On Tuesday, representatives from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), We Wei Wai Kum First Nation, Nine Allied Tribes, and Lax Kw'alaams Band stood together in Victoria to deliver a clear message to the Eby government: push these treaty bills through as written, and you will see us in court.

The two bills in question are Bill 20, the K'omoks Treaty Act, and Bill 21, the Kitselas Treaty Act โ€” legislation the NDP is advancing through the legislature to ratify recently negotiated treaties with those two First Nations. On paper, it looks like reconciliation in action. In reality, it is causing a political firestorm โ€” because the treaties, as currently drafted, are alleged to infringe on the traditional territories of neighbouring nations who were never adequately consulted.

"We are told this is reconciliation," said Lax Kw'alaams Mayor Gary Reece at the Victoria press conference. "What we're seeing, and what we're experiencing is something very different."

"We support negotiated agreements such as treaties. We support self determination. We want to celebrate with our neighbours when they reach those milestones. But reconciliation must be done the right way, and right now, it's not."

โ€” Gary Reece, Mayor, Lax Kw'alaams Band, April 28, 2026

The groups gathered are not opposed to treaties in principle. They are opposed to a process that they say failed to consult them as required โ€” and they are now warning the NDP that ratifying these bills without addressing their concerns will trigger "on-the-ground action and litigation."

The DRIPA Contradiction

This is where the story cuts deep into the NDP's core brand. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act โ€” DRIPA โ€” is the centrepiece of David Eby's reconciliation agenda. It is the legislation the NDP has used to justify sweeping land use restrictions, Indigenous veto powers over resource development, and a fundamental reordering of the relationship between the Crown and First Nations in BC.

DRIPA's central premise is free, prior and informed consent โ€” the idea that Indigenous peoples must be meaningfully consulted before decisions affecting their territories are made. It is the legal and moral foundation the NDP invokes constantly to defend DRIPA's reach.

Today, multiple First Nations leaders are standing at a Victoria podium saying they did not receive that consultation. That the process was inadequate. That their territorial interests were not considered. That this is not reconciliation.

If the NDP's own reconciliation framework requires consent, and affected nations are publicly stating they did not give it, then the government is either enforcing DRIPA selectively โ€” when it is politically convenient โ€” or not enforcing it at all.

The Minister's Dismissal

Indigenous Relations Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert's response to today's press conference was telling. Speaking to reporters ahead of the news conference, he suggested concerns around treaty processes are "not unusual."

He said the Kitselas and K'omoks First Nations are "continuing to talk with neighbouring nations" and suggested the matter should be resolved on a "neighbour-to-neighbour basis, nation-to-nation." When pressed on whether the bills would actually pass the legislature, the minister refused to commit either way.

That non-answer speaks volumes. The NDP government either has the votes and the resolve to push through bills that affected nations have threatened to litigate โ€” or it doesn't. Either answer is a problem. If it pushes through, it will face the courts. If it backs down, it will be the second major DRIPA-adjacent retreat in a month, following Eby's embarrassing backdown on the DRIPA suspension in April after a caucus revolt.

The Bills at Issue

  • Bill 20 โ€” K'omoks Treaty Act: Ratifies treaty with K'omoks First Nation on Vancouver Island; opposed by We Wei Wai Kum First Nation and Nine Allied Tribes who say it infringes their territories
  • Bill 21 โ€” Kitselas Treaty Act: Ratifies treaty with Kitselas First Nation in the northwest; opposed by Lax Kw'alaams Band who say consultation was inadequate
  • UBCIC: The Union of BC Indian Chiefs is backing opposition to both bills and coordinating the legal threat
  • Threatened action: On-the-ground action and court litigation if bills pass as currently drafted

A Pattern of Selective Reconciliation

What is emerging from this episode is a pattern that anyone paying attention to BC politics has noticed: the NDP applies its reconciliation principles selectively, based on political calculation rather than consistent principle.

When DRIPA was useful to expand Indigenous consent requirements over resource projects โ€” often blocking developments that the NDP's urban base opposed โ€” the government championed it loudly. When DRIPA became politically inconvenient in April, Eby briefly floated suspending it before being forced to retreat under pressure from both First Nations groups and his own MLAs.

Now, the same government is advancing treaty ratifications that First Nations leaders say failed to meet basic consultation standards โ€” the very standards DRIPA was built to protect. The groups threatening litigation are not anti-treaty. They are pro-process. They are asking for what DRIPA supposedly guarantees.

The NDP's answer, delivered through a minister who wouldn't commit to either passing or withdrawing the legislation, amounts to: trust us.

After the DRIPA fiasco, the caucus revolt, the polls that have the NDP's lead shrinking, and now First Nations threatening lawsuits over the government's own reconciliation agenda, "trust us" is not a compelling offer.

The party that built its brand on Indigenous rights is now being told, by Indigenous leaders, that what it is doing is not reconciliation. That message is going to be very hard to walk back.