The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th:
I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today.
At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA.
Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province.
UNDRIP was never originally designed to function as an authoritative governing framework for provincial constitutional law in British Columbia. It was not written as a detailed, operational blueprint for resource management in BC. It was not drafted as a binding administrative manual for provincial permitting systems. It was not designed as a constitutional replacement for the democratic institution of Canadian provinces. And it was certainly not written to resolve the extraordinary, complex realities of overlapping territorial claims between First Nations in British Columbia.
UNDRIP emerged as a broad, aspirational, international declaration intended to establish human rights principles and standards regarding Indigenous Peoples globally. That distinction matters, because international declarations are often intentionally broad and aspirational in language. They are meant to establish moral principles and objectives, not precise operational legal mechanisms.
Unfortunately, this government increasingly treats UNDRIP not as a guiding principle, but as an evolving authoritative reference point for provincial decision-making. That shift carries enormous implications, and British Columbians deserve honesty about those implications.
One of the greatest dangers in governance occurs when broad, aspirational language is converted into domestic law without clear operational boundaries. What sounds straightforward politically often becomes deeply complicated legally.
Words like “consent,” “shared decision-making” and “co-governance” may sound collaborative in speeches and press conferences. But once embedded into legal frameworks, those concepts carry significant constitutional and jurisdictional consequences. Government has not provided sufficient clarity regarding where those consequences ultimately lead.
BC Conservatives believe in meaningful consultation, and respectful relationships, with our Indigenous communities. But we also believe democratic authority in British Columbia must remain clear, accountable and rooted in elected institutions answerable to our public. That principle matters enormously, because democratic accountability is one of the foundational pillars of responsible government in Canada.
Citizens elect representatives, representatives debate laws publicly, and governments answer to the voters. Authority ultimately flows through these democratic institutions, and the accountability to all citizens is equally applied. But many British Columbians increasingly fear that DRIPA is slowly eroding the clarity of that authority, not through a single dramatic constitutional amendment, not through open constitutional negotiations, not incrementally through policy evolution, legal interpretation and expanding government or governance expectations.
This is precisely why many citizens feel uneasy in this province today. They sense fundamental changes occurring, but they are not receiving clear explanations regarding the final destination of any of those changes. When government avoids defining boundaries clearly, uncertainty inevitably grows.
Can projects move forward? Can they be delayed indefinitely? Can different nations reach different conclusions regarding the same territory? What happens when overlapping claims exist.
This government repeatedly avoids giving precise answers to these specific questions. That is deeply concerning, because laws function through specifics, not slogans. If responsibility becomes undefined, then accountability becomes undefined. When accountability becomes undefined, then public trust is weakened.
BC already faces serious challenges regarding public confidence in our institutions. People are frustrated by the bureaucracy. They’re frustrated by permitting delays. They’re frustrated by the regulatory uncertainty, with changes happening almost daily. They’re frustrated by the government that increasingly seems unable to make timely decisions on major projects and economic opportunities.
DRIPA risks worsening that uncertainty further if operational governance structures remain undefined.
Increasingly, we see governments hesitant to act decisively in areas traditionally understood as provincial jurisdiction, because they fear legal uncertainty surrounding consent frameworks and shared governance obligations.
That has consequences, real consequences, for resource development, infrastructure, energy projects, forest operations, for rural and urban employment and, confidence in real investment across British Columbia.
Another issue rarely discussed openly enough is how DRIPA and UNDRIP may fundamentally alter the relationship between provincial governments and the courts, because whenever legislation contains broad, undefined principles, courts inevitably become central interpreters of political intent.
That means judges increasingly define operational governance boundaries rather than elected legislators themselves. And once courts begin establishing precedent, governments may find provincial authority constrained in ways never fully debated publicly beforehand. That should concern every legislator in this House regardless of the political affiliation, because constitutional evolution through litigation rather than democratic clarity weakens public understanding and accountability.
BC Conservatives believe major governance transformation should occur transparently and democratically, not incrementally through non-disclosure agreements. Unfortunately, many British Columbians feel DRIPA and UNDRIP have introduced precisely that uncertainty.
British Columbia cannot function effectively under perpetual uncertainty regarding governance authority. Business cannot invest confidently under this uncertainty. Communities cannot plan confidently under uncertainty. Workers cannot build stable futures under uncertainty. And Indigenous communities themselves cannot achieve long-term economic success under uncertainty either.
Everyone suffers when government frameworks become unclear.
The BC Conservatives believe reconciliation should reduce conflict, not institutionalize future disputes through unresolved agreements and concerns. Yet, this government appears willing to move forward despite these unresolved concerns.
With these treaties, and this one specifically, local governments also deserve clarity. Municipal and regional districts need to understand how overlapping jurisdictions will affect planning decisions, infrastructure approvals, service delivery, emergency management, and taxation structures. And many First Nation governments have demanded a pause in this treaty process.
If opposition members ask for more transparency, we’re accused of standing against reconciliation. That approach weakens our public trust because democracy requires a debate, and healthy democracies welcome scrutiny. Legislation with constitutional impacts deserves the highest level of public examination possible. The consultation is supposed to be meaningful. And that word, “meaningful,” matters, but it doesn’t mean informing people after the decisions have already been made.
We’ve been told that this treaty has been 30 years in the making — multi-generational. Yet members on this side of the House, and most of the public, got to see it a mere two weeks ago. This government would have us believe that within two weeks from today, we should be able to go through the entire process of this treaty -- and the implications of this treaty -- and to be able to pass it by May 28.
Now, I don’t know what the rush is, but for some unknown reason, they’re in a big hurry to ram this one down in two weeks.
Meaningful consultation isn’t after the fact. It doesn’t necessarily revolve around non-disclosure agreements. It certainly doesn’t instill a confidence in our public and the process. And as I mentioned earlier, there are many First Nation organizations and governments that would like us to pause this process.
Meaningful consultation does not mean pushing forward despite unresolved objections from those affected parties, yet many people involved in this process feel that’s exactly what’s happened.
Many British Columbians look at this agreement, and they see unresolved questions rather than that clarity. They see unanswered concerns regarding overlapping boundaries. They see concerns regarding future jurisdictional conflicts. They see a government more focused on symbolism than practical implementation.
Treaties affect far more than the present moment. They shape the future legal framework of this province. Every treaty establishes precedents and expectations. Every governance arrangement becomes part of a broader, evolving landscape. That’s why we must be cautious. Once agreements are ratified, reversing or correcting mistakes becomes extraordinarily difficult. And if overlapping claims remain unresolved now, they may become even harder to resolve later.
Many residents in these affected regions still have basic questions regarding governance implications, consultation requirements, land management, taxation implications and jurisdictional authority. That tells us something important. It tells us that the government has not done an adequate job explaining the agreement clearly to the public.
That is why delaying this legislation remains so important, because additional time allows for additional scrutiny. It allows for additional legal analysis. Additional consultation with all affected members of the public, including our First Nation communities. Additional opportunity to clarify governance, authorities and overlapping concerns before these irreversible decisions are made.
Another important issue is economic competitiveness. BC is already struggling to attract and retain investment compared to competing jurisdictions. Major resource projects face years of delay. Permitting timelines are continually expanding. Forestry communities face ongoing instability. And mining investment is leaving for other areas.
These treaties are supposed to be able to alleviate some of those concerns, but that’s not what we’re seeing in the real time. Confidence matters in this province, and capital moves towards predictability.
Some of the government members are saying that these claims are exaggerated. Yet BC is already witnessing the consequences of these uncertain times. We’ve lost tens of thousands of jobs in the last couple of months directly because of that uncertainty. Communities dependent on natural resources are struggling, projects are delayed or abandoned, and again, investors are choosing other jurisdictions. And workers are paying the price.
BC Conservatives believe reconciliation and prosperity should work together, and Indigenous communities deserve those opportunities to strong economies and responsible development. But prosperity requires government systems that are stable, transparent and predictable. Without that, opportunity weakens for everyone.
When we started talking about our democracy, we talked about the reason why we’re here in the Legislature: to be able to pass laws that can be interpreted the way they were originally designed and not just interpreted by the courts.
I think the public deserves to know how we are going to be able to overcome overlapping (First Nations) claims. The government says: “Oh, not to worry about it. We’ll just be able to sign a new treaty, and we’ll be able to move forward.”
I would suggest that First Nations, asking for a pause, have legitimate concerns on these overlapping boundaries. And they, as well as the people of BC, deserve clear explanations, not vague political reassurances.
Governments must be willing to provide exact and precise answers. Delaying Bill 20 until the fall session will provide an opportunity for exactly the kind of scrutiny that is needed — more time for legal experts, more time for constitutional scholars, more time for public engagement, more time for neighbouring nations to continue discussions surrounding these overlaps, and more time for government itself to clarify how DRIPA and UNDRIP interact with provincial authority operationally.
There’s nothing radical about asking for clarity before constitutional-level governance changes become entrenched.
That is responsible leadership, and that is responsible democracy.
Conservatives believe BC can pursue reconciliation while preserving democratic accountability and constitutional clarity. These goals are not mutually exclusive. But achieving them will require the government to define boundaries clearly rather than relying on evolving ambiguity.
Reconciliation is built on clarity, accountability, transparency and a broad confidence in a far stronger chance of enduring success for generations.
That’s important to all of us.
Comments
Post a Comment