that hangs over our province, creating certainty for people, investment, and First Nations.
      While my political colleagues have reduced this to a problem of the minority dictating land use decisions to the majority. They are ignoring the reality that the result of 50 years of jurisprudence and a recognition by our Courts that First Nations rights and title exists and needs to be addressed directly. Frankly, cheap politics in an election year is easy.
      To be clear, the only circumvention in democracy was the Minister’s decision not be more communicative and engaging. He deeply miscalculated the work needed to ensure British Columbians understood the changes and the oppositions willingness to leverage this and First Nations for their own political advantage.
      The Declaration Act was introduced, debated for weeks, and passed unanimously in the legislature in 2019. I have been a fierce critic of this BC NDP government becoming increasingly autocratic in the last three years, however, the debate on the Declaration Act was actually a good one, no one was hurried, the BC LIberals (at the time) had all the time they needed to canvas every detail of the Bill. That is democracy. I have also been critical that the BC NDP have failed to be as open and communicative on the proposed changes to the Land Act because I understand the tension around land in this province, specifically when it involves First Nations.
      The current leader of the Conservative Party spoke in favour and then voted in favour, of an Act that created space for agreements through sections 6 & 7. The BC United, debated and spoke in favour of the Declaration Act.
      My position is that we have had a policy of denial and that has been extremely costly and now we need a policy of recognition that allows our governments to work collaboratively with First Nations. Like I said, no amount of running in the opposite direction is going to solve the land conflict.
      Fairly negotiated agreements are better than dragging these issues through the Courts.

  7. Debbie Erickson and David Rothenberg

    My wife and I support the difficult, and long overdue process of reconciliation. We are hoping for consistent forward progress on this very important issue. That said, we want to raise some questions on a topic closely related to the Land Act – the proposed Dock Management Plan for the Sunshine Coast and its use as a template province-wide.

    1. We fear that proposals like the Dock Management Plan, in their current iteration, will set the reconciliation process back rather than carry it forward. Land was originally usurped without consideration for residents and that needs to be addressed. However, what we have seen of the Plan appears to have been written without consideration for the impact on current residents and businesses. Swinging the pendulum of control back without adequate consultation to affected parties will almost certainly lead to a backlash and, we fear, subsequent regression in the overall reconciliation process.

    2. It does not appear to us that adequate attention has yet been given to the complete array of potential environmental impacts of the Dock Management Plan.
    Our world has a very complex and inter-related environment. Great care needs to be taken to avoid unintended side-effects. We are concerned that insufficient study has been given to how the proposed changes will affect our precious environment.

    thanks for listening

  8. Mike Baker

    Can you point me to a map of BC that shows land not legally granted or ceded, with overlays showing land occupied by non-aboriginals? That might help me understand the size of this problem and the impact of trying to achieve reconciliation.

  9. James Roy

    Educating seniors like me on First Nations rights and culture seems to be a very slow and difficult process around here. Thankfully my children and grand children are not so ill informed. Well done 21st Century Saanich educators and legislators.

    Thank you, Adam, for providing some clarity to this otherwise cloudy and jaundiced new topic of distraction and manipulation. I’ve learned something. There is hope.

Share This

Share this post with your friends!