Do U.S. tribes present a 'sovereignty threat' to British Columbia under DRIPA?

VANCOUVER — The Conservative Party of BC say U.S.-based indigenous groups are increasingly citing the province’s DRIPA legislation in court to gain standing and influence over major resource projects, calling it a growing sovereignty crisis. Or is the opposition amplifying isolated court cases to score political points against an Eby government already on its back foot?In Question Period Monday, the question arose when opposition MLAs — including interim Conservative Party leader Trevor Halford — pressed the Attorney General on filings involving American tribes, including a Sinixt Confederacy challenge tied to a proposed magnesium mine in the Interior and Alaskan tribes’ objections to the Eskay Creek gold project in the northwest.The Sinixt are an indigenous nation with traditional territory in the upper Columbia River watershed, spanning from BC, Canada, to Washington state, USA. Though declared "extinct" by Canada in 1956, they are a, living, transboundary people who won a landmark 2021 Supreme Court case affirming their rights to hunt in Canada.The newest case involving the Sinixt Confederacy has seen the U.S.-based group granted respondent status with provincial consent in litigation over the Record Ridge magnesium project near Rossland, co-developed by West High Yield Resources and the Osoyoos Indian Band. A judicial review hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.Osoyoos Chief Clarence Louie raised concerns directly with the Attorney General in March, calling the development “the furthest thing possible from placing the interests of B.C. First Nations as the priority and primary focus.”.“This is a clear and growing sovereignty crisis,” said Scott McInnis, Conservative critic for Indigenous relations, repeating concerns from a party news release. “The premier himself has referred to the DRIPA situation as an existential threat to British Columbia, and has said amendments are non-negotiable. We are now seeing exactly why.”Another filing comes from the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission, representing 14 Alaskan tribes, alleging insufficient consultation on the Eskay Creek Revitalization Project under a Section 7 DRIPA agreement with the Tahltan Nation.The Eskay Creek project, located in the province’s northwest “Golden Triangle," was originally hailed as DRIPA’s flagship success. In 2022, the Tahltan Central Government and province signed B.C.’s first-ever Section 7 consent-based decision-making agreement. .In plain English: a Section 7 consent-based decision-making agreement is a formal deal between the British Columbia government and a specific indigenous nation that gives that nation a 'real say' — essentially the right to say 'yes' or 'no' over certain government decisions, usually about big resource projects like mines, forestry, or environmental approvals on their traditional territory.Following a successful Tahltan referendum on the Impact Benefit Agreement in December 2025, the joint approval was announced in January 2026, with the province and Tahltan celebrating it as a model of reconciliation, fast-tracked environmental assessment, and economic partnership. The project is expected to bring $713 million in capital investment and generate $1.19 billion in Crown revenue over its life.All of that sounded well and good until a consortium of Alaskan tribes told the B.C. courts their ancestors used and occupied parts of this BC territory for thousands of years. Further complicating matters, a 2021 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v. Desautel says U.S.-based indigenous groups can hold constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights in Canada — even if they are not Canadian citizens or residents..The Desautel case arose when Richard Desautel, a U.S. citizen and member of the Lakes Tribe of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State, deliberately crossed the border into British Columbia and shot a cow elk near Castlegar. He then phoned conservation officers — not once, but repeatedly — until he was charged with hunting without a licence and hunting as a non-resident.Desautel and his lawyers argued he was exercising a constitutionally protected Aboriginal right to hunt in the traditional territory of the Sinixt people — also known as the Lakes people — whose ancestral lands once straddled what is now the Canada-U.S. border in the Arrow Lakes and Columbia River region.Disease, migration and the drawing of the international border had pushed most surviving Sinixt south of the 49th parallel by the mid-20th century. For decades, Canada had officially treated the Sinixt in British Columbia as “extinct” for legal purposes.The case eventually wound its way through the courts for more than a decade. In April 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a landmark 7-2 ruling. The court held that the phrase “Aboriginal peoples of Canada” in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, includes the modern-day successors of indigenous societies that occupied what is now Canadian territory at the time of European contact — regardless of where those successors now live or what citizenship they hold..That constitutional foundation has now become central to the ongoing litigation in British Columbia. U.S.-based indigenous groups are citing both Section 35 rights flowing from Desautel and DRIPA in attempts to gain standing and influence over major resource projects in the project.Conservative MLA Claire Rattée pressed Attorney General Niki Sharma on the implications of DRIPA during a heated exchange in Question Period on Monday.“DRIPA is now a direct threat to our sovereignty in B.C.,” Rattée said. “It has been weaponized by U.S.-based tribes and put B.C. projects at risk.”After the B.C. Court of Appeal’s Gitxaała decision, which strengthened the legal weight of UNDRIP in provincial decision-making, Premier David Eby acknowledged at least 20 court cases had been amended. Rattée asked whether the government’s recently passed legislation — intended to give “attention and preference” to B.C. First Nations — would stop U.S. tribes from advancing such claims.Sharma replied that DRIPA “does not confer any rights on anybody outside of this country,” but acknowledged that U.S. tribes hold rights under Section 35 of the Constitution, stemming from the Desautel decision.“Although U.S. tribes, because of the Supreme Court of Canada, have Section 35 rights, it’s much different than the rights of our local nations,” Sharma said.Rattée pushed back: “Did she misspeak or is she admitting that U.S.-based tribes have rights in British Columbia under DRIPA?”When Sharma reiterated the distinction between constitutional rights and DRIPA, Rattée responded: “I didn’t need to be patronized. I understand the difference. That wasn’t my question.”Rattée then asked directly whether the government’s legislation would resolve the issue: “Will this prevent this from moving any further forward or is this still going to be an issue regardless of the legislation that’s been passed? Yes or no?”Sharma declined to give a binary answer, saying the government remains focused on working with B.C. First Nations and pursuing “durable solutions” through the courts..So, do U.S. tribes present a ‘sovereignty threat’ to British Columbia under DRIPA?The short answer is nuanced. The core legal opening for U.S. tribes — Section 35 rights extending across the border — was created by the Supreme Court of Canada in Desautel, well before DRIPA existed. Attorney General Sharma is correct that DRIPA itself does not create new rights for American groups.However, the BC Conservatives’ concerns are not baseless. The December 2025 province's Court of Appeal Gitxaała decision dramatically strengthened DRIPA’s practical effect by confirming that UNDRIP forms part of provincial law with "immediate force." UNDRIP now, by law, serves as an interpretive lens for all provincial statutes and decision-making. This has the potential to amplify litigation risks, allowing U.S.-based groups to argue for deeper consultation, standing, and potential veto-like influence in ways that were harder to advance pre-Gitxaala.Whether this amounts to a full “sovereignty crisis,” as the Conservatives claim, depends on the judiciary's presently unknown view of the weight given to cross-border rights. What is clear is that Desautel opened the door, and DRIPA plus Gitxaała have widened it, leaving the province navigating heightened legal and economic exposure.

Do U.S. tribes present a 'sovereignty threat' to British Columbia under DRIPA?

Related Stories

WATCH: Conservatives launch task force to defend BC property rights

FLETCHER: BC's indigenous rights crisis — how Premier Eby voted for a law he can now neither fix nor escape

ZOLTAN: BC's indigenous rights law is tearing the province apart — and even the NDP knows it

Leaderless BC Conservatives gain ground as land rights debate fuels voter concern over DRIPA