Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, April 23, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 162

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Tributes

Cecilia Dick DeRose

Lorne Doerkson

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act (continued)

Amna Shah

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Claire Rattée

Hon. Christine Boyle

Donegal Wilson

Rohini Arora

Lynne Block

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act (continued)

Lynne Block

Rob Botterell

Stephanie Higginson

Linda Hepner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions (continued)

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Adrian Dix

David Williams

Scott McInnis

Thursday, April 23, 2026

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Cecilia Dick DeRose

Lorne Doerkson : Today I rise, sadly, to honour the life of a remarkable woman, Cecilia DeRose. She

passed away, sadly, on April 8, 2026.

Cecilia was deeply respected as an Elder in our community. She was a tireless advocate

for the preservation and renewal of Indigenous language, culture and traditional knowledge

across the interior of British Columbia.

Her life was rooted in the land. Those who knew her would often find her out in the

wilderness picking berries, gathering pine needles or carefully collecting birch bark

for the traditional baskets that she so beautifully created.

Cecilia’s greatest gift was not only the knowledge that she carried but it was the

knowledge that she shared. She generously taught the traditions, values and skills

of Indigenous Peoples to anyone who wished to learn them. Her children, her grandchildren

and great-grandchildren were constant companions in that learning, and through them,

her teachings will continue for generations.

Her influence extended far beyond the family, reaching classrooms and communities

throughout the region, where she mentored and guided countless people. In recognition

of her extraordinary contributions, Cecilia was named the Indspire laureate in 2018,

an honour she held very close to her heart.

In 2023, the Thompson Rivers University awarded her an honorary doctorate of letters,

acknowledging a lifetime devoted to cultural knowledge and education. Education was

profoundly important to Cecilia. This was reflected in the recent release of her book,

One Arrow Left , which continues to share her wisdom and story to others.

Cecilia DeRose leaves behind a powerful legacy — one of culture, teaching and connection

to the land. Her impact will be felt for generations. She was loved by so many. I’ve

had conversations with people like Dan Peron and with friends from the rodeo world

that have shared that she was like a mother to them as they rodeoed across this province,

not to mention that she was an amazing doctor on the side.

She is survived by DeeDee Mobs; Charlene Ostrom; Leonard DeRose; Denny DeRose; and,

of course, David DeRose, who is the self-professed favourite son of the family. He’s

a great friend of mine.

On behalf of this House, I extend my deepest condolences to her family, friends and

all of those whose lives she touched. May we all remember and honour the teachings

she so generously shared.

[1:05 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I call second reading on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act, in the chamber.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of

Energy and Climate Solutions.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

(continued)

Amna Shah : I’m pleased to continue debate on Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act. Just picking up….

Maybe I can just briefly summarize where I left off in discussing how important this

bill is to deliver real and measurable outcomes, not just for the K’ómoks First Nation

but for the surrounding region and for British Columbia as a whole.

I’ve talked about how important it is to ensure that it supports and delivers a stronger

economy in the region — higher wages; better partnerships with First Nations, with

non-Indigenous communities — really serving as a foundational aspect of all of those

positive outcomes that it can bring.

I just want to briefly reflect. We had a solemn commemorative event in the Hall of

Honour today, which really reflected on the dangers of what can happen when hatred

is unchecked in our communities and the unimaginable loss and the outcome of an immeasurable

pain that lasts for generations to come. It all starts with words that are uttered

by somebody or people who can’t stand the thought of promoting the success of not

just their neighbour but of their entire community. Unfortunately, we had to hear

some of those words in this chamber today.

As I reflect on the commemoration that we witnessed today, we do use the words that

we will not forget. And that’s why this treaty act is going through this chamber right

now. It is because it respects the history. It acknowledges that none of us here would

be here if not for that history. So whatever rights or wrongs that may have happened

in the past, it is our obligation to at least recognize and acknowledge what happened,

where we are and what we can do better.

This bill is the definition of what we can do better. It doesn’t end with this bill.

It continues. And it continues to adapt to changing times, to changing circumstances.

That is important because we know that things that prevent our prosperity in this

province are things like racism — things or concepts that harm other people because

of their identity, that prevent the prosperity of this province by saying, “No, no,

no, you can’t give them special treatment” but forgetting the fact that none of this

is about special treatment. It’s about an obligation that we all have to the people

of this province, and that includes the K’ómoks First Nation.

[1:10 p.m.]

When we address things like racism, hurtful words, harmful rhetoric, we are affirming

that commitment that we will continue on with introducing bills just like this for

the benefit of all communities in our province. How does that work? Over the 30 years

which led to this point, there was a listening to Indigenous voices, there was a respecting

of the cultures and the rights, a challenging of the harmful assumptions that somehow

certain people are treated better than others.

All of that happened because you can’t just work together to get to a better place,

in a vacuum, without addressing some of the harmful rhetoric that exists in our communities.

Those two things go hand in hand. That is crucial. It is necessary for building trust.

Within that 30 years, I can imagine — actually, I can’t imagine, but I can assume

— that there have been ups, there have been downs, but none of that led to a place

in which communication collapsed.

That’s why we’re here today, because it works. Some people…. Having this happen over

the course of such a long period of time, it’s significant, because treaties are complex.

They’re complex, but they’re also not final settlements that close the door on any

future discussions. They’re living agreements. They’re designed to evolve over time,

to adapt, to support ongoing relationships.

We see it in the treaty’s provisions for governance and for cooperation, and we see

it in the use of side agreements that allow flexibility in the implementation. We

see it in practical arrangements like the K’ómoks estuary consent agreement. This

particular agreement established a consent-based decision-making process for certain

land use decisions in areas that have deep ecological and cultural significance.

It’s accountable. It’s transparent. And it reflects a modern approach to shared stewardship,

because it is everybody’s responsibility in this province to ensure that we uphold

that. That is what reconciliation looks like in practice. We are witness to that today.

It’s not symbolic. It’s not abstract. It’s concrete. It’s detailed, grounded in real-world

outcomes.

Some may actually ask: “Why does this process take so long?” The answer is simple.

It respects the history of this country, and it matters. Treaties, as I said, are

complex. They address land, governance, resources, culture, economic development.

They require extensive engagement, careful negotiation and commitment to get the details

right, but the length of the process should not be confused with lack of progress.

What we’re seeing here is the result of a sustained effort and a clear path forward.

I want to return to the choice that is ahead of us as we debate the principles of

Bill 20, because that’s what we’re doing here in second reading. Either we can continue

with uncertainty, with unresolved claims, with relationships that are defined by conflict

and by lack of trust, or we can continue to move forward with clarity, with cooperation,

with collaboration, with agreements that recognize — recognize, not give — the rights,

respect communities and create opportunities for everybody in this region.

[1:15 p.m.]

The K’ómoks Treaty Act chooses that latter path. It’s about building stronger relationships.

It’s about creating stability and certainty. It’s about ensuring that reconciliation

is not just a concept. It’s not a goal. It’s not just something that we talk about

but a reality that we deliver. We have an opportunity to do that in this chamber.

As we go through this debate, I would hope that all members in this chamber will engage

in respectful debate. A bill like this is the only way for us to move forward. It

really is. We cannot live in the past of the harm that has been done to Indigenous

communities all across this province. We cannot engage in rhetoric in this House.

For the sake of our province, please.

Injustice to one people is injustice to all peoples. I will say, I had a very brief

lunch today because I wasn’t really hungry anymore after the session this morning.

But as we ended our break, I thought to myself: “You know what? I can dwell on the

words that were uttered in this chamber, but I’m not going to.”

I’m not going to because I’m going to look to the future. I’m going to encourage every

member in this House to look for a path forward together — together with Indigenous

communities; together with each other; together, in this case, with the K’ómoks First

Nation — because a few people’s hatred does not define us as a province. It never

will. As long as we are on this side of the House, it will not.

We will not do that by casting aspersions on people. No. We will do that by returning

ourselves to the basic principles and values of being human, what it means to be human,

a good human. I really cannot not stand here and ask for that, plead for that from

everybody in this chamber. I cannot not do that. It is my responsibility. It’s my

obligation.

I hope that members and people who are listening today will use today’s events as

an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to each other, to all of the Indigenous

Peoples in this province, that there is a brighter future for all of us together,

hand in hand. We will discuss. We will collaborate. We will respect. And we will ensure

that we will not stand for the types of harmful rhetoric that we heard in this House

today — not yesterday, not now, not tomorrow, not ever. That is my commitment to all

of British Columbians in this province and to the K’ómoks First Nation.

I urge every member in this House to support the K’ómoks Treaty Act and work together

to deliver the type of province that we all want for each other.

Kiel Giddens : Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act. I have

listened intently to the arguments made from the members opposite, from the government.

I’ve listened intently to the arguments made from the critics on this side of the

House, from the very reasonable arguments put forward by the member for Nechako Lakes

and the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[1:20 p.m.]

I have to say that the comments from the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream

are deplorable. They were meant to incite hatred, and it has to be called out each

and every time. It’s disrespectful for the people of the K’ómoks Nation, for all First

Nations and for many minority cultures who have been oppressed throughout the ages.

I am going to take a different path. I’m going to return to order and decorum and

respectful dialogue on this bill, and I’m going to do that for the people in this

room today and for the people who are not in this room. I think that’s important.

We owe them that.

I want to begin by acknowledging the decades of work undertaken by the K’ómoks First

Nation, their leadership and their community, to reach this point of discussion we’re

at today. Treaty negotiations, as we know, are not simple. They require persistence

across generations, leadership and difficult conversations within communities and

with governments. The work undertaken by K’ómoks reflects their commitment to governance,

to economic participation and, indeed, to reconciliation. That work deserves recognition

in this House. I commend them for that work.

I want to acknowledge that on March 8, 2025, eligible voters of K’ómoks Nation approved

the K’ómoks treaty with 81 percent voting in favour. I also want to acknowledge Chief

Nicole Rempel for her role as Chief and for speaking to this House. I want to acknowledge

those that attended when Bill 20 was introduced, including the Elders and the young

people. I appreciated the cultural celebration of the day, as I know many other members

did.

Treaties are a long and, most would say, winding road, and I know this particular

treaty has been the subject of many years of discussion in the region. I know the

previous speaker had touched on that. The government’s chosen way of bringing this

treaty into force is with this proposed bill before the Legislature.

The government has called second reading debate only a week after bringing this in.

I will admit, as a legislator, I find that to be a challenge. I think there are flaws

in this process overall. I have a role as an official opposition MLA, and our role

is to scrutinize what has come before the House. To digest 30 years of work in this

short of a period is a problem. I do feel the need to state that for the record.

I want to be clear at the outset. Like my colleagues on this side of the House that

spoke before me, the members for Nechako Lakes and Columbia River–Revelstoke, I support

treaties. I support treaties because they are the most appropriate and durable way

to define and finalize the relationship between First Nations, British Columbia and

Canada. I support treaties because they move First Nations out from under the Indian

Act — a piece of legislation that has imposed control, created dependency and contributed

to the suppression of Indigenous cultures and governance.

I support treaties because Canadian courts have made it clear that reconciliation

is best achieved not through litigation but through negotiated agreements, something

that is reflected directly in the

preamble of this legislation. Sometimes the courts

are necessary, but a treaty certainly presents another path. Supporting treaties does

not mean abandoning scrutiny in the duty of my role as a legislator in this House.

Supporting reconciliation does not mean ignoring legitimate concerns. And supporting

this process does not mean accepting that it has been carried out in the best possible

way.

I’m going to go into a little bit of the details of B.C.’s treaty process over many,

many years now, because it’s very unique to our province. It’s very complex, and I

think it’s important to put this bill in context. The treaty process over the many

decades has been the result of decisions made and decisions not made over more than

a century now.

Unlike many parts of Canada governed by the numbered treaties, most of British Columbia

entered Confederation without treaties covering the vast majority of its land. In

other regions, treaties were used, however imperfectly at the time, to facilitate

settlement and define relationships between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples.

[1:25 p.m.]

In British Columbia, that didn’t always occur. There were limited exceptions, of course.

On Vancouver Island, Gov. James Douglas negotiated the Douglas treaties between 1850

and 1854. These agreements, while brief and often contested in their

interpretation,

recognized certain village sites and harvesting rights.

But beyond those treaties, the Crown largely failed to, at the time, engage in treaty-making

across the province. Instead, first the colonial and later provincial governments

proceeded as though Indigenous title had been extinguished or did not exist at all.

I will acknowledge, as a student of Canadian history, that Indigenous nations never

did accept that particular position. For decades, there were Indigenous leaders who

traveled to Ottawa and even to London, petitioning governments and asserting clearly

that their lands needed more certainty. In the course of my career, I’ve met some

of those Indigenous leaders, and this was and still has been an active and ongoing

dispute. For some of that period, Indigenous Peoples were even restricted from raising

funds to pursue legal claims, limiting their ability to challenge these assumptions

in court.

I think that history matters because it explains why British Columbia has entered

the modern era with unresolved questions of title across much of our province’s area.

There was a legal turning point, of course, in 1973 with the Calder versus British

Columbia decision. For the first time, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that

Aboriginal title existed prior to colonization and continued unless lawfully extinguished.

While the case did not grant title in that instance, it fundamentally changed the

legal landscape. It forced governments to acknowledge that the foundation of land

ownership needed some more clarity added, and that’s the process that we’ve been going

through.

In the decades that followed, additional decisions reinforced that Indigenous rights

and title are constitutionally protected under

section 35 of the Constitution Act

of 1982.

But courts can only go so far. They can recognize rights and define legal principles,

but they can’t build the detailed practical frameworks required for governance, land

use and economic development. That’s the role where…. Treaties are a mechanism to

uphold that.

That brings us to the first major change in B.C.’s modern treaty era, coming with

the Nisg̱a’a final agreement, which came into effect in 2000. That agreement established a framework

for self-government, defined land-ownership and created mechanisms for resource management

and economic participation.

It was not without its own concerns raised at that time — and still, an imperfect

process — and concerns still remain to this day. But it has been in place for 26 years

now, and that is important as we enter into this discussion today. It demonstrated

that negotiated agreements could actually be possible where litigation alone could

not be the only other alternative. It is notable that the Nisg̱a’a treaty was negotiated outside the B.C. Treaty Commission process. I’ll get into that.

The B.C. Treaty Commission process was established in 1992 to facilitate negotiations

for these agreements. It was established as an independent body to facilitate negotiations

between First Nations, B.C. and Canada. The commission was intended to provide a structured,

made-in-British-Columbia process, one that could move beyond litigation and towards

these negotiated agreements, grounded in mutual recognition and respect. The process

set out a clear pathway from statements of intent through to final agreements, with

the goal of achieving certainty and reconciliation through dialogue instead of conflict.

But the existence of a process does not guarantee the outcome. Its success depends

on how it is carried out, on meaningful consultation, on addressing overlap between

nations and on ensuring that agreements are durable and broadly supported. That’s

why the reasonable concerns we’ve heard in the course of this debate have to be taken

seriously. If the process is not working as it was intended, it’s our responsibility

to pause, to reflect and to ensure that it does.

What we have learned over the past three decades in treaty-making in British Columbia

is that it’s not a linear process. It is complex, uneven and deeply dependent on the

circumstances of each nation and each community where they are situated.

[1:30 p.m.]

My own community knows that. In 2007, the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation rejected a

negotiated treaty in a ratification vote after years of work and again in a subsequent

vote actually.

Then there are other examples that have fallen outside the treaty commission process.

In 2000, the McLeod Lake Indian Band adhered to Treaty 8 more than a century after

it was first signed. Treaty 8 covers a very big area in the northeast of the province,

and this is also in my constituency. These examples remind us that treaties take different

paths and can take different timelines.

As I mentioned earlier, the courts have continued to shape this landscape as well.

In Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia , the Supreme Court of Canada recognized Aboriginal title to land for the first time.

It also reinforced a simple but important truth: where treaties do not exist, uncertainty

also persists. So that’s, again, a reason to try to move treaties forward in the best

way possible.

It brings us directly to the issue before us today. Treaties are meant to provide

certainty. They are meant to provide that long-term, durable solution and not to perpetuate

the uncertainty that exists that we’ve heard from that Tŝilhqot’in case.

That brings me to the items that have been raised in a respectful manner regarding

Bill 20. As MLAs, all in the House will know that we received a joint statement from

the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, the Nine Allied Tribes and the Lax Kw’alaams band. Their

message is supportive but also very cautionary. I think it’s important that, members

of this House, we all listen very carefully to it.

They state: “We support modern treaties and the inherent right of all First Nations

to self-government and self-determination within their territory. However, treaties

must be implemented in a manner that reflects Indigenous law, respects neighbouring

nations and upholds the honour of the Crown.” I think this is, obviously, a very principled

position. It affirms treaties, but it also sets a clear expectation for how that work

must be done.

Within the same letter, these nations go on to say:

“Both the Kitselas and K’ómoks treaties violate Indigenous law and claim territory

in an overly broad manner and with little or no legal or historical foundation. Both

treaties take overly ambitious claim areas and turn them into treaty rights.

“Up to this point, provincial negotiators have refused to engage in meaningful consultation

and have refused to require amendments to these treaties to adjust boundaries; require

protocols in overlap areas, as was done in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty; or include other mitigation measures.”

These are serious concerns. Obviously, 30 years of discussion and these comments have

not been resolved. Again, this is a week after this has been introduced. It’s very

difficult from a legal landscape to ascertain what to do here, but this is a very

legitimate comment about the integrity of the process.

They are also pointing us to a very constructive path forward. Wei Wai Kum says the

K’ómoks treaty claims nearly 80 percent of its traditional territory and has vowed

legal action if the treaty moves ahead as drafted. So that is not the certainty that

we are trying to get to or that is needed — with more legal action.

The purpose of treaties is to create certainty, to avoid litigation and to establish

those stable, durable relationships. The ɬəʔamɛn final agreement included protocols to manage overlap and shared interests. I think

that tells us that these issues can be addressed when there is a willingness to do

so.

The government has changed the mandates from the era of previous treaties signed in

the last 26 years, and I think that is something that, as legislators, we have to

take note of.

The question that has to be asked here is whether or not advancing treaty legislation

in the face of unresolved territorial and governance issues risks creating long-term

conflict and uncertainty. That is a very important issue that we all have to contend

with here.

[1:35 p.m.]

Reconciliation cannot be one-dimensional. I get it. It’s very hard work. It cannot

be achieved by reaching agreement, also, with one nation while creating conflict with

another. It cannot be achieved by asserting certainty where uncertainty remains, and

it cannot be achieved by moving forward when those directly affected are telling us

that the work is not complete.

Bill 20 is not symbolic. It gives the treaty the force of law and makes it binding

on all persons. It transfers land ownership; alters forestry tenures; removes lands

from the ALR; and, in some cases, limits compensation. These are permanent changes

with real consequences and very important ones.

Again, I go back to the fact that we’ve had a week of this legislation before the

House, and now, after 30 years, we’re rushing this process significantly without addressing

these concerns.

That is precisely why I believe we must think this through, not to reject treaties

but to ensure that we get this right. Government should be spending the time to properly

engage meaningfully with neighbouring First Nations who have raised legitimate concerns,

because if we don’t resolve those concerns here, they won’t disappear. They will move

to the courts. That is exactly what treaties are meant to avoid.

I want to continue with the question of certainty, because that is, ultimately, what

we have been discussing significantly over the past couple of days. The

preamble to

Bill 20 states: “and

whereas the K’ómoks treaty advances the objectives of the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

That language is obviously aligned with what the government has brought forward in

DRIPA legislation, which, at that time, they said was aspirational. But as we have

learned now, today, it also raises serious and unresolved legal questions that we

need answered and need resolution to.

We have seen in recent months that the application of the Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act has created uncertainty — uncertainty significant enough

that this very government has been forced to revisit; reconsider; and, at some points,

has said they want to attempt to amend their own approach. We don’t know exactly what

the plan is, going forward, because it hasn’t been presented to the House yet. It

may come in the fall, but we’re not sure.

That tells us something important. The legal framework surrounding UNDRIP is still

evolving, still being interpreted and still being tested. It’s important to note that

Indigenous rights are already protected in the constitution. That is the highest law

of the land, and it is very, very important that those rights have that protection

enforced there.

At the same time, this legislation embeds the principles of UNDRIP that will carry,

despite the fact that we have constitutionally protected rights…. Those can’t be amended,

but the laws we have here can be amended. UNDRIP is, here, written into the treaty

itself, not just the Bill 20 reference we see.

We have heard from legal experts who warned that this model does not eliminate uncertainty.

We hear some of the legal opinions. We’ve heard some read into the record already

in the course of this debate. But I will just read one comment that was noteworthy

from some legal experts — Joan M. Young, Radha Curpen, Robin M. Junger, Sasa Jarvis,

Tom Theodorakis, David Burchart, Corey Kent — who wrote in a bulletin: “UNDRIP appears

to have influenced the language used in the new treaty agreements. As a result and

in contrast to other modern-era treaties, the new treaty agreements do not appear

to provide the certainty found in prior modern-era treaty agreements.”

This particular comment, reference, was in relation to private property questions,

comparisons to the decisions in the Quw’utsun and Gitxaała court cases and questions

about the effect this may be having on existing treaties as well.

[1:40 p.m.]

This is something that we do have to pause on. I don’t know the answer. Again, I’ve

only had a week to digest this. It is a lot to take in. A statute can be amended by

future governments. A treaty is much more difficult, and I don’t know if this is locking

in uncertainty for generations. The government needs to explain this very clearly.

We’ve heard from neighbouring First Nations who are telling us, clearly, that unresolved

issues, if left unaddressed, will not disappear but instead will move to the courts.

That is not what treaties are meant to do. Treaties, as we’ve heard from all members

so far who’ve spoken, for the most part are meant to resolve conflict. They’re meant

to provide clarity, and they’re meant to build durable relationships. And I think

we actually agree on those principles.

That’s why this moment matters. It was the government’s decision, I believe, to, I

would surmise, change the treaty mandate to include the UNDRIP language to not resolve

these territorial challenges that are still included here. But once this legislation

passes, this will all be very difficult to change course. So the question before us

is not whether we support treaties. I certainly do. The question before us is whether

we are prepared to ensure that this treaty and this model is right before we make

it permanent.

I am requesting that the government actually responds to these specific issues. Obviously,

the language around reconciliation matters. I want to hear some of that, but I also

want the answers to these specific challenges to this legislation before the House.

Why didn’t the government engage meaningfully enough with neighbouring First Nations?

Because that’s what we’re hearing from them as legislators, and we have to take that

at face value.

How is the government planning to ensure that the legal framework we are embedding

will actually deliver certainty? Again, legal experts are telling us that they don’t

believe it is right now.

I get that this has been a long process, but this is the hard work of real reconciliation.

Is this government actually doing that hard work, or are they just saying the things

that are easy in this process? We can’t just say the easy things. It’s about getting

it right and leaving behind agreements that will stand the test of time. The K’ómoks

Nation deserves that, and so do the rest of British Columbians.

Again, I support treaty. I want to vote in favour of the K’ómoks Treaty Act. I sincerely

do. I support moving beyond the Indian Act. And I support reconciliation grounded

in negotiated agreements, but reconciliation must be done properly. It must respect

all affected nations, and it must provide the certainty that British Columbians desperately

need. I think the government could show some more leadership.

So this is about meeting the moment and taking a hard look at the legislation before

this House today. Let’s make sure that we actually get this right for the K’ómoks

First Nation, for the people on Vancouver Island, for the people across British Columbia,

as this is precedent-setting, and we need to make sure that that moment is that leadership

that British Columbians expect.

Thank you for the time. I look forward to hearing from other members in this debate.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : You know, there are days when I come into this House and it’s really hard to hear

the racism and the hate that is being directed at Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia.

It’s really hard. It’s really hard when this morning the member for Saanich North

and the Islands was heckled when he stated

section 35 of the constitution is the law.

[1:45 p.m.]

UNDRIP is an international commitment that helps inform

section 35, and DRIPA is the

roadmap on how to do that. The opposition heckled him so he couldn’t get that out.

I also want to know whether the members do support treaties, especially in their ridings

where we have two treaties coming forward in this House. I want to know if they support

it. I also want to know…. I’ve heard things that the other members have said, that

this is not symbolic, that this is not history-making. I want to know if they went

to the Hall of Honour and looked at those Elders in the eye and those children in

the eye and the women in the eye and said: “We don’t support this.”

So I am very angry because I feel like you can’t say, “I support this,” and then say:

“But it’s wrong.”

Thirty years — 30 years this community has been waiting to have this relationship

established with the government, to have no more uncertainty, to be able to hold their

heads up high and feel good about the work that the people before them did and reaching

this point. It is historic. It is very historic. There are ancestors that have passed

away and are not going to see this day happen. The children within those communities

are going to be able to grow up knowing exactly who they are and to feel proud of

who they are and to be able to have their acknowledgement by Canada and British Columbia.

That is really important.

I cannot stress enough, to members who don’t understand, that making sure that you

have land for generations to come, making sure that you have access to fish, to berries,

to be able to do cultural practices….

I know in this House that when we debate things, we have a difference of opinion.

But when it involves racism and hate, I don’t stand for that. I thank my sister who

stood up today, and she also defended that.

It’s not just about Indigenous communities, because we’ve had this hate directed at

us for years. But then you’re going to turn to other cultures, and that’s not fair.

No one should have that hate directed at them.

When we talk about treaties, this is not new work. This has been happening for years.

The B.C. Treaty Commission puts their information on their website. You know exactly

what’s happening. As I said earlier, if you didn’t, then why aren’t you building that

relationship with your communities? Why aren’t you talking to them about what’s being

put in the treaty, asking questions about how this will impact, how this will lift

up our region, how this will lift up everybody? We have proof points from the other

treaties that this lifts everybody up. The trends in the economy are so important.

We know that this is going to be a positive impact on the whole region.

We talk about agreements. We talk about…. There were other examples of other communities

that have fallen outside the treaty process. Every Indigenous community has the right

to their own path to reconciliation. Their path may be different than others, and

that’s okay.

I want you to think about what Canada and what British Columbia would look like when

tourists come to visit if we were allowed to speak our language and gather our food

and build our own relationships in the societies that we had. People pay good money

to go to Europe and to other areas of the world to go and experience that.

[1:50 p.m.]

Imagine if you felt proud of your Indigenous communities. Imagine if you had friends

visiting here from around the world and saying: “Wow, you should go and visit K’ómoks

First Nation. They just signed their treaty. They have beautiful art and regalia and

language and culture. They get out onto the land, and we support that.” I feel like

that’s something that we should be proud of as British Columbians and as Canadians.

When we talk about treaties, this is not something that is brand new. As I said, this

has been negotiated for over 30 years — 30 years. And then we talk about: “Oh, this

is being rushed.” How is this being rushed?

It’s time for us to step up and support these communities and stop with the hate.

Some members on the other side have read out quotes from lawyers. The respect and

the disrespect that’s shown here in the House — sometimes to people like the MLA for

Saanich North and the Islands, who is a lawyer, has worked with First Nations for

many, many years…. He’s heckled when he tries to talk about this.

So I’m sorry. I don’t believe when people say: “We’re not directing hate. We stand

shoulder to shoulder with First Nations.”

We know that we have more work to do. We know we have more work to do with reconciliation,

with communities, to be building that trust and that relationship with them. But it’s

a respectful relationship. We try very hard every day to uplift people; to support

strong, healthy, thriving communities.

We know of other modern treaties like Tsawwassen, ɬəʔamɛn, Nisg̱a’a . We know how well those treaties are working in their regions because we’ve built

those relationships. We’ve built it so that we have an opportunity to work with them

collaboratively, to be standing side by side through the good times and the bad.

There are always going to be hard times and hardships that come, and it really depends

on whether or not you’re able to weather that storm together. We’ve seen that happening

over the past few months.

We know, too, that treaties build stronger local relationships because they do allow

for mechanisms for resolving matters and working together on shared priorities. I

don’t feel that we should be judging any of the communities that are trying to come

together and work out their issues. We should give them the space and the time to

be able to work those differences out and come to us and say: “Here’s what we want

to do, and here’s how we want to move together.”

I recently had the opportunity to visit ɬəʔamɛn and to visit Powell River last year, and I can say that the community is thriving.

They’re doing really well together. And that is my hope for K’ómoks, that they’re

able to build this and build good, strong local relationships.

B.C. is so unique because we have so many different First Nations with their own language,

culture, art, traditions. I am so grateful when I have an opportunity to travel to

new communities and for them to trust me to come and take

part in their ceremonies.

It’s so important to be able to get out and do that.

Treaties are a really good way for us to make sure that there’s certainty. There’s

certainty for where K’ómoks is going to be able to have ownership over their lands.

They’re going to be able to make really strong, durable decisions for the future of

their children and their community. And they’re going to be able to reap more economic

benefits based on their treaty.

[1:55 p.m.]

This is what it means to, actually, do reconciliation in this province. It doesn’t

mean being racist. It doesn’t mean treating someone as less than you because of the

colour of their skin or their culture.

I want to say, too, that we’ve been working with the case law of this province for

many, many months now and trying to find solutions together. We’ve been trying to

work hard. It’s been really hard. But the case law has been really clear that the

treaties confirm, as the courts have already done, that UNDRIP should be relied upon

as part of the

interpretation of the treaty.

We’ve tried very hard to communicate with other communities, with other organizations,

with the public about what this treaty means and what it doesn’t mean, because we

don’t want lies creating fear or creating uncertainty about what the path is for this

treaty. It’s time that we all work together in this House to lift up all of British

Columbia.

K’ómoks First Nation came here. They shared their culture with us. They shared their

Elders with us. They shared their children with us. I want this to be a safe house

for Indigenous people to come in, and it’s really hard some days when I have to hear

hate and racism about Indigenous people and Indigenous communities.

I want them to feel welcome. I want this House to be welcome to them. And I want to

see more Indigenous MLAs coming here to represent their communities, to stand up,

even when it’s really hard, and say: “This isn’t right, and we need to change the

way things are being done.”

I’m really proud of the work that has been put into this treaty negotiation. I’m very

proud of the work that the public service has been doing. I know that they work hard

to bring forward maps, to bring forward land details and then to make sure that they’re

doing their very best to provide the best treaty negotiations that they can.

I urge all British Columbians to get the facts right, to reach out and talk about

the treaties, to talk about whether this is what’s best for British Columbia. I don’t

think any government would spend 30 years on doing something right…. I think that

what we have put forward in this bill, in this treaty, is exactly what the communities

have advocated for, have fought for, have died for, and I think it’s only right that

we all unanimously support this.

We can’t keep saying to First Nations that we want reconciliation and then vote against

it. We have to be able to walk hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder and make sure

that they know that we support them, that we support communities.

I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I do hope that all members of this House will

also support it.

Claire Rattée : I want to start out by saying that I prepared a speech, and I put a lot of time and

thought into how I was going to proceed with this. But unfortunately, I have to start

by stating a few things to correct the record.

[2:00 p.m.]

I don’t really want to be doing this right now because I do think that this is important

work, and I don’t think, personally, that it’s particularly respectful to the K’ómoks

Nation that this has become as politicized as it has. But there have been a number

of comments that have been made today that are simply inaccurate.

I’m going to start by saying that I absolutely support treaty. I’ve spent the last

year and a half in my communities working with the communities that are going through

the treaty process. I’ve always supported them in that. I absolutely support First

Nations getting out from under the Indian Act.

I absolutely understand how alive and well racism is. I get that. I’m a Jewish person,

and I have blonde hair and blue eyes. Do you think I haven’t had people make really

racist comments to me without expecting that it was going to hurt my feelings? I have

Indigenous family members.

I understand that racism is alive and well, but what I don’t appreciate is that there’s

this continuous hurling of insults at our side because we’re going to question what

might be in these treaty documents. It was made towards our side too. Many of them

have been.

We have a right to question what’s in this document, and I think that’s fair. I think

that we owe it to the K’ómoks Nation, but I also think that we owe it to the other

nations that are impacted by this and to all British Columbians, because we have a

duty to get this right. This affects all British Columbians, and if it’s done properly,

it affects them in a really meaningful, positive and powerful way.

I know that, firsthand. I am one of the few people that sits in this chamber that

has the honour of representing a treaty nation, which has been a treaty nation for

a long time — the Nisg̱a’a Nation. I know what that treaty has done for them. I know what it has accomplished

for our entire region and the entire province. It has provided certainty.

But what’s bothering me about what’s in these treaties — and I want to say very clearly

that this is not the K’ómoks First Nation’s fault; this is not any First Nation’s

fault; in my opinion, this is an issue of the government not getting this aspect right

— is that there is very strong language around UNDRIP that has been incorporated in

here. The reason I take issue with that is because we have seen the legal challenges

that this has created to try and make it the authoritative document that all our laws

are supposed to be interpreted through.

The Minister of Environment, who is somebody that I would consider to be a friend….

Her and I have always gotten along. We, obviously, share riding boundaries. She’s

always been very kind to me. I take no personal issue with her. But I do take issue

with the fact that she was talking about existing treaties and she says: “We know

how well those treaties are working.” Then why are we changing the model right now?

Why would we be changing that? We know that the treaties that have been signed have

worked. So why are we going that route?

What really bothered me about the comments that were made just now were comments around:

“Well, then I would recommend that those members do the hard work and make those relationships

and go into those communities.” I think it’s incredibly rich considering that that

member’s own community is one of the ones that has a problem with one of the treaties

that is going to be before us, and we had to meet with them. They are not my constituents,

but they feel like they’ve been left out and not brought to the table.

I don’t understand how that’s fair. I don’t understand how it’s fair to slander us

as racists because we have questions about that and we have concerns about that. That’s

wrong. We have a duty. This is our job. It’s not always easy. But we have a duty to

all British Columbians to make sure that we get this right.

We’re completely drifting off from where we were with treaties originally when we’re

incorporating things like that, particularly given the landscape of where we’re at

right now.

Again, I’ll be the first to admit this is not my wheelhouse. This is not something

I know everything about. I am not a lawyer. I’m somebody that spends time in my community

and tries to get to know the First Nations in my community and to understand where

they’re coming from. I have spent that time. I’ve had those difficult conversations.

I’ve had to go to my community and say: “I’ve been supporting you guys on this for

the last year and a half, and now, finally, with only a week to actually be able to

read these treaties, I’m having concerns about some of the language here. Can we work

together and try and find a way to solve this?”

I think that’s important, because the reality is that UNDRIP was not supposed to be

the authoritative source for how we were going to interpret all of our laws in this

province, in this country. That was never the intention behind it. The government

themselves have said it’s supposed to be aspirational, yet we’ve brought into force

the requirement to make sure that that’s how we’re interpreting our laws.

I know that a number of members on the government side have said that the opposition

is quoting these lawyers and whatever and then conveniently turning around and saying:

“Oh, but it’s another lawyer.” Well, yeah, it’s another lawyer, because everybody

has different opinions on things. The Attorney General said it herself the other day.

Lawyers will say all sorts of different things, and we’re going to have to determine

who has the correct opinion. Realistically, it doesn’t matter, because it’s going

to come down to what the courts say.

[2:05 p.m.]

The fact of the matter is that there are other people that have also expressed those

concerns who are also Indigenous. In my opinion, from what I’ve seen so far with trying

to use UNDRIP and bring it into legal force, it has been an equal-opportunity killer.

It doesn’t matter — Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I’ve seen it in my own riding,

how these overlapping issues of consent from all First Nations…. It’s just not possible.

There are over 200 First Nations in this province. We can’t get everybody to the same

place, because not everybody wants the same thing.

I think it’s honestly, really unfair to assume that all First Nations want the exact

same thing all throughout this province. That’s just labelling them all as the exact

same person. It would be unfair to do it of any race. It doesn’t matter who it is.

The reality is that we’re never going to get to a place where we’re going to have

every single First Nation agreeing on everything. We’re also never going to address

all of the issues of overlapping land claims. I don’t know that that’s possible unless

government is willing to bring all nations to the table at once and try and find a

way to determine that. It’s going to be a very difficult and very long process, and

maybe that’s what needs to happen. The reality is that we’re never going to get to

a place where everybody is going to be able to agree on all of these things.

I’ve seen it happen in my riding already, where a nation has tried to move forward

on forestry projects. Because of the implementation of DRIPA and therefore UNDRIP,

neighbouring nations have taken issue with what they’re trying to do and blocked them.

That’s not fair. That damages that Indigenous community as well. It’s on their traditional

territory, and they’re not able to make decisions about what they’re doing there.

We’ve seen it play out time and again throughout the province. To pretend like that’s

not happening and to just kind of gloss over it is really disingenuous.

Like I said, it’s not just lawyers that have come forward and said these things. I’m

going to read a couple of things about UNDRIP that have been said by Indigenous people

that are concerned about it. One of which, obviously, is going to be Ellis Ross. He’s

former MLA for…. He’s my predecessor that used to sit in this House. He’s one of the

strongest Indigenous leaders that I’ve ever met, and he knows what he’s talking about.

He’s taught me a lot of things about this.

I have a number of different quotes here from him in news articles. He said: “Nobody

knows what the rules are anymore. UNDRIP is causing widespread permit paralysis. Government

embrace of UNDRIP is blocking the progress that B.C. First Nations have made through

40 years of courtroom decisions.”

Just as UNDRIP becomes impossible to integrate when the province tries to regulate

ordinary activities such as speed limits, Ross said it is proving especially counterproductive

when it comes to more complex and thorny issues such as land claims. “There are certain

issues you have to address as a government that impact all of us, like health and

safety, regardless of First Nations interests,” Ross said. “That contradicts the promise

by this government that you can align UNDRIP with every single law. I don’t see how

you can do that when you have to consider larger factors that affect all of society.”

Jody Wilson-Raybould gave a speech in which she said: “Adopting UNDRIP would be unworkable

and a political distraction.”

These are other Indigenous leaders that recognize that there are issues here. I think

that trying to pretend like there aren’t and glossing over it is doing a disservice

to everybody. It’s doing a disservice to Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people.

I think that, really, the goal of treaty is supposed to be that we all get to the

same place.

I’m absolutely willing to recognize and admit that Indigenous people in this province

have been held back for a long time, and they’ve been treated unfairly. I don’t think

that there’s anybody in my caucus that doesn’t agree with that statement. I want Indigenous

people to be able to have all the same opportunities as every British Columbian.

One of the biggest things that holds them back from that is the Indian Act. It’s paternalistic,

it’s outdated, and it’s cruel. I want Indigenous people to not have to live under

the Indian Act. I don’t want them to have to live as effectively wards of the state.

They’re British Columbians. They’re Canadians. That is not okay.

They have every right to participate in our economy, and I’ve seen how that can happen

in my riding. I’ve seen how successful First Nations can actually be when they are

moving forward on resource development projects. We wouldn’t have LNG Canada or Cedar

LNG if it weren’t for the Indigenous communities in my community and the Indigenous

leaders in my community. It just wouldn’t be happening. They fought really hard for

that, and they deserve that credit.

[2:10 p.m.]

I know that this government often likes to take credit for that, but the reality is

that it was people like Ellis Ross and Crystal Smith that made those projects happen.

They were the ones that were championing it and spearheading it and putting the really

hard work in for it.

I have seen that that can happen. I have seen how you can build those relationships

and how you can repair a lot of those broken relationships. Absolutely, it means doing

the work. It means showing up. It means spending time in communities. It means understanding

why it is that they want a seat at the table. They have every right to do that.

In my communities, I have seen how First Nations have absolutely led the charge on

making sure that we get increased access to health care, especially around mental

health and addictions, because it wasn’t coming from government. They had to fight

really hard for that. They had to put in a lot of hard work, and they did it. They

finally got our first treatment centre open. That wouldn’t have happened without the

leadership that has come from First Nations in my communities. I know it wouldn’t

have.

So I recognize that we have to work with them, and that’s what frustrates me so much

about the fact that us asking questions about what is in here and asking for responses

from the government side on it has somehow made us horrible people that don’t agree

with treaty. I want nothing more than to support these treaties. But I do have concerns

around some of the language, and I certainly do have concerns over the fact that there

are overlapping claims that haven’t been addressed.

Again, that’s not the First Nation’s fault. It’s not for a lack of trying. I understand

we’re speaking about K’ómoks today, but it’s in the context that we know that there

are other treaties coming forward that are in communities that I represent. I know

how hard those communities work to try and get other nations to the table.

But the reality is that, in my opinion, that was the government’s responsibility,

and there was a failure to do so there. That has to get addressed. We can’t lift one

nation up while putting another one down and leaving them behind. That’s not fair.

That has to be addressed.

The fact that we haven’t had ample opportunity to be able to go through this legislation

and to go through these treaties…. I mean, this is a significant amount of work. As

opposition, we don’t have the same resources that government does. I don’t think that

makes me a racist because I want to better understand what’s going on here. Some of

the questions that have been asked from our side have not been answered, still, by

the government side.

If somebody can give me a good explanation of why, very clearly why, we need that

language around UNDRIP in these treaties…. I haven’t heard it yet. I have not heard

that from the other side of the House.

Like I said, I work with a treaty nation that is in my riding that doesn’t have any

reference to UNDRIP. It wasn’t necessary. They’ve been incredibly successful. They’ve

moved forward on projects. They have the PRGT pipeline going. That process is underway.

There was no requirement for that to be part of their treaty.

But I can tell you, for sure, that what is going to happen is that now they’re going

to want it as part of their treaty. They’re going to want their treaty reopened just

like every other treaty nation is. Why wouldn’t you? Of course, if another nation

is getting something that they weren’t, why wouldn’t they? I would.

Treaties are supposed to provide clarity. They’re supposed to provide assurances.

They’re supposed to provide some form of finality. I’m not saying that in the sense

that I don’t agree with the concept of, obviously, being able to go back in and address

certain things.

Just in the 15 or so short years that I have lived in my region, I’ve watched the

evolution that’s happened with the Nisg̱a’a Nation, for example. Moving forward on self-governance is not a simple task. Unfortunately,

they didn’t have exactly the resources to be able to just fully implement an entire

governmental system right off the bat. It takes time. They need a phased approach.

They need time to be able to train their people, to be able to fill positions.

Speaking to the two nations in my region that are going through this process right

now, they’ve told me how many people they’re going to have to train and all of the

positions that they’re going to have to fill. Things change. It may need a phased

approach of: “We’re going to take on this portion of it and that portion. These ones,

we’re not. We’re not ready for it. We can’t take that on under our government structure.”

That’s acceptable. I understand that. I recognize that. Those things have to change,

but the point of treaty is supposed to be that we get some finality when it comes

to the land question especially. That’s something that we need to address. It’s something

that I believe First Nations also want us to address, even just for the relationships

that they have with one another.

That has caused a lot of tension over the years. That’s caused a lot of problems,

not just between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people but also between neighbouring

nations. I’ve watched that play out. I’ve watched it play out in my region over and

over again. The reality is that in the Nisg̱a’a treaty, for example, there were overlapping land claims that still haven’t been addressed

20 years later.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s not easy work to do, but it is work that has to be done. I’m trying to do what

I can as opposition, but the reality is that that is work the government has to do.

None of this is to detract from the fact that I think it’s really important to recognize

the K’ómoks First Nation and their leadership and what they have managed to accomplish

here. Going through a treaty process is incredibly hard work, especially to do 30

years’ worth of work.

These treaties have been going on basically as long as I’ve been alive, and I recognize

that many of the people that started this process aren’t even alive anymore today.

That breaks my heart. I wish it hadn’t taken that long. I wish that there had been

a way to find a path forward a lot sooner.

I think it’s important that when we talk about treaty, we recognize the context here

in British Columbia and how different it is in other regions. The reality is, if you

look at a province like Alberta, for example, they dealt with this a long time ago.

I think that we’ve seen the positive impacts of them having dealt with treaty when

it should have been dealt with.

I wish that our province had done that because, I think, in Alberta, you don’t see

a lot of the same problems that we’re seeing right now in British Columbia. You don’t

see the tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people that we see in this

province.

That makes me really sad. I don’t like that in my riding there are tensions between

Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. It bothers me immensely, and I want to be able

to do something about it. I want to be able to address it, because I recognize that

we’re all British Columbians. We should all be treated the same, and fairly, and I

get that we haven’t been. I recognize that.

I want to do something to correct that, but I can’t do it at the expense of others

in my community either. I have to be able to balance what all British Columbians need.

It’s important that we lift First Nations up, that we give them a seat at the table

and that we make sure that they have the same opportunities as everybody else. Treaty

can do that, but like I said, it has to come with some finality. There has to be some

finality to the question around land.

It’s hard, because I can’t speak in as much detail about K’ómoks as a community. I

haven’t spent time there. It’s not my riding. I don’t know the members from K’ómoks

as well as I do the ones in my riding.

Obviously, one of them will be coming forward, I would assume, sometime next week.

I’m looking forward to that, because I’m looking forward to the opportunity to be

able to highlight what an amazing community they are, all the great work that they’ve

done in my riding and that they continue to do.

Hopefully, one day I’ll be at the place where I can speak the same about K’ómoks,

because I’ll get to spend some time there and get to know their leadership and have

a better understanding of the challenges that they have faced.

Realistically, what I need to talk about today are the concerns that I have about

this piece of legislation and about this treaty. I really do think that when treaties

are done properly, they don’t just benefit that nation; they benefit all British Columbians.

Right now I’ve got concerns that aspects of this could actually end up not benefiting

either.

I don’t think that it’s a benefit to K’ómoks to then have contentiousness with their

closest neighbour. I don’t think that that helps them. Like I said, in my opinion,

it’s government’s responsibility to make sure that they have brought everyone to the

table and that they have done that work, especially for a government that preaches

about reconciliation. This is not reconciliation if we’re leaving other nations out,

if we’re not bringing them to the table.

I can’t speak to what has happened between K’ómoks and Wei Wai Kum because, again,

it’s not my riding, and they’re not people that are my constituents. I haven’t had

that relationship with either nation, but I do know the ones that affect my riding.

The nations that are bringing forward their treaties in my riding have made the attempts

to have those conversations, but it is not their responsibility to make sure that

this is resolved. The reality is that there are a number of First Nations, both in

my riding and surrounding it…. Both Kitselas and Kitsumkalum are part of the larger

Tsimshian nation; so is Lax Kw’alaams.

[2:20 p.m.]

I would love to see them all being able to work together, sit down, come to the table

and have government facilitate something to ensure that those land issues can be addressed

and that everybody gets a piece of the pie, because they deserve to. That requires

leadership, and it’s leadership that, again, has to come from government.

There is a member that represents that nation and that could be doing that work. I

would really urge them to do it, because again, I don’t think that this benefits the

nations that we are trying to benefit if they end up having a problem with their closest

neighbour.

These are not new issues. In both of these cases where there are overlapping land

issues, both times they’ve gone to Supreme Court already. This is not a new problem.

This is something that government was aware of, the negotiators were aware of.

I think it was predictable that this would become a problem. Unfortunately, because

there was a decision made to not address it before government decided to bring this

legislation forward, there’s a really good chance now that even once these treaties

pass, we could end up in court.

That’s not fair to these nations that have worked for 30 years to try and get a treaty

— that they then still won’t be able to implement it. That really bothers me. And

that is government’s responsibility. It’s the government of B.C.’s. It’s the government

of Canada’s.

That needed to get addressed, and I know it could have been, because I’ve seen it

before, with the Nisg̱a’a treaty. There are overlapping land claims. They were able to resolve it well enough

to sign a treaty, and everybody was happy with the outcome. Things are moving smoothly

in my region. There are no issues with that.

So why couldn’t that have been addressed? The only thing I can come up with is that

this government was desperate for something to change the channel and the issues around

reconciliation right now. This feels rushed — to bring it forward before that’s dealt

with. That’s the way it feels to me.

I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think it’s fair that these other nations are feeling

like they’re not being brought to the table, that their issues of land aren’t being

addressed. They might be legitimate; they might not be. I can’t speak to that. Like

I said, I am humble enough to admit that I don’t know what I don’t know. This is not

my area of expertise. I am not a lawyer.

All I know is that I grew up in the Lower Mainland. I grew up with many friends that

were Indigenous and that didn’t have a lot of connection to their culture. It’s just

the reality. It’s not as common in the Lower Mainland. I didn’t understand a lot about

the history around it, and I didn’t understand a lot about Indigenous culture in general.

I grew up very close to the Tsawwassen First Nation, and that’s another treaty nation

that has been very successful and hasn’t faced a lot of the problems that we see in

more northern, rural or remote First Nations communities. I had a culture shock when

I moved up to Skeena. I remember driving through some reserves for the first time,

and to be honest, I was in tears. I didn’t realize that we had people in British Columbia

that were living in conditions like that.

It was hard, and it gave me a better appreciation for how not only Indigenous communities

but, in general, people that live in northern, rural and remote communities in this

province have to fight so much harder to access the same things that most of British

Columbia takes for granted. I think that’s especially felt in First Nations communities.

They’ve had to fight and work even harder to get access to those same things.

I think that this treaty process could go such a long way. Again, I’ve seen what can

be accomplished in communities like mine when First Nations are given a seat at the

table, when they have the ability to participate fully in our economy. I think that

treaty can do that.

I’ll be honest. I don’t know how I’m going to vote. I’m not sure yet. We’ve only had

this for a week, and I’m still trying to figure out how I can get to the point where

I can support it.

Again, I do feel a disservice was done to these nations in bringing it forward before

some of these issues were addressed — and to try and bring this forward with only

a week for us to look it over. I think that the right approach here would have been

to have tabled this at the beginning of our session. I don’t know why it wasn’t, because

I know the dates of all of the ratification votes within the communities. The treaties

were ready.

[2:25 p.m.]

I wish that we had had more time to be able to go through these. I wish that I wasn’t

speaking to something when I’ve only had a week to look at it, when it’s something

this consequential and this significant. I get that, technically, the piece of legislation

isn’t that long, but the treaty itself is. Again, I don’t have the context of this

community, so it has been a lot to try and wrap my head around.

Overall, I just want to come back to where I began, that I support treaty. I think

that it is the highest form of reconciliation that we can have. We’ve seen how this

has played out in other provinces and how successful it has been and how it has significantly

relieved a lot of the tensions and pressures that are felt, usually, in our communities

between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. So I know that this can be effective,

and I know how important this is, but I still think it’s important that we get it

right.

I would just close by, first, really thanking the K’ómoks Nation for all the hard

work that they’ve put into this. I really just want to put it on the record that they

absolutely have my support in their journey to achieve treaty. I wish that we would

see more nations doing it. It’s hard work, but it’s important work, and it needs to

happen.

Saying that, I really, really hope — I’ll be listening very intently — that somebody

on the government side can explain to me, very clearly and unequivocally, why that

section around UNDRIP language and using UNDRIP as the authoritative source for how

we interpret this piece of legislation is in there, why these two nations are saying

that they were not consulted, how we plan to address that and how we plan to address

the potential eventuality that we end up in court as a result.

What is this going to do? How is this going to affect these nations? I want to get

these treaties passed, and I want these nations to have that opportunity to be able

to properly implement their treaties. But if we end up in court — again, I’ll admit

when I don’t know — I do not know how this plays out then. We’ve heard that there

are threats already that this will end up in court, and it will be challenged.

I would love to hear a response to those two issues, because until I have clarity

on that, I don’t know if I can support this, and I really want to. So I’m hoping somebody

on the government side can provide that clarity for me.

Hon. Christine Boyle : What an incredible honour to stand in this House and speak to the introduction of

the K’ómoks Treaty Act and the decades of work that generations of K’ómoks leaders

and community members have put into bringing this act to the stage that it is today.

The work in community is what I want to speak to first. I was fortunate in my time

as Minister of Indigenous Relations to hear about, to witness the leadership that

was happening on the ground by the K’ómoks Nation, Chief and leadership and community;

and the engagement that was happening member to member and, in some cases, door to

door — ensuring that members understood what was in the treaty, that their questions

were answered, that they felt heard and included.

This is the work of generations, and because this work was started three decades ago

by leaders with a vision of what impact they could make for future generations in

their nation, the community has been doing that outreach for a long time. When it

came time for a community ratification vote, that work stepped up even more. Members

were, as I said, engaging on the ground and door to door, making sure they were connected.

The turnout in the community for the vote was incredible.

[2:30 p.m.]

All of us in this House know what that work is like, to knock on doors and engage

with our community members. But our voter turnouts in provincial elections are nowhere

near what the K’ómoks were able to achieve, which is a testament to the depth of work

that they have done to get to this point and the depth of commitment across their

membership to see this through.

I am proud to stand on this side and to be part of a government that understands treaties

as one important and incredibly tangible piece of our shared work on reconciliation

to reflect the self-determination of nations in choosing their own path forward. We

as a government engage in a whole number of tools on that reconciliation path, and

each nation has their own path. We are signing reconciliation agreements and working

in other partnerships. Treaty is one of the paths that nations choose to take, and

it is a long and significant step for nations to take.

Again, the work that K’ómoks has put into it will be of benefit to K’ómoks members

now and for generations to come. The idea that you could spend 30 years in this work

in the service of the next seven generations of your community is so moving to me,

because all of our decisions should carry that idea and that weight of thinking about

not just our own generation but seven generations to come.

The work of the K’ómoks treaty is not just of benefit to K’ómoks members and not just

of benefit to future K’ómoks members but to the entire region. We know other treaties

signed around the province have had benefits across their region. That’s the good

work that the nation is leading, and that is an important piece of the province’s

shared work on reconciliation overall, as we hear the Premier and others speak about

regularly.

As my colleague the member for Surrey City Centre spoke about earlier, this is important

generational work for all of us to lay a new path forward for all British Columbians.

The K’ómoks treaty, for their community and all of us, helps move us in a direction

where nations are leading their own way and where we’re lifting everyone up together.

This treaty, like all treaties, addresses a wide range of interests of the nation

that will lift up the community and the region as a whole.

I was really struck, again in my time as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation,

by the work being led both by the treaty commission and in partnership between nations

and government to recognize that treaties are no longer considered a final agreement

as they once were, that they no longer require a giving up of rights but that they

reflect a living relationship. This is an important shift from treaties of generations

past.

Our work to shift the treaty relationship to be a living relationship — a breathing,

growing and evolving relationship — is, again, a reflection of a deep understanding

that reconciliation lifts us all up across the province, that we can grow together

in partnership, that we can do more in partnership and that what we know now and what

we are putting into writing in partnership in the K’ómoks treaty now represents a

moment in time and everything we’ve learned up to this moment in time. We’re committed

to walking together into a future that lifts up K’ómoks members, that provides a better

path for K’ómoks members and that moves us all forward together.

That reflection in the shift of treaties being living relationships and living documents

is incredibly important.

[2:35 p.m.]

I want to speak again about the benefits that come out of treaties — that we’ve seen

in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty; that we saw in the Nisg̱a’a treaty, which recently celebrated a significant anniversary; that we see in treaties

around the province — that create healthier communities; that create services that

make life easier and better; that bring new investments and prosperity to the community

along with good jobs and stronger tools for land management, water and resource stewardship;

and that bring certainty and stability to the community.

Modern Treaty Nations — like Tsawwassen, like Maa-nulth and more — have seen these

benefits. I have been fortunate to be at tables with these leaders through the Maa-nulth

treaty agreement, through the Modern Treaty Nations alliance, to hear stories directly

from those Chiefs and elected leaders about the benefits the treaty has brought to

their communities, lifting up their culture and heritage, strengthening relationships

with local communities. The treaties have brought higher wages for treaty nations

and in the surrounding areas.

These are tangible impacts for members and for their broader communities that make

a huge difference and that I am proud to be part of. And, like I said, grateful to

the generations of leaders who have put in this work before us.

B.C. is, of course, in a unique context on treaties because the majority of First

Nations in B.C. don’t have treaties. Doing this hard work together is one of the ways

that we can take action to resolve long-outstanding questions and complex shared histories

to create more certainty and prosperity for First Nations and for British Columbians

as a whole.

Like I said, alongside reconciliation agreements and other paths, we hear from nations

that there’s not one path that will work for everyone. I’m grateful, again, to be

part of a government that understands we should hear from and follow the lead of local

communities and nations in what that path looks like for them.

The K’ómoks First Nation have been on a treaty path for decades. Their membership

spoke loudly and strongly in their local ratification vote on this treaty, and they

have been doing the good, important and challenging work of engaging with neighbouring

nations on this path forward.

They have been clear that this, for them, is the path: affirming their pre-existing

rights and setting out how those rights will be exercised; recognizing and establishing

self-government and law-making for K’ómoks; affirming their lands to govern and manage;

addressing issues of language, culture and heritage; and providing the basis for a

revitalized relationship between K’ómoks and all levels of government.

Historic work. It was, we will all remember, historic to be in these chambers when

the K’ómoks members danced into the chambers on the floor, something that was not

allowed even 15 years ago in this House.

To have Indigenous language spoken in these chambers, to have dancers and ceremony

as part of the legal and law-making work that we do in these chambers, I think, is

an important growth for us as a government and an incredibly important recognition

of the role of ceremony, of Indigenous law-making and of arts and culture in all of

that — that we bring people and culture into the work that we’re doing in here.

[2:40 p.m.]

Quite frankly, sometimes the work that we do in here is so divisive. I can point to

members’ words, just earlier today on this topic by a member opposite, that were incredibly

hateful and damaging. That is not the work that we should be engaged in here. We are

bringing people together.

I want to lift up the moment we had here together where K’ómoks leaders danced into

these chambers, where we heard words from Elders and where we got to hear from the

elected leader of a nation about the important work that she is leading now and that

she is standing on the shoulders of past leaders in her community in bringing forward.

Again, an honour to be part of this history-making agreement and to continue to support

the work of reconciliation and the self-determination of nations.

I am honoured to get to support the K’ómoks treaty as it continues its process. I

look forward to voting in support of it. I look forward to the path forward alongside

the K’ómoks Nation in lifting up their members and all British Columbians in this

important shared work of reconciliation.

Donegal Wilson : As always, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in this chamber. Today it is to speak

to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

I want to begin by being very clear. I support treaties. I have always believed that

this is the path forward for British Columbia. They are our path to reconciliation.

We need that certainty, and we need that path today.

They are the path for generations of unresolved legal questions that should’ve been

addressed long ago. My colleague from Skeena articulated this very well, in the sense

that it hurts my heart that we have people in our province that live like it’s a Third

World country. This is British Columbia. There should be nobody living like that in

British Columbia.

I’m fortunate in my region that many of the nations are struggling but strong. We

have neighbouring nations that are not as strong. I believe that this treaty process

is necessary. But I also believe, and I’m kind of sad at the way this came forward,

that for too long in this province, we’ve avoided that difficult work.

We’ve avoided negotiating the treaties. We have avoided tough conversations around

land, resources, wildlife. I believe it has created an imbalance in our society, and

it creates different rules for different people. The Indian Act itself creates those

different rules for different people.

We’re all British Columbians. We all deserve to prosper. The modern treaty process

exists today to correct that history. It is our attempt to achieve reconciliation.

It exists so that rights can be recognized, that lands can be transferred, that governance

can be established and that relationships between governments can move forward — and

to do that on a stable and respectful foundation, where everyone understands the rules.

Treaties, when they come forward, should have resolved all outstanding issues. It

should not be the role of this House to make those decisions on behalf of nations.

That should be done at the treaty table through negotiation.

They should bring clarity to jurisdiction. They should create predictability for future

decision-making. Most importantly, they should replace conflict with agreement. And

that’s why my heart hurts today, because this treaty is coming forward without those

key pieces. It’s what reconciliation should look like in practice, but we’re not there

yet.

I want to affirm that treaties are not symbolic documents. These are not intention

papers. These are constitutionally protected agreements. They shape how governments

will work together for generations. Not today, not tomorrow — generations.

When this Legislature ratifies a treaty, we’re not just simply approving a policy.

We’re establishing that permanent framework for land, governance, relationships that

will affect people across British Columbia long after all of us in this chamber are

gone. I’m honoured to be here today to be part of this historical debate. I believe

this is why treaties matter and that we need to get this work right.

[2:45 p.m.]

They must be done carefully, thoughtfully and in a way that strengthens relationships

and communities, not only between the Crown and one nation but among all nations and

communities, because the purpose of a treaty is to settle the issues, not to leave

them unresolved for the courts to decide later.

Bill 20 cannot be discussed without discussing the content of the treaty itself because

it, literally, is the legal mechanism to enact the treaty.

I do want to share a quick story from last week. I was having lunch with some constituents

here in the Legislative Dining Room, and we had a conversation that, of course, turned

to treaties. It was on the day that this treaty was being introduced, that afternoon.

One of their questions was, and they asked me directly, what I believed about the

treaty process in British Columbia. They asked whether I supported it, and I told

them I absolutely did. I told them I believe treaties are the right path forward for

this province. I told them that modern treaties are how we move forward and beyond

uncertainty, beyond litigation and toward a future built on agreement instead of conflict.

I also told them something else. I told them that I hoped, sincerely, that nothing

in this treaty would put me in a position of not being able to support it, that this

government would not put anything in this treaty that would jeopardize this agreement,

because I recognize the work that has gone into getting to this point.

I recognize the effort by K’ómoks leadership, over generations at this point. They’ve

been at this for decades. I recognize what this moment represents for them. I was

in this chamber when they danced, when they shared from their leadership. I was in

the Hall of Honour. I celebrated with them.

I want this agreement to be successful. My heart hurts that there are items in this

agreement that put that in jeopardy.

I believe it is not the role of the members of this House…. We’re not at the negotiating

table to settle the question of lands. I don’t believe…. We weren’t there for the

decades of discussions. We didn’t hear. We don’t know what those contexts were. But

today the responsibility shifts here, to this Legislature.

This government has brought forward and rushed, in my opinion, a piece of legislation

to ratify the results of that work in a week. We’ll call it a week. It was eight days

ago that this treaty was introduced.

Just to be clear. This isn’t the only treaty that was introduced last week. We have

two treaties that we’re working on as opposition. This treaty here is, let me look,

398 pages plus over 700 in appendices — one treaty.

We have two of these we’re going through right now, here in this Legislature, in a

week. I take that as a serious responsibility, and I have been reading. I have been

educating myself. I have been trying to understand the decisions that were made in

this treaty.

I’m hoping that somebody in government can explain to me why they made the decisions

they did, because once legislation like this passes, it cannot easily be revised later.

All three parties must agree to reopen the treaty. That’s the provincial government,

the federal government and K’ómoks. All three have to agree to reopen the treaty.

These are not just statutes. These are constitutional frameworks that govern that

relationship between our government, the federal government and this country as we

move forward.

I think one of the most serious concerns, for me, being implemented with Bill 20 at

this time is the embedding of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

Peoples, referred to as UNDRIP. It is embedded into the treaty itself. This is being

done at a time in this province where uncertainty exists around UNDRIP and the legislative

framework that we have in B.C. to implement it, which is referred to as DRIPA.

I just want to read the

section of the treaty that refers to this. It says, on page

7, “General Provisions,” “Nature of the Agreement,”

section 5: “The United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is an authoritative source for the

interpretation of this agreement and, accordingly, informs the parties in their implementation

of this agreement.”

[2:50 p.m.]

Everything we do forward in this agreement will be embedded with UNDRIP.

Reading this, I struggle with how this government can put forward that legislation

today and not ignore the framework that we’re sitting in as a province. We’re not

doing this in isolation of the legal landscape that we live in today. The Premier

in the last month has changed positions six times on his direction forward for DRIPA.

I’ll do a brief quote from an

article recently published by Rob Shaw on April 20:

“After another confusing 24 hours of reversals by Premier David Eby, here’s where

things now stand on his once ‘urgent’ and ‘non-negotiable’ changes to the Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act: they aren’t happening after all. For now,

anyways, maybe. That’s about as much certainty as we can get out of this New Democratic

government these days. It seems to switch positions on DRIPA every other day, like

a weather vane spinning in the wind.”

I feel, in this Legislature, that quite often we see that as well. At a time when

it is clear that this government has no idea how to move forward, they’re talking

about amendments, they’re talking about pausing it, they’re talking about kicking

it down the road, they’re talking about now a joint path forward six months from now.

All of those things are in discussion today, yet this is still embedded in a treaty

they also introduced in that framework and context.

We’re also in the process…. This government is in the process of appealing lawsuits,

backstopping mortgages and trying to find a path that protects fee simple land. All

of that uncertainty is around, yet this government, after 30 years, chose this time

in history to introduce these treaties. They have done a disservice to the First Nations

that put that work in to do that today. It hurts my heart that they would pick this

time in history to bring this forward, amongst this chaos.

I think with the language of UNDRIP introduced into these treaties, it has fundamentally

and foundationally changed the treaties. I think the Minister of Housing and Municipal

Affairs clearly articulated that in her speech, where she spoke about this being a

living document, that this is going to grow with us, and it’s changing. All of that

is not the certainty that people are looking for within a treaty.

I think the cover page alone is the clear marker of the difference. It says K’ómoks First Nation Treaty: A Living Agreement . At the same time, when we signed the Nisg̱a’a treaty, the cover page at that time said, “Nisg̱a’a final agreement,” meaning we were reconciled. We agree at this point in time and

forever forward that they no longer live under the Indian Act and that they are equals

in British Columbia. It was a final move.

I think it’s worth putting a little bit on the record around the timelines around

this treaty. I did touch on it briefly. This treaty didn’t begin last year. It didn’t

begin five years ago. It didn’t even begin ten years ago. This is over three decades

of work. It comes to this Legislature with a week for the opposition and British Columbians

to better understand where this is going.

Even a year ago, K’ómoks Nation ratified it. This isn’t new. The government has known

what has been contained in this agreement yet has not shared it with British Columbians

and the opposition until a week ago. We are being asked to review a constitutionally

protected agreement, one that will shape land-ownership, governance authority, consultation

structures, fiscal relationships, wildlife, fish and decision-making processes for

generations in the space of a few days.

I want to be clear that this is not a criticism of K’ómoks First Nation. They have

done the work. They have put in the 30 years. I believe it’s this government that

is choosing this time and place to introduce this treaty that is flawed. They have

included language in here that makes it hard to support.

[2:55 p.m.]

Even beyond the timelines, I think, what is even more concerning for me is that it’s

clear that the negotiation work isn’t done. Last week, as these treaties were being

introduced, all members of this chamber were receiving letters. They were letters

from neighbouring nations, clearly in opposition and outlining their concerns.

This demonstrates to me that the work of the negotiation table is not done and that

this government is choosing to push forward quickly to ratify this treaty, through

Bill 20, in spite of that opposition. They are asking us to make the decision to elevate

one nation over another.

We are legislators. We weren’t at the table. Why would you bring a treaty forward

that is not finalized, that is not settled? We’re asked to make a decision toward

settlement of lands to the K’ómoks Nation, with neighbouring nations claiming as much

as 80 percent overlap with infringement on their rights.

These nations are threatening legal challenge if they proceed with this treaty and

are requesting that K’ómoks pause their treaty and come to the table to settle the

dispute. They can do that either through Indigenous protocol or traditional negotiation

tables.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

When neighbouring nations are telling us they need more time to get a solution, I

think that matters. I think it’s key that that letter included solutions. It included

directions forward.

I was also invited by Wei Wai Kum, as were all members of this Legislature, to witness

a ceremony with them and their neighbouring nations, to hear them. While all members

of this Legislature were invited, I will share that only members of the B.C. Conservative

caucus attended, and I was one of those that attended because, as I shared earlier,

I’m trying to learn. I’m trying to understand, and I’m trying to support. It is my

responsibility to listen to people and to educate myself.

What we were asked specifically, at this gathering, to do…. We had ceremony. We had

speeches. We heard from Elders, Hereditary Chiefs and elected Chiefs, and what they

asked us to do that day was to listen and to bring that message here to the chamber.

I am going to read a little bit of the letter from Wei Wai Kum with some of their

concerns, to honour that commitment. I quote from the letter from Wei Wai Kum First

Nation on March 27, 2026:

“We send this letter and briefing package with regret. We hoped to support K’ómoks

First Nation in their effort to complete a modern treaty. Unfortunately, the K’ómoks

treaty overlaps close to 80 percent of our territory and contains many and massive

infringements of our rights and title.

“K’ómoks leadership has consistently refused to meet with us to work out the issues

between us, and provincial negotiators have failed to meet their commitment to engage

in consultation and accommodation negotiations with us. We are left with no choice.”

I just want to highlight another little

section from the letter. It was where they

highlighted some of the major impacts and infringements on their treaty. I’m not going

to quote it directly, because it’s very long. I’m going to just hit the key points

from it.

I believe the letter is public and available on the Wei Wai Kum website if somebody

wants to read the entire letter. But here are a few examples of what they’ve highlighted.

When this treaty is passed, Wei Wai Kum will have no core territory. Their ancestors

fought and won many wars to conquer this territory, and they believe that with the

lines on the map and words in the treaty, they will have no land to pass on to their

grandchildren.

This treaty will make it so every project they do as a nation will need K’ómoks permission.

K’ómoks will have a treaty right to be consulted on every land development, every

economic development initiative and every conservation and stewardship initiative

taking place by Wei Wai Kum.

K’ómoks will be given preferential treatment as a treaty nation and could block their

projects. They provided the example that K’ómoks is already trying to block their

wind farm project, underway with the Ministry of Energy and that has been strongly

supported by this government.

The K’ómoks treaty will give K’ómoks fee simple ownership of the Salmon River Reserve,

which was created for their ancestors in 1886. K’ómoks only gained an interest via

a failed amalgamation in 1941.

[3:00 p.m.]

It also says that K’ómoks will have a right to harvest fish stocks that they have

spent decades restoring. They’ll be able to interfere with their enhancement projects

and their treaty right to harvest sockeye from the enhancement work they have done.

They will have no ability to negotiate exclusive fishery areas in their own treaty,

if they so choose to go that path, because K’ómoks will have a treaty right already.

K’ómoks will have a treaty right to at least 13.8 percent of the elk in the territory,

and the treaty will give B.C. the right to unilaterally increase that harvest amount

in the future, something that is not guaranteed for Wei Wai Kum.

I hope I honoured the commitment I made to Wei Wai Kum to share that in this House.

I believe that they’ve brought forward some concerns that shouldn’t be on us here

as legislators to try to sort out. That should have been handled at the negotiation

table prior to these treaties coming here.

I know that Wei Wai Kum is not alone in raising these concerns. Those aren’t the only

letters that we’ve received as legislators in the last week. There have been nearly

two dozen neighbouring nations that have called for a pause on the…. There are three

different treaties currently being considered, two that are before the House now.

When nations themselves are asking this Legislature for more time, I believe it’s

reasonable and responsible for us to listen.

I also believe it’s important to take additional time when leadership organizations

themselves are asking us to take a break, to take a pause, to provide some room.

Just yesterday myself and others in this chamber received a letter from the Union

of B.C. Indian Chiefs that has also called for a pause in implementation in legislation

so that unresolved overlap concerns between nations can be addressed before ratification

proceeds. That letter is a news release that can be found online. I quote from the

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs: “Reconciliation cannot be achieved through incomplete

or unilateral processes. Moving forward without resolving shared territory and overlap

issues risks undermining relationships between nations and creating long-term uncertainty.”

Treaties are supposed to be creating certainty. These letters prove that that is not

what’s happening here. Reconciliation is not strengthened by speed. These are decisions

that we need to slow down and ensure that we get right. It has to be durable, transparent

and clearly understood by everybody that has to live with them for generations.

I think that, at their very core — and why I support treaties as a path forward —

modern treaties are meant to do something very specific. They are meant to create

certainty. They define rights. They establish governance relationships. They clarify

how decisions will be made between governments, going forward, and they reduce the

need for courts to resolve these questions that should instead be resolved through

agreement.

That certainty will benefit everyone. It benefits First Nations seeking recognition

and stability. It benefits communities planning infrastructure and growth. It benefits

industries that are looking to make long-term investments and be partners in these

projects. It benefits the province as a whole by replacing uncertainty and court cases

with durable agreements.

But when we have this treaty in the House with people threatening legal action before

it’s even been ratified, we have to ask ourselves if we are achieving those goals.

Does this agreement actually increase certainty? If it doesn’t, it risks shifting

unresolved questions from negotiation tables back into the courtroom. And British

Columbians don’t want to be in court. We need certainty. We need to find a way forward.

In the week I’ve had to review this, I’m struggling. I’m not going to lie. The terms

of the treaty and the outcomes that it will create are not clear for me. I believe

that I don’t want to jeopardize the work of K’ómoks. I know how hard they worked on

this. My goal, in fact, is to bring everyone up.

I hope that K’ómoks will support a pause to do that work with their neighbouring nations

to find a path forward, that they don’t put legislators in that position to make that

decision. My understanding is that it could be done through standard negotiation tables

or through traditional Indigenous protocols, some of which were shared with us by

Wei Wai Kum.

[3:05 p.m.]

I think all of this brings me back to the question of timing. Why are we doing this

now? I get that we want to get out of court, but by adding UNDRIP language into this

treaty at a time when we’re already in court about that seems wrong. They define our

relationships, going forward. It’s supposed to define how our governments will work

together. It’s supposed to shape land ownership and jurisdiction, yet we hear that

80 percent of the land is being claimed by another nation.

They establish long-term fiscal commitments. Normally, those commitments are clearly

laid out within the legislation, within the treaty, but in this case, it is a living

agreement. Those are all put to future agreements that will not come before this Legislature,

that will be made by cabinet. Those include finance agreements, governance agreements.

There are future agreements around fish harvesting and wildlife coming, and none of

that is actually included in the treaty, which is very different from past treaties.

These treaties are supposed to be durable. They’re supposed to give us a path forward.

Right now it’s supposed to be the reconciliation that we’re all looking for. It’s

supposed to provide the end.

British Columbians want to know how to get to reconciliation. Right now I think many

British Columbians don’t even know what it is. There is so much confusion around reconciliation

and First Nations in this province. This treaty had the opportunity to solve it in

one area of our province, but it, unfortunately, elevates one nation over another.

I will want to close by returning to where I began. These treaties matter because

they do provide clarity, or should provide clarity, where uncertainty has existed

for generations. They should recognize the rights that were never resolved through

historical agreements in most of British Columbia. We wouldn’t be here today if we’d

done that work a long time ago. I think they matter, because they create a framework

for governments to move forward together, instead of continually relying on courts

to define our relationships.

I think that’s one of my biggest concerns as we go forward. This is clear, that we’re

going to be back in court. They’ve come right out and said it. We’re only talking

about one treaty here today, but this isn’t the only letter, and this isn’t the only

treaty where we have these letters.

I don’t believe that it is the role of this Legislature to solve that. I believe the

treaty table, the Treaty Commission and the negotiation team should have solved that

before it got here. I believe that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, also asking this

Legislature to pause, needs to be heard. I think that we can’t continue with unresolved

overlap concerns between nations and then be expected to ratify this treaty before

that has been solved.

I believe that neighbouring nations have asked to be heard. Wei Wai Kum, in this particular

treaty, has asked to be heard. With that uncertainty still present, I think our work

isn’t complete. My hope is that this process can pause here so that this agreement

can move forward with the confidence not only of this House but of the inherent governments

whose relationship it will shape for generations.

I want treaties to unite us all around a shared certainty. I want us to get to final

reconciliation. Taking the time to achieve that certainty now will help ensure this

agreement succeeds for everyone involved, for generations.

I know that I will reflect back on that conversation I had last week with the constituency

in the dining room. I wish that the province had not included language in this treaty

that made it questionable whether I could support it. I can say today that, regrettably,

they did. That will make supporting this treaty very difficult. I hope with more time

and maybe through committee stage on this bill that perhaps those concerns will be

addressed, but I’m not feeling very hopeful today.

Rohini Arora : I rise today not just to support Bill 20 but to respond directly to many of the remarks

made today by members of the opposition and also by the critic for Indigenous Relations

yesterday in the House.

[3:10 p.m.]

When we first begin to think about the lay of the land, we have to talk about the

original violence that occurred on these lands. That has to be the basis for where

the conversation begins. There has to be a foundational understanding. It is very

clear, based on the comments I’ve heard from several of the members of the opposition

speaking today, that that level of understanding varies. That’s okay. I understand

that.

When my colleague the Minister of Environment stood up to speak and shared her thoughts

about herself as an Indigenous woman standing in this building, working directly on

issues that impact the broader community of which she belongs to, it is not a hypothetical.

We’re not talking about racism over there somewhere. That is a woman embodying the

experience, the cultural backlash, the challenges of being an Indigenous woman and

the way that she is treated.

It is really important to understand that when someone in front of you who has the

lived experience as a racialized person, Indigenous or Black person…. When they’re

sharing their experience, believe them. That is the first place to start.

I’ve heard so many different comments today. It’s going to take me some time to go

through many of the comments that I think are important to expand upon. I heard several

times over from the members that they want to hear the reason to support this treaty.

Yet I’ve heard time and time again from just a few members recently who just spoke

that their intention is to support treaties, that their intention is that they do

support First Nations, that they are willing to go and meet with First Nations. Yet

I hear a double standard. And I say this respectfully.

You know, many of you, that I can be very passionate on particular topics. But this

is an issue that not only is near and dear, but as a racialized woman myself, as someone

belonging to the Punjabi community with parents who are immigrants, who came here

in the 1970s…. By the way, people of India and Pakistan — not the same, but we share

the same colonizer, slightly different history. So this topic really hits close to

home.

When I hear that there are challenges, whether it be jurisdictional, whether it be

that there are some nations that have frustrations, why is it that it’s held to a

different standard? Often there are laws that are passed that will address the issue

of the moment, whatever that may be. There’s ongoing work to work with other communities.

It is rich to me to say that we should hold back the work of this treaty 32 years.

Since 1994, the Canadian government, the provincial government and K’ómoks began discussions.

Finally, we get to a place where I never thought as a six- or seven-year-old watching

parliamentary proceedings that I would be standing here, being able to witness a treaty

celebrated as a member of this Legislature, to be in community, in the Hall of Honour,

celebrating and feeling not only my spirits rise but hope for the future. It is a

historic moment.

To say that it’s rushed is a really unfortunate perspective. I’m trying to understand

why 32 years feels rushed. The treaty process is done by the treaty commissioner and

their team. Several times the member who spoke just before me said that the province

was taking

part in the decision-making and, at the same time, saying the Treaty Commission

was making decisions. So which is it?

Once the treaty agreement has been reached, our job is to help propel it forward.

And that is to keep us out of courts. That is to keep K’ómoks out of courts.

[3:15 p.m.]

Yes, there are always challenges, no matter what. In any law that’s being passed,

there will be people that are happy with the law that is passed and there will be

people that have concerns. That’s the reason, in the treaty process, that there’s

a certain amount of time where engagement is actually ongoing, even though the treaty

has been ratified. This is that time.

Not to mention, the member who spoke before me also spoke to the fact that during

committee stage, we’ll be able to have robust discussions about it as well. There

is ample opportunity in front of you where discussions can be had and will be had.

Yet there’s this hesitation to support it.

I understand that we’re on opposite sides. I really get it. I know that we have to

represent our parties and our values. But from what I heard from the few members that

spoke before me, it seems that we’re all on the same page. We want the same thing.

Yet we in these chambers are not on the same page about how we go about it.

Is that a reason to stall 32 years of work? I really struggle with that.

It isn’t that I just heard a concern about the process. From many of the members,

not including a few that I heard speak today — I’m thankful that they reiterated their

support — I heard a pattern of language that casts Indigenous rights as chaos, that

treats Indigenous governance as suspect. It frames reconciliation as something to

be feared rather than fulfilled.

I have to say this at the outset. After listening to the speech from the critic yesterday,

it’s difficult for me to maintain confidence in his approach being taken toward what

should be a role of constructive criticism. It should help move us forward. But we

have to understand the ramifications when we speak about a community in a blanket

way.

Indigenous communities and their populations were much larger. Because of colonization,

not only did their populations dwindle; their language was taken from them. They were

taken from their homes. I mean, imagine you opening your door, a police officer and

someone from a church standing outside, ripping your child out of your arms, and you

never see them again. You can imagine the damage that does to you for your own generation

— likely the pain of being unwilling to talk about it because it’s unfathomable.

I have to say, respectfully, to my friends across the aisle that you have a residential

school denier that’s being courted right now to come back into your ranks. It is really

important, if you’re going to be values-driven, to be values-driven regardless if

it makes you popular or not. I know that, firsthand.

I have taken time to speak to the Elders in community. I live in the riding of Burnaby

East. My riding is situated on the lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, səlilwətaɬ and kʷikʷəƛ̓əm Nations — four nations. Elders who have lived through some of the darkest chapters

in this province’s history are telling me now that the racism that they are facing

today reminds them of when they were in residential schools.

Why does that matter? Because since the beginning of this session…. By the way, what

a diverse group of MLAs. We have four Indigenous women here. It’s something to celebrate

on both sides.

I’m hearing that the racism that these Elders are facing today reminds them of being

in residential schools. That is such a profound thing to hear. What that says to me

is that the beginning of this session, where several of the members on the other side,

many of whom are not in the caucus today…. Not only was a documentary filmed — harming

Indigenous communities, calling reconciliation an industry — yet members of the caucus,

even today, on the other side have shared that they support treaties.

[3:20 p.m.]

There isn’t a single person on our side that doesn’t support treaties. There isn’t

a single person on our side that doesn’t understand, to some degree, the history of

the original violence of colonization that took place on these lands.

This is not “everyone is bad, and some people are good” or “some people are bad, and

some people are worse.” We can’t simplify it to this zero-one-sum game. It’s not.

Just because some First Nations are receiving their rights, it doesn’t mean that others

are losing out in some way.

This is equity in action — justice and equity. It’s not a piece of pie that you can

eat. They are rights that, when fulfilled, may feel uncomfortable for those who have

never had to have their existence, their rights and their freedom of movement challenged.

First Nations were forced onto reserves. Many of them were fishing, farming communities,

nomadic. They moved up and down with the seasons because that’s where their food sources

were, caring and stewarding this land. They were pushed back further and further.

So from having access to fish, now you can’t fish. You’ve got to go back further.

Well, guess what. The government of the day — no conversation. Just, by the way, a

law has been passed. You’ve got to move back further. So now maybe you’re a few miles

away. And we have cars today. First Nations didn’t have cars back then. Many people

didn’t. So imagine the trek you would have to make. Not only that, but you’re not

welcome when you do make it. You’re looked at as some kind of scourge in society.

Laws being passed is one thing, but there’s a need for language and cultural revitalization,

and that means that members in this House have to be very careful about the approach

that they take when they’re talking about First Nations.

Racialized people — Indian, Pakistani, Jewish, Muslim — every community that is here

has the right to live with dignity, with respect and be able to move freely.

Partially, the treaty process seeks to recognize the rights that were inherent to

First Nations, not rights that are being made up. These always existed. The perspective

of the original governments….

This province itself formed in 1871. In 1872, First Nations and the Chinese community

lost the right to vote. I don’t know if members on the other side know this. What

happened is that the First Nations of the time were incredible organizers, and they

supported one candidate that was running. The governing party didn’t like that, so

they took their rights away, and it took years to get it back.

I am from here, born on the territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ. I don’t have to prove how much blood of mine is Indian. I don’t have to do that.

It’s just accepted. First Nations have to prove through blood quantum. Who else lives

by these rules? Do you have to prove how Asian you are, how Black you are, how Jewish

you are, how Muslim you are, how Christian you are?

These things matter because at the end of the day, it’s a deep othering, a deep injustice

that’s not just entrenched through laws of the past but also socially. My friendly

colleague across from me from Maple Ridge East, Burnaby East, we have that in common.

yet you are such an intelligent, sharp person.

Why is it that people who are Indigenous or racialized or Black have to be limited

and almost watered down and diluted to only how we don’t fit in?

[3:25 p.m.]

A treaty process recognizes that the people that have been here since the beginning

have a right, have always had those rights, and it’s our government that’s doing the

hard work to recognize them.

A 32-year process could have been any government. It’s not that we’re trying to rush

something through. We’re told that an agreement is reached. We’re told that there

is space by the Treaty Commission, by the way, through a clearly defined process where

Wei Wai Kai and Wei Wai Kum and other neighbouring nations would have the ability

to speak about any concerns that they have so that it can be continually addressed.

Laws are evolving. I heard the member before me say that we need to achieve final

reconciliation. I would be interested to know how she defines that. What does final

reconciliation mean? I’ve heard my friends on the other side talk about economic reconciliation.

Fine. That’s a part of it, of course.

But what about social reconciliation? What about dignity? What about the fact that

there are First Nations communities with their status Indian cards who are sometimes

denied access because of communities that don’t have a good understanding of the history?

They don’t even recognize those as licences or appropriate government ID when we know

that they are.

There’s something to be said about the fact that so many people in our province don’t

have knowledge about First Nations. Why is it that we’re looking at communities so

separately in that way? Humanity should unite us all, number one. But rights that

have been withheld through laws, policies, when being made right, is not taking rights

away from anyone else.

I can understand that there are frustrations and there are challenges and that Wei

Wai Kum has some thoughts, and I’m thankful that they’re bringing them forward. I

know that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is absolutely focused

on the challenges that they’re bringing forward and is looking for a way to support

them. That is the role.

The problem for me, personally, through my experience, is when the K’ómoks treaty

is becoming so politicized. Yes, there are concerns right now. British Columbians

are trying to understand the ramifications, the legal concerns. But legal chaos? That’s

the wrong word. The official opposition critic yesterday said legal chaos. Is it really

chaotic to find a way and a path forward with First Nations, hand in hand, in lockstep?

When the member said that recognizing Indigenous rights will create legal chaos, I

thought: “What does he call the last 150 years in British Columbia?” Was it not chaos

when treaties were never signed across most of this province? There is a reason we

call it unceded territory, unsurrendered territory. Was it not chaos when First Nations

were confined to reserves that represented a fraction of their lands? Was it not chaos

when children were taken to residential schools and entire cultures were targeted

for erasure? That is the real history of the province.

Bill 20 is not creating instability. It’s not creating legal chaos. It’s confronting

it. It’s confronting that real history.

The dismissal of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples

— let’s talk about that. We heard it described as aspirational. We heard it mocked,

as though it were some abstract idea that does not belong here.

[3:30 p.m.]

But let me be clear. UNDRIP is not foreign to British Columbia. It reflects principles

that have existed on this land long before the Legislature ever did — principles of

shared stewardship, consent and respect for territory. To dismiss it is not just a

legal argument. It is a dismissal of Indigenous governance itself, and that is something

this House, collectively, shouldn’t tolerate.

The member also warned of uncertainty again and again, but the truth is that uncertainty

is what happens when rights are ignored. Treaties like this do not create uncertainty.

They replace courtroom battles with negotiated agreements. They replace conflict with

clarity. They replace decades of litigation with a path forward.

I heard many times that we have to find a way to address this. We do have a way. Modern

treaties. That is the way.

There was language used that suggested Indigenous nations somehow are drawing lines

on a map or creating claims out of thin air. But let’s be honest about what that implies.

First Nations did not arrive here recently. Everyone else did. And that’s okay. We

all make up this beautiful province of British Columbia, and clearly, from even some

of the comments of my friendly colleagues on the other side, I heard that they, too,

want to live with First Nations and other communities harmoniously. Yet there’s a

cognitive dissonance, because there are statements being made that would speak contrary.

There’s no invention of a connection to this land. It exists. It simply does. Their

laws, their governance and their stewardship go back thousands of years. If there

are lines on a map that do not reflect that reality, it’s because those lines were

drawn without them. B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, P.E.I.,

Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, the territories — these were lines that were drawn on a

map and then given na