Scott McInnis is the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.In British Columbia, the NDP government’s approach to Indigenous relations resembles a magician’s sleight of hand: while one hand waves the banner of reconciliation, the other quietly redraws the map of land governance, often without public consultation or any semblance of clarity.Like any rational actor in a negotiation, First Nations are seeking the best possible outcomes for their communities. But the BC NDP government insists on conducting land negotiations as exclusive “government-to-government” affairs, effectively locking the public out of the room.BC residents deserve transparency regarding land negotiations, especially when the implications touch on something as fundamental as access to Crown land, which comprises 94% of the province.Under Section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which passed in 2019, the government has entered into consent-based agreements that grant Indigenous governing bodies shared or exclusive decision-making authority over public lands..Popular BC park to ban non-indigenous visitors twice more in 2025.While this may sound collaborative, in practice it has led to situations where non-Indigenous British Columbians find themselves excluded from lands they’ve long considered public. The ultra-popular Joffre Lakes Park, for example, will be closed to non-First Nations visitors for a cumulative 93 days in 2025..The recent Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision by the BC Supreme Court has only added fuel to the fire. In a landmark ruling, the court recognized Aboriginal title over parts of Richmond, including private properties and submerged lands in the Fraser River..BC government to appeal precedent-setting court ruling on First Nations land claim.The Cowichan judgment declared that Crown grants of fee simple title unjustifiably infringe on Aboriginal title and may have to be reconciled through future negotiations. This raises profound questions about the future of private property in B.C. and whether fee simple ownership can coexist with Aboriginal title.The precedent here was set by the Haida Title Lands Agreement. While the agreement claims to “honour” private property rights on Haida Gwaii, it simultaneously acknowledges Aboriginal title over the entire land base—including fee simple lands.These two mutually exclusive forms of land ownership are said to coexist, creating a fog of legal uncertainty. Legal experts have warned that the Haida agreement lacks clarity and fails to reconcile how provincial land title systems interact with Aboriginal title.The Cowichan judgment appears to have taken this ambiguity and run with it, declaring that fee simple interests are subordinate to Aboriginal title unless otherwise justified.The NDP government did respond with an appeal of the Cowichan ruling—but notably absent is any indication they’ll argue that Aboriginal title was extinguished when fee simple title was granted. Why? Because doing so would ignite political backlash from their reconciliation-focused base. But what we really need here is legal clarity for all British Columbians.Meanwhile, the investment and resource sectors are watching with furrowed brows. In times of economic uncertainty, clarity is currency. Yet the rules of engagement in B.C.’s land-use regime are anything but clear..The common denominator here falls within the government’s ideological “Land Back” mission. This idea is derived from the notion that British Columbia’s lands were “stolen” from Indigenous people during the settling of this province; hence the hasty reconciliation agreements which exclude meaningful public input altogether.The Conservative Party of BC caucus strongly opposes the notion of “Land Back.” If individuals in B.C. feel so strongly that we live on stolen land then my suggestion is a simple one: hand over your private property to the local First Nation. But public land is not yours to give away.A Conservative Party of BC government would take a different track. While recognizing the importance of Indigenous partnership in resource development, it would repeal DRIPA and return to the tried-and-true framework of Section 35 of the Constitution.This approach has yielded successful partnerships with nations like the Nisga’a and Haisla, who have leveraged resource projects to transform their communities.The land use decisions we are reckoning with in B.C. are of generational consequence. Let’s make them together, in the open, instead of creating different ethnicity-based classes of landownership and forever dividing this province against itself.Scott McInnis is the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
