Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Tech Style & Beauty Kitchen & Dining Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentDonna Kennedy-Glans: First Nations are stalling small projects, sidelining other stakeholdersFirst Nations, backed by consultation rules and UNDRIP-inspired policies, are delaying or derailing modest community projectsLast updated 4 hours ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Photo by UN.orgOne unhappy First Nation makes headlines.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorCanadians broadly support reconciliation with First Nations. As Prime Minister Mark Carney often reminds us, we accept the constitutional duty to consult on large-scale nation-building projects — oil and gas pipelines, new mines, and port expansions. But a troubling pattern is spreading: a single First Nation’s objection to more mundane local decisions — usually framed around inadequate consultation or cumulative environmental impacts — now lands in small-town newspaper headlines and can delay or kill modest community projects.Meanwhile, non-Indigenous residents, businesses and recreational users — who form the vast majority of stakeholders — can find themselves sidelined.This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againTwo stories from small-town papers illustrate the growing tension.In British Columbia’s Columbia Valley, the Akisqnuk First Nation has called for an immediate suspension of all shoreline development on Lake Windermere and Columbia Lake. The band — roughly 379 members as of 2019, with only about 100 living locally on the reserve — wants an Indigenous-led stewardship plan before any new docks, marinas, dredging, boat launches or shoreline projects can proceed.The Columbia Valley Pioneer has covered the issue in detail, highlighting the Nation’s position that cumulative impacts from boating and development threaten the lakes’ long-term ecological health.The Columbia Valley Boating Association, representing thousands of property owners, boaters, and businesses, pushed back hard. In its April 2026 letter to the provincial minister, the group questioned how such a small contingent could effectively impose governance over two major lakes affecting tens of thousands of other stakeholders.It spelled out the real-world consequences: routine maintenance permits stalled, investment frozen by uncertainty, and a process that excludes the very people who pay the taxes, own the waterfront property and depend on the lakes for recreation and livelihoods.An editorial in the Pioneer captured the tension well — acknowledging the environmental urgency while insisting one voice must not unilaterally control shared resources.Hundreds of kilometres away in Alberta’s Kananaskis Country, a similar pattern is emerging. Late in 2025, the province designated Fortress Mountain as one of three new all-season resort areas, clearing the path for hotels, gondolas and year-round tourism infrastructure that promises significant economic benefits for the region.Yet in February 2026, Bearspaw First Nation — one of the three bands comprising the Stoney Nakoda — wrote to Alberta’s Ministry of Tourism and Sport expressing deep disappointment. According to the Rocky Mountain Outlook, the Nation had not been consulted on the environmental assessment or master plan released earlier that year.“It is more than disappointing that Bearspaw First Nation was not given the capacity or asked to provide input,” the letter stated. It further argued that the assessment omitted Indigenous traditional knowledge, which the Nation called “critical for a holistic assessment,” and failed to consider cumulative effects. Provincial officials have since confirmed that formal consultation with Treaty 7 First Nations is underway and that no decisions will proceed without it.These are not isolated cases. Local newspapers across Canada increasingly carry similar headlines: a proposed marina upgrade challenged, a housing-density bylaw opposed on asserted traditional territory, or a dock-management plan igniting what some have dubbed a “dock war” on the Sunshine Coast.I’ve previously written about how the B.C. NDP government under Premier David Eby remains trapped by its own policies. By embedding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into provincial law through DRIPA, the province has effectively granted significant leverage — often described as a de facto veto — over development on claimed territories. Across the rest of Canada, the Supreme Court’s rulings on the duty to consult set the national standard.No serious observer disputes the need to address historical wrongs, the value of Indigenous environmental stewardship and traditional knowledge, or the legitimate rights held by First Nations.Yet the implementation of these rights too often produces disproportionate outcomes. A small or mid-sized First Nation — or even one band within a larger nation — can leverage consultation requirements to demand moratoriums or halt projects. The process rarely requires equivalent input from the broader public whose taxes fund infrastructure, whose businesses depend on development, and whose recreational access is curtailed.Every objection becomes a headline — “First Nation voices concerns” — creating the impression of a de facto veto even though courts have repeatedly ruled that consultation does not equal consent. Investors hesitate. Municipalities pause. Small projects that would barely register nationally grind to a halt while lawyers negotiate timelines and accommodations.Some industry colleagues and local stakeholders have gone further, privately describing elements of the process as verging on “extortion” — where the mere threat of prolonged consultation or legal challenge extracts concessions, major design changes, or payments unrelated to a project’s actual merits. Whether or not that characterization is fair, it reflects a growing frustration that the system can reward delay over good-faith negotiation.The imbalance is not abstract. In the Columbia Valley, boaters and cottage owners wonder why routine repairs to public boat launches sit in limbo. In Kananaskis, a tourism project that could create jobs lingers in consultation. Across the country, First Nations themselves report being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of consultation requests — clear proof the system strains everyone.Reconciliation cannot mean paralysis. Meaningful consultation is essential, but it must be proportionate, time-bound, and inclusive of all affected parties.Canadians support reconciliation. What we cannot afford is a framework that privileges one stakeholder’s concerns above the collective public interest. Local voices in places like the Columbia Valley and Kananaskis are not asking to roll back rights — they are asking for balance. Our governments should listen before more modest dreams of development are quietly shelved.National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.