Geoff Russ: Democracy can’t exist in B.C. as long as DRIPA is around

Article content

For the FNLC, amending DRIPA would be illegitimate if changes were made without their consent. In April, the FNLC warned that if the NDP proceeded without their “free, prior and informed consent”, First Nations would pursue every available avenue. These included not only legal and political actions, but direct action too. That naturally raises the spectre of blockades and other disruptions, as seen during the Coastal GasLink protests of 2020.

Article content

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC called DRIPA “sacrosanct,” and Eby soon backed down. A joint statement on April 20 from the premier and FNLC confirmed that the provincial government would retreat and would not introduce any legislation to suspend or amend DRIPA during the spring sitting of the legislature.

Article content

Furthermore, the government stated that it and the FNLC would work together before the fall session to reach a resolution. This is not governance in the Canadian parliamentary tradition. The premier, who nominally leads a province of roughly 5.7 million British Columbians, has let the rules be set by an outside power bloc, and this is a significant development.

Article content

Article content

When First Nations leaders confirm that co-governance is their goal, they are admitting that they want British Columbians to be governed by authorities that they can neither elect, remove, nor otherwise hold accountable. First Nations organizations will not give up their newfound power without a fight. From a cynical standpoint, why would they want to give up such power?

Article content

The B.C. Assembly of First Nations has already shown its cards with a proposal for “co-governance” over water in 2025. In the proposal, First Nations would exercise decision-making authority with provincial, municipal, and other governments over all aspects of water and water management, which is described as a central goal of First Nations in B.C. Given that water is essential to almost everything we do as humans, this is enormously significant.

Article content

A government that meddles or tampers with the water supply is generally one that voters will eject from office. However, as previously stated, co-governance with First Nations in B.C. means that the overwhelming majority of people in the province would, in effect, be partially disenfranchised from those decisions.

Article content

Article content

A similar arrangement emerged during the previous controversies over changes being made to the Land Act, which dictates the rules of land management in B.C., where almost 95 per cent of the province is public land. In 2024, the NDP was reported to be preparing to share statutory decision-making over that public land with First Nations as part of its push for reconciliation and to align with DRIPA. Those changes would have had enormous implications for resource users, tenure holders, permit applicants, businesses, and others dependent on access to public land.

Article content

Once reported, the public reaction was immediate and large enough that the NDP backed down from the amendments to the Land Act.

Article content

Objections to changes to the Land Act and DRIPA were not hard to understand. Those raised in a democracy are taught that their elected politicians can be punished if they do their jobs poorly. DRIPA has weakened that accountability by inserting a privileged class of political actors between voters and the law.

Article content

In B.C., an MLA can be voted out by the voting public, but the First Nations co-governing bodies cannot. What this means is that there are two tiers of citizenship and power delegated without shared accountability.