Courtesy of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs:
Dear Premier Eby:
Re: Open Letter on Bills 14 + 15
We are writing to raise our serious concerns about communications and representations that were made about Bills 14 and 15 to the First Nations Leadership Council (“FNLC”) at the All Chiefs meeting with you on May 15, 2025. In this meeting you heard directly from dozens of First Nations regarding their opposition to the Bills, many of whom have also sent you related correspondence.
As you know, the honour of the Crown is at stake when the Crown engages with First Nations. As part of honourable dealing, it is essential – and should go without saying – that statements and explanations provided by provincial government representatives about proposed legislation need to be clear. Without clarity, First Nations are not able to assess the import or impacts of the proposed legislation.
We have found your statements about the requirement for consent and compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UN Declaration”) to be unclear, confusing, and arguably misleading.
At the May 15th meeting, you stated: “Consent is a requirement for private projects… not because we just think that it’s the right thing to do – although it is – but because the Constitution requires it, the Interpretation Act requires it, and we put that specific provision into each of those bills.” You also told us at the May 15th meeting that “DRIPA obligations mean that these provisions wouldn’t be used without the support of the Nation whose core territory it’s on. There’s a specific provision in both bills that say that nothing in these bills can be interpreted as being inconsistent with the protections of DRIPA,” and that “both Bills 14 and 15 include explicit provisions that say that these Bills cannot take away from the rights that are protected under the Declaration.”
We note that you repeated a similar refrain at the Western Premiers’ Conference in Yellowknife on May 22nd, stating that Bill 15 will require the support of Indigenous Nations whose core Territory a private project is on, and even going so far as to state that it is about “partnership” as government cannot fast track projects over Indigenous objections.
After closely reviewing Bills 14 and 15 again following our meeting with you, we are deeply concerned and confounded by these statements as these assurances are not contained in the Bills. Section 20 in Bill 15 and section 13(2) in Bill 14 are the only provisions that refer to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (“Declaration Act”). Neither of those provisions state that the legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the protections of the Declaration Act or UN Declaration. Rather, they merely adopt the definition of “Indigenous peoples” from the Declaration Act. If the intention behind these provisions was to set out a requirement that the legislation not be interpreted inconsistently with the Declaration Act or the UN Declaration, amendments to the wording are required. If that was not the intention, we do not understand how you could make the statements you did at the May 15th meeting.
Despite your statements suggesting that consent from First Nations would be a prerequisite to projects, it is clear on the face of the Bills that they do not contain a requirement for consent from First Nations before a project can proceed or be designated for streamlining. At the May 15th meeting, you clarified that future regulations would set out that a private project can only be designated for fast tracking if the First Nation in whose “core territory” the project is located consents to the designation. Having this requirement in a regulation is materially different than having it in the underlying legislation, and your comments about consent being part of the Bills is hard to understand if the intention is to put such a requirement in regulations. This is more than just semantics – if the consent requirement is not set out in the legislation, it will be much easier for future governments to change the regulatory requirement as opposed to amending a statutory requirement.
As was expressed at the meeting, we remain quite concerned by your statements that a project must be in a First Nation’s “core territory” before it can be designated for fast tracking. This concept echoes the “postage stamp” approach to Aboriginal title that was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada and has been rejected by First Nations from the outset. No explanation has been provided as to what “core territory” means nor who will determine whether a project is, or is not, in a First Nation’s “core territory”. This is not a matter for the Crown to decide, and this proposed approach seriously risks prejudicing First Nations because of new or persisting boundary disputes caused by colonial policies and processes. It is a paternalistic and dismissive approach to refer to core Territories in this context.
You acknowledged at the May 15th meeting that it was a mistake for your government to fail to apply the Interim Approach to these Bills. We agree. That failure has left many First Nations with unanswered questions and serious concerns about the acceleration of resource development in their Territories without First Nation consent and without robust environmental assessment processes and regulatory oversight. As you know, First Nations are not opposed to responsible resource development. But these Bills appear to be designed to turn back the clock on all of the progress we have made together toward reconciliation in this Province, to a time when resource development projects were pushed through in the name of economic development, without environmental impacts to First Nations’ lands, waters and resources being considered, understood, or mitigated, and without recognition and respect of First Nations’ Aboriginal title and rights. We understood that the NDP was committed to walking forward together with First Nations on a path of reconciliation, not walking backwards with a top-down, “economy first” agenda.
We were dismayed with your summary response at the May 15th meeting that you will not withdraw Bills 14 and 15 to allow for meaningful consultation between your government and First Nations in BC over the summer on necessary amendments. We need you to understand that there are 204 First Nations in British Columbia and, while you may find support among a select few who we wish well, your refusal to withdraw the Bills will have serious impacts on the FNLC’s and many First Nations’ relationships with your government. These impacts could well be irreparable.
Sincerely,
FIRST NATIONS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
On behalf of the FIRST NATIONS SUMMIT
Nasuʔkin Cheryl Casimer
Robert Phillips
Hugh Braker
On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
Chief Don Tom
Chief Marilyn Slett
On behalf of the BC ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS:
Regional Chief Terry Teegee
CC:
Hon. Bowinn Ma, Minister of Infrastructure
B.C. Government
First Nations leadership in B.C
