First Nations are good land partners

Re: Vaughn Palmer: NDP face major selling job on their changes to the Land Act

Vaughn Palmer misses the most important points on proposed changes to the Land Act and the associated Angus Reid poll. Whether many of those polled about the proposed Land Act changes realize it or not, the Supreme Court of Canada has already settled the main issue in the Tsilhqot'in decision (2014) when it awarded the Tsilhqot'in Nation Indigenous title to 1,700 square kilometres of land.

The decision recognized that the provincial government had exceeded its authority when it granted forestry licences without consultation with the First Nation.

After 25 years of a court process and huge expenses on both sides, the court made it clear that the Tsilhqot'in had a right to be involved in deciding about activities on their land.

People and companies that want certainty with regard to ownership and decisions about what can and cannot be done on the land should welcome changes that will ensure that First Nations are involved in land use decisions before the fact rather than after plans and investments have been made and the courts are involved. Instead of fear mongering about First Nations' supposed power to “veto,” people concerned with the proposed changes should be looking at co-management models that already exist. The Squamish Nation, for example, is in a virtual co-management relationship with the province over the proposed Woodfibre LNG project. The involvement of the nation, which included a Squamish-led environmental review, resulted in improvements to the environmental footprint of the proposed facility. It has been good for everyone, including the public at large, should the project proceed. The Tahltan Nation is already co-managing mining within its territory. Their territory continues to be home to productive and profitable mines. The Haida Nation is operating a successful partnership with the federal government to manage Gwaii Haanas National Park and has been for almost 30 years. There are many others. Doesn't it make sense to involve those who care most about the land and have lived on it the longest to be involved in making decisions that may affect it into the foreseeable future?

People should be looking at how well many co-management arrangements are working before speculating that there is something to be afraid of. Reconciliation is going to involve some changes for everyone, thank goodness. But reconciliation is going to be a very painful and drawn out process if every suggested change is greeted by fear and skepticism.

Mark Selman, founding director (ret.) EMBA program in Indigenous business and leadership, Beedie School of Business, West Vancouver