The B.C. premier’s office confirmed that efforts to engage with First Nations on the development of amendments to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) are underway, but will not provide details of what is in the proposals.
First Nations leaders are scheduled to get a technical briefing on the proposed amendments on Wednesday, March 25 as part of these consultation efforts.
DRIPA is a 2019 B.C. law that formally commits the province to aligning its laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms self-determination for Indigenous peoples worldwide.
This law, which Premier David Eby helped develop when he was the attorney general, passed unanimously in the legislature under former premier John Horgan.
But a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision has given Eby buyer’s remorse after the judge invalidated parts of the Mineral Tenure Act for not aligning with the U.N. declaration.
He pledged to introduce amendments this spring to ensure the December court decision didn’t set a precedent that all existing B.C. law must align with the U.N. declaration, or face the possibility of being deemed invalid by the courts.
Eby said the intention was for the government, not the courts, to work to make laws consistent with the declaration.
But that was more than three months ago — and there had been no sign of the amendments until a leak reported by the Canadian Press on Tuesday morning (March 24) appeared to show the government intends to soften DRIPA by adding a clause applying it only to laws identified by the government as “priorities.”
Officials from Eby’s office did not deny — or confirm — the veracity of these reports, and Black Press Media has not reviewed the document. Officials said the document in question is protected by cabinet confidentiality.
Current B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma issued a written statement on Tuesday afternoon that said the goal is to reduce “legal uncertainty” introduced by the mineral claims decision.
“Reconciliation must be grounded in government‑to‑government relationships between the provincial, federal and First Nations governments,” she said.
Sharma blamed outside forces for blurring the government’s intentions on these issues.
“Unfortunately, some bad‑faith actors have used this moment to spread misinformation and fear about our work on reconciliation,” she said.
Another looming, and related, issue is a perceived threat to private property rights posed by the Cowichan Tribes court decision.
That judgment found Aboriginal title exists on an area of land in Richmond containing parcels of both public and private property, and that Aboriginal title is a “senior” right to private fee-simple title because it is rooted in prior occupation, rather than being granted by the Crown.
But the judge also found that Aboriginal and fee simple title can both exist on the same piece of land, and did not invalidate either. Instead, the judge writes this must be reconciled “in good faith” through negotiation between the nation and province, rather than decided by the court.
The Cowichan Tribes First Nation had tailored its claim to avoid seeking the invalidation of fee simple title, while affirming in public statements that it has no intention of taking people’s property away.
But this has not assuaged concerns, and Eby has pledged to work to protect and uphold private property rights.
It is unclear at this stage whether the DRIPA amendments will address private property rights and potentially impact the Cowichan decision and its related appeals. Sharma referenced this in her statement.
“Our approach is to address the current legal uncertainty, protect private property, and get back to working together so we can continue investing in a strong, shared future for everyone,” she said.