B.C. Premier David Eby Reverses Course on DRIPA Suspension
In a significant policy reversal, British Columbia Premier David Eby has announced that his government will not proceed with legislation to suspend portions of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) during the current legislative session. This decision comes after mounting pressure from First Nations leaders and internal dissent within the New Democratic Party's own caucus.
Press Conference to Outline Future Steps
Instead of introducing the controversial legislation, Premier Eby will hold a press conference on Monday to "outline next steps" regarding the government's approach to DRIPA. This marks a substantial shift from the premier's previous stance, where he had firmly committed to bringing forward amendments to the legislation during this session.
The premier's office confirmed in a statement Sunday evening that "the government will not be introducing legislation on [DRIPA] during this session," effectively putting the suspension plan on hold indefinitely.
Background of the Declaration Act
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was passed unanimously by the B.C. legislature in 2019 with the purpose of aligning provincial laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This landmark legislation establishes frameworks for handling treaties and ensuring free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous communities regarding decisions affecting their territories and rights.
The current controversy stems from a December ruling by the B.C. Court of Appeals, which found that the province's Mineral Tenure Act was "inconsistent" with DRIPA because it failed to provide for First Nations' free, prior, and informed consent on mineral tenure claims. Premier Eby has argued that this decision leaves the province vulnerable to further legal challenges, noting that twenty court cases have already been amended to cite the December Gitxaała decision.
Mounting Opposition Forces Change
Initially, Eby had proposed amending DRIPA in response to the court ruling, but First Nations leaders criticized these changes as effectively gutting the legislation. By early April, the premier had shifted his approach to proposing a three-year suspension of DRIPA while the province appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The situation reached a critical point when Vancouver-Strathcona MLA Joan Phillip, whose husband is Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, informed the premier that she could not support either suspending or amending DRIPA. This left the NDP government, which holds only a one-seat majority in the legislature, without the necessary votes to pass the legislation.
Sources have revealed that more than ten NDP MLAs expressed concerns about the DRIPA suspension during a caucus meeting last Saturday, highlighting significant internal division on this issue. Despite these challenges, Eby had maintained as recently as last Monday that the legislation would still be introduced before the session's scheduled end on May 28, even suggesting the government might extend the sitting into June to allow sufficient debate time.
From Confidence Vote to Complete Reversal
The proposed legislation had initially been designated as a confidence vote, meaning its failure would have forced the province into an election. Premier Eby had described the suspension as "non-negotiable" at that stage. However, last week, Eby and Government House Leader Mike Farnworth announced that the DRIPA suspension would no longer be treated as a matter of confidence, effectively removing the threat of an election over this issue.
As recently as Sunday, the First Nations Leadership Council had warned that it had received information suggesting the government was preparing to introduce legislation to suspend DRIPA this week. The premier's announcement represents a complete reversal of that anticipated course of action.
This development underscores the complex political landscape surrounding Indigenous rights in British Columbia and demonstrates how grassroots opposition and internal party dissent can significantly influence government policy decisions on matters of reconciliation and Indigenous sovereignty.
