The BC NDP's pitch on Indigenous treaties has always been straightforward: reconciliation, recognition, a new relationship. What the government doesn't advertise is what happens when one nation's treaty lands are another nation's unceded territory — and what happens when you rush to ratify those treaties over the objections of the neighbours.

That's exactly what is unfolding at the BC Legislature right now. Two treaties — with the Kitselas Nation in northwestern BC and the K'ómoks Nation on Vancouver Island — are advancing through the legislature despite an escalating chorus of opposition from other First Nations whose territories overlap with the lands being granted away.

80% Overlap: The Number the NDP Won't Acknowledge

Wei Wai Kum First Nation Chief Chris Roberts put the central problem in terms that cannot be misunderstood: 80 per cent of the land recognized in the K'ómoks treaty overlaps with territories claimed by neighbouring First Nations. His nation is already reviewing legal options in the event the province proceeds with ratification. He also hinted at actions beyond the courts.

"People need to remember what we have in our territory," Roberts told reporters in Victoria this week. "We have a B.C. Hydro dam that covers nearly 50 per cent of Vancouver Island's power needs. We have the Island Highway, which runs through our lands, our territory and past reserves. We have an $800-million wind farm project we're trying to advance."

That was not a subtle message. It was a list of economic infrastructure that sits inside a disputed treaty area — and a reminder that unresolved land questions have real consequences for real projects.

"Advancing treaty legislation with unresolved boundary issues is irresponsible and will be challenged."

— UBCIC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, April 2026

The Kitselas Problem: No Consent From Neighbours

The Haisla Nation joined the chorus this week with a pointed statement about the proposed Kitselas treaty — also in northwestern BC, the same region the Haisla call home.

"Treaties are a critical pathway to reconciliation and recognition of Indigenous rights and title," the Haisla statement read. "However, those outcomes must not come at the expense of other nations or through processes that leave key issues unresolved. Multiple nations have stated that the Kitselas treaty is proceeding despite unresolved territorial overlaps and without their consent."

"This approach disregards the reality of overlapping and shared territories, fails to secure free, prior, and informed consent from all impacted Nations, places First Nations in conflict with one another and advances legislation despite outstanding disputes and opposition."

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, led by Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, added its voice the week before — calling for a 180-day pause on both treaties. "Reconciliation cannot be achieved through incomplete or unilateral processes," said Phillip. "Moving forward without resolving shared territory and overlap issues risks undermining relationships between Nations."

UNDRIP: The Constitutional Tripwire Buried in These Treaties

The territorial disputes would be serious enough on their own. But buried in both the Kitselas and K'ómoks treaties is a provision that elevates the stakes dramatically: the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has been incorporated as an "authoritative source" for interpreting the agreements.

BC Conservatives have challenged the NDP specifically on this point. Unlike DRIPA — the provincial legislation that made all BC laws subject to UNDRIP alignment, which Eby briefly tried to suspend before backing down under pressure — these treaty references to UNDRIP would be constitutionally protected. They cannot be amended by a future legislature the way DRIPA could theoretically be repealed. They are locked in permanently.

What's At Stake in These Two Treaties

  • K'ómoks treaty: ~80% of recognized lands overlap with neighbouring First Nations territories (Wei Wai Kum)
  • Kitselas treaty: Proceeding despite objections from the Haisla Nation and multiple other NW BC nations
  • UNDRIP embedded: Referenced as "authoritative source" inside constitutionally protected treaties — cannot be undone by future legislation
  • Finality weakened: BC Conservatives say NDP has removed the "certainty and finality" language that were the original selling points of treaty-making in BC
  • 180-day pause requested by UBCIC, Haisla Nation, Wei Wai Kum, and other nations — rejected by NDP government

Conservative MLAs Scott McInnis and John Rustad have questioned why the NDP would lock UNDRIP inside constitutionally protected treaties while simultaneously appealing a court ruling that would make provincial laws "immediately" subject to UNDRIP principles. The government appears to want UNDRIP's reach expanded in treaties, while fighting its expansion through the courts in other contexts. The contradiction has not been explained.

Indigenous Relations Minister: "These Concerns Are Not New"

Indigenous Relations Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert's response to the mounting opposition has been notably thin. His substantive defence of the UNDRIP inclusion has amounted to silence. On the overlap question, he told reporters that overlapping claims "are not new to the treaty process" and that they are "ongoing issues."

That may be true. But the UBCIC, the Haisla Nation, the Wei Wai Kum, and the Nine Allied Tribes — all of whom appeared in Victoria within the same week to demand a pause — are not raising old concerns. They are raising alarms about this specific legislation, proceeding right now, over their explicit objections.

What the Opposition Is Saying

"Why are we making these the first treaties in B.C. to incorporate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — inside constitutionally protected agreements — while the government is simultaneously appealing a court ruling that would immediately apply UNDRIP to provincial laws?" — BC Conservative MLAs, April 2026

The UBCM — British Columbia's association of municipal governments — has also raised concerns, noting the lack of clarity about how overlapping jurisdictions will interact with local government authority once these treaties are ratified.

The Eby Government's Pattern

What is happening here is a pattern, not an accident. The NDP government has made a political commitment to rapid treaty implementation. Speed, for this government, has become a substitute for the difficult, time-consuming work of actually resolving overlapping claims before they become constitutional fixtures.

David Eby's government tried to suspend DRIPA when the political pressure became too intense — then backed down when it triggered an internal caucus revolt and anger from First Nations leadership. It has pushed forward with Heritage Conservation Act changes over the objections of municipalities and developers. And now it is pushing two treaties through the legislature over the objections of the very Indigenous nations whose territories are being carved up in the process.

The government's working theory appears to be that reconciliation requires speed, that legal challenges can be managed later, and that political momentum matters more than procedural thoroughness. What it's creating instead is a set of constitutional arrangements — locked in permanence — built on disputed foundations. When those foundations crack, no legislature will be able to fix them. The courts will own that process, and British Columbians of all backgrounds — including the First Nations being pitted against each other right now — will pay the cost.

Source: Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun, April 30, 2026. Read the original: There has to be a better way to resolve overlapping claims in B.C. treaty process