Modern Treaties promise certainty. But with overlap issues unaddressed, that promise has a hole in it.
Issue 07 | April 2026
British Columbia tabled two Modern Treaty ratification bills last week, one day after the other: the K'ómoks Treaty Act on April 14 and the Kitselas Treaty Act on April 15. These are the product of more than 30 years of negotiation and ratification votes by the Nations themselves.
But by the following Monday, the picture had changed. Leaders from the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, the Nine Allied Tribes, and the Lax Kw'alaams Band were standing on the steps of the legislature asking MLAs to pause the bills. Not because of anything the Treaty Nations had done, but because of how the Crown has handled territorial overlap. They say they weren't meaningfully consulted, weren't accommodated, and never consented to Treaty boundaries that reach into territory they assert.
One speaker warned they would shut down the corridors feeding the Port of Prince Rupert and close Highway 16 if the province does not act.
This is not a new problem. It is the problem the BC treaty process was built to manage and never equipped itself to resolve. Thirty years in, that gap is catching up with the process at a time when the certainty modern treaties promise has never been more valuable.
The holes the Crown has left unfilled
Modern Treaties exist to move from uncertainty to certainty. After ratification, everyone knows who owns what, who decides what, and how the rules change. For Canada and BC, treaties turn decades of unsettled land questions into a workable legal framework. For a treaty Nation, they deliver constitutional protection of lands, governance, and fiscal arrangements that community members have spent generations fighting to secure.
But that certainty depends on the Crown doing its full job, including with neighbouring Nations. Where that work is not done, neighbouring Nations whose rights the Crown skated past can challenge the certainty the treaty was supposed to deliver, in court, in the legislature, or on the ground.
The Cowichan decision last August is the most visible recent reminder of that, but the principle is older: section 35 rights belong to the Nations that hold them, and a Treaty the Crown signs with one Nation does not resolve the rights of another. Where the Crown has not properly consulted and accommodated a neighbouring Nation with a credible claim in a Treaty area, that Nation keeps every legal avenue it had before the Treaty was signed.
This has been an issue with the BC Treaty Process for 30 years. When a First Nation files a Statement of Intent, the BC Treaty Commission's policy requires it to identify any overlapping or shared territory, and then places the responsibility to resolve those overlaps on the First Nations themselves.
The framework is called "best efforts." In practice, that means the Crown can negotiate and ratify Treaties even when overlaps are still open, without rolling up its sleeves to close them. The BCTC itself flagged this in 2014. Its Recommendation 8 said overlap disputes weren't getting resolved, and the process wasn't built to resolve them.
A dozen years later, the Crown has not changed the structure, even as the legal and political environment around it has shifted. Along with those shifts, the stakes continue to rise.
Leaders from Wei Wei Kum First Nations, the Nine Allied Tribes and the Lax Kw'alaams Bands asked BC parliamentarians to pause legislation to bring two new Treaties into effect, due to unresolved overlaps.
Aboriginal title has sharper teeth now. Tsilhqot'in made that clear in 2014; Cowichan went further last year, extending it into fee simple lands, at least at the trial level. A Nation that doesn't like how the Crown handled its rights in a Treaty area has a pathway to court.
The Crown's own policy has shifted too. Since 2019, BC has negotiated under the Recognition and Reconciliation of Rights Policy, which treats First Nations as governments exercising rights, not claimants waiting to be recognized. That only means something if the Crown applies it to every Nation a negotiation touches, not just the one at the table.
And the territory is busier. Critical minerals, LNG corridors, port expansions, transmission lines are all moving through these lands at once. The Port of Prince Rupert, which the Nine Allied Tribes named directly last week, sits in the middle of Canada's Indo-Pacific trade strategy. An overlap dispute isn't a back-room file anymore.
What the Crown has to do about it
The late Jim Aldridge, K.C., who spent more than four decades as counsel to the Nisga'a Nation, used to tease us federal officials by asking whether the "whole of government" approach we so often invoked was really spelled with a "w." When it comes to the Crown's handling of overlap, I'm certain he would have insisted that critical letter is missing.
Federal and provincial governments have leaned on the Commission's framework for decades because it put resolution on First Nations while the Crown consulted on impacts and stayed out of the substance. That position doesn't hold if the goal is durable treaties. The duty to consult extends to every Nation with a credible claim in a treaty area, and no treaty resolves rights held by a Nation the Crown never properly engaged.
The Crown has the tools. It can fund joint boundary research, back protocol agreements between neighbouring Nations with real resources and timelines, and meet its consultation duties on overlap directly instead of routing around them. At scale, it has done none of that.
Everyone else pays for that gap. A Treaty Nation that negotiated, ratified, and is preparing to implement can still find itself on the doorstep of a legal or political challenge that wasn't its failure. Governments that push forward anyway find disputes that once played out in press conferences now play out in court, and on the ground near infrastructure corridors. Proponents who treated modern treaties as a gold-standard certainty find that certainty more fragile than the deal sheet suggested.
The Kitselas and K'ómoks Treaties represent decades of hard work and democratic decisions by two First Nations. They deserve to come into force on solid ground, celebrated by the Nations that negotiated long and hard to get them. They, and every Treaty Nation behind them in the BC process, deserve a Crown that does its full job, not one that offloads the hard part and hopes the courts and the corridors hold.
Modern Treaty Hub
BC tables Kitselas and K'ómoks treaty legislation amid opposition: BC introduced the K'ómoks Treaty Act on April 14 and the Kitselas Treaty Act on April 15, marking the ninth and tenth BC First Nations to move toward modern treaty status. Both face opposition from neighbouring First Nations citing unresolved overlap, with coalition leaders warning of legal action and potential disruption to major infrastructure corridors including the Port of Prince Rupert and Highway 16. (Canadian Press via Castanet)
Maa-nulth Treaty marks 15 years: April 1 marked the 15th anniversary of the Maa-nulth Treaty, with five Vancouver Island First Nations celebrating what Uchucklesaht Tribe members call their "Independence Day." Huu-ay-aht Chief Councillor John Jack described the treaty as a path beyond the Indian Act that creates tools for community-building and long-term stability. (CBC News)
Three Nuu-chah-nulth Nations partner on first new Port Alberni hotel in 46 years: The Tseshaht, Hupacasath, and Huu-ay-aht First Nations announced a joint venture to build a 76-room Microtel Inn & Suites by Wyndham in Port Alberni, the first new hotel in the Alberni Valley since 1980. Huu-ay-aht Chief Councillor John Jack framed the project as meaningful economic diversification away from natural resources, noting the Valley's role as a hub for Nuu-chah-nulth communities. Construction is expected to begin this year, targeting the 2027 summer tourism season. (CHEK News)
Nunavut devolution one year out: The Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement takes effect April 1, 2027. About 100 federal positions will transfer to the Government of Nunavut, a new territorial department for lands and resources will be established, and federal site remediation continues. Premier John Main noted that royalties from current mining projects will flow to Inuit and land claims organizations rather than the territorial treasury in the near term. (CBC News)
NTI presidential election set for May 27: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated will hold a presidential election on May 27, 2026, with the nomination period running April 15 to 21. (Tunngavik)
Tla'amin Nation joins North Island 911 Corporation as shareholder: The Tla'amin First Nation announced a partnership with North Island 911 Corporation on April 21, becoming the seventh shareholder alongside six regional districts across the northern portion of Vancouver Island and adjacent mainland. Fire Chief Bryon Harry framed it as getting Tla'amin involved at the design stage so services reflect community needs. The Nation logged more than 122 9-1-1 call-outs last year, most health and medical related. (Comox Valley Record)
Inuvialuit group of companies announces record $8.6 million distribution to beneficiaries: The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation reported record earnings of $137.9 million for fiscal year 2025, growing IRC's assets to $1.91 billion. The 2026 distribution of $1,706 per beneficiary will be paid May 1 to each of the 5,050 enrolled beneficiaries — a 27% increase over 2025. IRC chair and CEO Erwin Elias framed the payments as both household support and long-term community investment. (NationTalk)
Tłı̨chǫ Government expands child welfare services with new funding: The Tłı̨chǫ Government announced $1.2 million to support the development of child and family services, citing the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation's 2021 child welfare legislation as a model. The funding will enhance programming capacity, explore jurisdictional considerations, and plan future services reflecting Tłı̨chǫ values and priorities. (Cabin Radio)
