How badly does the NDP government not want to talk about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples anymore?

Very badly, judging by debate on one of two First Nations treaties that were hustled into the legislature as the DRIPA crisis was reaching full boil last month.

The government made a vain attempt to steer away from DRIPA during debate on the K’ómoks treaty covering parts of northern Vancouver Island, even though DRIPA is specifically cited as an integral part of the treaty.

The Conservative Party of B.C. Opposition is intent on exploring every aspect of the contentious law that recognizes Indigenous rights to full partnership in most provincial decision-making.

It’s an obvious way to score political points. It is also warranted by the implications of the court decision last year that created the controversy.

So Conservative MLA Ward Stamer was deep into an exploration of all the intricacies of DRIPA when Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert objected.

“We’re not currently in discussion around DRIPA, which he spent a bunch of time discussing. That’s not currently in the legislation of what we’re debating.”

It most certainly is.

It’s mentioned specifically in the preamble and the treaty itself — which the bill ratifies — explicitly refers to DRIPA several times.

“UNDRIP (the United Nations statement that provincial DRIPA law flows from) is the authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement.”

The chapter on co-management of numerous broad responsibilities said it is based on UNDRIP.

Chandra Herbert similarly tried to downplay the importance of DRIPA on the treaties earlier. He said there was a reference to it, but not in any way that impacts the legislation.

Pretending the treaties have almost nothing to do with DRIPA may help the NDP cope with the controversy in their own minds.

But the Conservatives are nearing the end of a leadership race in which all five candidates capitalized on the uncertainty created by DRIPA.

Stamer continued the focus this week, saying the UN declaration is a broad statement of principles and was never designed as a governing framework for provincial constitutional law.

“It was not written as a detailed, operational blueprint for resource management … It was not designed as a constitutional replacement for the democratic institution of provinces.”

The NDP government treats it as an authoritative reference point for decision-making, he said. Words like “consent, shared decision-making and co-governance” sound collaborative, but carry significant consequences and the government has not provided enough clarity about them, he said.

Stamer said the Conservatives believe in consultation and respectful relationships with Indigenous communities. But democratic authority must remain clear and accountable.

He said many feel DRIPA is eroding the clarity of that authority.

“They sense fundamental changes are occurring, but they are not receiving clear explanations regarding the final destination of any of these changes.”

A more immediate problem with the K’ómoks treaty, and a similar one with the Kitselas Nation on the Skeena River, is the overlapping claims by neighbouring nations.

That erupted when the treaties were introduced in mid-April, with numerous leaders from various nations objecting vehemently to land they claim as their own being included in treaties.

The K’ómoks treaty confirms the band’s title to about 3,442 hectares of land, some of which is now held by the province, despite neighbouring nations’ historic claims to the same lands.

They wrote to all MLAs saying the treaties violate Indigenous law and claim territory with little or no legal or historical foundation.

Passage of the required bill is not a sure thing. Even a full debate is uncertain. There are only five sitting days left and the legislature has spent hours on second reading of the first bill. So cutting off debate and forcing a vote is a possibility.

The NDP has a one-seat edge, assuming full attendance.

The two Green MLAs served notice this week that they will vote to advance the bill for further debate, but they appear to be on the fence when it comes to final approval, given the overlap objections. The treaties were presented as examples of how governments and First Nations can reach win-win deals to the benefit of all.

In the space of a month, the overlaps with other nations have become as divisive and contentious as DRIPA is.

British Columbia Premier David Eby has backed down again on the pausing of key parts of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, scrapping plans to table a suspension bill this legislative session.

The premier’s office says in a brief statement that it “can confirm that the government will not be introducing legislation on DRIPA during this session.”

Instead, it says Eby will hold a press conference Monday to outline next steps.

A draft document provided by a First Nations source says the government now hopes to work with First Nations to come up with a joint approach to DRIPA, under a framework for negotiations.

Eby met with First Nations leaders late Sunday afternoon, one of whom says the suspension law was withdrawn as a result of planned protests.

The premier has said a recent court decision on B.C.’s mineral claims regime that cited DRIPA put the province at serious litigation risk, while First Nations have said the law should not be changed.

A Joint Framework, Not a Commitment

The draft government document says the goal now is to “arrive at a set of recommendations, supported by First Nations in B.C. and the Province of B.C.” on how to implement DRIPA.

The document provided to The Canadian Press says there is “no commitment to either a) make amendments, or b) not make amendments to DRIPA.”

It is labelled as being subject to an NDA, or non-disclosure agreement.

The document outlines how discussions between the government, First Nations and other stakeholders could take place, and says there will be a “focus on reaching a shared understanding of how legislative alignment (with DRIPA) could most effectively work, in a manner led by First Nations and government but supported by the courts.”

It says the first meetings could take place within two weeks of the process being announced.

Reversal Within Hours

The now-scrapped plan to table the suspension bill on Monday lasted just a few hours after it emerged Sunday, and was immediately repudiated by First Nations leaders who have also opposed previous plans to amend DRIPA instead.

Attorney General Niki Sharma and Indigenous Relations Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert were also at the meeting with First Nations leaders late Sunday to discuss the latest moves on DRIPA, according to information provided by a source attending the online gathering.

A First Nations leadership source in the meeting said the government was “withdrawing the proposed (suspension) legislation because we have agreed to work together to address each others concerns.”

The source said the First Nations leaders and the government agreed “to develop a joint statement on the basic agreement to work together between now and next legislative session.”

The current session ends on May 28, with sittings resuming in September.

“It’s not agreed on, but it will be the starting point I suspect,” a First Nations source said of the draft document. “It’s workable.”

A Pattern of Retreats

Sunday’s developments represent the latest climbdown for Eby on DRIPA, which was intended to reflect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

But the December court ruling on mining regulations had prompted concerns about the potential sweeping impact of DRIPA on B.C.’s laws, with the court saying DRIPA should be interpreted to give “immediate legal effect” to UNDRIP.

That prompted Eby to pledge amendments to DRIPA, saying these were “non-negotiable” — a stance that infuriated First Nations leaders, resulting in the amendments proposal being dropped.

Then came a plan to suspend key parts of DRIPA for three years, which Eby said would give the Supreme Court of Canada time to rule on the government’s appeal in the mining case. He said he would make the vote on the suspension a confidence vote, meaning his government with its one-vote majority would fall if it failed.

But that plan, too, was roundly condemned by First Nations, with Grand Chief Stewart Phillip saying his NDP MLA wife, Joan Phillip, did not support it.

The idea of a confidence vote was then also scrapped.

The next plan, to table the suspension bill in a non-confidence vote on Monday, had prompted the First Nations Leadership Council to tell legislators to reject it, before the proposal was also swiftly dropped Sunday afternoon.