BC’s Indian chiefs are probably giving their heads a shake this morning after it became clear that the BC Conservatives — who are committed to repealing DRIPA — will form a majority following the BC election.If those chiefs had only agreed to some modest tweaks to DRIPA proposed by Eby in early 2026, when he first proposed them, the election probably wouldn't have been called, and the NDP would have stayed in power. While it was the Cowichan case that thoroughly rocked the province — the case in which a BC judge ruled that a homeowner’s property ownership was “junior” to the senior “Aboriginal title” of the racially mixed descendants of an Indian tribe that lived on Vancouver Island but once fished in what is now Richmond, BC — it was the Gitxaala case that led directly to this election. In that case, the BC Court of Appeal ruled that DRIPA was more than an aspirational document and that its requirements were legally enforceable. This meant First Nations could successfully sue the province if existing provincial laws (such as those governing online mineral staking) didn't immediately align with the UN Declaration. Eby argued this created an immediate wave of litigation and legal instability for the province’s economy. [1, 2, 3, 4] This was a crisis. Eby proposed a "temporary suspension" of parts of DRIPA for up to three years. [1, 2] But the chiefs rejected any changes, calling the move a "unilateral betrayal.” Eby faced a severe internal revolt. Prominent NDP MLAs openly refused to support suspending parts of the act. [1, 2, 3, 4]Because the NDP held a razor-thin, one-seat majority in the legislature, the refusal of even a few NDP MLAs to vote for the amendments meant the government was on the verge of collapse. Eby had intended to make the DRIPA changes a matter of confidence. With his own caucus fractured and indigenous leaders urging MLAs to vote according to their consciences — even if it crashed the government — Eby was forced to abruptly shelve the changes. [1, 2, 3]Following the retreat on DRIPA, Eby explicitly noted that he was spending too much of his time trying to keep a fractured government from falling on confidence votes rather than passing legislation. [1].While Eby publicly framed the October snap election as a mandate to deal with external economic pressures like US tariffs, political commentators and opposition parties point out that the true domestic catalyst was the legislative paralysis caused by the DRIPA fallout. Had the chiefs agreed to co-develop those legislative "tweaks" rather than fighting them, Eby would have maintained a unified caucus, avoided a confidence crisis, and had no pressing domestic reason to risk his premier’s chair in an early election. [1, 2, 3, 4]Instead, Eby likely goes back to his earlier days as a social justice advocate — riding around on his bicycle and scolding people for using too much gasoline. The chiefs are pushed off their perch, from which they — representing 2% of the population — were ready to “co-govern” the entire province and own half of it outright.And the Conservatives can get on with their plan to repeal a piece of legislation that no one in their right mind should ever have voted for in the first place.And the chiefs are left to plot their revenge.Exactly what form that takes will probably soon become evident to BC residents.
