B.C. government proposes secret talks between cities and First Nations | Daily Hive

Reconciliation behind closed doors: B.C. government proposes law for secret negotiations between cities and First Nations

David Eby. (Government of B.C.)

The Government of British Columbia is proposing legislative changes that would allow municipal governments to hold secret closed-door meetings when discussing confidential or “culturally sensitive” information shared by First Nations — a move the provincial government says will strengthen collaboration, but which would also limit public transparency.

The proposed amendments to the Community Charter and Vancouver Charter would add new grounds for municipal governments to meet in-camera, including discussions related to Indigenous heritage, “traditional knowledge,” or government-to-government negotiations between municipalities and First Nations. This legislation would also require meetings to be closed when those negotiations involve another municipal government.

Currently, municipal governments can only close meetings for specific reasons, such as labour relations or land acquisition. Discussions involving First Nations are not among them.

While the changes are intended to help protect confidential cultural information, they mark a significant expansion of municipal government powers to meet privately — an issue that has long sparked concern among open-government advocates.

You might also like:

“These changes give First Nations and local governments the space to discuss culturally sensitive and confidential information related to government-to-government negotiations without fear of harm,” said Christine Boyle, the B.C. minister of housing and municipal affairs, in a statement.

Under the proposed law, city councils and municipal boards would still be able to vote and pass resolutions in closed meetings, though bylaws that legalize such matters must continue to be adopted in public sessions.

The provincial government insists the changes are narrow in scope and will apply only in specific circumstances. It argues that the new provisions are needed to support respectful relationships and protect Indigenous heritage, such as traditional sites or cultural practices that could be damaged if disclosed publicly.

For example, if a municipal government is considering a land-use decision affecting a First Nation’s traditional bathing site, the discussion could now take place privately to protect the site from vandalism or disturbance.

However, the new reason for secret meetings raises familiar questions about how to balance cultural sensitivity with the public’s right to know what their governments are doing.

The Community Charter already allows municipal governments to close meetings for a range of reasons, and some groups have warned that some city councils already misuse those provisions to shield politically sensitive debates.

The amendments come at the request of the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM), the City of Vancouver, and other municipal governments. The First Nations Summit also expressed support, saying confidentiality is essential for “respectful” dialogue.

“Local governments have sought a legislative amendment that would allow for in-camera meetings when confidential information relating to negotiations with First Nations or another local government are under discussion. I am pleased to see this change brought into law to provide measures to safeguard confidentiality when it is needed,” said Cori Ramsay, president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Hugh Braker, a political executive for the First Nations Summit, added, “Many First Nations have sensitive cultural information that is kept confidential, even within the First Nation. It is important that First Nations have the ability, when necessary, to protect their culture and traditions while engaging in sometimes sensitive discussions with local governments. This amendment addresses requests from First Nations and local governments to provide the space for respectful government-to-government dialogue.”

This latest proposal comes amid a series of high-profile and politically charged developments in the BC NDP-led government’s approach to Indigenous rights, land management, and local governance.

The proposed legislation follows the court ruling granting Aboriginal title to Cowichan Tribes to lands in southeast Richmond, and it comes in the wake of the separate ruling siding with Haida First Nation over Aboriginal title to all of the lands of the Haida Gwaii archipelago.

Both court rulings putting Aboriginal title considerations above private property rights could have immense implications nationwide.

The BC NDP-led government abandoned its 2024 plan to establish co-management of Crown lands with First Nations. That proposal was withdrawn after a fierce public backlash over the lack of consultation and fears it would cede too much control over public lands without adequate oversight and consultation with the general public.

The case of Okanagan Falls is another real example of how these tensions play out on the ground.

In early 2025, residents of Okanagan Falls narrowly voted in favour of becoming an official municipality. But this support has since waned, following the provincial government’s revelations of the conditions after the vote. These conditions are tied to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and discussions with the Osoyoos Indian Band — especially about what the new town will be called and exactly where its boundaries will be.

Critics say these important conditions were never made clear to Okanagan Falls residents before they voted. Now, it looks like the community’s future is being decided behind closed doors — raising serious questions about whether local residents will really gain control, or whether this will just become another battleground in the push for reconciliation.

More recently, the provincial government is advancing another contentious reform: legislation requiring the City of Vancouver to hold a public referendum to abolish the separately elected body of the Vancouver Park Board commissioners. If approved, the provincial government is proposing to have the Vancouver Charter amended to not only abolish the Park Board, but also exempt future transfers of parkland to First Nations from requiring a referendum.

Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim opposes the provincial government’s framework for abolishing the Park Board, as the City did not request any sort of exemption for reducing the permission needed for parkland transfers. But he issued a separate statement in support of formalizing closed-door meetings with First Nations.

Taken together, these measures suggest a broader trend toward reducing public input in how Indigenous reconciliation policies are implemented — a shift that some might see as pragmatic for reconciliation, but others view as undemocratic and a double standard for transparency.

The City of Vancouver’s Integrity Commissioner recently found that Sim and the ABC Vancouver party caucus held private “caucus” sessions before public City Council meetings, effectively pre-deciding votes in a few instances in breach of open-meeting rules. After that report, Minister Boyle publicly rebuked the ABC governing majority for eroding transparency in municipal decision-making.

You might also like: