Joseph Quesnel: Don’t blame judges. Politicians created the Indigenous rights crisis

Premier David Eby makes an announcement about suspending sections of DRIPA on Thursday, April 2, 2026 at the B.C. Legislature. Alec Lazenby photo

Article content

Canada’s UNDRIP crisis isn’t just about activist judges — it’s about lawmakers who either failed to understand what they were enacting or weren’t honest with Canadians about the consequences.

Article content

The real problem began in legislatures, not courtrooms.

Article content

Article content

When the British Columbia Legislature passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in 2019, officials downplayed its impacts, reassuring the public, investors and industry that any changes from DRIPA would be gradual, filled with opportunities for stakeholders to voice concerns and not affect current regulatory timelines. They described DRIPA as a consultation framework — not a sudden shift in lawmaking. Ottawa made identical assurances with its federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP), claiming it wouldn’t change existing consultation duties or create new obligations.

Article content

Article content

Those assurances have proven false, but not because courts are exceeding their authority. The problem lies in what lawmakers actually wrote versus what they told the public.

Article content

Article content

To be clear, the DRIPA Act does not address Section 35, which enshrines Aboriginal and Treaty rights in the Constitution. Since 1982, courts have extensively interpreted those rights and defined their constitutional limits. By incorporating UNDRIP, DRIPA pushes those rights beyond those established limits.

Article content

On Dec. 5, 2025, the B.C. Court of Appeal decided Gitxaala v. British Columbia, concluding that DRIPA converts UNDRIP from guidance into binding law that can invalidate provincial statutes. Critically, two of the three judges noted that DRIPA was written in “obligatory and imperative” language — lawmakers used mandatory terms like “must” and “shall,” not the permissive language of a consultation framework.

Article content

The federal UNDRIP Act contains identical problems. It requires the federal government to “take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration” and uses mandatory “must” language throughout. These aren’t suggestions — they’re legal commands.

Article content

Article content

Courts are taking this language seriously in ways that should alarm anyone concerned about democratic governance. In Quebec, Justice Sophie Bourque stayed criminal proceedings against Mohawk men charged with smuggling 13,000 kilograms of tobacco, ruling that inadequate consultation over tobacco control policies invalidated border enforcement. The court treated UNDRIP with “the same weight as a binding international instrument,” effectively allowing historical treaties interpreted through UNDRIP to override law enforcement.

Article content

Article content

Most significantly, the Quebec Superior Court, in implementing this expansive reading of the UNDRIP Act, created a broad and generic right to Indigenous economic development that encompassed the existing contraband tobacco trade, an illegal industry with documented connections to organized crime.

Article content

The implications are staggering. If UNDRIP becomes a judicial tool for rewriting Canadian law, courts will constrain government efforts to protect border integrity and public safety — shifting the balance from legislative regulation to judicial enlargement of rights.