KERCHER: DRIPA works — and that's a good thing

DRIPA. Chances are you've heard about this BC law sweeping throughout the political consciousness. 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was passed unanimously by the BC Legislature back in November 2019, but recently, this radical new idea of giving the Indigenous people who live in this province rights over themselves and their lands has become a major front in the culture war. 

Now both the premier and the leader of the opposition seem to agree that reconciliation is too hard! What they can't agree on, however, is just how much of DRIPA the government needs to do away with. 

But is all this bluster even warranted?

Much of the opposition to DRIPA comes from a genuine misunderstanding of either the intentions of the law itself or the slew of recent court cases awarding Indigenous title and rights to their traditional territories. Various political actors in BC have seemed happy, if not downright giddy, to use the confusion surrounding the legislation for political gain. 

This is not some sinister legislation. It is not a nefarious plot to steal the homes of British Columbians nor destroy the lives they've worked so hard to create. It's simply aimed at bringing the province into compliance with internationally recognized law.

The law I'm referencing is, of course, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, better known as UNDRIP. This is an agreement that not only BC has signed on to, but the entire nation. After initial opposition, Canada signed the agreement at the UN in 2016, and then ratified a federal law facilitating the Declaration's implementation in 2021. 

DRIPA itself is a document similar to the legislation the federal government passed that year. Its stated goals are to affirm and implement UNDRIP, bringing BC law into compliance with that international standard while also providing regular progress updates on the status of this implementation.  

But what is actually in this UNDRIP document? Surely, given all the commotion around its adoption, there must be some dastardly plan behind all of this? Something hidden in the document that will be the end of private property rights across this vast province? 

The answer to both of those questions would be no. UNDRIP is simply a document created to strengthen the rights of Indigenous peoples around the globe by creating a framework that establishes minimum standards for their survival — as well as that of their cultures. 

The Declaration itself contains 46 Articles, four of which (Articles 8, 10, 25, and 26) are of particular significance to BC. This is due to BC's unique relationship with colonialism. 

BC is an outlier in following even standard British colonial law as the province largely failed to satisfy the requirements of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Rather than following the treaty process, the government simply occupied the lands of various First Nations, thus leaving BC with vast swaths of unceded territory that are the subject of land claims all these centuries later. 

This is important to note, because the aforementioned Articles in UNDRIP are all related to issues of Indigenous rights to self-determination — both in political and financial terms — as well as having both cultural and resource rights to their traditional territories. 

The rest of Canada has already settled these issues, to the extent required of them, through the treaty process — even if it was done so maliciously. BC, on the other hand, has not, and that is why the government is embroiled in the court cases we hear about today. 

Among them is the Cowichan Decision — the judicial outcome that shook the entire province's political establishment to its core. After months of infighting, this one event seemingly unified the right, giving them a captivating battle cry to pummel the government with. 

And to their credit, it worked, which is why we're now having this conversation — however, much of the discussion has been mired in confusion-fuelled misinformation that has led people to believe that their homes are at risk or that these decisions will make BC un-investable. 

This isn't true. None of the recent land decisions in BC have targeted individual private land owners. Not a single one. Instead, they are claims on land owned by the Crown and its subsidiaries — like provinces and municipalities — that would give First National cultural and traditional rights to the land and its resources. 

In the case of the Cowichan Decision, this means allowing for cultural uses of traditional lands while also giving the Cowichan Tribes stewardship of the land. In other cases, it means giving nations the right to be involved with, and make decisions about resource development projects on their own traditional territories.  

None of this sounds like the horror show that opponents of DRIPA are making it out to be. First Nations and the courts alike have both stated that no one is coming to take your home from you. BC isn't suddenly going to look like the West Bank.

Rather, implementing DRIPA and following it to the letter is not only the morally correct position, but a necessary one for any semblance of reconciliation. These are rights that every single British Columbian would expect for themselves, and Indigenous people living in this province are no different. 

We shouldn't be ashamed or scared of DRIPA. Instead, we should firmly stand behind it. This law is working as intended, and that's a good thing.

Matthew Kercher is a socialist political commentator and activist from Vancouver Island. Raised in the Cowichan Valley and now living in the Comox Valley with his family, Matthew covers provincial politics from a uniquely rural perspective.

Twitter: @matt_kercher