PARDY: The chiefs' 'declaration of war' is a bluff BC cannot afford

Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.On October 26, BC indigenous chiefs drew a line in the sand. They warned new BC Premier Lorne Doerkson not to repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, said that repealing DRIPA would constitute a “declaration of war.” He promised that the chiefs would not “stand idly by” if the new BC government rips it up. Which is exactly what Doerkson promised, during the BC election campaign, to do.The chiefs have the wrong end of the stick. DRIPA’s enactment began an assault against the interests and rights of British Columbians. It has threatened the security of private property. It has handed decision-making power over public and private lands to unaccountable Aboriginal authorities. It has made BC an untenable host for land-based resource enterprise. It has disenfranchised the democratic rights of British Columbians in BC. The chiefs approve. Why wouldn’t they? DRIPA transfers wealth and power to them.DRIPA is the statute. UNDRIP is the problem. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is a preposterous document. A resolution of the UN General Assembly, UNDRIP consists of pages and pages of indigenous rights and entitlements. It says, essentially, that indigenous peoples are entitled to everything. And to have other people pay for it. If you suspect that is an exaggeration, take a spin through the text for yourself. Indigenous peoples, it says, “have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired … to own, use, develop and control … to redress … restitution … compensation … to [give] their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project … to autonomy or self-government … as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions … States shall take effective measures [to provide and pay for all of the above].”UNDRIP is not a treaty. It is not binding, even in the watery international law sense. It is an international expression of aspiration or sentiment. It was not enforceable in Canadian courts. That is, until DRIPA came along. In 2019, the BC Legislature passed DRIPA unanimously. — In 2021, Parliament passed a similar Bill. — DRIPA incorporates UNDRIP into BC law. It requires the BC government to “take all measures necessary” to ensure the laws of BC are consistent with it. The legislature also later amended the Interpretation Act to require that every BC statute and regulation “be construed as being consistent with the Declaration.” In December 2025, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed that this means what it says. UNDRIP is the lens through which all of BC law, including the common law, is to be interpreted and applied..The NDP government took its DRIPA mandate literally. It made a series of agreements with specific Aboriginal nations over specific territories. These agreements granted title to, or control over, the land in question. In April 2024 the NDP and federal government recognized the Haida Nation’s Aboriginal title to Haida Gwaii. That agreement, according to former premier David Eby, was to serve as a template across the province. Since then, the government has made more agreements that grant management powers to unelected Aboriginal councils. They recognize, or promise to recognize, Aboriginal title over the lands in question. The government negotiated many of these agreements quietly and announced them after the fact. To rescue BC, DRIPA should be repealed and repudiated. Not amended, modified, or watered down. Doerkson should pass a new BC statute that repeals DRIPA and explicitly declares that UNDRIP forms no part of the law of BC.That would be a good start. But not enough. His government should legislate away the NDP's agreements. The BC legislature has the power to cancel most of them. The exceptions include the Haida Gwaii agreement. In September 2025, the Eby government sought to make it irreversible. The parties to the agreement applied for a court order declaring Aboriginal title to Haida Gwaii a constitutional right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The BC Supreme Court obliged. Even if Doerkson does all these things, BC is still not out of the woods. In August 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court decided the Cowichan case. The decision was not based on DRIPA or UNDRIP, but on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Aboriginal title, the court found, exists over hundreds of acres of land in Richmond, BC. Aboriginal title, wrote the judge, is a “prior and senior right” to fee simple title, public or private. Aboriginal title claims could trump property rights of homeowners, farmers, and businesses. Since 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada has expanded and reimagined Aboriginal rights under section 35. The Cowichan decision, now under appeal, followed the Supremes’ breadcrumbs. Curbing this threat would require constitutional change. Section 35 would need to be repealed and repudiated, to start. None of that seems possible presently. But first things first. Doerkson has confirmed his plans to repeal DRIPA in the spring session of the BC Legislature. If the chiefs want to call that a “declaration of war”, so be it.Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.

PARDY: The chiefs' 'declaration of war' is a bluff BC cannot afford

Related Stories

MACLEOD: This Liberal government will pay $86 billion in interest payments

RUSS: The West Coast stands apart from the West

DONOVAN: The unlikely alliance – Quebec and Alberta could team up to break Canadian politics

STUDIN: Canada’s minister of health must resign now