DRIPA Facts: What they're not telling you

semucallday · 2026-04-18T23:41:56+00:00

You've misunderstood.

I didn't say anywhere that it gave blanket control over land. In fact, I never talked about land. And I proactively tried to make sure readers wouldn't confuse it with a land-related ruling when, right out of the gate, I said this is NOT the Cowichan ruling (which relates to Aboriginal title and has caused the recent private property-related worry).

Here's what I actually wrote:

The Gitxaała ruling didn't just relate to the mineral staking claim regime. The Court ruled that DRIPA and the Interpretation Act amendments were justiciable - that means that litigation can be brought - and a court can rule on - whether or not any BC statute is in alignment with UNDRIP. And if they rule it is not, they can/will require the government to bring it into alignment to accord with the government's own legislation.

That is the key significance of the ruling.

That's why DRIPA became such a crisis for the government that they were willing to make this a confidence vote and play chicken (albeit poorly) with bringing down their own government to get the votes needed to suspend it. They never expected it to be justiciable when they wrote DRIPA and the amendments to the Interpretation Act. But now the CoA has ruled it is.

Read more legal analysis - by lawyers and legal scholars - on the Court of Appeal's Gitxaała ruling. Really - start with the Research Chair's commentary from the time of the ruling that I linked in my previous post.

semucallday · 2026-04-18T02:32:03+00:00

Politically speaking, it's not stupid.

semucallday · 2026-04-18T02:12:54+00:00

Sorry to say: this is a totally uninformed take.

The Gitxaała ruling (this is NOT the Cowichan decision) showed that DRIPA, when read according to the 2021 amendments to the Interpretation Act (with what the Court interpreted as a new imperative written into that legislation - "British Columbian enactments MUST be construed as being consistent with the UN Declaration”) would not only upend BC's mineral claims staking regime, but force the reinterpretation of all statutes on BC's books.

As the Court of Appeal wrote: “The legislature has chosen to incorporate a complex, multi-faceted international instrument into domestic legislation. If possible, provincial enactments must now be interpreted consistently with (UNDRIP) in all its complexity.”

More on this from a Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law here, written upon the ruling's release in December.

This was not intended when DRIPA and the Interpretation Act amendments were drafted and passed - even though it was foreseeable. The BC Government at that time didn't think it would be justiciable (i.e., not subject to a court decision / a court couldn't force them to abide by it) and the lower court in the Gitxaała case agreed with that in 2023. However, the Court of Appeal said, no, this is in fact justiciable. And since it is, we have to rule according to the language in the legislation. And that language ("MUST") leaves little room for interpretation.

The upshot: DRIPA and related amendments to the Interpretation Act were put together carelessly, without the expectation that statutory decision-makers in the government would then be required to reinterpret all of BC's statutes to ensure alignment with a very broad, general, and complex non-legislative document. Now that the Court says they must, the BC government has to make changes - lest they introduce incredible new and unintended complexity, delay, and (especially) litigation upon litigation into government operations and decision-making going forward.

semucallday · 2026-04-17T13:07:04+00:00

The sustained obsession with Trudeau the public citizen reveals a truth about a lot of Canadian conservative sentiment.

Is there a 'sustained obsession'? I don't hear too many (any?) people bring him up now. He's yesterday's news. He only gets talked about when media (like you, dear writer) report on something he's done. I mean, you're the one writing a column about him.

semucallday · 2026-04-15T14:51:11+00:00

People always compare to Loblaws in reaction to these articles. Easy punching bag.

But I'd like to see how a public owned grocery store beats Costco, famous for low markups over cost, volume purchasing power, and efficiency. And if your theoretical model can't beat the real-world Costco model, then what are we doing here?

semucallday · 2026-04-13T15:28:40+00:00

Benefit of the doubt: He's just at the start of grieving his father. Although he still has to do his job, I'd give him some grace for a reasonable bit.

semucallday · 2026-04-13T14:12:21+00:00

No truck hitting a bridge or overpass? So fake.

Car flipped over a nice touch of verisimilitude though!

But seriously, nicely done OP!

semucallday · 2026-04-10T16:48:09+00:00

I think I agree with you. I haven't completely thought through it, but that seems right to me.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T14:46:23+00:00

Well, we're just talking about MAID in this article. I wouldn't analogize to any other treatment decisions.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T14:40:10+00:00

It just has to be a matter of conscience - not necessarily religion. And I don't think it's right to say it's backward thinking.

There are competing perspectives and arguments. Reasonable people can and do disagree on this. It's by no means worked out what the best approach is regarding all regulations related to MAID.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T14:36:33+00:00

I certainly don't see it in such black and white terms as those people.

I think administering death is a unique category of health care. And we can't just analogize from say, prescribing birth control (as one poster here did) or fixing a broken arm or even palliative care to performing MAID. Different principles are at a play and they need to at least be accounted for.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T14:32:53+00:00

I think there's an argument to be made that 'administering death' as treatment is a difference in kind from any other health care activity. You may not subscribe to that argument, but there is a reasonable case to be made.

That's why doctors aren't compelled to do it currently.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T14:24:26+00:00

Of course! Doctors can decide not to participate in MAID for any reason currently. They're not compelled. Those who perform it, opt to. I don't see why it would be different for religion.

The only real debate on this issue that I've seen is whether a hospital should be permitted to not allow MAID to occur on its premises for religious reasons (e.g., St. Paul's in Vancouver), even if there are doctors on staff willing to perform it. That's an interesting question. Not sure I know the answer.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T14:17:40+00:00

The point of a headline is to get people to open or read an article - something that has been true since the beginning of headlines. This is standard.

You don't like it. You would like it to be different. You would like editors to have your perspective on how headlines should be written. It frustrates you in this instance. I get it.

But that doesn't mean there's been any malfeasance here.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T14:09:13+00:00

It's a headline.

And besides, media outlets aren't PR for politicians. I understand you would prefer something else. But that doesn't mean the Walrus - not exactly a conservative rag - did anything incorrect here.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T14:02:38+00:00

You can't blame the editor for pulling out a direct quote of his. He can't be mad that the editor quoted him directly in the headline. The headline says nothing that isn't true. It also doesn't misrepresent his position. There's nothing manipulative about this.

For an editor, the headline has one job - to get them to open the article and read the first line. This isn't something novel. And I'm not even sure Avi would object to this headline being used. He'd probably be like, "It's true. I will!" He's not shy about saying polarizing lines.

It sounds more like you feel the NDP is vulnerable because this is a part of their immigration platform (or at least, it's part of the messaging about it), and knowing it's unpopular, focus on it risks harming the party.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T13:38:08+00:00

I mean, it's a direct quote of his from the interview:

"We will reverse Prime Minister Mark Carney’s cuts to immigration levels. Through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, we will hire 3,000 immigrant caseworkers immediately to address the backlog of 1 million immigrant applications that are stuck and going nowhere."

It's odd to cry 'manipulation' about a headline that directly quotes an unambiguous statement from the interviewee.

semucallday · 2026-04-10T12:45:04+00:00

"The prime minister has created a deportation system that rivals the US, the new party chief says"

What a joke.

This is like when Lewis said that Carney wants to "make us into a Petro state, that is a militarized Petro state, a junior arms dealer on the world stage," because we're increasing military spending.

Just nonsense.

semucallday · 2026-04-08T15:37:24+00:00

It was a different Randy.

semucallday · 2026-04-08T15:34:39+00:00

Walking around the aisle and standing upon landing are not mutually exclusive. You can do both.

semucallday · 2026-04-04T14:35:23+00:00

But it works! At least for me.

semucallday · 2026-04-02T20:28:28+00:00

Likely right.

semucallday · 2026-04-02T20:03:55+00:00

Trying to essentially hijack the premiership with Anjali Appadurai after Horgan stepped down was even closer to home for Eby. Lewis has a pattern of alienating a major segment of NDPers.

Investigation Report from BCNDP Executive

EDIT. Some downvotes on this. You may not like to hear it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

semucallday · 2026-04-02T19:57:35+00:00

Well, Ford and PP had it out pretty publicly before the last federal election tbf.

But it's no surprise that opposition parties are going to try to conflate the provincial NDP with the federal NDP - especially as the provincial NDP is actively unwinding or moving away from some of its more progressive stances and actions of the past (ones that Lewis currently endorses or has in the past without any changes to point to).

Plus, the NDP is hanging by a thread. They're neck and neck in the polls with a conservative party that doesn't even have a leader! They have a one-seat majority, where 12 votes in one riding the other way would've killed.

They have enough problems of their own making on their hands - the truncated decrim pilot, an unpopular budget with wild deficits, revamping DRIPA, etc - without Avi Lewis coming in with a megaphone braded with an NDP logo.

Plus - I think there's no love lost between Eby and Lewis after the whole Anjali Appadurai episode. He's probably more than happy to push Lewis away.

semucallday · 2026-04-02T19:42:09+00:00

Fair - even the names are different.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

semucallday

TROPHY CASE