B.C. regional chief decries 'fear mongering' over proposed changes to Land Act

Recent reactions to proposed changes to B.C.'s Land Act area threat to reconciliation, B.C. Assembly of First NationsRegional Chief Terry Teegeesays.

"This is fear mongering atits worst," said Teegee.

The province's NDP governmentis drafting amendments to enable agreements withIndigenous governing bodies to share decision-makingover public landand bring the Land Act in line with the province's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).

DRIPAwaspassedunanimously in 2019 andestablishes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as B.C.'s framework for reconciliation.

The use of Crown land is governed by the Land Act.Most of B.C.'s First Nations never signed formal treaties with Canada, meaning they never legally handed over land to the Crown.Of the nearly 100 million hectares of land in B.C., about 95 per cent is Crown land,or unceded territory.

B.C. Conservative PartyleaderJohn Rustadissued a newsrelease Feb. 1 saying the proposed amendments would bring "sweeping changes."

"It is an assault on your private property rights and our shared rights to use Crown Land," said the news release.

B.C. ConservativeParty president Aisha Estey told CBC Radio'sThe Early Edition Monday that thechanges will "repeal business" andsection 35 of theConstitution already "facilitates the process that we are supposedly trying to facilitate with these Land Act amendments."

"We disagree that six per cent of the population should have essentially a veto power over 95 per cent of the land," said Estey.

WATCH | Panel debates proposed Land Act changes:

Political panel debates proposed changes to how public land in B.C. is managed

7 months ago

Duration 5:43

The NDP government is proposing changes to B.C.'s Land Act it says will allow for more co-operation with First Nations over how public land is managed, but they're facing opposition from the B.C. United and B.C. Conservative parties. The Early Edition's political panel invited representatives from all parties to weigh in.

No veto, sayminister and leadership council

The First Nations Leadership Council, which consists of executives from the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said in a news release Feb. 1 that it was concerned about "inaccurate and unhelpful" reactions to the proposed changes.

The release said the changes will not give First Nations a veto over the use of lands and will not immediately alter theexisting land tenure system.

Teegee said the idea this would allowFirst Nations a "veto" isfalseand inflammatory.He said misunderstanding and "fear mongering" have been widespread since the changes wereannounced.

"I think it's a threat to reconciliation and really sets us back in terms of relations with not only governments, with the general society," said Teegee.

Nathan Cullen, B.C. minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, said there is no veto power contained in the proposed amendments.

The amendments to the Land Act haven't been drafted yet. A bill is expected to beintroducedin April.

The current Land Act gives final decision-making powers only to theminister in charge,to issueleases and licences for land use.Cullen said the amendments would bringFirst Nations into the discussion on land use at the same time as the government and allowprovisions in the legislation so they can also sign off on the decision.

Cullen said under the Land Act there are about 40,000 tenures and the government issues about 2,500 a year. These are things like backcountry access permits.

"None of those are impacted by what we're talking about nor are the renewals of those permits," said Cullen.

Clifford Atleo, an assistant professor in environmental management at Simon Fraser University who isNuu-chah-nulthand Tsimshian, said a principle in UNDRIP is the concept offree, prior and informed consent. This has been a subject of debate as to whetherit meansa veto.

"You get all these assurances from government and other people saying 'No, that's not what this is,'" said Atleo.

"If you can't say no, are you really giving consent if you always have to say yes?"

Atleo said part of reconciliation is for Indigenous people to have real authority over their territories,but when small steps are made in this direction there tends to be a lot of public fear and uncertainty.

Atleo said he feels thelegislation won't be "too radical."

"Capitalism is not ending tomorrow," said Atleo.

Different than section 35

The Land Act amendments couldlessen litigationover land disputes because theywould go further than what is required under section 35 of the Constitution, according to Keith Brown, an associate lawyer with Gowling WLG and a member of the Heiltsuk Nation.

Section 35 affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples, spurringthe duty to consult. Under the current Land Act if a decision has the potential to adversely affect the rights of an Indigenous group, the government mustconsult.

However, the government only needs to consider these consultations and ultimately has the decision-making authority. When an Indigenous group wants to fight these decisions, the dispute will often end up before the courts.

"This joint decision-making process, it's essentially a higher bar than consultation," said Brown.

Because the amendments are meant to make the process more predictable,"It also provides more certainty from the perspective of developers or of proponents," said Brown.

"To me, it should be something that is not at all controversial in the era of rights recognition and implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in B.C."

Written submissions on the Land Act amendments are open online until March 31.