In a recent commentary, Karen Restoule argues that the chaos surrounding Aboriginal title in British Columbia is a predictable outcome of the NDP government's virtue-signalling. The provincial adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into law, once hailed as a crucial step toward reconciliation, has instead led to confusion and declining public support.
The Promise of UNDRIP
On Oct. 24, 2019, Premier John Horgan announced that British Columbia would become the first province to enshrine UNDRIP into provincial law. He stated that this legislation would advance reconciliation, create good jobs, strengthen environmental protections, and build healthy communities for everyone. However, Restoule contends that the reality has fallen short of these promises.
Declining Support for Reconciliation
Support for reconciliation has been on the decline. According to Angus Reid Institute polling from 2015, 63 per cent of Canadians were optimistic that the Truth and Reconciliation process would lead to a better future for Indigenous peoples. Yet, by September 2025, Leger polling found that 54 per cent of Canadians believed too much attention was being directed toward reconciliation. This decline is especially pronounced in British Columbia.
A May 2026 report examined the link between declining support for the B.C. NDP and their role in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). It found that only 51 per cent of British Columbians believe there is still work to be done on reconciliation, while 41 per cent think enough has already been accomplished.
Public Perception of Deception
Restoule argues that British Columbians feel they have been misled into supporting a policy that has proven more destabilizing than initially portrayed. This has sparked discussions about race-based policy across the country. As Geoffrey Moyse and Warren Mirko noted for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, in a liberal democracy, the merit of an argument should not be determined by race or ancestry. When ancestry becomes a qualification, debate shifts from evidence to identity.
Until recently, suggesting that race-based policies should end was politically risky. Now, even pragmatic centrists who have supported reconciliation are questioning why governments are creating separate legal frameworks for First Nations with undefined limits and profound implications for the entire province.
Conclusion
Restoule concludes that Canadians still understand the need for reconciliation and the settlement of legitimate legal disputes. However, they are challenged by the incoherent way governments choose to pursue these goals. The B.C. government's approach, she argues, has led to confusion and eroding public trust, undermining the very reconciliation it sought to achieve.
