British Columbia Hansard — 23 April 2026, p.m., Issue 162 (43rd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20260423pm-Hansard-n162

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

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

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Wendy Cocchia, CM, OBC Second Session, 43rd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ................................................................................................... Hon. David Eby, KC Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities .......................................................... Hon.

Brittny Anderson Minister of Agriculture and Food ..............................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Deputy Premier ............................................................................................................... Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Minister of Children and Family Development ......................................................................................................Hon.

Jodie Wickens Minister of Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Diana Gibson Minister of Education and Child Care ............................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness ................................................................................ Hon.

Kelly Greene Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions .................................................................................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Environment and Parks .................................................................................................... Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson Minister of Finance ......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Brenda Bailey Minister of Forests .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Parmar Minister of Health ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Josie Osborne Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Christine Boyle Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Minister of Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Bowinn Ma Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth ...................................................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence and New Technologies .................................................................. Hon. Rick Glumac Minister of Labour .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals .....................................................................................................................Hon.

Jagrup Brar Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills ........................................................................................Hon. Jessie Sunner Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................ Hon. Nina Krieger Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services ........................................................................ Hon.

Terry Yung Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction ...............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport ............................................................................................................. Hon. Anne Kang Minister of Transportation and Transit ................................................................................................................ Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship ............................................................................................... Hon. Randene Neill Minister Without Portfolio ..............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Grace Lore LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ......................................................................................................................................Trevor Halford Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................Jeremy Valeriote Deputy Speaker ......................................................................................................................................................................

Mable Elmore Assistant Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................Lorne Doerkson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ......................................................................................................................George Anderson Clerk of the Legislative Assembly....................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel ......................................................................................................................Seunghee Suzie Seo Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees .............................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Committee Clerk ......................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Committee Clerk .........................................................................................................................................................................Darryl Hol Senior Legal Counsel .................................................................................................................................................................Hayley Hill Sergeant-at-Arms ..................................................................................................................................................................

Ray Robitaille Director of Hansard Services .......................................................................................................................................D’ Arcy McPherson Legislative Librarian ...............................................................................................................................................................Peter Gourlay

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS BY PARTY BC NDP Anderson, Hon. Brittny ........................................... Kootenay Central Anderson, George ................................................ Nanaimo-Lantzville Arora, Rohini ....................................................................Burnaby East Bailey, Hon. Brenda ................................Vancouver–South Granville Beare, Hon.

Lisa .......................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry .................................................................Surrey-Guildford Blatherwick, Jennifer ....................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Boyle, Hon. Christine .............................Vancouver–Little Mountain Brar, Hon. Jagrup ......................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Chandra Herbert, Hon. Spencer ..................... Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie .............................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Choi, Paul ..................................................Burnaby South–Metrotown Chouhan, Hon. Raj ................................. Burnaby–New Westminster Chow, George ....................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Davidson, Hon. Tamara / Laanas ...........North Coast–Haida Gwaii Dhir, Sunita .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Dix, Hon. Adrian .................................................. Vancouver-Renfrew Eby, Hon. David, KC .......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable ................................................. Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike .................................................Port Coquitlam Gibson, Hon. Diana ........................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Glumac, Hon. Rick ...................................... Port Moody–Burquitlam Greene, Hon. Kelly ..............................................Richmond-Steveston Higginson, Stephanie ........................................Ladysmith-Oceanside Kahlon, Hon. Ravi .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne ......................................................... Burnaby Centre Krieger, Hon. Nina ...............................................Victoria–Swan Lake Lajeunesse, Dana ..............................................Juan de Fuca–Malahat Lore, Hon. Grace .................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn ................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila .........................Nanaimo–Gabriola Island Morissette, Steve ...................................................Kootenay Monashee Neill, Hon. Randene ............................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Osborne, Hon. Josie ....................................... Mid Island–Pacific Rim Parmar, Hon. Ravi ...............................................Langford-Highlands Phillip, Joan / Amshen .....................................Vancouver-Strathcona Popham, Hon. Lana ........................................................ Saanich South Rotchford, Darlene ...............................................Esquimalt-Colwood Routledge, Janet .............................................................Burnaby North Sandhu, Harwinder ......................................................

Vernon-Lumby Shah, Amna ............................................................. Surrey City Centre Sharma, Hon. Niki, KC ....................................... Vancouver-Hastings Sunner, Hon. Jessie ....................................................... Surrey-Newton Toporowski, Debra / Qwulti’stunaat .......................Cowichan Valley Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer ...................New Westminster–Coquitlam Wickens, Hon. Jodie ............................. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Yung, Hon.

Terry .................................................Vancouver-Yaletown CONSERV ATIVE PARTY OF BC Banman, Bruce .......................................................... Abbotsford South Bhangu, Harman .................................................. Langley-Abbotsford Bird, Rosalyn ............................................. Prince George–Valemount Block, Lynne ..............................................West Vancouver–Capilano Chapman, Brent .................................................................Surrey South Clare, Sheldon ....................................

Prince George–North Cariboo Davis, Pete ..................................................................Kootenay Rockies Day, Brennan ........................................................... Courtenay-Comox Dew, Gavin ..................................................................Kelowna-Mission Dhaliwal, Mandeep .......................................................... Surrey North Doerkson, Lorne .....................................................

Cariboo-Chilcotin Gasper, Reann .......................................................Abbotsford-Mission Giddens, Kiel ..............................................Prince George–Mackenzie Halford, Trevor ......................................................Surrey–White Rock Hartwell, Sharon ..............................................Bulkley Valley–Stikine Hepner, Linda ................................................Surrey–Serpentine River Kindy, Anna ........................................................................North Island Kooner, Steve ............................................Richmond-Queensborough Loewen, Kristina ..........................................................

Kelowna Centre Luck, Tony ..........................................................................Fraser-Nicola Maahs, Heather ......................................................... Chilliwack North McCall, Macklin .........................................West Kelowna–Peachland McInnis, Scott ......................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke Milobar, Peter ............................................................

Kamloops Centre Mok, Lawrence ...........................................................Maple Ridge East Neufeld, Korky ............................................................Abbotsford West Neufeld, Larry ...........................................................Peace River South Paton, Ian ..............................................................................Delta South Rattée, Claire .................................................................................Skeena Rustad, John ...................................................................Nechako Lakes Stamer, Ward .........................................Kamloops–North Thompson Tepper, Br yan ............................................................

Surrey-Panorama Toor, Jody ............................................................Langley-Willowbrook Van Popta, Misty..............................................Langley–Walnut Grove Warbus, Á’a:líya ..............................................Chilliwack–Cultus Lake Wat, Teresa .........................................................Richmond-Bridgeport Williams, David ...............................................Salmon Arm–Shuswap Wilson, Donegal ............................................Boundary-Similkameen BC GREEN PARTY Botterell, Rob .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Valeriote, Jeremy .....................................

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky INDEPENDENT Armstrong, Tara .....................Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream Boultbee, Amelia .............................................Penticton-Summerland Brodie, Dallas .................................................... Vancouver-Quilchena Chan, Hon ..................................................................Richmond Centre Kealy, Jordan ............................................................. Peace River North Sturko, Elenore .........................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale PARTY STANDINGS Total seats – 93 BC NDP – 47 | Conservative Party of BC – 38 | BC Green Party – 2 | Independent – 6

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF RIDINGS A Abbotsford-Mission ........................................................Reann Gasper Abbotsford South ........................................................... Bruce Banman Abbotsford West .............................................................Korky Neufeld B Boundary-Similkameen .............................................Donegal Wilson Bulkley Valley–Stikine ............................................... Sharon Hartwell Burnaby Centre ...........................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Burnaby East ......................................................................Rohini Arora Burnaby–New Westminster .................................. Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby North ..............................................................Janet Routledge Burnaby South–Metrotown .................................................. Paul Choi C Cariboo-Chilcotin .......................................................Lorne Doerkson Chilliwack–Cultus Lake .............................................. Á’a:líya Warbus Chilliwack North ..........................................................

Heather Maahs Columbia River–Revelstoke ...........................................Scott McInnis Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .............................. Hon. Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville .................................... Jennifer Blatherwick Courtenay-Comox ............................................................ Brennan Day Cowichan Valley ....................... Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat D Delta North ................................................................Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ...............................................................................Ian Paton E Esquimalt-Colwood ................................................Darlene Rotchford F Fraser-Nicola .......................................................................... Tony Luck J Juan de Fuca–Malahat ...............................................Dana Lajeunesse K Kamloops Centre ............................................................. Peter Milobar Kamloops–North Thompson .........................................

Ward Stamer Kelowna Centre ........................................................... Kristina Loewen Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream ......................Tara Armstrong Kelowna-Mission ..................................................................Gavin Dew Kootenay Central ............................................ Hon. Brittny Anderson Kootenay Monashee ....................................................Steve Morissette Kootenay Rockies................................................................... Pete Davis L Ladysmith-Oceanside ........................................

Stephanie Higginson Langford-Highlands ................................................ Hon. Ravi Parmar Langley-Abbotsford ....................................................Harman Bhangu Langley–Walnut Grove ..............................................Misty Van Popta Langley-Willowbrook ............................................................ Jody Toor M Maple Ridge East ............................................................Lawrence Mok Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim ........................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne N Nanaimo–Gabriola Island ..........................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo-Lantzville ................................................. George Anderson Nechako Lakes ....................................................................John Rustad New Westminster–Coquitlam .................... Hon. Jennifer Whiteside North Coast–Haida Gwaii ............Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson North Island ........................................................................Anna Kindy North Vancouver–Lonsdale .....................................Hon.

Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ...............................................Susie Chant O Oak Bay–Gordon Head ......................................... Hon. Diana Gibson P Peace River North ..............................................................Jordan Kealy Peace River South ............................................................Larry Neufeld Penticton-Summerland .............................................. Amelia Boultbee Port Coquitlam ................................................. Hon. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Burquitlam ........................................Hon.

Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ............................. Hon. Randene Neill Prince George–Mackenzie ...............................................Kiel Giddens Prince George–North Cariboo ......................................Sheldon Clare Prince George–Valemount ...............................................Rosalyn Bird R Richmond-Bridgeport .......................................................... Teresa Wat Richmond Centre .................................................................. Hon Chan Richmond-Queensborough ............................................

Steve Kooner Richmond-Steveston ...............................................Hon. Kelly Greene S Saanich North and the Islands ....................................... Rob Botterell Saanich South ......................................................... Hon.

Lana Popham Salmon Arm–Shuswap ................................................David Williams Skeena ..................................................................................Claire Rattée Surrey City Centre ...............................................................Amna Shah Surrey-Cloverdale .......................................................... Elenore Sturko Surrey-Fleetwood ....................................................... Hon. Jagrup Brar Surrey-Guildford .................................................................

Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ........................................................ Hon. Jessie Sunner Surrey North ............................................................Mandeep Dhaliwal Surrey-Panorama ..............................................................Br yan Tepper Surrey–Serpentine River ................................................

Linda Hepner Surrey South ..................................................................Brent Chapman Surrey–White Rock .......................................................Trevor Halford V Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ........................................ Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Vancouver-Kensington ...................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Langara .............................................................Sunita Dhir Vancouver–Little Mountain ............................. Hon.

Christine Boyle Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................Hon. David Eby, KC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Dallas Brodie Vancouver-Renfrew ................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Vancouver–South Granville ................................ Hon. Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Strathcona ..................................... Amshen / Joan Phillip Vancouver–West End .......................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Vancouver-Yaletown ..................................................Hon.

Terry Yung Vernon-Lumby ....................................................... Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................. Hon. Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake ................................................Hon. Nina Krieger W West Kelowna–Peachland ..........................................Macklin McCall West Vancouver–Capilano ................................................Lynne Block West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ...................................... Jeremy Valeriote

CONTENTS Thursday, April 23, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6849 Cecilia Dick DeRose Lorne Doerkson Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .................................................................................................................................................. 6849 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) ................................................................................................................................. 6872 Second Reading of Bills .................................................................................................................................................. 6872 Bill 20 — K’ ómoks Treaty Act (continued) Lynne Block Rob Botterell Stephanie Higginson Linda Hepner Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 6883 Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions (continued) Larry Neufeld Hon.

Adrian Dix David Williams Scott McInnis

6849 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 com - munity. She was a tireless advocate for the preservation and renewal of Indigenous language, culture and trad - itional 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 In - digenous 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, reach - ing classrooms and communities throughout the region, where she mentored and guided countless people. In rec - ognition 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 im - pact 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 condol - ences 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 Commit - tee 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 out - comes, 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 foun - dational aspect of all of those positive outcomes that it can bring. I just want to briefly reflect. We had a solemn com - memorative 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 un - imaginable 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 acknow - ledges that none of us here would be here if not for that history.

So whatever rights or wrongs that may have hap - pened 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 be -

6850 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 23, 2026 cause of their identity, that prevent the prosperity of this province by saying, “No, no, no, you can’t give them spe - cial 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 re - specting 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 ad - dressing 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 communi - cation 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 con - sent-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 mod- ern approach to shared stewardship, because it is every - body’s responsibility in this province to ensure that we uphold that.

That is what reconciliation looks like in prac - tice. 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, eco - nomic 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 reconcilia - tion is not just a concept. It’s not a goal.

It’s not just some- thing 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 de - bate. 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 Indigen - ous 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 prin - ciples and values of being human, what it means to be hu - man, a good human. I really cannot not stand here and ask for that, plead for that from everybody in this cham - ber. I cannot not do that. It is my responsibility. It’s my obligation.

I hope that members and people who are listening to - day 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 Brit -

Thursday, April 23, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6851 ish 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 mem - ber 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 leader - ship and their community, to reach this point of discus - sion we’re at today. Treaty negotiations, as we know, are not simple. They require persistence across generations, leadership and difficult conversations within commun - ities 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 acknow - ledge 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 pre - vious 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 legisla - tor, 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 sup - port treaties. I support treaties because they are the most appropriate and durable way to define and finalize the re - lationship between First Nations, British Columbia and Canada.

I support treaties because they move First Na - tions out from under the Indian Act — a piece of legis - lation 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 num - bered treaties, most of British Columbia entered Confed - eration without treaties covering the vast majority of its land. In other regions, treaties were used, however imper - fectly at the time, to facilitate settlement and define rela - tionships 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 be - tween 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 govern - ments proceeded as though Indigenous title had been ex - tinguished 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

6852 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 23, 2026 traveled to Ottawa and even to London, petitioning gov - ernments 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 per - iod, Indigenous Peoples were even restricted from raising funds to pursue legal claims, limiting their ability to chal - lenge these assumptions in court.

I think that history matters because it explains why British Columbia has entered the modern era with un - resolved 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 Ab - original 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 clar - ity added, and that’s the process that we’ve been going through. In the decades that followed, additional decisions re - inforced that Indigenous rights and title are constitution - ally 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 de - tailed 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 mod - ern treaty era, coming with the Nisg̱ a’a final agreement, which came into effect in 2000.

That agreement estab - lished a framework for self-government, defined land- ownership and created mechanisms for resource manage - ment and economic participation. It was not without its own concerns raised at that time — and still, an imperfect process — and concerns still re - main to this day. But it has been in place for 26 years now, and that is important as we enter into this discussion to - day. It demonstrated that negotiated agreements could ac - tually be possible where litigation alone could not be the only other alternative. It is notable that the Nisg̱ a’a treaty was negotiated outside the B.C.

Treaty Commission pro - cess. 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 ne - gotiations between First Nations, B.C. and Canada. The commission was intended to provide a structured, made- in-British-Columbia process, one that could move be - yond 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 rati - fication 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 af - ter it was first signed. Treaty 8 covers a very big area in the northeast of the province, and this is also in my constitu - ency. These examples remind us that treaties take differ - ent 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. Brit- ish 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. Treat - ies are meant to provide certainty. They are meant to pro - vide that long-term, durable solution and not to perpetu - ate 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 inher - ent right of all First Nations to self-government and self- determination within their territory.

However, treaties must be implemented in a manner that reflects Indigen - ous 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.

Thursday, April 23, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6853 Within the same letter, these nations go on to say: “Both the Kitselas and K’ómoks treaties violate In - digenous law and claim territory in an overly broad manner and with little or no legal or historical foun - dation.

Both treaties take overly ambitious claim areas and turn them into treaty rights. “Up to this point, provincial negotiators have re - fused to engage in meaningful consultation and have refused to require amendments to these treaties to ad - just boundaries; require protocols in overlap areas, as was done in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty; or include other miti - gation 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 relation - ships.

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 willing - ness 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 agree - ment, 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 im - portant 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 address - ing 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 prop - erly 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, be - cause 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 advan - ces the objectives of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.” That language is obviously aligned with what the gov - ernment 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 resolu - tion 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 re - visit; 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 frame - work 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 con - stitution. That is the highest law of the land, and it is very, very important that those rights have that protection en - forced there. At the same time, this legislation embeds the prin - ciples 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 influ - enced the language used in the new treaty agreements. As a result and in contrast to other modern-era treaties, the

6854 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 23, 2026 new treaty agreements do not appear to provide the cer - tainty 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 fu - ture 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 unad - dressed, will not disappear but instead will move to the courts. That is not what treaties are meant to do. Treat - ies, 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 dur - able relationships.

And I think we actually agree on those principles. That’s why this moment matters. It was the govern - ment’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 ac - tually 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 Brit - ish Columbians. Again, I support treaty. I want to vote in favour of the K’ómoks Treaty Act. I sincerely do.

I support mov - ing 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 In - digenous 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 sec - tion 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 hap - pen. 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 ac - knowledgement by Canada and British Columbia. That is really important. I cannot stress enough, to members who don’t under - stand, that making sure that you have land for generations to come, making sure that you have access to fish, to ber - ries, to be able to do cultural practices…. I know in this House that when we debate things, we

Thursday, April 23, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6855 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 Commis - sion 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 out - side 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 Brit - ish 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 commun - ities.

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 Col- umbians 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 commun - ities 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 — some - times 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 com - munities, 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, Nisg̱ a’a. We know how well those treaties are working in their regions because we’ve built those rela - tionships. 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 hap - pening over the past few months. We know, too, that treaties build stronger local relation- ships 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 com - munity 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, trad - itions.

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 de- cisions for the future of their children and their commun - ity. 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 try - ing 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 com- munities, with other organizations, with the public about

6856 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 23, 2026 what this treaty means and what it doesn’t mean, be - cause we don’t want lies creating fear or creating uncer - tainty 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 Indigen - ous 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 pro- vide 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 ad - vocated 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 rec - onciliation 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 pre - pared 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 com - munities 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 docu - ment, 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 power - ful 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 Nisg ̱ a’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 treat - ies — 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 got - ten 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 commun - ities.” 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 con -

Thursday, April 23, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6857 stituents, 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 ques - tions 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 wheel - house. 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 com - ing 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 UN - DRIP was not supposed to be the authoritative source for how we were going to interpret all of our laws in this prov- ince, 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 require - ment 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 an - other 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 Indigen - ous. 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 — Indigen - ous and non-Indigenous.

I’ve seen it in my own riding, how these overlapping issues of consent from all First Na - tions…. It’s just not possible. There are over 200 First Na - tions 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 agree - ing 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 de - termine that. It’s going to be a very difficult and very long process, and maybe that’s what needs to happen. The real- ity is that we’re never going to get to a place where every - body 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 dam - ages that Indigenous community as well. It’s on their trad- itional 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 paraly - sis. Government embrace of UNDRIP is blocking the pro - gress 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 counter - productive 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 govern - ment 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

6858 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 23, 2026 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 In - digenous 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 in - creased access to health care, especially around mental health and addictions, because it wasn’t coming from gov- ernment. 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 cer - tainly do have concerns over the fact that there are over - lapping 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 gov - ernment’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 be - hind. 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 govern- ment 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 rid - ing 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 require - ment 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 an- other nation is getting something that they weren’t, why wouldn’t they? I would. Treaties are supposed to provide clarity. They’re sup - posed 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 Nisg̱ a’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 imple - ment 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 go - ing 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

Thursday, April 23, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6859 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 gov- ernment structure.” That’s acceptable. I understand that. I recognize that. Those things have to change, but the point of treaty is sup - posed 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 Nisg̱ a’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 ac - complish here. Going through a treaty process is incred - ibly 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-Indigen - ous 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 bet- ter 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 con - cerns that aspects of this could actually end up not bene - fiting 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 rec - onciliation. 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 con - versations, but it is not their responsibility to make sure that this is resolved. The reality is that there are a num - ber 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 facili - tate something to ensure that those land issues can be ad - dressed and that everybody gets a piece of the pie, because they deserve to. That requires leadership, and it’s leader - ship 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

6860 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 23, 2026 that we are trying to benefit if they end up having a prob - lem 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 negoti - ators 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 Nisg̱ a’a treaty.

There are overlapping land claims. They were able to re - solve 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 des - perate 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 ex - pertise. 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 suc - cessful and hasn’t faced a lot of the problems that we see in more northern, rural or remote First Nations commun - ities. 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 con - ditions 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 commun - ities in this province have to fight so much harder to ac - cess 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 commun - ities 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 ad - dressed — 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 com - munities. 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, technic - ally, 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 recon- ciliation 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 be - tween 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 ex - plain to me, very clearly and unequivocally, why that sec - tion 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

Thursday, April 23, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6861 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, be - cause until I have clarity on that, I don’t know if I can sup- port 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 genera - tions 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 Rela - tions to hear about, to witness the leadership that was hap - pening 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 rati - fication 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 mem - bers.

But our voter turnouts in provincial elections are no - where 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 gov - ernment that understands treaties as one important and incredibly tangible piece of our shared work on reconcilia - tion to reflect the self-determination of nations in choos - ing 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 rec - onciliation 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 com - munity 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 bene - fits across their region.

That’s the good work that the na - tion is leading, and that is an important piece of the prov - ince’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 Col - umbians. 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 com - munity and the region as a whole. I was really struck, again in my time as Minister of In - digenous Relations and Reconciliation, by the work being led both by the treaty commission and in partnership be - tween 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 rela - tionship — is, again, a reflection of a deep understand - ing 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 commit - ted to walking together into a future that lifts up K’ómoks members, that provides a better path for K’ómoks mem - bers and that moves us all forward together.

That reflection in the shift of treaties being living re - lationships 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 Nisg̱ a’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.

6862 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 23, 2026 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 commun - ities. The treaties have brought higher wages for treaty na - tions 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 be - cause the majority of First Nations in B.C. don’t have treat- ies. 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 establish - ing self-government and law-making for K’ómoks; af - firming 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 al - lowed even 15 years ago in this House.

To have Indigenous language spoken in these cham - bers, 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 in - credibly 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 in - credibly 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-mak - ing agreement and to continue to support the work of rec - onciliation 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 along - side 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 opportun - ity 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 Brit - ish 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 col - league from Skeena articulated this very well, in the sense that it hurts my heart that we have people in our prov - ince that live like it’s a Third World country. This is Brit - ish 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 ne - cessary. 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 be - lieve it has created an imbalance in our society, and it cre - ates different rules for different people.

The Indian Act it - self 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 his - tory. It is our attempt to achieve reconciliation. It exists so that rights can be recognized, that lands can be trans - ferred, that governance can be established and that rela - tionships 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 re -

Thursday, April 23, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6863 solved all outstanding issues. It should not be the role of this House to make those decisions on behalf of na - tions. 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 im - portantly, 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 rec - onciliation should look like in practice, but we’re not there yet.

I want to affirm that treaties are not symbolic docu - ments. These are not intention papers. These are consti - tutionally protected agreements. They shape how govern - ments 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 perma - nent 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 to - day 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 set - tle 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 Legis - lative 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 Colum - bia. 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 gov - ernment 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 gen - erations 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 intro- duced 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 edu - cating myself.

I have been trying to understand the deci - sions 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 Indigen - ous Peoples, referred to as UNDRIP. It is embedded into the treaty itself. This is being done at a time in this prov - ince 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 dec - laration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is an authori - tative 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

6864 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 23, 2026 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 pos - itions 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, any - ways, 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 amend - ments, 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 for - ward, 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 Nisg̱ a’a treaty, the cover page at that time said, “Nisg̱ a’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 Col - umbians and the opposition until a week ago. We are be - ing asked to review a constitutionally protected agreement, one that will shape land-ownership, governance author - ity, 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 receiv - ing letters. They were letters from neighbouring nations, clearly in opposition and outlining their concerns.

This demonstrates to me that the work of the negotia - tion table is not done and that this government is choos - ing 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 settle - ment of lands to the K’ómoks Nation, with neighbouring nations claiming as much as 80 percent overlap with in - fringement 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 dis - pute. 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 dir - ections forward.

I was also invited by Wei Wai Kum, as were all mem - bers 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

Thursday, April 23, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6865 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 com - mitment. I quote from the letter from Wei Wai Kum First Nation on March 27, 2026: “We send this letter and briefing package with re - gret. We hoped to support K’ómoks First Nation in their effort to complete a modern treaty.

Unfortu - nately, the K’ómoks treaty overlaps close to 80 percent of our territory and contains many and massive in - fringements 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 com - mitment to engage in consultation and accommoda - tion 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 im- pacts 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 high - lighted. 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 conserv - ation and stewardship initiative

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20260423pm-Hansard-n162
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20260423pm Hansard n162
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d3fb8e3602358b5f84268b3a7efe66722ac43802

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).