Marking 20 years
of bold journalism,
reader supported.
Opinion
Indigenous
Rights + Justice
BC Election 2024
BC Politics

Why Rustad’s Reckless Indigenous Policy Would Be Disastrous

A Green MLA says the Conservative leader’s approach is wrong, costly and economically destructive.

Adam Olsen 25 Jul 2024The Tyee

Adam Olsen is BC Green Party MLA for Saanich North and the Islands and a member of Tsartlip First Nation.

I sat next to BC Conservative Leader John Rustad in the legislative chamber for the past several months, our desks side-by-side.

I had a front row seat and watched him work closely. He showed up for question period, asked a sharply worded, social media optimized question about the “radical BC NDP” and then disappeared.

In recent months, as the BC Conservatives rose in popularity, they were completely absent from the serious debates. The Hansard record shows Rustad’s BC Conservatives consistently offered few responses to government bills, no substantive debate during budget estimates and were invisible on committee work.

It was clear to me that Rustad was there for the spectacle and trying to score rhetorical points, rather than being serious about the public policy he kicked dirt on in question period.

His brand of spectacle-driven politics is particularly reckless. And there is no clearer example than his approach to Crown-Indigenous policy, which is so backward it is similar in many ways to the approach of B.C.’s first post-Confederation lieutenant-governor, the oft-maligned — deservedly — Joseph Trutch.

Earlier this year, Rustad proposed to repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA. The act affirms the basic human rights of Indigenous people. It creates economic certainty and social stability by focusing Crown policy on negotiation rather than litigation as the way to solve British Columbia’s central conflict — the Indigenous land question. As a BC Liberal Rustad voted to pass the act.

Rustad’s approach is an absurd 153-year throwback to Trutch’s treacherous denial of Aboriginal title, which became the cornerstone of Crown-Indigenous policy for decades.

The plan to adopt a policy in 2024 that denies Aboriginal title is simply not workable or fiscally prudent.

Currently, Aboriginal title in B.C. is advancing one of two ways: through litigation in the courts; and/or through negotiation at the table between the Crown and Indigenous governments. Rustad’s preference to drag us back to the 1870s is morally reprehensible, socially virulent and the path to economic ruin.

In court, the Crown defends its position of denying Aboriginal title through a perverse argument that the Indigenous group did not exist on the land.

Taxpayers who fund the Crown’s defence should pay close attention because they consistently lose these costly cases. The process, and the decisions, create economic uncertainty and unpredictable social cost. The arguments create toxic relationships and unnecessary challenges for reaching a solution.

Over decades we have spent tens of millions of dollars fighting Indigenous people in court and losing. Is that how you want your tax dollars spent? Also, do not lose sight of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that there is liability — money damages owed — when the Crown infringes Aboriginal title.

The liability exists and accumulates whether title has been proven in court or not. So, despite what Rustad wants you to believe, everyday we fight in court and do not resolve the land question, the costs go up and the burden carried by the taxpayer becomes increasingly unmanageable.

Alternatively, recognizing Aboriginal title and negotiating agreements across the table is prudent governance and is what judges have been recommending that politicians do for decades. It creates a positive feeling between governing partners who set shared values and root implementation in resilient relationships.

Trutch’s policy of denial of Aboriginal title created a legacy of dependence of Indigenous governments on Crown governments for program funding, grants, and one-off benefits agreements.

The Crown’s strict control over land and all financial resources obstructed Indigenous leaders from accessing the capital they needed to invest in their communities and regions.

Trutch’s racist policy led to catastrophic outcomes for Indigenous people. It has cost British Columbians billions with no resolution of the Indigenous land question.

Like Trutch, Rustad’s comments turn the public against Indigenous people.

While this has been a successful strategy in the past, the legal landscape has changed significantly. While he may harvest short-term political gain, in the long term Rustad’s policy is devastating for British Columbia.

Whose Indigenous land policy sounds better? Rustad channelling Trutch leading us down a path to social and economic bankruptcy?

Or an exorcism of Trutch’s racist policy and a new thoughtful, respectful reconciliation of our long-standing liability at the negotiating table, all British Columbians benefiting from the economic advantages of well-resourced Indigenous communities in collaborative relationships with Crown, local and regional governments?  [Tyee]

  • Share:

Get The Tyee's Daily Catch, our free daily newsletter.

Tyee Commenting Guidelines

Comments that violate guidelines risk being deleted, and violations may result in a temporary or permanent user ban. Maintain the spirit of good conversation to stay in the discussion and be patient with moderators. Comments are reviewed regularly but not in real time.

Do:

  • Be thoughtful about how your words may affect the communities you are addressing. Language matters
  • Keep comments under 250 words
  • Challenge arguments, not commenters
  • Flag trolls and guideline violations
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity, learn from differences of opinion
  • Verify facts, debunk rumours, point out logical fallacies
  • Add context and background
  • Note typos and reporting blind spots
  • Stay on topic

Do not:

  • Use sexist, classist, racist, homophobic or transphobic language
  • Ridicule, misgender, bully, threaten, name call, troll or wish harm on others or justify violence
  • Personally attack authors, contributors or members of the general public
  • Spread misinformation or perpetuate conspiracies
  • Libel, defame or publish falsehoods
  • Attempt to guess other commenters’ real-life identities
  • Post links without providing context

Most Popular

Most Commented

Most Emailed

LATEST STORIES

The Barometer

Will the Carbon Tax Survive?

Take this week's poll