Margaret Wente’s May 9 column asks the blunt question the B.C. NDP keeps trying to avoid: who runs B.C.?

The screenshot sent to us shows Wente’s headline and subheadline: British Columbia has ceded unprecedented power to First Nations, the fallout will do lasting damage to the province, and it will hurt Mark Carney’s nation-building plans.

That is not just a provincial argument anymore. It is a national one.

Eby’s B.C. problem is becoming Carney’s Canada problem

Carney talks about building: energy corridors, ports, mines, power lines, housing, infrastructure and major projects. But those projects cannot be built in theory. They have to cross real land, real permitting systems and real provincial legal frameworks.

In B.C., David Eby’s framework is increasingly defined by uncertainty. DRIPA implementation. Secret “shared decision-making” or “consent” negotiations. Court decisions that cast shadows over private property and Crown land. Heritage Conservation Act rewrites. Municipal incorporation processes where local voters discover after the fact that key naming, boundary and consultation questions still sit behind closed doors.

That is the system Wente is pointing at. It is not one file. It is a pattern.

The question is not reconciliation. It is who decides.

B.C. needs reconciliation. B.C. needs consultation. B.C. needs real respect for Aboriginal and treaty rights. None of that requires the NDP to govern by ambiguity.

The public has a right to know what “consent” means. Does it mean consultation? Accommodation? Co-management? A practical veto? A political veto? A legal veto? If a major mine, port, road, subdivision, power line or pipeline is affected, who has final authority and under what written standard?

Those questions are not anti-Indigenous. They are basic governance questions. Investors ask them. Homeowners ask them. Municipalities ask them. Workers ask them. And now national commentators are asking them too.

Why this matters now

  • B.C. is already fighting over DRIPA, private property, land title, Heritage Conservation Act amendments and consent-style governance.
  • Major projects need predictable permitting, clear land-use rules and public confidence.
  • Carney’s federal “build” agenda depends on provinces being able to approve projects without endless uncertainty.
  • Eby’s government still has not given British Columbians a plain public answer on what consent means in practice.

The NDP keeps hiding the roadmap

The Heritage Conservation Act fight shows the same problem. Stakeholders were asked to sign NDAs to see a summary of changes that could affect local governments, builders, miners, contractors and homeowners. Okanagan Falls shows the same problem: voters approved incorporation, then watched naming, boundary and DRIPA questions move through a process they cannot clearly see.

If the NDP’s rules are fair, publish them. If consent is not a veto, define it. If private property is secure, say so in legislation. If major projects can proceed, show the path from application to approval without hidden political choke points.

Until then, Wente’s question hangs over every file in the province.

The bottom line

B.C. cannot run on slogans. Canada cannot build on uncertainty. Eby’s government has created a land-use machine where the public is told to trust the process while the real terms are negotiated out of sight.

That may satisfy activists and insiders. It will not satisfy homeowners, municipalities, workers, investors or anyone trying to build the infrastructure Carney says Canada needs.

Margaret Wente asked the right question: who runs B.C.? The NDP owes British Columbians a straight answer before the next project, property owner or community gets caught in the ditch.