VANCOUVER — British Columbia has always presented a complex patchwork of political beliefs — from hardcore libertarianism in the province’s north to traditional centrist conservatism in the east to the most progressive progressivism possibly imaginable on Vancouver Island. One thing most people agree on, however, is that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) must go.Recent polling shows a clear majority of British Columbians now believe the DRIPA goes too far in limiting provincial authority, with growing numbers saying the province pays too much attention to indigenous issues generally.All six remaining candidates to be the next leader of the Conservative Party of BC are advocating for the legislation to be fully repealed.Peter Milobar is the only one of the six who voted for DRIPA when it passed unanimously in the legislature on November 28, 2019. Even still, Milobar has made repealing DRIPA a “Day One” priority..Former MP and Poilievre whip Kerry-Lynne Findlay likewise seeks to repeal DRIPA..No arguments from Iain Black, who calls the NDP’s legislation “a mess.” In his numbered priorities as potential premier of BC, “repeal DRIPA” ranks higher than “fix the province.”.Warren Hamm, who is running on a “builders not bureaucrats” campaign, also says “no more DRIPA” and encourages the public “to educate themselves on what is going on.”.Caroline Elliott, who served as an advisor to the BC Liberals at the time of that unanimous vote, now demands full repeal as a centrepiece of her platform to protect private property..The final candidate, Yuri Fulmer, recently signed an agreement to align with Dallas Brodie, leader of OneBC, who has long made the repealing of DRIPA — along with a bevy of other issues on indigenous relations and “reconciliation” — one of her political calling cards.Even Premier David Eby’s NDP government, which once championed the law as a landmark accomplishment of BC’s independent “reconciliation” project, is racing to pause or amend key parts of it amid mounting economic uncertainty and court rulings that have upended everything from mineral claims to private property titles.A pair of recent court decisions gave the law real teeth. In the Gitxaała case, the BC Court of Appeal ruled the province’s online mineral claims system inconsistent with DRIPA because it allowed prospecting without prior indigenous consultation. Another decision recognized Aboriginal Title over land in Richmond, declaring some Crown and private titles “defective and invalid.” The rulings injected fresh uncertainty into investment, development, and everyday property rights.BC’s version stands out sharply from similar laws elsewhere. The federal government passed its own UNDRIP Act in 2021, and the Northwest Territories enacted one in 2023. But neither matches BC’s scope, which is partly a disaster of the province’s own historical doing.Most of BC sits on “unceded territory,” meaning the vast majority of the land was never surrendered through treaties with the Crown. Roughly 95% of the province, including much of Vancouver and other urban centres, falls into this category..In contrast, other provinces, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and much of Ontario, rest largely on historic “Numbered Treaties” signed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.Those agreements, however imperfect, created clearer rules for land ownership, resource rights, and Crown title across huge swaths of territory. BC’s leaders in the colonial era simply stopped negotiating treaties after the early 1850s — in part because of cost concerns and the belief that no such deals were needed — and allowed settlement to proceed on lands where Aboriginal Title was never extinguished.The result is a legacy of unresolved claims, overlapping assertions of territory, and far greater legal ambiguity than exists almost anywhere else..To grasp the implications of DRIPA, imagine the legislature had instead passed a “Declaration on the Rights of Blue-Haired Peoples Act,” wherein every provincial law or project would need rewriting to match a UN-style document on blue-haired self-determination.Blue-haired councils would secure joint control or consent power over projects touching their “traditional territories” — perhaps activist neighbourhoods, university campuses, or cultural zones like “Pride-friendly” libraries.Mines, pipelines, housing developments, or even school routes in the area of any community with enough “blue-haired” individuals would grind to a halt without their approval. Annual government reports would then track progress on the elevation of “blue-haired rights.”Most British Columbians would see that as creating a parallel legal system based on identity, injecting uncertainty into the economy, and undermining the principle that laws apply equally to all citizens. Yet that is precisely the structure DRIPA imposes; only the identity category is indigenous rather than a chosen subculture.Facing backlash, the Eby government now proposes temporarily suspending portions of DRIPA for up to three years while pursuing court appeals and possible amendments..Eby has called the pause the “least invasive” option and is staking his government on passing the legislation this session.Interim BC Conservative leader Trevor Halford dismissed the plan as a political manoeuvre that deepens the chaos. “This is not a solution; this is a political move,” Halford said in a recent official party statement. “The NDP are proposing to suspend parts of DRIPA for up to three years, conveniently pushing accountability beyond the next election in fall 2028.”Halford called it a government in panic. “The Premier does not have support from First Nations, he does not have clarity for British Columbians, and it’s becoming clear he does not even have consensus within his own caucus.”Indigenous leaders, meanwhile, have expressed strong opposition to any suspension, calling it a “betrayal.”Whether the government’s plan passes, is watered down, or triggers more court battles, the underlying question remains: can reconciliation succeed without rewriting the basic rules of democratic governance and equal rights for all? Or has the experiment created more division and uncertainty than it resolved?
