Indigenous Minister says call for public registry is ‘fear-mongering’
Should British Columbians homeowners know if where they live is subject to an Aboriginal title claim?
It doesn’t sound like a controversial question, in theory anyway. But, in B.C.’s current political dynamic, where everything to do with Indigenous reconciliation has become a lighting rod, it was a tense matter of debate at the legislature this week.
Opposition Conservative MLA Scott McInnis introduced a private members bill to mandate government publicly disclose any Aboriginal title claims, notify residents affected, and report out annually on the situation.
“I just see this as a really clear step towards that transparency with the public,” said McInnis.
“Hopefully it leads to increased communication between First Nations and the public with their claims of Aboriginal title, so there can be discussions made as far as what the intent is and what the geographical scope of the title claim area is.”
The B.C. government has refused to answer how many active Aboriginal title claims are currently filed against the Crown in the province.
The administration of Premier David Eby is treading lightly on the issue. Because controversy continues to swirl around last year’s BC Supreme Court decision which recognized Cowichan Nation title over around 800 acres of land in Richmond. The court also ruled Aboriginal title was superior to fee-simple private property rights.
Private Richmond landowners affected by the Cowichan claim were not alerted to the multi-year court proceeding, denying them the opportunity to participate. Eby said residents should have been told, though his government also could have chosen to do so at any point in the nearly 10-years-long court case.
“I think what we saw in Richmond, and what I heard from a lot of people in that claim area at town halls and speaking with individuals, is that they were quite blindsided by that decision,” said McInnis.
“This [bill] just allows for increased communication and that open dialog between government nations and the public.”
Minister rejects need for public registry of Aboriginal title claims
Part of McInnis’s bill would establish a free public online registry of active Aboriginal title claims, as well as alert affected local governments so they could inform local residents.
Indigenous Relations Minister Spencer Chandra-Herbert said “private property is off the table” on Aboriginal title claims — though legal experts remain divided over whether that is actually the case.
“While I will always take suggestions for ways we can improve our work, to suggest that people’s private property is being put up for negotiation is just fear mongering, and wrong, and the MLA knows it,” he said, responding to McInnis’s bill.
Richmond council calls on Cowichan for ‘legally binding’ renunciation of private property claim
New Democrats found themselves on the defensive over multiple parts of the Indigenous reconciliation file this week, of which McInnis’s bill was only one part.
Richmond council passed a resolution to ask the Cowichan Nation to “renounce in a form that is legally binding any claim to private property in Richmond arising out of the recent Court ruling regarding Aboriginal Title.”
The request was put into a letter by Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie, who said a recent joint statement by Cowichan and the B.C. government that neither is seeking to invalidate privately held fee simple titles through negotiations or the court appeal, is insufficient.
Eby said the joint statement accomplishes the same thing.
“It’s important for British Columbians to understand we will not use private property as a bargaining chip in negotiations like this, full stop period,” said Eby.
The debate over Richmond’s letter spilled over into question period Wednesday, where Richmond-Queensborough MLA Steve Kooner, whose riding includes the area in question, asked government to commit to Richmond council’s request.
Attorney General Niki Sharma accused Kooner of fear-mongering by raising the issue, and described Richmond as generally supportive of the government’s approach.
“This is how we are going to get through this issue, working together to solve these very complicated issues,” she said. “It’s not the approach from the other side, which is to demonize First Nations people, spread fear and misinformation for political points and not arrive at any concrete examples of how to solve the issue.”
The comment drew cries of ‘Shame’ from BC Conservatives, but got New Democrats clapping in the house. Outside the legislature, government MLAs faced a different reaction from the public on how they’re handling the issue.
Most British Columbians think DRIPA goes ‘too far’
A new Angus Reid poll on Wednesday found 53 per cent of respondents felt the NDP’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People Act (DRIPA) goes “too far,” an increase of nine percentage points since August.
“There is a significant concern among the public following a couple of major court decisions, and I have to say, I share the concern,” said Eby, when asked about the survey.
The premier reiterated a pledge he first made in December to bring in amendments to DRIPA to address a BC Court of Appeal ruling that said DRIPA can be used to challenge and strike down other laws.
“We are having to move quickly to make amendments in order to address some serious legal liabilities that were created by the province through the court decision,” said Eby. “Nobody is excited about this process. Certainly I’m not, and First Nations leadership are not.”
Premier’s proposal to suspend aspects of DRIPA draws criticism
However, the next day, Eby backtracked on that commitment, proposing a plan to introduce amendments that will instead suspend aspects of DRIPA that leave government vulnerable to legal challenge.
First Nations leaders publicly criticized Eby for the proposed suspension amendments, and previously opposed making changes at all. Some have promisied to challenge any amendments in court, raising the prospect of additional years of legal battles.
“To say that indigenous leadership is enthusiastic about any change would be a total misstatement — they are not,” said Eby earlier.
“And so it has been a challenging conversation, but it is non-negotiable for the provincial government.”
Opposition Trevor Halford called the proposed suspension “a political move” that will bring “prolonged instability” that delays a solution and pushes accountability beyond the next provincial election, legislated for the fall of 2028.
Halford said the fact the government has so far failed to introduce any amendments is a failure of the government and the backtrack is an admission it has lost control of the situation.
“This government has hit the panic button,” he said.
Political panic. A defining feature right now in B.C.’s political arena, when it comes to the issue of private property, DRIPA and Indigenous reconciliation.