Is Reconciliation Going Too Far in BC?

Reconciliation is now one of the central commitments guiding the British Columbia government.

It influences land-use planning, resource development, provincial legislation, public access, and agreements between the Crown and First Nations.

That commitment responds to a real history. First Nations were dispossessed of their territories, excluded from decisions affecting their lands, and forced to spend generations fighting for recognition of their rights.

The question is not whether reconciliation is necessary.

It is whether British Columbia has adequately explained what reconciliation means, how far it extends, and what the province will look like once its objectives have been achieved.

In my conversation with Warren Mirko, executive director of the Public Land Use Society, he argued that governments are changing how public land is governed without bringing British Columbians into the discussion.

“The public is on the side looking at this, going, it seems like the province is being renegotiated with us in the back room,” he said.

British Columbia adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, known as DRIPA, to align provincial laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

UNDRIP calls for free, prior, and informed consent when decisions affect Indigenous peoples and their territories.

The principle responds to a long history in which governments made decisions about Indigenous lands without meaningfully involving the people who lived there.

However, Mirko believes the province is moving beyond consultation toward consent-based governance without adequately explaining where Crown authority ends and Indigenous authority begins.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides for consent for First Nations on claimed territory before projects of provincial or national significance move ahead,” he argued.

His concern is that a territorial claim may increasingly be treated as though it already carries powers similar to proven Aboriginal title.

That distinction matters.

A First Nation may have strong historical evidence connecting it to a territory. But until title is established through a court decision or defined through a treaty, neighbouring First Nations, governments, and members of the public may disagree about the extent of that territory and the authority that should accompany it.

Supporters view DRIPA as a way to avoid decades of expensive litigation and begin treating First Nations as governing partners.

Critics fear it is creating a parallel system of authority without resolving how that system interacts with the Constitution.

Mirko’s strongest criticism is directed at the government’s lack of transparency.

Governments and First Nations need confidentiality when negotiating. They cannot realistically publish every legal position, financial proposal, or compromise under consideration.

But the public should know when the fundamental governance of land is being reconsidered.

“If government really wanted to share this information with the public, there’s nothing stopping them from doing it,” Mirko said.

British Columbians should be told which territories are involved, what form of authority is being discussed, and whether an agreement could affect public access, private interests, resource development, or municipal decision-making.

Instead, Mirko argues that the public is often invited to comment only after the direction of an agreement has already been determined.

“There’s no way the public can change the direction or course of what’s happening in the province,” he said.

Poor communication does not only harm public confidence. It can also harm First Nations.

When governments announce complicated agreements without clear maps, explanations, or legal context, Indigenous communities can be left defending confusion they did not create.

Public frustration may then be directed toward First Nations rather than the provincial and federal governments responsible for making the process understandable.

British Columbia has more than 200 distinct First Nations with different territories, resources, populations, and political interests.

Some have access to valuable mines, forests, ports, or development opportunities. Others have much smaller territories and limited economic prospects.

Mirko is concerned that governments are concentrating attention on the largest or best-resourced First Nations.

He described the province as “selecting preferred First Nations to deal with” through agreements negotiated outside the treaty or title process.

An agreement with one nation may provide revenue, authority, or economic opportunity. It may also affect the unresolved claims of neighbouring nations that were not included.

Mirko warned that this approach could deepen inequality between First Nations.

“It’s not fair what’s happening right now, and there’s no mechanism to distribute that wealth equally among First Nations,” he said.

Reconciliation cannot be measured only by the number of agreements governments sign.

It should be measured by whether Indigenous people experience better housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, economic opportunity, cultural security, and functioning governments.

The results matter more than the process.

Mirko’s central question is whether reconciliation is intended to resolve disputes or become a permanent process without measurable goals.

“Is reconciliation meant to go on with no end?” he asked. “I don’t think so.”

An endpoint does not mean Indigenous rights disappear. First Nations and Crown governments will always need to work together on land, services, resources, taxation, and environmental protection.

But foundational disputes should be capable of resolution.

British Columbians should eventually know which government controls which land, how authority is shared, how private property is protected, how revenues are distributed, and what happens when governments disagree.

Treaties are intended to provide that certainty. Yet many First Nations cannot obtain the mandates, resources, or political attention required to complete them.

Governments cannot tell First Nations to pursue treaties while allowing treaty negotiations to remain stalled for generations.

They also cannot replace treaties with a collection of confidential agreements and expect the public to accept changes it does not understand.

Recognizing Indigenous rights is not going too far.

Giving First Nations a meaningful role in decisions affecting their territories is not going too far.

Governments go wrong when they negotiate major changes without explaining the consequences, dismiss legitimate questions, or treat the continuation of reconciliation as evidence that it is succeeding.

Mirko’s warning is ultimately about public trust.

“I think they’re not going to tolerate it for much longer,” he said. “That’s where I get really worried about the future public discourse and reconciliation.”

Reconciliation should bring greater certainty, stronger Indigenous communities, and better relationships between people.

It should not leave First Nations and the wider public more suspicious of one another.

British Columbia needs to explain where reconciliation is going, how success will be measured, and what the province is supposed to look like when its most important disputes have finally been resolved.