As Canada’s political leaders warn of mounting threats to national sovereignty, British Columbia’s government is surrendering core provincial powers without treaties, court mandates, or democratic consent, all in the name of reconciliation.
External pressures on Canada are real, but internal disorder within our own borders magnifies the risk. As former Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently warned, Canada must unite “against external forces that threaten our independence and against domestic policies that threaten our unity.”
What does it say of our unity, let alone our sovereignty, when Premier David Eby and his government refer to the province as “stolen lands” and “unceded territory?”
Those phrases reveal political intent. But what is far more consequential is the legal language that implements it: giving up provincial authority, the BC government has conferred “jurisdictional control,” “territorial authority,” and “exclusive decision-making powers” to First Nations across British Columbia.
These are not the aspirational slogans of Alberta separatists or Quebec sovereigntists. They are terms now appearing in land-use agreements that have begun restructuring governance in the province. The terms aim to split or cede control of our public resources and democratic processes to groups without a duty or accountability to the public interest.
Such language is included in Ottawa’s recent acknowledgment of Aboriginal title within Musqueam’s claimed territory, spanning Vancouver, Burnaby, and much of the Lower Mainland, with authority extending into environmental stewardship, marine and fisheries management.
The Rights Recognition Agreement flirts with the concept of Indigenous sovereignty, stating “Musqueam laws and legal orders, grounded in our snəw̓eyəɬ now exist alongside and independently of Canada’s legal system,” that “legal pluralism is not frozen in time,” and that Musqueam intend “to restore to our own use sufficient traditional resources to enable us and our descendants to live as distinct and independent people in our own land.”
Weakening BC’s sovereignty no less treasonous than AB separatism
Sovereignty means British Columbia’s ultimate legal and democratic authority to govern the province and its Crown land through elected institutions. That authority can be constrained by constitutional Aboriginal rights. It may be shaped by treaties and clarified by the courts. But it cannot be unilaterally reallocated through secretive side-deals.
It’s hard to see how arbitrarily altering the sovereignty of the state without a mandate differs, in principle, from the very “treason” Premier Eby has accused Alberta separatists of pursuing.
Beyond the constitutional implications lies a direct threat to Crown land, which underpins British Columbia’s prosperity. Crown land is not private property. It is public land held and managed in the public interest. It sustains forestry, mining, energy, agriculture, tourism, recreation, fuelling our economy and shaping the way of life unique to this province.
Revenue from these sectors funds core public services like healthcare, which already consumes 41 per cent of B.C.’s budget. Yet even industries under strain, such as forestry, are being directed toward new “nation-to-nation” co-governance models.
A recent forestry review recommends Indigenous groups co-develop provincial policy and lead local land use decisions across 100 or more community planning boards. The province has not yet committed to implementing the recommendations but the co-author of the study said the model should incorporate the eventual transfer of statutory decision-making to Indigenous groups, as espoused by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).
‘Inherent bias’ in co-governance system
For anyone who has been paying close attention, it’s clear where the BC government’s reconciliation agenda is headed.
When the BC cabinet and First Nations Leadership Council met last November “Tahltan leadership shared clear messages with the Province,” including the need “to embed consent-based and shared decision-making across all resource, land, and environmental governance systems.”
Despite promises otherwise, this new governance structure splits or shifts policy and statutory decision-making away from the province and hands it to Indigenous bodies to redraw public land use as they see fit, leaving an unpredictable, unrecognizable process in its place.
Up in the northwest, Brixton Metals urged the BC government to address the “inherent bias” of having an Indigenous group with a vested interest in mining projects co-developing a plan to govern them. “Failure to address this perceived impartiality undermines democratic principles and erodes investor confidence,” stated the company in a letter to BC Premier David Eby, his cabinet and others.
Investors are openly warning that political and jurisdictional instability makes Canada an unattractive place to build major infrastructure. As Enbridge CEO Gregory Ebel recently put it, “I don’t think investors or the infrastructure companies should be taking on the risk of development in jurisdictions that have historically created a challenge.”
When capital walks away, so do jobs, royalties and the tax base that funds public services.
Yet recent policy reports now recommend removing government oversight in favour of deeper “collaboration with First Nations to design governance structures that respect Indigenous Rights and Title.”
Comparable erosion of provincial oversight is also taking place across core areas of land and resource management, including park and road access, provincial infrastructure, mining, hunting, fishing, and even the freedom of movement throughout the province.
British Columbia is negotiating away its authority, access, and lands, one consent agreement at a time, without having been conquered, partitioned, or required by the courts to do so. And it is doing so largely outside public view.
Parallel governance structure raises many questions
In a January press conference, Deputy Premier Niki Sharma spoke of working “Nation to Nation” and “recognizing Tahltan jurisdiction, Tahltan knowledge and Tahltan decision-making” within their sovereign territory. What was billed as a mine announcement instead sounded like the recognition of a parallel governing structure within the province.
Tahltan claim 11 per cent of the province as its territory. But the group does not have a treaty or court-determined Aboriginal title. Constitutional Aboriginal rights exist, and proven title must be respected. But sweeping claims of territorial control and governing jurisdiction over Crown land go well beyond anything the Constitution grants or the courts have recognized.
The Haida Rising Tide agreement was unprecedented. The province negotiated recognition of Aboriginal title over one million hectares of asserted territory. Then it helped secretly enshrine the title in constitutional law, leaving private property owned by non-indigenous residents protected only by a non-binding civil contract. The negotiated agreement is Premier Eby’s template for land use agreements going forward.
If this model defines British Columbia’s future, basic democratic questions arise.
What governance structure applies to non-Indigenous residents, and who represents them?
Would voting rights mirror the Haida model, where only ethnic Haida band members can participate in certain governing bodies?
Will negotiated recognition of Aboriginal title over private property become the norm in asserted territory?
What protections remain for private property owners, considering recent title cases such as Cowichan Tribes, which recognized Aboriginal title over fee simple property?
Only one ‘nation’ can retain sovereignty in the same jurisdiction
With First Nations in British Columbia now co-drafting legislation and shaping legal exceptions, it is becoming increasingly clear who holds decision-making power. And it’s not the province.
The position of the BC Assembly of First Nations is explicit. It hinges on the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, in particular, that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”
Meaning Aboriginal title is asserted and does not have to meet the much more onerous constitutional legal test of occupancy to prove title.
Indigenous leadership dismisses the province’s governing authority over Crown land as “purported” and describes its own jurisdiction as paramount rather than shared, a significant misalignment with provincial claims of “partnership” and “co-management.”
When one side asserts primacy, the other cannot retain sovereignty.
British Columbia needs a reset
Reconciliation is not a licence to dismantle institutional decision-making and democratic process, never mind without British Columbians’ consent.
Our province needs a reset. One that protects Aboriginal rights, private property and the rule of law at the same time.
Modern treaties negotiated among federal, provincial and Indigenous governments remain the established path. They have a legal foundation, a democratic mandate and a proven track record. If anything, that process requires more commitment and resources, not circumvention.
Anything less is not reconciliation.