Returning Ancestors and Cultural Belongings to First Nations in British Columbia: What We Heard Engagement Report Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport Message from the Minister As B.C.’s Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, I am pleased to present the findings from a province-wide public engagement held between September 2025 – March 2026 on the co-development of a provincial Repatriation Policy Framework. This public engagement builds on years of advocacy work, research, and practice by First Nations and heritage experts in British Columbia. Repatriation processes take time, require resources, capacity and tailored supports for both First Nations and heritage-holding organizations. The Policy Framework is a first step in a provincial response to complex repatriation needs. This Report reflects the voices of more than 300 participants who shared their time, knowledge and perspectives on repatriation as well as the feedback provided through written submissions. Participants spoke candidly about what is needed to return Ancestors and Cultural Belongings to First Nations in British Columbia. We also heard from First Nations that this is a long-term relational commitment that must proceed at the pace and readiness of Nations and be supported by governments and heritage holding organizations. I extend my sincere thanks to everyone who participated in this important engagement. Your contributions have directly shaped this work and are deeply appreciated. We look forward to continuing this important conversation. Sincerely, Hon. Anne Kang Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport Message from the Repatriation Steering Committee Co-Chairs As co-chairs of the Repatriation Steering Committee, we would like to acknowledge and extend our sincere gratitude to all those who participated in the engagement sessions and sent in feedback. This important work is part of a commitment to support the respectful return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings, as set out in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan. This work is not starting from scratch – we are building upon significant work already undertaken by First Nations, heritage experts and people with lived experience, as well as others, including the First Peoples’ Cultural Council. We deeply appreciate the time, knowledge, and perspectives that participants shared so openly and thoughtfully. Your contributions were invaluable in guiding this work and ensuring it reflects a diversity of voices, experiences, and priorities. We know that each community and organization has unique considerations and challenges, and the Policy Framework must be flexible to enable, advance, and support a variety of repatriation initiatives – there is no one-size fits all solution. We are also especially grateful for the spirit of collaboration and respect that shaped these discussions. The willingness, patience, and bravery to engage in meaningful dialogue on this issue has strengthened this process and provided vital information that will directly impact this work. Claire Avison Repatriation Steering Committee Co-Chair and Assistant Deputy Minister Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport Bob (Galagame’) Chamberlin Repatriation Steering Committee Co-Chair Table of Contents Message from the Minister 1 Message from the Repatriation Steering Committee Co-Chairs 2 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 Acknowledgements 5 Introduction 8 Engagement Approach 12 Key Themes 19 Appendices 46 Appendix I: Extended Acknowledgements 47 Appendix II: Terms & Definitions 52 Appendix III: Participation Lists 54 Appendix IV: Engagement Validation Sessions 56 Appendix V: Engagement Materials 57 Appendix VI: Detailed Themes Heard 60 Appendix VII: Engagement Dates, Locations and Focus Audiences 64 Appendix VIII – Comments from Lead Facilitator T’esóts’en (Patrick Kelly) 65 Executive Summary The Government of British Columbia is co-developing a provincial Repatriation Policy Framework (the Policy Framework), in alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, and as set out in the British Columbia Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Declaration Act) Action Plan Action 4.33: co-develop a policy framework to support repatriation initiatives. To support the co-development of the Policy Framework, the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport undertook a province-wide engagement to identify priorities and better understand the guidance and standards needed to support the return of and control over Ancestors and Cultural Belongings to First Nations in British Columbia from provincial heritage-holding organizations such as museums, archaeological repositories, archives, and universities. The Policy Framework is intended as a first step in a provincial response to complex repatriation needs. The term repatriation is used in this Report to generally describe the return of Ancestors and Belongings to Indigenous Peoples, in alignment with use by the First Peoples’ Cultural Council. Rematriation is used to describe the return of Ancestors and Belongings to Indigenous Peoples with an ancestral connection that honours the matrilineal role of Indigenous women in leadership, and matrilineal societies.0F For this work, the term repatriation is used unless a participant spoke specifically about rematriation.(source:First Peoples’ Cultural Council (2025). From Stealing to Healing: Repatriation and B.C. First Nations.) First Nations in British Columbia have long governed and cared for their cultural heritage through their own laws and protocols. Colonial and governmental actions disrupted First Nations governance, leading to the removal of Ancestors and Belongings from their homes and territories. Cultural heritage (tangible and intangible) was stolen, handed over or sold under duress, often without permission or prior consultation, during colonial, natural resource, development and archeological activities, and placed in museums, archives and universities around the world. First Nations leadership and community-based work have been at the forefront of efforts to return Ancestors and Cultural Belongings to their home communities. In 2023, the First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC) supported the establishment of a Repatriation Steering Committee to advance the co-development of the Policy Framework through the inclusion of First Nations leaders and repatriation experts. Engagement participants emphasized that repatriation is a sacred, relationship-based journey that must be Indigenous led and supported by practical, flexible and responsive policies. They highlighted that repatriation is often complex and non-linear, requiring time, trust, sustained resources, recognition of Indigenous laws and respect for Indigenous data sovereignty. This What We Heard Report documents the basis of these conclusions and summarizes Engagement sessions, meetings and activities undertaken between September 2025 and March 2026. Report findings were reviewed and supported by the Repatriation Steering Committee and will be shared with partners across government that have legislative, policy and program intersections, such as the Heritage Conservation Act. The findings will inform government decision-making and the co-development of a provincial Policy Framework to support the respectful return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings from heritage-holding organizations in British Columbia to First Nations in British Columbia. In March 2026, participants were invited to validate themes heard during Engagement. These themes were condensed into the five key overarching themes outlined in this report. For more information, see Appendix VII. Key Overarching Themes Heard: 1.Repatriation is sacred, relational, and Indigenous led. Repatriation is a healing responsibility guided by Indigenous law, ceremony, and community authority, rather than an administrative process. Institutions are stewards, not owners. 2.Trust requires transparent, coordinated systems. Repatriation needs accurate inventories, accessible and inter-operable databases, clear documentation, consistent communication to reduce fragmentation; and coordinated systems of sustainable working relationships. 3.Policy or guidance must be practical and flexible. Any future Provincial guidance, policy and/or legislation should establish clear pathways while allowing for diverse community protocols; and avoid one‑size‑fits‑all approaches that erode trust. 4.Indigenous jurisdiction, law, and data sovereignty must lead. Indigenous legal systems, oral histories, and culturally legitimate dispute resolution processes must be recognized as authoritative, with colonial courts viewed as a last resort. 5.Repatriation will require long-term resources. To ensure success and address capacity issues related to repatriation, participants emphasized the need for funding over the long-term given the generational nature of these processes, staffing, and tailored supports for both Nations and organizations. Themes Raised Outside Current Scope: Participants also raised issues that fall outside the scope of the Policy Framework, including specific implementation activities such as legislative changes, programs, and funding; Heritage Conservation Act-related activities and issues such as protection of burial sites; private collections; and international repatriation and other interjurisdictional challenges. These issues will be shared with the ministries and jurisdictions responsible to ensure awareness for intersecting policies and legislation. Scope and Intent: The Policy Framework is intended to provide guidance, standards, and recommendations to support the respectful return and governance of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings held in heritage-holding organizations (museums, archaeological repositories, archives, and universities). The Policy Framework will provide recommendations to support implementation, future planning, resourcing considerations and inform cross government policy alignment. Acknowledgements This Report reflects the collaborative work of the Repatriation Steering Committee, the cross-government Working Group and the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport (the Ministry). The Ministry acknowledges that this work builds on decades of leadership, advocacy, research, and community-based repatriation efforts led by First Nations. The Ministry respectfully acknowledges the First Nations on whose traditional and ancestral territories in-person engagement sessions were held and the many First Nation-owned venues that hosted. Thank you to all First Nation communities and heritage-holding organizations who participated throughout the engagement process, as well as the Modern Treaty Nations and the Alliance of BC Modern Treaty Nations. The contributions of Indigenous legal experts and members of the Reciprocal Research Network are also recognized through this Report. Honour is extended to the Elders and Knowledge Keepers who contributed cultural knowledge, teachings, and wisdom at each engagement session. With their permission, we acknowledge: Elder Geraldine Manson – Snuneymuxw First Nation, Elder May Sam – Tsartlip First Nation, Chief Dr. Robert Joseph – Gwawaenuk First Nation, Elder Willard ‘Buddy Joseph’ – Squamish Nation, Chief Dr. Janice George – Squamish Nation, Elder Darlene McIntosh – Lheidli T’enneh Nation, Elder Jo-Anne Gottfriedson – Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, and Elder Roxanne Lindley – Westbank First Nation. Thank you to Lead Facilitator T’esóts’en (Patrick Kelly) of Leq'á:mel First Nation. His guidance supported culturally safe, trauma-informed engagement and respectful dialogue across all engagement sessions. For more information on his facilitation approach to this work please see Appendix IX. There is much gratitude for the Repatriation Steering Committee and Co-chair, Bob (Galagame’) Chamberlin - for their guidance, leadership and support. View extended acknowledgements in Appendix I. Introduction Background This What We Heard Report reflects the findings of a province-wide engagement to advance the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Declaration Act) Action Plan Action 4.33 – “Co-develop a policy framework to support repatriation initiatives”. The co-development is guided by the Declaration Act, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, emphasizing Indigenous Peoples’ rights to control, protect and steward their cultural traditions, and to repatriate Ancestors and Cultural Belongings. First Nations in British Columbia have long governed and cared for their cultural heritage through their own legal systems and protocols. Colonial policies and practices disrupted these systems, resulting in the removal of Ancestors and Belongings from their communities and territories. Tangible and intangible cultural heritage (see Appendix II for terms and definitions) was often taken, transferred, or sold under duress, frequently without consent or consultation, during colonial, resource extraction, development, and archaeological activities, and subsequently housed in museums, archives, and universities around the world. As noted in First Peoples' Cultural Council's 2025 From Stealing to Healing report, colonization led to the widespread displacement of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings from First Nations communities. These losses have contributed to intergenerational trauma, while ongoing barriers to repatriation continue to be a challenge for healing and reconciliation. Successful repatriation efforts require a long-term relational commitment between First Nations and heritage-holding organizations, moving at the pace and readiness of Nations. For additional background, see Appendix IX. The co-development of the Policy Framework and the Engagement have been guided by an external Repatriation Steering Committee appointed in June 2023 by the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport with input from the First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC). Between September 2025 and March 2026, the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, held engagement sessions with First Nations in B.C., and heritage-holding organizations. Additional focused group discussions were held with Modern Treaty Nations, the Reciprocal Research Network, and Indigenous law experts. The findings from this Engagement will inform the development of the Policy Framework. Purpose of the Policy Framework The Policy Framework is intended to support the respectful return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings from heritage-holding organizations in British Columbia to First Nations. It will provide guidance, tools and recommendations while identifying opportunities for alignment across provincial legislation, policies, and related initiatives. The Policy Framework is intended to: Support repatriation to First Nations in British Columbia in ways that respect and are guided by Indigenous laws, protocols, and community authority. Promote transparency and accountability by articulating provincial expectations for the care, documentation, and return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings held by provincially funded heritage‑holding organizations. Support greater alignment across provincial policies and practices that intersect with repatriation, helping to reduce barriers and improve coordination. Provide consistent guidance while recognizing that repatriation processes must reflect the distinct legal, cultural, and governance contexts of First Nations throughout B.C. The Policy Framework is co-developed through three connected components: 1.Repatriation Steering Committee: A Minister-appointed Steering Committee provides guidance and expertise. The Steering Committee is co-chaired by Claire Avison, Assistant Deputy Minister with the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, and Bob (Galagame’) Chamberlin, former Chief councillor of Kwikwasutinuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation. Other members of the Steering Committee include representatives from: First Nations Leadership Council BC Assembly of First Nations First Nations Summit Union of BC Indian Chiefs Alliance of BC Modern Treaty Nations First Peoples’ Cultural Council Royal BC Museum BC Museums Association’s Indigenous Advisory Committee BC Arts Council Indigenous heritage experts Provincial government 2.Cross-government Working Group: Includes ministries whose work intersects with repatriation, ensuring policy alignment and supporting communication across the provincial government. 3.Engagement with First Nations and heritage-holding organizations in B.C.: The Engagement is intended to inform priorities for co-development of the Policy Framework. Guiding Principles for Co-Development The co-development of the Policy Framework is grounded in a set of guiding principles that support respectful collaboration, and implementation. These principles are distinct from the Engagement findings summarized later in this Report: Self Determination Recognition of Distinct Rights, Interests, and Priorities Flexibility Transparency and Accountability Respect for the Non Linear, Emotional, Spiritual, and Sacred Nature of Repatriation Scope and Limitations Scope of the Policy Framework The Policy Framework is intended to apply to the repatriation of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings held by provincially funded heritage‑holding organizations within British Columbia to First Nations in B.C. It will also provide guidance, tools and recommendations to support repatriation activities, such as shared resources and systems, and identify intersections with relevant provincial legislation, policies, and practices. Out of Scope The Policy Framework will not establish legislative authorities or enforcement mechanisms for the return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings. Legislative amendments, implementation activities, and funding are outside the current scope of the Policy Framework. The scope of the Policy Framework does not include holdings of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings outside of B.C., within private collections, or within heritage-holding organizations that do not receive or benefit from provincial funding. However, these holders of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings are encouraged to work, based on the guidance to be established in the Policy Framework, with Indigenous Peoples on the repatriation of relevant holdings in their care. Engagement Approach Methodology Discussion questions were developed collaboratively with the Repatriation Steering Committee. While a common set of core questions was used across participant groups to support consistency and comparison of findings, questions were adapted as needed for targeted sessions to reflect the specialized knowledge and perspectives of participants. The province-wide engagement combined in-person regional sessions, virtual meetings, focused small-group discussions, and an option to submit written feedback. The Engagement was conducted using a distinctions-based approach, and was First Nations-focused, recognizing the unique rights, histories, governance systems, and legal traditions of First Nations in British Columbia. Participants were invited to speak in response to open-ended prompts. Written submissions followed the same prompts as the engagement sessions for consistency. Findings from all engagement areas were then synthesized into themes specific to each participant group. For each engagement session, the facilitator created culturally safe, respectful space that recognized the emotional, spiritual, and non-linear nature of repatriation. Limitations of the Engagement and Findings It is important to acknowledge limitations related to the Engagement and the findings presented in this Report. Participation varied across regions and respondent groups based on capacity, availability, and differing levels of experience with repatriation. As a result, the findings summarized here reflect the perspectives of those who participated in the Engagement and are not intended to represent the views or experiences of all First Nations or all heritage‑holding organizations in British Columbia. Objective of Engagement The objective of the Engagement was to gather input from First Nations, heritage-holding organizations, and subject-matter experts in British Columbia to inform the co-development of a provincial Repatriation Policy Framework. The engagement sought to understand participants’ experiences, perspectives, and priorities regarding the repatriation of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings, with a focus on identifying the conditions, approaches, and supports needed for respectful, effective, and Indigenous-led repatriation. The Province drew on a range of sources, including previous engagement reports, case studies, and the experiences of those directly involved in repatriation work. The Engagement was designed to be informed by participant comments, confirmations, and contributions, and to build upon this existing foundation by exploring: Top repatriation priorities and how they should be reflected in a Policy Framework; Supports and resources needed to bring Ancestors and Cultural Belongings home; The roles and responsibilities of heritage-holding organizations; How policies and the Policy Framework can uphold First Nations’ laws, customs, and community processes; How the Policy Framework can align with First Nations’ rights to self-determination and the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and Additional gaps, challenges or considerations that should be addressed. The input gathered through the Engagement informs this What We Heard Report and is intended to support the ongoing co‑development of the Policy Framework. The findings highlight shared themes, distinct perspectives, and areas requiring further attention, while recognizing that repatriation contexts and readiness vary throughout communities and institutions. Information Provided to Participants Each engagement session included background information to establish a shared understanding, context, scope, and purpose of the Policy Framework, and clarify how participant input would be used. Participants were provided with background information outlining: Purpose and objectives of the provincial Repatriation Policy Framework; Co-development approach, including the role of the Repatriation Steering Committee and engagement process; Guiding principles; Subjects within scope and out of scope for the Policy Framework; Key policy intersections within government; and Relevant advocacy, research and engagement work that has informed the initiative to date. This information was provided to support meaningful, trauma‑informed dialogue and to ensure participants had a clear understanding of the intent and scope of the Engagement prior to responding to the discussion questions. Engagement Outreach Multiple outreach methods were used to provide early notice of and encourage participation in the Engagement (Figure 13). The Co-chairs of the Repatriation Steering Committee presented on the initiative at leadership meetings of the First Nations Summit and Union of BC Indian Chiefs. A letter from the Co-chairs followed in July 2025 advising all First Nations in B.C. of the intent to engage. Individual letters from the Co-chairs were sent to each of the eight Modern Treaty Nations, acknowledging and respecting the unique and distinct relationship and commitment to upholding all treaty obligations, constitutional obligations, and the principles outlined in the Shared Priorities Framework. Engagement invitations were circulated to all First Nations in B.C., heritage-holding organizations, and other relevant groups throughout British Columbia. Invitations were often sent to multiple contacts per organization. First Nations leadership organizations in B.C. also supported distribution through their own respective listservs and other communications. To further support awareness, engagement posters and background materials were developed for sharing through community newsletters, social media, and local distribution were also provided. Engagement sessions were held in multiple regions, including major population centres, to reduce geographic barriers and support participation where possible. Not all First Nations participants were able to join in-person sessions, and to support their involvement three virtual sessions were offered for First Nations in B.C. These efforts were intended to provide broad, inclusive opportunities for involvement throughout the province. Respecting Indigenous Data Principles Consistent with principles of Indigenous data stewardship, engagement findings were shared with participants following each session. Summary notes and graphic recordings were circulated to participants to support transparency, accuracy, and validation of what was heard. This approach helped ensure participants could see how their contributions were captured and reflected supporting ongoing trust in the engagement process. Engagement Activities Engagement activities were designed to provide multiple, accessible opportunities for input from First Nations in B.C., heritage‑holding organizations, and subject‑matter experts across British Columbia. A combination of in‑person and virtual formats was used to accommodate geographic, capacity, and scheduling considerations. Session Types Engagement activities included eight in-person engagement sessions across different regions of B.C., five virtual meetings, three focused group sessions, two validation sessions, and 17 written submissions. See Appendix I for locations. The range of engagement activities ensured that the roles, responsibilities and unique perspectives of each group were heard, enabling precise analysis and culturally grounded recommendations based on practical experience. These formats also provided flexibility for participants with different capacities, schedules and geographic realities. The team gathered information through all engagement activities, documented and analyzed it to identify themes, areas of connection or difference, and gaps or considerations requiring further attention. Participation Across all engagement activities, including in-person, virtual, heritage-holding, and focused small-group sessions, 100 individual Nations, Bands and Councils were represented including 21 affiliated Indigenous organizations (cultural centres, stewardship societies, advocacy bodies). In addition, 36 heritage-holding organizations participated. Three focused sessions were held for representatives from Modern Treaty Nations, Indigenous law experts, and the Reciprocal Research Network with a total of 20 organizations and communities represented. 17 written submissions from 16 organizations were received. 317 individuals participated in the engagement process. The eight in-person and three virtual engagement sessions were focused on hearing perspectives from First Nations in B.C. Figure 17 breaks down the attendance further. Note: though most organizations represented are First Nations, not all the participants who attended representing them identified as First Nations. Key Themes Overarching Themes Across Engagement Streams The overarching themes below reflect input shared across all engagement streams—First Nations in B.C., heritage-holding organizations, focused sessions, and written submissions. (For the full list of Detailed Themes see Appendix VII) While each stream raised priorities related to their respective areas of interest, based on their roles and experiences, several overarching themes emerged when the full body of input was considered together. Repatriation is sacred, relational, and Indigenous‑led. Participants consistently described repatriation as a healing responsibility guided by Indigenous laws, protocols, ceremony, and community authority. Repatriation is a relational and spiritual process of great cultural significance and responsibilities, not merely an administrative or technical process. Participants emphasized that meaningful progress requires tangible action that reflects reconciliation in practice. Trust depends on clear, coordinated, and transparent systems. Participants emphasized that trust is strengthened when repatriation is supported by accurate inventories, transparent and connected databases, clear documentation, and consistent communication across institutions. They emphasized that fragmented systems, staff turnover and incomplete records are barriers that delay progress and undermine confidence in the process. Policy and guidance must be practical, flexible and responsive to diverse contexts. Participants called for provincial guidance that establishes clear pathways and procedures, while respecting that First Nations apply their own laws and protocols in culturally diverse contexts. They expressed strong concern that applying a one-size-fits-all approach flattens differences between Nations and erodes trust. Many participants emphasized that commitments need to become enforceable obligations rather than optional policy. Indigenous jurisdiction, law, and data sovereignty must lead. Participants stressed that Indigenous legal orders, oral histories and community-based decision-making must be recognized as valid and authoritative. Institutions were described as temporary holders - not owners - of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings, and repatriation must be guided by Indigenous Peoples’ inherent rights and laws. Participants also emphasized the need for inclusive definitions and culturally legitimate dispute‑resolution processes, particularly where territories and cultural connections overlap. Repatriation requires long-term resources for success. Participants emphasized that there are funding, capacity and readiness issues. Repatriation processes takes time, requiring funding, staffing, and tailored supports for both First Nations and heritage-holding organizations. Despite best intentions, smaller organizations can struggle with the responsibilities of care due to a lack of capacity. Therefore, participants shared that it is essential to build public and organizational support, as well as technical expertise, to deliver the necessary standards and best practice of care and stewardship. Out of Scope Themes Participants raised several themes important to them, but which fall outside the scope of the Policy Framework. These include: Specific implementation activities such as legislative changes, programs, and funding to support repatriation processes; Heritage Conservation Act related activities and issues such as protection of burial sites and regulations; International, interjurisdictional and private collection repatriation. These themes were clearly identified as critical considerations for future policy and implementation. Participants emphasized that although international and out-of-province repatriation falls outside the current scope of the Policy Framework, these remain critical priorities requiring collaboration and support. These issues will be shared with the ministries responsible to ensure awareness for intersecting policies and as applicable with Federal and other Provincial and Territorial counterparts. “Policy needs to address capacity issues in communities.” – Participant quote, Fort St. John Session - September 9, 2025 Detailed Findings by Engagement Stream This section presents detailed findings from each engagement group: First Nations in B.C., heritage-holding organizations, and the focused sessions (Modern Treaty Nations, Indigenous legal experts, and the Reciprocal Research Network). Each group is presented separately to reflect the distinct roles, responsibilities, and perspectives of participants. Within each group, findings are organized into ’what we asked’, which outlines the discussion questions and selected direct quotes from participants, and ’what we heard’, which synthesizes key themes and recurring messages. First Nations in B.C. What We Asked 1.What does respectful repatriation/rematriation mean to your community?  Participants described respectful repatriation as bringing Ancestors and Cultural Belongings home in a good way, guided by Indigenous laws, ceremony, and culturally grounded responsibilities. They identified that Elders, hereditary and elected leadership, knowledge keepers, and families are central to repatriation decision‑making. Participants emphasized that the process must be community‑led, intentional, and paced according to readiness, rather than driven by institutional or arbitrary policy timelines. Participants repeatedly framed respectful repatriation as relational and spiritual work, not a logistical or administrative exercise. Participants expressed that respect is demonstrated through sustained relationships, clear communication, and tangible support that enables Nations to lead the process on their own terms. “It’s sacred work, it’s healing work.” – Participant quote, Campbell River Session – October 28, 2025 “Respectful repatriation follows the teachings and protocols of our Ancestors, restoring connections with Ancestors, the land, and the community. Guided by Elders and knowledge keepers, the process ensures ceremonies and protocols are properly observed. It also gives future generations the opportunity to learn their history, culture, and responsibilities, supporting the continuity of our traditions.” – Written Submission excerpt, March 13, 2026 2.How should the co-developed Policy Framework reflect your Nation’s protocols, laws, customs, and decision-making in the repatriation process? Participants emphasized that the Policy Framework must recognize the diversity of governance structures across Nations, including the roles of hereditary leadership, elected councils, Elders, families, and knowledge keepers. They consistently identified that authority over repatriation processes, decisions, and timelines belongs to Nations, not institutions. They stressed that Indigenous laws must be applied in practice, not just acknowledged symbolically. They emphasized that clear and respectful engagement protocols for museums, universities, and other heritage‑holding organizations are essential to ensure Nations remain decision‑makers at every stage of the repatriation process. “Policy needs to breathe and be flexible and respond to each Nation in context.” – Participant quote, Kamloops Session – October 6, 2025 “The policy needs teeth and must hold the heritage-holding institutions accountable.” – Participant quote, Campbell River Session – October 28, 2025 3.What barriers does your Nation face in initiating or continuing repatriation? Participants identified multiple barriers that complicate or delay repatriation efforts. These included: limited access to a culturally appropriate repository or storage space; inadequate funding and infrastructure for receiving and caring for returned Belongings; and burdensome policy complexity across archaeological permitting, repositories, and museum practices. Participants expressed that emotional, spiritual, and community fatigue was a significant barrier, reflecting the cumulative impact of repeated ceremonies and the long-standing trauma associated with ancestral loss. “One of the nuts and bolts is looking after the wellness of those people doing this heavy work is often overlooked.” – Participant quote, Campbell River Session – October 28, 2025 “There’s just not time or people available to deal with all of the people offering or contacting regarding repatriation.” – Participant quote, Virtual Session – January 19, 2026 4.What support would make it easier for your Nation to begin, continue, or complete your repatriation journey? Participants consistently emphasized the need for resources over the long-term and capacity to support ceremonies, travel, research, legal work, and the development of Nation‑run repositories and culturally appropriate care spaces. They identified that the direct return to Nations—rather than interim holding—is a critical support, alongside policies that reduce administrative burdens rather than creating additional layers of approval. Improved access to accurate information was also highlighted as essential. Participants stressed the importance of transparent inventories, clear documentation of provenance, and shared data systems and tools that enable Nations to locate and reconnect with Ancestors and Cultural Belongings. “Practical support for ceremonies and cultural laws doesn’t happen without a cost… financial resourcing is really critical for this work to be successful.” – Participant quote, Virtual Session – December 2, 2025 “We need a coordinated and systemic approach, rather than relying on isolated efforts by individual organizations.” – Participant quote, Virtual Session – January 19, 2026 5.What do you hope to see as a result of this work? Participants expressed a strong desire to see Ancestors, Cultural Belongings, and records returned to their home communities as a foundation for healing, cultural continuity, and intergenerational connection. They see respectful, Nation‑led repatriation processes as contributing to identity restoration, community cohesion, and renewed responsibilities to future generations. “I want to see ReconciliACTION, time to see real solutions.” – Participant quote, Campbell River Session – October 28, 2025 “We need to see action – things getting done instead of talking about it.” – Participant quote, Kamloops Session – October 6, 2025 What We Heard These synthesized findings reflect recurring messages across the engagement streams and are based on a set of stream-specific themes validated with participants, which are provided in Appendix VII. Across engagements with First Nations in B.C., participants consistently emphasized that repatriation must be Indigenous-led, relational, and grounded in Indigenous practice and law. Repatriation was described as sacred and emotionally significant activity that unfolds over time and must be guided by community authority, cultural protocols, and readiness. Participants highlighted the importance of trust-building through transparent systems and tools, sustained capacity, and meaningful action, while cautioning against rigid, one-size-fits-all approaches that undermine Indigenous governance and relationships. Participants emphasized that the costs of repatriation should not fall solely on First Nations and that governments and institutions must take responsibility for enabling and supporting this work. "Something that may be considered an object to one, is held sacred, and the power reverberates when the belonging is repatriated to a community." – quote from Chepximiya Siyam’ (Chief Dr. Janice George) & Skwetsimeltxw (Willard ‘Buddy’ Joseph), Squamish Nation Heritage-Holding Organizations What We Asked 1.Does your organization have experience with the repatriation of Ancestors or Cultural Belongings? If so, what was your experience, and what did you learn? Heritage‑holding organizations described repatriation as long‑term, relationship‑based work that unfolds over time rather than through a single transaction or transfer. Participants emphasized that repatriation processes often begin with uncertainty and evolve as relationships with Nations deepen; trust is built, and institutional understanding improves. They described repatriation as carrying emotional and ethical responsibility for institutional staff and community partners alike. Participants stressed the importance of approaching this work with humility, patience, and awareness that Ancestors and Cultural Belongings are not merely objects, but like living relatives and responsibilities for them exist within Indigenous legal and cultural systems. Participants noted that while repatriation can involve complex coordination and careful preparation, meaningful progress is most often enabled through sustained engagement, clarity of roles, and institutional willingness to adapt policies and practices as relationships develop. “You got to play the long game sometimes… meet community where they are, and sometimes that means meeting the heritage-holding institution where they are.” – Participant quote, Heritage-Holding Organizations Session – December 10, 2025 “Our way of repatriating is unique to every request and every community and is continually evolving.” – Participant quote, Heritage-Holding Organizations – January 19, 2026 2.What challenges are faced or perceived for organizations in supporting repatriation to First Nations in B.C.? Participants identified capacity constraints as a persistent challenge, particularly for smaller organizations managing repatriation alongside multiple institutional responsibilities. Limited staffing, lack of dedicated expertise, and competing demands were frequently cited as barriers to timely and effective action. Systemic challenges were also raised, including fragmented governance environments, misalignment between institutional policies and community expectations, and uncertainty related to donor agreements, tax considerations, and conservation standards. Participants emphasized that past conservation practices — particularly where hazardous materials were used — continue to pose risks and can undermine trust when identified late in the repatriation process. Participants consistently identified that gaps in documentation and record‑keeping was a significant barrier, particularly where collections lack clear provenance or accurate attribution. Participants noted that insufficient cultural competency and inconsistent anti‑racism training within institutions can further strain relationships and slow progress. “There’s just a lack of capacity… there’s only two of us, and often in small museums, you wear a lot of hats.” – Participant quote, Heritage-Holding Organizations Session – December 10, 2025 3.What concerns, if any, does your organization have regarding the co-development and implementation of a provincial Repatriation Policy Framework? Participants expressed concern that a provincial Policy Framework could become overly prescriptive if it does not allow sufficient flexibility for relationship‑based practice. There was strong emphasis on ensuring that the Policy Framework can evolve over time and respond to diverse cultural, geographic, and institutional contexts rather than applying uniform requirements in all circumstances. At the same time, they stressed the need for clear, practical guidance to support consistent implementation across institutions. Concerns were raised that without coordinated and mandated provincial direction, organizations may develop internal policies in isolation, increasing the risk of fragmented or inconsistent approaches. Participants also highlighted the importance of resourcing and scalability. Heritage‑holding organizations and Nations were seen as entering repatriation from very different starting points, and participants cautioned that unrealistic timelines or unfunded expectations could undermine trust and confidence in the Policy Framework. “We want this to move at a pace where people are doing it because they want to, not necessarily because they have to.” – Participant quote, Heritage-Holding Organizations Session – December 10, 2025 “How, once this framework is out, will organizations actually be able to implement this?” – Participant quote, Heritage-Holding Organizations Session – December 10, 2025 What We Heard These findings reflect recurring messages across the engagement streams and draw on a more detailed set of themes validated with heritage‑holding organization participants, which are provided in Appendix VII. Across engagements with heritage‑holding organizations, participants emphasized that effective repatriation depends on flexibility, institutional accountability, and long-term sustained capacity. They consistently described repatriation as relational work that requires clear roles, early planning, transparent documentation, and responsiveness to community direction. Participants highlighted the need for provincial guidance that supports consistency without constraining community‑led processes, and for coordination across institutions, ministries, and systems and tools to reduce fragmentation. They emphasized that respect for Indigenous governance and recognition of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings as living relatives is foundational to building trust and achieving respectful outcomes. Focused Sessions Modern Treaty Nations What We Asked 1.What is your experience with repatriation in B.C. under current treaties? Modern Treaty Nations described how repatriation under existing treaties can be complex and inconsistent. Participants noted that older treaty provisions do not always align with contemporary expectations regarding the return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings. Shared-return approaches in particular were seen as limited in practice and not always reflective of how Nations define care, responsibility, and continuity. Participants also described repatriation efforts as long‑term, resource‑intensive, and emotionally demanding. Progress was frequently delayed by incomplete or outdated cataloguing, staff turnover within institutions, and the absence of consistent practices across museums, archives, and repositories. 2.What challenges / barriers have you faced in your repatriation journeys? Participants identified barriers related to assessments of community readiness, facility standards that do not reflect the realities of smaller or remote Nations, and regulatory requirements that can slow repatriation even where there is institutional goodwill. They described poor documentation and inconsistent institutional practices as compounding these challenges, particularly where records obscure connections between Nations, territories, and belongings. Participants also emphasized the cumulative emotional burden of repatriation and the importance of public education to address misinformation or backlash that can arise when treaty‑related repatriation efforts are misunderstood. “We don’t have a solid database of where these items are coming from.” – Participant quote, Modern Treaty Nations Session, January 22, 2026 3.What concerns or insights do you have as Modern Treaty Nations on a provincial Repatriation Policy Framework? Modern Treaty Nations emphasized the need for a Policy Framework that supports repatriation without constraining treaty rights or Indigenous jurisdiction. Participants highlighted the importance of practical tools, including a province‑wide, accessible database to locate and identify belongings, along with clear provincial language affirming Indigenous ownership of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings. They emphasized the strong need for clarity regarding the limits of the Policy Framework, particularly in relation to Ancestors and Cultural Belongings held outside British Columbia, internationally, or in private collections, and the importance of alignment with treaty obligations and other heritage or federal processes. “Success would have to look like education for the public, and ensuring the blowback doesn’t fall on the communities.” – Participant quote, Modern Treaty Nations Session, January 22, 2026 “A checklist for Nations looking at rematriating their poles or artifacts, including funding streams, would be beneficial.” – Participant quote, Modern Treaty Nations Session, January 22, 2026 What We Heard Across engagement with Modern Treaty Nations, participants emphasized that policy frameworks must respect treaty rights and Indigenous jurisdiction and avoid approaches that inadvertently constrain existing agreements. They see effective repatriation as dependent on practical tools, clear provincial positions on ownership, coordinated systems, and sustained capacity that supports long‑term, treaty‑grounded repatriation. Indigenous Law Experts What We Asked 1.As scholars and practitioners engaged with Indigenous law, what are Indigenous legal perspectives you have encountered regarding repatriation? a.How does repatriation intersect with legal/governance work within Indigenous societies? Participants emphasized that Indigenous legal orders and systems are complete and authoritative systems of law, not informal customs. Within these legal orders, Ancestors are understood as relatives with ongoing responsibilities, and Cultural Belongings carry spirit, identity, and governance significance. Participants stressed that museums, archives, and universities need to acknowledge that they do not own Ancestors or Cultural Belongings but serve as temporary holders on behalf of the Indigenous Nations to whom they belong. “The starting point has to be that they do not own whatever it is they are holding… They are merely holding these items on behalf of the rightful owner.” – Participant quote, Indigenous Legal Experts Session, February 18, 2026 b.How should the province’s approach to repatriation interact or coordinate with that work? Participants described repatriation as an extension of Indigenous governance responsibilities rather than a separate technical activity. Indigenous legal obligations to care for Ancestors and Cultural Belongings continue regardless of where those items are held, and decision‑making authority rests with Indigenous Nations, families, and governing structures. 2.Broadly, based on your experience and expertise, what legal issues arise with respect to repatriation? What key areas need to be considered? Participants identified significant structural barriers embedded in colonial legal and institutional systems. Heritage and museum legislation, donor agreements, and institutional liability concerns privilege institutional control. Participants also highlighted standards of proof that favour written records—often incomplete or inaccurate—over oral histories and Indigenous legal processes, creating barriers to legitimate repatriation claims. “Law is a set of standards, a set of principles, a set of beliefs that guide your actions… our law is about how to live your life in a good way.” – Participant quote, Indigenous Legal Experts Session, February 18, 2026 3.What insights do you have regarding policy, law, or legislation, as these relate to repatriation? What challenges, barriers, or opportunities exist? Participants stressed that policy alone cannot resolve misalignment in existing legislation. While a Policy Framework can provide important guidance, meaningful change requires legislative recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction and authority. Participants emphasized the need for inclusive definitions within policy and law to avoid unintentionally excluding Ancestors or Cultural Belongings from repatriation processes. 4.As the Province moves ahead with the Policy Framework, how do you see it impacting your work or the work of Indigenous Peoples, and what questions or concerns do you have? Participants noted that the impact of the Policy Framework will depend on whether it genuinely shifts authority to Indigenous Nations or just reorganizes existing institutional processes. They raised concerns that uniform approaches could advantage Nations with greater administrative capacity if flexibility is not embedded. Participants emphasized the importance of long-term multi-generational resourcing and support for Indigenous governance, legal development, and long‑term stewardship. “You don’t want to have to go to a colonial court to have this resolved. There needs to be a culturally legitimate dispute resolution process.” – Participant, Indigenous Legal Experts Session, February 18, 2026 What We Heard Indigenous legal experts emphasized that repatriation is fundamentally a matter of Indigenous law and jurisdiction. Effective policy must recognize Indigenous legal systems as law, shift decision-making authority away from institutions, and address barriers embedded in existing colonial legislation. Without legislative alignment, policy risks remaining symbolic rather than transformative. Reciprocal Research Network (RRN) What We Asked 1.How did the RRN come to be, what gap does it fill, and how does it operate? Participants described the RRN as a response to long-standing, systemic barriers faced by First Nations in locating and accessing Cultural Belongings held across multiple institutions. It was characterized as an integrated, open-source system co-developed by the Musqueam Indian Band, the Stó:lō Nation/Tribal Council, the U’mista Cultural Society and the Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, to improve access, reduce duplication, and connect fragmented institutional records. Rather than creating a new repository, the RRN saw its function as strengthening connections between existing systems while operating under First Nations‑informed governance. Participants consistently cautioned against building competing parallel systems that exacerbate current conditions, noting that expanding and strengthening what already exists is more efficient, respectful, and scalable. “Classification systems and organizational systems do not align with First Nations world views… we were trying to actually find a sense of truth of what the connection is to a people, a place and belongings.” – Participant quote, Reciprocal Research Network Session, February 19, 2026 2.What current challenges are faced and are their lessons learned? Participants identified trust as a central challenge. They described long histories of delay, incomplete follow‑through, and inaccurate records as undermining confidence in both institutions and governments. Museum classification systems were widely seen as misaligned with First Nations worldviews, relying on outdated or incorrect attributions that obscure relationships between people, places, and belongings. Significant gaps were identified in relation to Indigenous data sovereignty. Participants noted that Ancestors are not currently integrated into the RRN and that community‑controlled access permissions remain limited. While technical solutions were viewed as feasible, sustained resources, staffing and governance were described as the primary constraints. Participants emphasized that the RRN, like repatriation more broadly, is vulnerable to staff turnover and reliance on individual relationships unless commitments are formalized through durable governance structures and long‑term resourcing. “It does not include any connection to or housing of information around ancestral remains. As a major focus of explicit repatriation, it would be a gap.” – Participant quote, Reciprocal Research Network Session, February 19, 2026 3.How would the proposed provincial Repatriation Policy Framework, and subsequent work supporting implementation, impact or support our shared goals? Participants described how a provincial Repatriation Policy Framework could support shared goals by moving repatriation from aspirational commitments toward enforceable responsibilities. Clear expectations, timelines, and accountability mechanisms were seen as critical to ensuring that institutions treat repatriation as a core, ongoing process rather than discretionary activity. Participants emphasized that the Policy Framework should reinforce First Nations-led governance, with the province playing a supporting role rather than directing outcomes. They stressed that investment should prioritize strengthening First Nations systems such as the RRN, addressing known gaps, including Ancestors data and access controls, and avoiding duplication through new platforms. They identified sustained, multi‑year funding and staffing as essential to protect the RRN from political cycles, institutional turnover, and project‑based volatility. 4.What is envisioned as next steps, or for a 'blue sky' future for the RRN? Participants described a vision of the RRN evolving into a more comprehensive, First Nations-governed system grounded in Indigenous data sovereignty. This included enabling Nations to upload, manage, and govern their own materials, determine access according to Indigenous law and protocol, and integrate Cultural Belongings with archival materials, language resources, and carefully governed information about Ancestors. Participants emphasized the importance of Indigenous‑led design and technical leadership so that information systems reflect Indigenous worldviews rather than colonial classification models. Broad participation by heritage‑holding organisations, supported through shared systems and expectations, was seen as critical to embedding repatriation as a collective responsibility rather than optional practice. “If this is a reconciliatory process, it has to be founded on a First Nations‑led model in partnership with the province, where the province plays a supportive role.” – Participant quote, Reciprocal Research Network Session, February 19, 2026 What We Heard Participants emphasized that the RRN represents one of the most practical, Indigenous‑led existing mechanisms available for advancing repatriation at scale. Trust, sustainability, and effectiveness depend on enforceable commitments, stable resourcing, and governance structures that clearly locate decision‑making authority with First Nations. Participants stressed that provincial efforts should build on and strengthen existing Indigenous‑led systems rather than creating parallel infrastructure, and that alignment with Indigenous data sovereignty is essential to long‑term success. Written Submissions Written submissions were treated as a fourth engagement stream and responded to the same discussion questions and materials used in facilitated sessions. Seventeen written submissions were received and are summarized below. Guided by Culture and Indigenous Knowledge Written submissions consistently emphasized that repatriation and rematriation must be guided by Indigenous practices and laws, cultural protocols, and community authority. Respondents stressed that ceremonies, leadership, and decision‑making responsibilities must be determined by Nations themselves, with Elders and knowledge keepers playing central roles. They described repatriation as a process that restores relationships with Ancestors, land, and community, while supporting intergenerational learning and cultural continuity. “Respectful repatriation follows the teachings and protocols of our Ancestors, restoring connections with Ancestors, the land, and the community. Guided by Elders and Knowledge Keepers, the process ensures ceremonies and protocols are properly observed. It also gives future generations the opportunity to learn their history, culture, and responsibilities, supporting the continuity of our traditions.” – Written Submission excerpt, February 25, 2026 Barriers & Challenges Written submissions identified systemic barriers that mirror those raised in facilitated sessions. Respondents noted overlaps and misalignment between repatriation efforts and other provincial initiatives — particularly the Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project — creating duplication and placing additional burden on communities. Participants emphasized the need for coordinated cross‑government approaches. Several submissions highlighted access challenges related to repositories, archives, and intellectual property. They described the inability to locate Ancestors and Cultural Belongings, combined with fee‑based access to archival records, as a significant barrier to repatriation, language revitalization, and cultural restoration. Several submissions further emphasized that archival records raise distinct repatriation challenges that differ from those associated with Ancestors and Cultural Belongings. Respondents noted that colonial copyright regimes, institutional ownership models, and archival best practices often give authority over recorded Indigenous knowledge — including audio recordings, transcripts, photographs, and field notes — in institutions or individual creators rather than the Indigenous communities from whom that knowledge originates. They described fee-based access, restrictions on reproduction or reuse, and requirements to seek permission to use community knowledge as barriers to language revitalization, governance, and cultural continuity. These concerns reinforced the importance of Indigenous data sovereignty and consent-based authority over the access, use, and stewardship of archival materials. “The repository crisis prevents repatriation due to the inability to locate archaeological materials and Ancestors.” – Written Submission excerpt, October 28, 2025 Capacity constraints were also emphasized. Respondents raised concerns about limited staffing, resources, facilities, and uneven cooperation across jurisdictions, as well as emotional readiness and the cumulative effects of cultural loss for generations. Site-specific challenges, such as damaged or flooded burial grounds intended for the reburial of repatriated Ancestors, were cited as examples of the broader infrastructure and resource gaps facing Nations. Other Themes From Written Submissions Written submissions emphasized the importance of supporting Indigenous legal authority and avoiding rushed or prescriptive approaches. Respondents underscored the need to treat Indigenous law as law, to provide space for Nations that are at earlier stages of their repatriation journey, and to ensure processes are paced according to community readiness rather than external timelines. “We are learning to become more people-centred, rather than goal-driven.” – Written Submission excerpt, March 4, 2026 Submissions also highlighted the need for practical supports, including funding for ceremonies, culturally appropriate care and storage of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings, institutional training, and sustained partnerships. Several respondents stressed that rebuilding trust requires recognition by governments and the public, including acknowledgment of past harms. Written submissions were also received from the Royal BC Museum (RBCM) and BC Museums Association (BCMA) and their input has been incorporated into the results. Validation Following completion of the primary engagement activities, two virtual validation sessions were held on March 26 and March 30, 2026: 97 individuals representing 64 First Nations in B.C, heritage-holding organizations such as universities, museums, and archaeological repositories, as well as special-interest groups participated in the sessions. 24 new participants attended these validation sessions and contributed new perspectives to the engagement. These sessions provided participants with an opportunity to review and confirm the draft key themes emerging from the engagement process. Feedback from the validation sessions affirmed the overall direction of the findings and informed refinements to emphasis and clarity. A summary of the validation sessions is provided in Appendix IV.   Conclusion The engagement process underscored the high importance that repatriation holds for First Nations in British Columbia. It is significant and carries heavy emotional weight for all concerned. First Nations feel deeply about its impact as they shared their experiences, concerns, and hopes, for the respectful return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings. Their contributions affirmed that repatriation must be grounded in focused leadership, effective relationships, and community laws, practices and protocols. This What We Heard Report reflects the voices of First Nations in B.C., Modern Treaty Nations, heritage holding organizations, and subject matter experts who shared their time and knowledge. Their insights will guide the Repatriation Steering Committee as it continues shaping the provincial Repatriation Policy Framework. While the Policy Framework is only one step in a much longer journey, the perspectives shared through this engagement process provide a strong foundation for continued collaboration and meaningful progress toward the respectful, rights-affirming return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings.    Appendices   Appendix I: Extended Acknowledgements Message from the Repatriation Steering Committee The Repatriation Steering Committee offers this report as the result of a joint, Indigenous-informed process guided by First Nations leadership, Indigenous legal expertise, and collaborative engagement with First Nations across British Columbia. The provincial government, the First Nations Leadership Council, and key heritage-holding agencies established the committee to provide shared oversight, guidance, and accountability in co-developing a provincial Repatriation Policy Framework grounded in Indigenous law, community authority, and respectful relationships. Throughout the engagement process, the Steering Committee worked collaboratively with First Nations in B.C., Modern Treaty Nations, heritage-holding organizations, and provincial partners to ensure this work was undertaken as a joint process shaped by First Nations voices, community experience, and governance and not as a government initiative. Participants courageously shared deeply personal and honest perspectives, which are often difficult to express, in support of the respectful return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings to their home communities. Extended Acknowledgements The Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport respectfully acknowledges the First Nations on whose traditional and ancestral territories in-person engagement sessions were held (Figure 45). Wherever possible, using First Nations-owned venues to recognize community leadership, cultural protocols, and local economies was prioritized. This work was conducted upon the territories of the following Nations and communities: Thank you to T’esóts’en (Patrick Kelly) for his generosity in allowing the use of photographs of his Ancestor’s Cultural Belongings in the engagement materials. Thank you to Repatriation Steering Committee Co-chair Bob (Galagame’) Chamberlin for facilitation of engagement sessions. He was an instrumental part of the project, providing insight, wisdom, and the generosity with which he has contributed his time and energy to this important work. “Developing this Repatriation Policy will reasonably raise First Nations expectations and the path of repatriation will take a generation to be successful. Sufficient Capacity investment on every aspect spread over time will be necessary.” - Bob (Galagame’) Chamberlin quote Thank you to the Repatriation Steering Committee for its guidance throughout the co-development of the Policy Framework. Co-Chairs: Bob Chamberlin, Co-chair, former Chief Councillor of Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis First Nation. Claire Avison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Arts and Culture Division, Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. Province of B.C.: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Provincial Agencies/Crown Corporations: Jisgang Nika Collison, BC Arts Council and Haida Gwaii Museum Karen Aird, First Peoples Cultural Council Chelsea Meloche, Royal BC Museum External Members: Carey Cunneyworth, Alliance of BC Modern Treaty Nations Maureen Buchan, BC Assembly of First Nations Kelty McKerracher, BC Assembly of First Nations Jordan Coble, BC Museums Association, Indigenous Advisory Committee Dave Schaepe, Sto:Lo Research and Resource Management Centre Andrea Glickman, Union of BC Indian Chiefs Wenonah Peigan, Union of BC Indian Chiefs Howard Grant, First Nations Summit* The late qiyəplenəxʷ Howard Edward Grant is recognized for his knowledge and support that he brought to his role on the Repatriation Steering Committee. He leaves a legacy of service to his community for First Nations title, rights, and self-determination. The cross-ministry Repatriation Working Group that included representatives from the Royal BC Museum is recognized for its support and input during the co-development of the Policy Framework. The contributions of legal experts and members of the Reciprocal Research Network listed below are also recognized: Catherine Bell – University of Alberta Kelty McKerracher – Repatriation Policy Framework Steering Committee / Miller Titerle & Co. Leah George-Wilson – FNS co-chair / Miller Titerle & Co. Marion Buller – University of Victoria Melissa Louie – Nogalla Law Group, LLP. Val Napoleon – University of Victoria Faculty of Law Doug White – special counsel to the Premier on Reconciliation Robert Morales – FNS Chief Negotiators Forum / Cowichan Tribes Dave Schaepe – Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre Susan Rowley – Museum of Anthropology (UBC) Leona Sparrow – Musqueam Nation Hannah Turner – School of Information (UBC) Gerry Lawson – Museum of Anthropology (UBC) Alissa Cherry – Museum of Anthropology (UBC) Mahihkan Management, an Indigenous-owned engagement firm, supported the coordination and delivery of these trauma-informed engagements. Its work, together with the insights shared by all participants, forms the foundation of this report.   Appendix II: Terms & Definitions Repatriation – A term used to describe the return of Indigenous Ancestors and Belongings to Indigenous Peoples. For the purposes of this work, the term repatriation is used unless rematriation is used by the community referenced. Source: First Peoples’ Cultural Council. (2025). From Stealing to Healing: Repatriation and B.C. First Nations Rematriation – A term used to describe the return of Ancestors and Belongings to Indigenous Peoples with an ancestral connection that honours the matrilineal role of Indigenous women in leadership, and matrilineal societies. Source: First Peoples’ Cultural Council. (2025). From Stealing to Healing: Repatriation and B.C. First Nations Repatriation Activities – May include but are not limited to: Return of and control over Indigenous Ancestors and Cultural Belongings; Proactive organizational policies facilitating return of and control over Indigenous Ancestors and Cultural Belongings; Co-stewardship agreements, commissioning of replicas, digitization of collections, temporary housing of Cultural Belongings, special access, loans, review of policies, gifting/returning un-accessioned items; Institutional Activities: Collections management and provenance research Submitting and/or receiving repatriation requests Conducting internal institutional inventories Negotiating stewardship or research agreements with Nations Coordinating logistics of repatriation and/or rematriation Participating in repatriation and/or rematriation ceremonies, where invited; Community Activities: Community-based research relating to provenance, use, ownership, and histories of removal Community meetings Development and funding of infrastructure projects to house returned Ancestors and/or Cultural Belongings Planning and coordination of repatriation and/or rematriation events Acquiring funds to support repatriation and rematriation activities Gathering or soliciting necessary materials for ceremony or other repatriation/rematriation activities. Source: Royal BC Museum & Haida Gwaii Museum. (2019). Indigenous Repatriation Handbook. Atalay, S. (2019). Braiding strands of wellness: How repatriation contributes to healing through embodied practice and storywork. Ancestors – Human remains, housed in colonial institutions, that have an ancestral connection to Indigenous Peoples of today. Source:First Peoples’ Cultural Council. (2025). From Stealing to Healing: Repatriation and B.C. First Nations. (Cultural) Belongings – Ancestral, cultural objects often referred to as “artifacts” housed in colonial institutions that have an ancestral connection to Indigenous Peoples of today. Belongings also extend to “intangible heritage” such as those found in archives. Source:First Peoples’ Cultural Council. (2025). From Stealing to Healing: Repatriation and B.C. First Nations. Heritage-Holding Organizations – Institutions or organizations that hold and/or care for Indigenous Ancestors, Cultural Belongings, and other heritage such as audio-visual materials and documentation. These may include but are not limited to museums, archives, galleries, libraries, historic sites, universities, and archaeological repositories. Source:First Peoples’ Cultural Council. (2025). From Stealing to Healing: Repatriation and B.C. First Nations. Institutional Barriers – A term used to describe policies, rules, laws or other fundamental components of an institution (e.g. museum or university) that prevents or makes it difficult or impossible for something to happen or be achieved. Source:Stó:lō House of Respect Caretaking Committee, & S’ólh Téméxw Stewardship Alliance. (2024). Sharing Our Paths: Repatriation Gathering on Networks, Challenges & Policy Standards. Policy Framework – A policy framework may be a document, or a series of documents, that provides non-regulatory guidance which can assist in selecting the most appropriate approach to circumstances. Policy frameworks outline sets of principles and long-term goals that can determine rulemaking, guidelines and give overall direction to planning and development of an office or government. Policy frameworks may also provide better understanding of how regulatory systems operate and how to strategically use different tools to achieve policy objectives. Source:Government of British Columbia. (2020). Policy Approaches Playbook. Appendix III: Participation Lists Communities and Organizations Represented First Nations Communities & Organizations Organizations Acho Dene Koe First Nation Adams Lake Indian Band Aitchelitz First Nation Alliance of BC Modern Treaty Nations BC Assembly of First Nations Blueberry First Nation Bonaparte Indian Band Carcross/Tagish First Nation Cayoose Creek Chawathil First Nation Cheam First Nation Cheslatta Carrier Nation Coldwater Indian Band Coqualeetza Cultural Education Centre Council of the Haida Nation Cowichan Tribes Doig River First Nation First Peoples Cultural Council Foothills First Nation Gitga'at First Nation Gitselasu Stewardship Society Gitxaała Nation Gwawaenuk First Nation Haida Gwaii Museum Haisla Nation Council Halalt First Nation Halfway River First Nation Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department Heiltsuk Nation Homalco First Nation Huu-ay-aht First Nations Ka:'yu:'k't'h'/Che:k'tles7et'h' First Nations Kanaka Bar Indian Band Katzie First Nation Kelly Lake First Nation Kitasoo Xai'xais Nation Kitselas First Nation Kitsumkalum Indian Band Klahoose First Nation K'omoks First Nation Ktunaxa Nation Council Kwantlen First Nation Kwikwetlem First Nation Lax Kw’alaams Band Lheidli T'enneh First Nation Lhtako Dene Nation Lower Nicola Indian Band Lulumexun Lands and Governance Maa-nulth Treaty Society Maaqutusiis Hahoulthee Stewardship Society Malahat Nation Mamalilikulla Nation Metlakatla First Nation Metlakatla Stewardship Society Musqueam Indian Band Namgis First Nation Nanoose First Nation Nee Tahi Buhn Indian Band Neskonlith Indian Band Nisga'a Government Nk’Mip Desert Cultural Centre Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council Nooaitch Indian Band N'Quatqua First Nation Nuchatlaht Tribe Nuxalk Nation Osoyoos Indian Band Penticton Indian Band qathet Museum & Archives Quatsino First Nation Saulteau First Nations Seabird Island Band Semiahmoo First Nation Shuswap Nation Tribal Council Simpcw First Nation Skidegate Band Council Skowkale First Nation Skwah First Nation Sncewips Heritage Museum Snuneymuxw First Nation Songhees Nation Soowahlie First Nation Splatsin First Nation Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre Squamish Nation St’át’imc Government Services SȾÁUTW̱ First Nation Stellat’en First Nation Secwe̓pemc Museum and Heritage Park Stk'emlupsemc te Secwepemc Nation Songhees First Nation Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre Stó꞉lō Nation Stz'uminus First Nation Sumas First Nation Tahltan Central Government Taku River Tlingit First Nation Government Tk'emlùps Te Secwepemc Nation Tl’esqox First Nation Tla'amin Nation Toquaht First Nation Treaty 8 Tribal Association Tsartslip First Nation Tsawwassen First Nation Tsay Keh Dene Tse'k'wa Heritage Society Tseshaht First Nation Tŝilhqot'in National Government Tsimshian Tsimshian Arts and Culture Society Tsleil-Waututh Nation Uchucklesaht Tribe Government Ucluelet First Nation U'mista Cultural Centre Museum We Wai Kai Treaty Society Weiwaikum First Nation Westbank First Nation Whispering Pines Clinton Indian Band W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council Xwisten (Bridge River Indian Band) ʔaq̓am First Nation BC Hydro BC Museums Association Burnaby Village Museum Campbell River Museum City of Delta City of Mission City of Surrey – Heritage Services City of Surrey – Surrey Archives Ecofor Consulting Ltd. Fort St. John – North Peace Museum Golden Museum and Archives Heritage BC Kamloops Museum and Archives Kilby Historic Site Lynn Canyon Ecology Centre Museum of North Vancouver New Westminster – Museum and Archives Port Hardy Heritage Society Museum Qualicum Beach Museum Richmond Museum & Heritage Services Royal BC Museum Simon Fraser University Simon Fraser University – Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology Sooke Region Museum The Exploration Place Museum & Science Centre Township of Langley UBC – Department of Anthropology UBC – Lab of Archaeology UBC – Museum of Anthropology UBC – Okanagan Campus UBC – Xwi7xwa Library – First Nations House of Learning University of Victoria UVIC – Legacy Art Galleries UVIC – Libraries and Art Collections Vancouver Maritime Museum   Appendix IV: Engagement Validation Sessions March 26 & March 30, 2026 Two virtual validation sessions were held on March 26 and March 30, 2026, to confirm the key themes emerging from the province‑wide engagement on the co‑development of a provincial Repatriation Policy Framework. Participants included First Nations representatives, heritage‑holding organizations, institutional partners, and subject‑matter experts who had participated in earlier engagement activities. The purpose of the validation sessions was not to generate new findings, but to reflect back the draft themes and assess whether they accurately captured participants’ perspectives and experiences shared throughout the engagement process. Participants were asked whether the themes resonated, whether any significant gaps remained, and whether the framing appropriately reflected the emotional, cultural, legal, and practical dimensions of repatriation. Across both sessions, participants expressed strong alignment with the key themes presented. There was broad confirmation that repatriation was appropriately framed as sacred, relational, and Indigenous‑led, and that the importance of Indigenous jurisdiction, coordinated systems, transparency, and long‑term capacity and funding was accurately reflected. Participants reinforced the understanding that repatriation is emotionally and spiritually demanding work that unfolds over time and requires flexibility rather than rigid, one‑size‑fits‑all approaches. Participants also offered refinements and additional emphasis, including: •Recognition of family level roles within Nation‑led processes; •The importance of readiness, pacing, and the right of Nations and families to delay returns until appropriate preparations are in place; •Concerns related to incomplete documentation, overlapping claims, and fragmented systems; •The need for improved coordination, shared tools, and clearer pathways to support respectful repatriation. Participants reiterated that while the Policy Framework establishes an important foundation, future implementation work will be required to address matters such as enforcement, cross‑jurisdictional repatriation, and sustainable, long-term resources. These issues were acknowledged as beyond the current scope of the Policy Framework. Overall, the validation sessions confirmed that the report’s findings faithfully reflect what was heard across engagement streams. Input from validation informed refinements to emphasis and clarity without altering the core conclusions of the report. Appendix V: Engagement Materials (graphics only available in pdf version) Appendix VI: Detailed Themes Heard The appendices that follow present detailed themes drawn from engagement sessions. The themes summarize key issues and perspectives raised through the engagement process and are intended to be representative rather than exhaustive. Draft themes were developed following the engagement sessions and prior to validation. Validation sessions held in March 2026 confirmed that the themes generally reflected participants’ perspectives. Feedback from validation informed refinements to emphasis and language, which are incorporated into the main report. The overview of key themes was prepared by Mahihkan Management, an Indigenous owned engagement firm contracted by the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport to conduct trauma-informed engagements on the Repatriation Policy Framework. First Nations The following detailed themes reflect the views expressed by representatives of First Nations in B.C. gathered over the course of the 8 in-person and 3 virtual sessions between September 2025 and February 2026. 1.Repatriation is essential for reconciliation: Returning Ancestors and Cultural Belongings and addressing the impacts of colonization is essential to reconciliation and healing. 2.Repatriation is a sacred and healing process: Repatriation is a spiritual and sacred responsibility grounded in the preservation, revitalization and continuity of culture, language and ancestral knowledge. 3.Funding and Capacity building are needed: Communities need long term funding to build capacity for staffing, training, and infrastructure required for repatriation to succeed through generations. 4.Self determination and Indigenous governance: Decisions must remain rooted in community leadership, with Indigenous voices guiding every stage of the process. 5.Relationship building, reciprocity and trust: There is a need for genuinely reciprocal relationship building with the province. Mutual respect through collaboration, action and dependable government responses and support are required so Nations can move forward with confidence. 6.Transparency and accountability: True transparency and accountability are needed to address longstanding gaps. This includes transparent and accountable processes and policies, as well as an accessible data sharing and storage platform. Accountability mechanisms need to be included in actionable policies. 7.Education and public awareness: Government needs to proactively support public education, and a better understanding of repatriation needs to confront racism that may arise in response to increasing activities. 8.Systematic groundwork to locate Ancestors and Cultural Belongings: There is urgent need for foundational work to identify and document where Ancestors and Cultural Belongings are located. A centrally coordinated and supported platform is required to address barriers of dispersed, inaccessible or inaccurate records. 9.Legislation: There is a strong desire for clear, supportive, enforceable legislation with mandated organizational compliance and proactive return of Ancestors and Cultural Belongings. 10.Youth involvement: Youth need to be engaged to strengthen intergenerational healing, learning, and to support the future of cultural stewardship. 11.Health and safety of collections: Improvement and transparency of standards and practices, respecting First Nations laws and protocols, including those related to contamination testing and decontamination treatment, handling and transport protocols, and destructive and invasive testing like carbon dating. 12.Intellectual property, consent and copyright: Community control over cultural knowledge must be restored and clear mechanisms in place to transfer authority and supported stewardship back to communities for materials like recordings, photographs and research material. Detailed Themes Heard – Heritage Holding Organizations The following detailed themes reflect the views expressed by representatives of heritage-holding organizations gathered over the course of 2 virtual sessions between September 2025 and February 2026. 1.Need for a living and collaborative Policy Framework: A provincial policy framework must be flexible, and relationship driven so it can adapt to community and operational needs without imposing rigid rules that undermine trust. 2.Cultural sensitivity, and emotional and spiritual demands: Repatriation is emotionally heavy work that requires cultural sensitivity from staff and care for the well being of communities and future generations. 3.Funding and capacity building are needed: Sustained long-term funding, staffing, and tailored supports are necessary for both Nations and organizations to meet the long term demands for successful repatriation. Despite best intentions, smaller organizations can struggle with responsibilities of care due to a lack of capacity, it is essential to build public and organizational support as well as technical expertise to deliver on the necessary standards and best practice of care and stewardship. 4.Self determination and Indigenous governance: Indigenous leadership and decision making must be embedded in organizational structures to support meaningful collaboration, as well as advance work in a good, informed and timely manner. 5.Relationship building and reciprocity: Building strong relationships between government, organizations, institutions, and First Nations requires time, trust, and care. Addressing harm done while establishing relationships involves acknowledgement, apology, and culturally appropriate ceremony. 6.Care for Cultural Belongings and institutional responsibility: Heritage-holding organizations must communicate clearly and have a proactive approach to uphold respectful repatriation. Ancestors and Cultural Belongings must be treated as living relatives with ongoing relationships, reflected through respectful language and culturally aligned care. 7.Lack of coordinated and systematic approaches: Coordinated systems and strong documentation are essential to successful repatriation. Fragmented communication across governments and organizations, as well as inconsistent funding, weaken capacity and continuity, as there is no official pathway to support repatriation. 8.Challenges with governance and restrictive policies: Governance structures and external rules, such as repository standards and permitting frameworks, often conflict with community led practices creating barriers that slow or prevent respectful repatriation. 9.Balancing institutional policy with community direction: Heritage-holding organizations need to adapt more flexible and culturally responsive approaches. Rigid internal policies that challenge “eligibility” for repatriation can become barriers to following Nation led direction. 10.Inaccurate documentation and overlapping claims: Poor, outdated, or incomplete records delay repatriation and highlight the need for stronger cataloguing practices, research and accessible documentation. Resolving overlapping claims is made more difficult by inaccurate documentation and a lack of organizational capacity can delay the complex logistics required to support the review of these claims. Appendix VII: Engagement Dates, Locations and Focus Audiences 1 Thursday, September 4, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Prince Rupert 2 Tuesday, September 9, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Fort St. John 3 Wednesday, September 10, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Prince George 4 Monday, October 6, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Kamloops 5 Tuesday, October 14, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Chilliwack 6 Monday, October 21, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Penticton 7 Monday, October 27, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Nanaimo 8 Tuesday, October 28, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Campbell River 9 Tuesday, November 18, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Virtual #1 10 Monday, November 24, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Virtual #2 11 Tuesday, December 2, 2025 First Nations in B.C. Virtual #3 12 Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Heritage-Holding Organizations Virtual #1 13 Monday, January 19, 2026 Heritage-Holding Organizations Virtual #2 14 Thursday, January 22, 2026 Modern Treaty Nations Virtual 15 Wednesday, February 18, 2026 Indigenous Law Experts Virtual 16 Thursday, February 19, 2026 Reciprocal Research Network Virtual 17 Thursday, March 26, 2026 Validation Session with BC First Nations Virtual 18 Monday, March 30, 2026 Validation Session with Heritage-Holding Organizations Virtual Appendix VIII – Comments from Lead Facilitator T’esóts’en (Patrick Kelly) T’esóts’en (Patrick Kelly) is a member of the Leq’á:mel First Nation (Stó:lō Nation) and served as the Lead Facilitator for the Repatriation Policy Framework co-development process. For more than four decades, T’esóts’en has worked at the intersection of Indigenous governance, public policy, and community-led change, supporting initiatives grounded in Indigenous law, cultural authority, and long-term accountability. His experience spans senior executive, advisory and facilitation roles with Indigenous, provincial and federal governments, and Indigenous led organizations. T’esóts’en’s longstanding involvement in Indigenous policy, heritage, justice, and governance – together with his Nation based perspective – shapes the context and intent of the comments that follow, which reflects his personal and Nation‑based perspective. How to Read this Work It is foundational. It situates repatriation as a responsibility grounded in Indigenous law, relationships, and lived experience – not as a technical or administrative process. At its centre are the purposes that repatriation serves: restoration, healing, and dignity. Decisions about when, how, and whether repatriation proceeds are guided first by Indigenous laws, responsibilities, and cultural protocols, carried through families, communities, and Nations. Programs, policies, and institutions can support this work only when they align with Indigenous authority and responsibility. A First Nation person, family, or community, when they indicate that they are ready, relies on key players in an integrated or holistic system of relationships, each doing their respective part, to repatriate Ancestors and Cultural Belongings to where they rightfully belong. First Nation, provincial, federal, or municipal governments may need to make or amend laws, by-laws, regulations, or governance policies to support the goals of repatriation. They would also need to establish programs and provide services with adequate resources to support repatriation. Heritage-holding organizations, and their staff and professionals, would need to inform lawmakers and governance policy makers of their operational needs. They would establish operational policies and develop practices in collaboration with First Nation representatives to accomplish the goals, work, and purposes of repatriation. Each part of the system, when they are developing or amending their respective authorities or roles, would collaborate with the other players in the integrated system to ensure that the decisions in their respective parts are informed by the needs of the other players throughout the system. While the system of relationships is designed on the principles of integrative management, due to the nature of repatriation and its issues, participation of the people involved would be informed and supported by spiritual, cultural, and other human relations values and principles. The colonial law and policy decision makers intentionally sought to eradicate First Nation Peoples’ spiritual and cultural practices, and the peoples’ identities. Government ministries and agencies, and communities across British Columbia implemented the colonial laws and policies to achieve the lawmakers’ purposes. Repatriation requires and equally intentional and coordinated system of commitments to address the damages done and harms wrought on First Nation people from colonial law and policy decisions. The province is a much larger and more complex system now than it was at the beginning of the colonial era. It needs a coordinated holistic approach to unite the efforts of ministries, agencies, and organizations, each with their independent authorities in a siloed or fragmented system, to achieve repatriation goals. What follows here is offered through that lens. The Repatriation Context Repatriation is necessary because First Nation Ancestors and Cultural Belongings were taken or stolen from First Nation people and their communities by colonial government officials or church authorities over the past 150+ years. The Crown took colonial policy decisions: to prohibit First Nations using their ancestral languages; to remove their children from families by placing them in residential schools, industrial schools, or Indian day schools; to legally ban their traditional ceremonies and practices that disrupted their cultural continuity; to divide the 38 +/- tribes into 190+ “bands” that were legally defined in a federal statute the Indian Act; to displace their traditional forms of government by requiring that they operate a Chief and Council structure under the authority of the Indian Act; to displace them from their lands and waters by forcibly placing them on small parcels of land (reserves) segregated from settlers; and to alienate their traditional territories by allocating their ownership to British settlers; to remove their economic ability to take care of themselves by removing access to their lands and resources; to create a financial resource dependency on the Crown for community programs and services. This system of Crown colonial policy decisions adversely affected First Nations over the past five generations. A profoundly negative legacy of these policies continues to manifest in the lives of First Nation people today. They segregated First Nation people from the society of other British Columbia citizens, marginalized them, and created a legacy of lower social status. This truth lays a foundation for repatriation policy. I believe that repatriation policy, informed by First Nations in partnership with British Columbia, would be a critical turning point in the reconciliation of the relationship between First Nation peoples, the Crown, and the citizens of the province. Key examples of colonial policies affecting First Nations follow. Canada’s Indian Policy, as stated by Prime Minister Sir John A. MacDonald in the House of Commons on May 5, 1880, in response to a question, “What is the purpose of Canada’s Indian Policy,” was, “. . . to wean them by slow degrees, from their nomadic habits, which have almost become an instinct, and by slow degrees absorb them and settle them on the land. Meantime they must be fairly protected.” (House of Commons Debates, 4th Parl., 4th Sess., May 5, 1880) Canada’s assimilation policy is explained by Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs (1913 to 1932) as he explains to a parliamentary committee the purpose of Indian Act amendments in 1920, “. . . our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, no Indian Department, that is the whole object of this Bill.” (House of Commons Debates, 1920) Canada’s policy purpose remained focused on and committed to “assimilating” Indians (First Nations) into society without their cultural identities and taking possession of their lands and resources. Canada’s assimilation policy applied to First Nations in British Columbia. Canada’s Superintendent of Indian Affairs, under the authority of the Indian Act, selected small parcels of land for Indian reserves where First Nations were forced to live segregated from settlers and other citizens. They were remote from settlement areas and on unproductive lands. This was done to make the better lands available to British settlers. If First Nations wanted to leave the reserve, they could only do so if the Indian Agent provided them written permission to leave the reserve for specific purposes. Colonial land policies in British Columbia had an explicit intent to displace First Nations of their lands and resources. On November 6, 1867, Colonial Secretary, William A. G. Young, wrote a letter to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, in which he states, “The Indians have no right to any land beyond what may be necessary for their actual requirements, and all beyond this should be excluded from the boundaries of the reserves. They can have no claim whatever to any compensation for any of the land so excluded, for really they have never actually possessed it, . . . “ Joseph Trutch, Land Commissioner for the Colony of British Columbia introduced race-based land law in the colonial legislature. The June 1, 1870, Consolidated Land Ordinance, on Pre-Emption, (the only section of the law pertaining to First Nations) stated, “ III. From and after the date of the proclamation in this Colony of Her Majesty’s assent to this Ordinance, any male person being a British Subject, of the age of eighteen years or over, may acquire the right to pre-empt any tract of unoccupied, unsurveyed, and unreserved Crown Lands (not being an Indian Settlement) not exceeding Three Hundred and Twenty Acres in extent in that portion of the Colony situated to the Northward and Eastward of the Cascade or Coast Range of Mountains, and One Hundred and Sixty Acres in extent in the rest of the Colony. Provided that such right of pre-emption shall not be held to extend to any of the Aborigines of this Continent, except to such as shall have obtained the Governor’s special permission in writing to that effect.” Need for Reconciliation The Crown and the people of British Columbia share a responsibility to help one another to know, understand, acknowledge, and commit to reconciliation actions that help to make the province a place where respectful relationships exist between all peoples. I feel strongly that reconciliation is necessary due to the legacy of colonial and government laws, policies and actions that the Crown took over about 100+ years (three-plus generations) from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s to eradicate First Nations in British Columbia, to dispossess them of lands and resources, and to inflict harm on their people and cultures. The long-term systemic effects of colonial policies and practices continue to manifest in today’s society as shown by the persistently lower quality of life indicators in the lives of First Nations and Indigenous peoples. Assertive reconciliation initiatives are needed to counteract the negative impetus and marginalization of Indigenous peoples in British Columbia society. A Multi-generational Impact – The colonial legacy noted above endured for several generations and had drastically negative impacts on the social, cultural, health, and economic wellbeing of the First Nations people of British Columbia. Governments and churches implemented colonial policies using Institutional mechanisms such as segregated Indian reserves, residential schools, industrial schools, and Indian Day Schools to dislocate First Nations families and communities. Such a negative legacy laid a troubled foundation for fractured relations between First Nations people and other citizens of the province. The enduring colonial legacy had a subtly profound effect of embedding aspects of systemic discrimination into the fabric of British Columbia society. Truth is a critical element of reconciliation, but most British Columbians are not aware of the truth of their province’s colonial policies and practices and their impact on First Nations people. Reconciliation in this context will require education and focused, multi-generational efforts by many parties in civil society to rebuild enduring respectful relations between all British Columbians. It will take time and sustained effort across generations to redefine the social fabric of British Columbia with respect to Indigenous Relations. Policy Policy has many dimensions. As noted above, Canada enacted Indian policy to advance the country’s colonial objectives. Government and church officials, armed with government policy, displaced Indians from their ancestral lands and waters; they removed First Nation children from their families and communities and segregated them in residential schools; they banned First Nation governing processes and ceremonies; and they removed First Nation Ancestors from their communities, and Cultural Belongings from the people. Government departments, ministries, and agencies established a myriad of administrative policies to empower their agents to implement the governments’ political policies and objectives. Such policies defined how the government controls lands, waters, resources, schools and education, culture, institutions, money, trade, and many more things in peoples’ lives. First Nation Ancestors and Cultural Belongings fall under the governments’ policies for heritage-holding institutions. These are the subject of the joint engagement process with First Nations, Modern Treaty Organizations, and heritage-holding organizations to inform the future drafting of the Policy Framework. For me ‘Policy’ in the context of Repatriation would be defined in simple terms as “a course of action adopted and pursued by government.” It would: define the organizational structure critical to accomplishing the policy objectives; provide a framework and partnership agreements with other governments and organizations needed to accomplish the policy objectives; define the government’s desired outcome(s) and the roles of key players; consider what the people of the organization(s) need to accomplish the desired results. Principles From my perspective, the concept of repatriation resides within an evolving post-colonial legal and policy environment. The scope of a repatriation policy framework includes the provincial government and its agencies, First Nation governments and their agencies, BC heritage holding institutions and organizations in the province, and citizens of the province. Based on the outcomes of engagements with the parties included in the Policy Framework co-development process, the following principles emerged as a guide for peoples’ relationships now and for future generations. Truth – recognize the truth and reality – know, and understand that Governments enacted colonial laws, policies, and practices that profoundly affected the lives and wellbeing of First Nations people, their communities, and governments, and their relationships with other citizens of the province; Respect – recognize and respect each other’s identities and interests – the diverse British Columbia First Nation cultures, traditions, practices, protocols, decision-making structures, and relationship processes; Trust – belief in truth and the reliability of information – those involved will honour the commitments they make in implementing repatriation policy; Ownership – recognize that British Columbia First Nations people have unique cultures, languages, traditions, practices, and protocols and that their Ancestors belong to their families and communities, and that they own their Cultural Belongings; Accountability – recognize the importance of clear roles, responsibilities, and follow‑through, and that commitments related to repatriation must be honoured through transparent and respectful processes; Communication – recognize the need for open, timely, and respectful information‑sharing among First Nations, governments, and heritage‑holding organizations throughout repatriation processes; Fairness – recognize that First Nations and institutions come to repatriation from different histories, capacities, and circumstances, and that approaches must avoid privileging or disadvantaging any party; Partnership – recognize the value of working collaboratively across First Nations, governments, and institutions in a spirit of mutual respect and shared responsibility; Coordination – recognize the need for alignment across policies, ministries, institutions, and systems to reduce fragmentation, duplication, and unintended barriers to repatriation; Inclusion – recognize the importance of ensuring diverse First Nations perspectives, voices, and experiences are meaningfully reflected in repatriation‑related decision‑making; Stewardship – recognize responsibilities to care for Ancestors and Cultural Belongings in ways that are consistent with Indigenous laws, values, and long‑standing relationships; Reciprocity – recognize that repatriation is grounded in ongoing relationships and mutual obligations, rather than one‑time or transactional actions; Integrity – recognize the importance of acting in ways that are consistent with stated values, intentions, and commitments related to reconciliation and repatriation; Continuity – recognize that repatriation is long‑term work requiring sustained commitment beyond project cycles, funding periods, or individual roles; Peace – recognize the role of repatriation in supporting respectful relationships, reducing conflict, and fostering understanding among First Nations, governments, institutions, and the public.