Nuanced. - 265. Niki Sharma: Can Aboriginal Title & Private Property Coexist? B.C. Attorney General Responds

Episode Date: August 31, 2026

B.C. Attorney General and Deputy Premier Niki Sharma joins to discuss whether Aboriginal title and private property can coexist, the future of DRIPA, proposed restrictions on residential school denialism, free speech, political instability and the effects of U.S. tariffs with host Aaron Pete.Send us Fan MailSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

Attorney General Nikki Sharma, the Cowichin decision recognized Aboriginal title over an area that includes privately held land. What precise legal principle are you asking the higher court to establish? We were asking for not an extinguishment of Aboriginal title, but to say that that Aboriginal title if it was found, sits underneath private landowners so that their rights are respected. What would you say to those British Columbians that feel like reconciliation is being done to them, rather than with them. I think we need to engage everybody in the work of reconciliation, and it's better for every British Columbian in this province

when we're finding a path forward that isn't in a courtroom. You recently commented that BC supports criminalizing residential school denialism. What precisely do you believe should be illegal? Attorney General Nikki Sharma, thank you so much for joining us this morning. Would you mind briefly introducing yourself for folks who might not be acquainted with your work? Yeah, thanks for having me, Erin. I'm Nikki Charmine, the MLA for Vancouver Hastings, and I've been the Deputy Premier and Attorney General for a few years now in BC.

Nice to be here and looking forward to the discussion. You grew up in Sparwood, started delivering the Vancouver Sun seven days a week when you were nine, and watched your mother run unsuccessfully for council three times. What did watching her repeatedly put her name forward teach you about public service and politics. Yeah, it was also the province. It was the Vancouver son and the province that I delivered. It was something I started when we were very young. My mom didn't run for politics till later on when we were in university and kind of a way, but I always

watched her when I was younger doing a lot of community service. She still does it actually in Sparwood, but she showed up in many ways. And she would bring us along to volunteer with her, whether it was the community craft fair or coal miner days, which is a big day in my town, or multiculturalism days which she organized. So we were always kind of in the mix and volunteering. And then when she finally decided to run for council, she always did it. And I think does that work out of a pure sense of wanting to do more public service. It was disappointing that she didn't make it, but she kept on trying. And, you know, it was hard when to watch or lose, but I was there to support her throughout, and I'm really proud that she has done so much for the community she lives in.

When we last spoke, we discussed repeat violent offenders, indigenous over-representation, legal aid, and gaps in the justice system. Since then, I'm wondering what has measurably improved from your perspective, and where has your government fallen short? Yeah, there's always more work to do, but it's been kind of a top priority to make sure that, like, my job is to make sure the justice system is running as well as it can be. So we've done, we've tackled it in different ways. So one way is making sure there's enough resources in the system, hiring enough sheriffs. We're a full compliment now getting the number of judges, both at the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal level up to, I think, almost full, where we were sitting in a, I think, quite a bit of a deficit for a year. So

we're almost there. And it's also process changes. We've advocated to the federal government to change the criminal code, to make it tougher for repeat violent offenders, to get bail and the sentencing. If they're repeatedly committing the same crimes, we think that there should be a stronger response from the federal government. We were successful on that. Two changes to the criminal code with Minister Fraser. I'm grateful he worked with us. We've also made a lot of process changes just to make it the systems and supports that are there to make the system work better. For example, the repeat Violent Offender Initiative, supports Crown Council, the police officers and probation officers to circle around kind of those, the most dangerous offenders in our province. And that's had a lot of

success. So what we've seen with that work is that those people that the resources are put behind that are the most dangerous, either their criminality is dropped or the time spent behind bars has increased. So a lot of more work to do. I think there always is. And, And I think that we've made some improvements where we've targeted resources. So still others. The Cowlchin decision recognized Aboriginal title over an area that includes privately held land. Your government supports reconciliation, but appealed the ruling because of its potential consequences for fee simple property rights. What precise legal principle are you asking the higher court to establish?

Yeah, so we do support reconciliation. We've done a lot of groundbreaking work, including through DRIPA and our negotiations with many First Nations that have avoided the courtrooms. This decision was particularly difficult and challenging, I think, especially the way it was written. It led to a level of uncertainty and impacts on people who were, you know, not part of the lawsuit and didn't get a chance for their voice to be heard. we were asking for not an extinguishment of Aboriginal title because we know that the law is that the province can't do that. But to say that Aboriginal title if it was found sits underneath private landowners so that their rights are respected. Everything in the work that we do as a government is always about solving and balancing very challenging things. The Cowchin case, I think, is an example of that that's come my way as AG.

And it's our view that we can have agreements and reconciliation with historic wrongs that were truly atrocities to the First Nations and respect the rights of people that were innocent in terms of them purchasing land, having Lindan for generations and not be part of that history. So the Crown has to sit in the middle there and figure out how to resolve those disputes. and maintain people's rights. How does the Wallace-Dakoi decision interact with your thinking on the case? Yeah, you know, that was certainly an interesting one where we watched that case in terms of the difference of perspective that that judge and that case found. And when the Supreme Court decided not to hear it, of course, it was interesting for us. We're pursuing an appeal, you know, on specific aspects of the couch and case. We know that title was found in some parts of it, but when it comes to the ones related to private property in particular, we think there needs to be clarity on the law that needs to come probably from the Supreme Court of Canada, but through other means.

So we're, of course, following all cases that mentioned this. And it's interesting that they found the exact opposite on the other side of the province as our judge found here in BC. Could we talk about DRIPA? And I'll just lay out my understanding from the outside. and I'd appreciate you correcting me where I'm mistaken. My understanding is that there was a mineral rights decision for the Gatsala and that had unintended consequences from your government's perspective that you didn't anticipate.

And the Premier basically came forward and said, we've recognized this, we're going to take some action, we're going to do some amendments, we're going to make some modifications to address the concerns coming out of this. He said it was going to be a confidence vote and that they were going to proceed with that in the legislature and then stepped back and said, no, it's not going to be a confidence vote, but we are going to proceed. And then it was, no, we're going to delay and have some conversations with lobbying organizations like the Assembly of First Nations, UBCIC, and others.

And he said you were instrumental in kind of charting the path forward on this. Could you just give us some insight on what took place? Yeah, so there was a decision related to the implementation of Drip-Bah. So when we passed that law unanimously in the House, it was to find a different path forward through our changes in laws and through agreements rather than disputing over court, which can be expensive and really problematic to the relationships and certainty in the province. So Drippa and the structure of Drippa has been in place since 2019 and actually really successful in terms of changing legislation, but also setting up agreements that have benefited everybody in British Columbia. avoided lengthy court cases. So it was a path forward that we think was very important. The problem came in the Gigatla decision where we feel the Court of Appeal really unfairly expanded what was intended to DRIPA to actually say that a court has a role to look at any

piece of legislation that the province has and really expansive and say that it's not complying with DRIPA, so therefore the government has to take all these measures to do that. In our review, that was never the process that we committed to with DRIPA, that we were going to work with First Nations and stakeholders to adjust our laws to incorporate those principles that are really important, but that it was going to be a long process, right? It was going to take time. And, you know, we've done, I think, 30 or something close to that pieces of legislation that were important to First Nations that prioritized it. And that work is, you know, takes time. So we see the need to change either by a higher court.

So I'm glad to say this Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear our appeal on that part of the law. But also through potentially amending or changing our legislation or framework or addressing that particular issue in a way where we can bring certainty to our laws in British Columbia. So it I think is important when we're doing that work to make sure. we can find a path together with people of this province. So this summer we've been hard at work sitting down and piecing together how we solve, which is, I think, a very real problem is that we can't have every law. We have a huge statute book in BC. We can't have every law subject to uncertainty when we haven't actually committed to or done the work to upgrade it in the way that we need to. So I'm hopeful that work is going really well. We're listing

and to a range of stakeholders and First Nations leadership in partnership to try to figure out a solution to our challenge. And I hope to have more to say soon. Commend, so I look forward to having you back on for an update on that front. Sure. I'm just wondering, obviously one of the impacts of that was I think what I've seen the response is British Columbians felt shortchanged that your government chose the priorities of, say, UBCIC and the BCAFN. over their real concerns about DRIPA and its impact. And they felt like that was, First Nations were put ahead of them. And that's kind of the response I've seen by a lot of people.

And this is just a fear. I understand that their amendments are still coming. But I'm just wondering, what would you say to those British Columbians to feel like reconciliation is being done to them rather than with them? Yeah. You know, I think we need to engage everybody in the work of reconciliation and for people to understand that it's better for every British Columbian in this province when we're finding a path forward that isn't in a courtroom, right? That isn't putting other things at risk

and where we can build major projects together that give good jobs for everybody, or we can make sure that communities are thriving across the province. It's really the work that all of us should be doing together. And what I would say is that we've been clear where we saw issues with the court decision related to. I think you've heard the Premier talk about it. I've talked about it and honest with British Colombians about where we think, what we think needs to change. And our work has involved talking with a range of stakeholders of what their input is, what their ideas are. So we can get on a path that is clear where people understand it and that we can see the benefits of the work that

we're doing for everybody in British Columbia. So that work is in progress. And I think I think we, my, my viewpoint is you're always going to face challenges as government. It's the nature of things. I mean, right now we're in the middle of Trump tariffs and that's taking up a lot of our energy. You're going to have times where, you know, you have to change or adjust things. That's just the nature of it. The question is how you do it. I think you have to do it by bringing people together, understanding their perspectives,

and adjusting and speaking openly and honestly with people about what the challenge are and that is what we're doing when it comes to this and we'll hopefully continue the conversation and have a solution soon. I'd just love to understand one of the pieces that I'd really like to dive deeper on is how do we engage everyday British Columbians? Because I see them, they're like I'm speaking with you, I'm speaking with people across the political spectrum on reconciliation. And there's just a large subset of the population that feel that like there is no way for their voice to reach your government in order to participate in this process. And I've I've talked about town halls on reconciliation.

I've talked about doing like polls or surveys on where British Columbia would like to see so that we can have something that's durable because people are just feeling like, I'm sure you've seen discussions on Songies in Esquimau. There's claims of land grabs taking place. And there's just this growing population. It's not getting smaller. It's growing in response to some of these decisions. How do we get British Columbians involved in this process? Yeah, you know, I would say two things about that. So first of all, it's my belief that British Columbians and by large want to have a society where people are working together, where we can acknowledge the wrongs of the past and move forward in a way together that brings everybody prosperity and equality.

And, you know, when we have to do a better job of communicating the work we're doing, I think that that's fair that we should. But also, I think we have to be honest about what is happening with certain political parties where they are using. misinformation to spread fear. We saw that when the Muscoim Agreement came and the Conservative Party put up a social media post that said, oh, now they're taking your land in Vancouver, which was just verifiably false, right? So I think British Columbians need to ask themselves, where is this information coming from? What is the purpose of this information and why and who's driving it? We need to separate out that fear-mongering that is sitting there and being used, I think, intentionally against this conversation of reconciliation and get back to what I think everybody wants,

is that we all want to have respect for each other, our neighbors, no matter what their backgrounds are, and we need to work through challenges together and understand what's real about a challenge and what isn't. And we've been trying to communicate where we feel there are real challenges. Like with the couch and case, I said we were appealing because of the uncertainty in the law. With the Gatla case, I've said, we need to look at how the court has expanded. I think what we feel is unfairly, what Drupa was intended to do, and we're making adjustments to that. So yes, we need to adjust where necessary, but I also think there's something out there that is intentionally driving. us apart in a lot of ways. And that's something that I really regret and I hate seeing. And so we all need to do better to make sure that we're talking about the truth of each other of what's going on and not listening to the things that are just there to fearmonger. Thank you so much for watching and listening. I just wanted to say Nuisance is completely independent and self-funded. We're not asking you for money. We're asking for 10 seconds of support. Like this video, subscribe, send this episode to a friend, and if you're listening on any podcast platforms, please rate us. Every new viewer helps us bring more of Canada's most consequential voices to the table.

And my promise in return for your support is to keep doing the work and having the honest, thoughtful conversations I believe our country needs. Thank you so much. You recently commented that BC supports criminalizing residential school denialism, and I just wanted to clarify because I have a lot of. spoken to individuals like Francis Widowson, Tim Tealman, who you may be aware of, and others, Candace Malcolm, who wrote the book or compiled the book, Grave Error. And their argument is not that residential schools weren't harmful, that they didn't cause atrocities and abuses didn't take

place. Their argument is there is still not substantial evidence that there are 215 unmarked graves in Camloops where that apple orchard is. And I'm wondering, Is that something you include? What precisely do you believe should be illegal? Yeah, so we supported the federal government looking at how to find that balance between just something that is, you know, I have to say, I used to work as a lawyer with residential school survivors. And I have to tell you that the, even the separation moment of taking kids away from their parents was, government action that was wrong, right? It starts on a whole history of a generational abuse that people that are our neighbors suffered from. So I find it very personally challenging when I hear

people denying that the truth of what happened after so much effort went into the Truth of Reconciliation Commission and all the courage that took for survivors to come forward and tell those stories. Obviously, when you think about thinking about what, like when we say the denial of the Holocaust is part of the criminal code, there are nuances about what is a criminal offense and what is it that are based on law and our balancing of charter rights, right? What is fair comment and what isn't? And I think that, you know, the federal government has that piece of legislation, but we need to start to think about rules around what we think is what we think is bare comment or somebody telling their perspective on something

and what is actually harmful to people from denying something that is well documented, right, that happened on our lands. Do you accept, though, that, like, the Globe and Mail editorial board came out and said, like, we made a claim that there were unmarked graves. That has not been substantiated. We can call them anomalies. Ground penetrating radar has found anomalies, but not 215 unmarked graves today.

Do you accept the Globe and Mail editorial board's finding? Yeah, you know, I think that the search for, you know, so the time that I've talked to survivors, it's not a secret also during the Truth and Reckstallation Commission, the many documented findings there of kids that didn't come home. I think that, you know, I leave the study on what's happening on the ground, and I know that to come loops is giving updates on the work. that they're doing there.

But I think the real thing is an acceptance of the fact that part of the atrocities of residential school where kids didn't come home, right? People are fixated on the number and where and how, but the well-documented history, and you could just look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that traveled across Canada, right, that traveled there, took stories, documented piles and piles of documents of kids that went to school and didn't come home. And I think that's the real thing that we need to think about and focus on rather than, you know, I think what has become an unfortunate fight, right, over specific things. My personal take with great respect is that they're, like, I agree with you, we can hold two truths.

The atrocities in residential school, like my grandmother endured those. My mother has fetal alcohol syndrome as a consequence of those atrocities. At the same time, $12 million was given to a nation in order to excavate and confirm the remains of their loved ones. And they're saying it could take 100 years. Could be Roseanne Kazimir said it could take 100 years to come to a conclusion on that. That reshaped our understanding of reconciliation in a lot of ways. And a lot of people believe Canada and BC were genocidal in their action based on some of those findings. And then to find out that there may be flaws in what the conclusion is,

were and even the nation stepped back and changed the response in June after that original report came out. I just think it's creating fertile ground for frustration and mistrust around reconciliation in general and I think we just need to be able to own that and I fear criminalizing

it makes those people with valid questions about what happened in Camloops feel like they're under attack just for asking questions and I wonder if I would be considered contributing to denialism by interviewing and speaking with people who are bringing up the arguments as to why there may not be

unmarked craves in that location. I mean, obviously in a free and democratic society, we have charter rights and we have the ability to speak our perspectives. And I think every time you think about what that line is, like when does something tip on to hate speech, which is, you know, something that is protected against, right? People are protected against. And when is something fair comment? And I'm not saying that any of the

things you talked about are in that category. I'm just saying we always are balancing out rights in our country, right? We're always balancing out what's appropriate and what isn't. And yeah, people have, we have the right of free speech. We have the right of asking questions. We have the right of all those things. And I don't think, I don't think, you know, I'm the advocate that's saying that we should change any of that, right? As the AG, part of my role is to make sure that the Constitution's being upheld and that we're about, we're respecting everybody's ability to participate in a free and Democrat's anxiety, right? I think when we when we ask ourselves at what point is that line, there was somebody that was

convicted of denying the Holocaust that had published books that were pretty offensive, right, to saying that something that happened to millions of people, that people were carrying trauma, it just didn't happen, right? So we found it in our laws to find that to be a criminal offense, right, at the level that that person was doing it. So I think every time you're talking about laws in a society, it always is a balancing act, and we have to find the right balance, I think. I appreciate you answering all of these questions so quickly.

Research Co had the NDP and conservatives tied at 42% in June. Its latest survey has the NDP leading 44 to 39, with conservative support falling three points. What do you think changed over the summer? You know, I tend not to comment or focus on polls, and just my perspective is my job is to do the best. best I can for British Columbians every day that I get up, facing the challenges we have to face, but also providing opportunities and increasing access to justice, helping to find pathways together. So, you know, you comment on a poll where it's down, you comment on a poll where it's up. I think it's all a matter of what we're focused on and what we should be focused on. I think

we should need to stay focused on that. I think that if British Columbians see anything, I hope that they see that when challenges come our way, we're there to respond on their behalf. half in a way that with truth and with clarity and bringing people together as our approach. Peter Melo Bar recently became the seventh MLA to leave or be removed from the BC Conservative Caucus since 2024 election, saying his values no longer aligned with the party's direction under Kerry Lynn Findlay. Days later, party president Aisha Etsy and vice president Sharon White also departed. What do you think is happening inside the official opposition? Yeah, you know, I think I've seen Peter Binelabar, have been in the house with him, I think the whole time I've been elected.

He's an individual that really cares about his job, really cares about public service, and he's also somebody that had to be at a debate with Carrie Lynn Finley, where he's accused him because he's married to a religious woman of having a conflict of interest. And I think there's probably some, I'll let him speak for himself, but I think there obviously is some differences of perspective and values there that are, that are. of a pretty fundamental. And, you know, I think they have to reckon with that. Like with the perspective and values that Carrilyn Finley brings as leader and those range of perspectives that I don't agree or don't agree with that. It sounds like they're going through that pretty openly. I think today another person decided to step back and sit as an independent.

You know, I think we need to challenge when somebody sets forward as leader and they say they believe certain things. It's everybody's duty to challenge whether or not they agree or not, like, enough to stick around, right? And clearly they're having that reckoning with some, with some of the members of that caucus. I had Premier David E.B. on the show recently, and he said you would make a great Premier. If he stepped down before the next election, would you consider running to lead the BCNDP? Well, that's really nice. I'm, that's, that's, I didn't know that he said that, but that's great. You know, to have his respect, it goes both ways, but that he respects me and the work that I've done enough to say that is a real honor. Yeah, you know, I think I'm thinking

about my job every day more than, more than those kind of next steps. We have a lot of challenges right now, to be honest with you, like with the tariffs coming forward and us supporting our economy. I think British Communists would rather expect me to stay focused on the work that I have to do rather than my personal ambitions, but I am honored by that statement that he may. How is the BC government responding to the tariffs right now? And what do British Columbians need to know? Yeah, it's been a challenging few days. I'm really proud of the way the Premier's responded. And then every Premier across the province has responded, which is in solidarity with the Prime Minister. You know, I've been working with the premier, well, you know, a lot of those that was kind of unfolded along with every other member of caucus.

Our first priority is being there on behalf of the businesses that are affected by the tariffs and to understand how we can support the Prime Minister and the work of the federal government in anything that steps up with retaliation, right? He's promised one to one for every dollar tariffs as a retaliatory tariffs. So we will certainly be working with him to understand how BC can support that. I think it's shown how much we care about Canada and what we believe in, that every premier across the province, no matter what their political stripe is standing together. And we'll certainly do everything we can to not only support the businesses impacted by the current tariffs, but to diversify our economy.

We even do a lot of hard work there with trade missions and making sure that we can get products to different markets and to support businesses in doing that, and we'll continue to step that up. What would you say to vulnerable British Columbians who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis, housing on affordability, and this is all going to exacerbate those issues? Yeah, it's tough. It's really tough. And I think about that a lot, actually, the everyday person that, you know, whether it's been the wildfires or it's been the gas prices, the cost of living. then grocery store prices, and all those things that are facing families across the province right now. And there's some things we can control, and there's some things it feels like in the world that we can't control. But we can control how we care for each other and how we step up for each other and how we support the economy with using the tools that we can do to do that and to help keep costs

down in every way that we can. And I just want to tell all those families and British Columbians that are feeling the uncertainty of the times that we're in right now is that we will do everything we can to be there for you to make sure that every tool that we have as a province and working with the federal government to support you is used. How can people follow you at? Well, you know, we have a regular communication through the AG ministry. I have an Instagram and a Facebook primarily that I put out my work. Very easy to contact and I take a lot of meetings with people that reach out to my office. So I always welcome learning from people and what their perspectives are. And I always have something to learn. So people can reach out to me through various emails and offices that I have.

I greatly appreciate you sharing your time. Your team was very easy to work with in organizing this interview. And I just appreciate getting regular updates on the work that you're doing and the next steps your government is taking. So thank you so much for sharing your time today. Yeah, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Take care.