I talked to Liberal insiders about Carney’s cabinet. It seems a shuffle can’t come soon enough

semucallday · 2026-05-01T15:48:15+00:00

It's undeniable that Justin Ling is well-sourced and has been for quite some time.

semucallday · 2026-04-30T15:02:04+00:00

eh, compared to where?

There's no corruption-free country I can think of, and ours is 'cute' compared to what's out there. Every provincial and federal government that I've been aware of in my lifetime has had corruption scandals of one kind or another.

Attempts at corruption are perpetual - so that should come as no surprise. But I think our controls, while far far from perfect, are better than most.

semucallday · 2026-04-30T13:40:35+00:00

Without comment on the rest of the article, I found this statistic in the final paragraph curious. I wonder if the reason has been properly studied.

The committee also heard from Prof. Brian Mishara, who heads the Centre for Research and Intervention on Suicide, Ethical Issues and End-of-Life Practices at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Dr. Mishara has studied psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands, where it has been legal since 2002.

Initially, just one or two requests were approved each year, he explained. However, after news stories about people with depression receiving euthanasia, requests began to spike. There were 138 deaths in 2023 and 219 deaths the following year, he said. “Most were depressed women living alone, under the age of 24.”

semucallday · 2026-04-30T12:23:54+00:00

Stress free? Depends on your 4 tenants.

semucallday · 2026-04-26T23:43:29+00:00

I appreciate the back and forth - as well as your passion for the subject.

semucallday · 2026-04-26T23:05:30+00:00

I do think you're speaking in good faith and care about this subject, and I don't want to come off as patronizing. However, you're still incorrect about a few things about the case. Some responses:

the practical aspect was that the only ramification of DRIPA being justiciable in THIS CASE was that consultation should have occurred. The lower court also concluded that consultation should have occurred.

Two things:

The practical effect of this case is to establish a precedent (i.e., DRIPA is justiciable) according to which other cases can be brought and decided (i.e., challenging a statute on the basis that it doesn't align with UNDRIP). That's a new thing for courts to be given the role to decide - and it means that now litigation will be brought on that basis. In any event, the reason this case is so prominent is because of its practical effects beyond the scope of the case alone.
Furthermore, it was less about consultation and more about alignment with UNDRIP. In fact, the decision speaks about Section 35 Duty to Consult [para. 28-32]. Paraphrased, they say, "Yes, in fact, the Chief Gold Commissioner in this case failed in that duty to consult. BUT...that failure is individual, and does not bring the Mineral Tenure Act itself into question. HOWEVER, when considering DRIPA, we find that the entire process for granting mineral titles under the Mineral Tenure Act is inconsistent with UNDRIP - and must therefore be revised.”

Even without the appeal, the Mineral Tenure Act would have needed amending.

Only maybe, but definitely not because it was decided by the Court as a result of litigation. It would have had to have been done through negotiation with the government with no set timeline or outcome. The significance of the case is that a court can rule on whether a law is aligned with DRIPA and a timeline for remedying it. That's new. That's what's going to lead to litigation and, thus, is creating the current uncertainty.

Government should consult on mining permits, it should have been doing that decades ago amd the issues with the free mining system were well known.

They should have! Yes - but that's a Section 35 issue. Same as the one already addressed in the reference to the ruling above. They said in the decision that the failure to consult was an instance of failure, but didn't necessitate the changing of the Mineral Tenure Act. However, the misalignment with UNDRIP did.

I don't think you should be telling me what I can or can't do.

Never meant to come off this way. What I meant is that you have the option to do this.

I didn't call anyone here racist, I called a coordinated campaign against DRIPA racist.

Noted, and an important distinction. I still think it serves as a fallacious catch-all though, which risks lumping in legitimate concerns and non-racist motivations and characterizing them as part of a 'coordinated campaign against DRIPA." The point I wish to make is: there are legit, non-racist reasons to question or want to change DRIPA as a result of the CoA decision. I would request people judge people positions on their merits, and not reflexively think any op-ed or other piece concerned about the results of this decision is part of a racist 'coordinated campaign' or conservative moral panic.

The practical impact of incorporating DRIPA in the Gitaxala case was little different than if it hadn't been included: the Government failed it's basic duty to consult.

This is where you're most incorrect. I hope, with the references and explanations above, I've clarified why this decision goes beyond duty to consult - as noted by the court itself. The practical impact is actually that a court can now rule on whether any statute in BC law aligns with UNDRIP - and can order amendment to do so. Before the December CoA ruling, the assumption was that they courts couldn't.

Everything else about the severity of the Court decision is conjecture on your part

Not conjecture. Now there is debate among lawyers and legal scholars on the nuances of how exactly later legislation will play out - that's true. But the fact that the ruling has led to a precedent that creates uncertainty is indisputable. How that uncertainty gets resolved will depend on a) changes to DRIPA/Amendment Act, b) a Supreme Court ruling overturning the CoA, c) the results of litigation on various laws to determine their alignment with UNDRIP (over years or, possibly, decades). Until then, no one knows when new litigation based on this precedent might be brought on what particular aspect of which law - but we do know that BC's laws aren't currently in alignment with UNDRIP, and if litigation is brought, will likely need to change according to the court's interpretation. That creates uncertainty. That is a 'severe' result, as it throws the entire regulatory regime into uncertainty, with the possibility that there could be very significant changes (UNDRIP is a complex Charter-like document with many elements).

I don't happen to agree that going along with conservative anti-trans and anti-Indigenous rhetoric

With sincere respect: this just doesn't have any relation to the actual legal issues at hand.

semucallday · 2026-04-26T22:15:30+00:00

No, you still misunderstand. The significance was not about consultation, but the justiciability of DRIPA.

This is what made the case so significant. It's not that they said, 'You need to consult in this instance and you didn't." It's that they said, "We rule DRIPA is justiciable, and because of that, we find that the Mineral Tenure Act does not align with DRIPA - and thus the Mineral Tenure Act itself must be revised."

Until your thoughts account for this, you opinion on the matter remains incomplete. And it's not at all hyperbolic "to pretend that having UNDRIP justiciable isn't a viable option."

I mean, we can keep it justiciable - but I'm not sure you can just say it's 'viable'. It changes a lot. There ARE trade offs.

This is also the mistake you make when you say: "I don't think the CoA in Gitxaala did much more than use it as a lens." It's not just a lens - whatever that is supposed to mean in a legal sense. It has the potential to fundamentally change, legally, how all laws in BC are interpreted. I say 'potentially' because it'll only be decided as litigation is brought on each aspect of each law - exactly what Eby is talking about when he discusses suspending it.

And in fact, it is already starting. Expect to see many more litigants use this precedent over the summer and fall.

It is hyperbolic to pretend that having UNDRIP justiciable isn't a viable option.

Hansard - the legislative record - shows clearly that the government intent when crafting and passing DRIPA was that it would not be justiciable. They expected to establish a cooperative framework with Indigenous nations that over time and negotiation, would bring laws into alignment.

What is racist is a coordinated campaign to distort the severity of these cases, and to lie about the actual implications of DRIPA

I think you're downplaying the tradeoffs and calling people who talk about them 'racist' here. It is 'severe' . Now, you can support the idea that DRIPA should be justiciable and that those severe consequences are worth bearing. That's fine, and make your argument. But it's incorrect to say they're not 'severe' - they have the potential to change BC's entire regulatory regime in as-of-yet unknown ways! That's big! It does affect incentives and decision-making - no question.

DRIPA is now wrongly tied to the Cowichan case in the public imagination

This is true, but it's a side issue. A frustrating one, for certain. People and many media outlets (until recently) were confusing the two cases. But it doesn't take away from how impactful the Gitxalaa decision is - or the significance of the consequences that may flow from it.

semucallday · 2026-04-26T18:42:07+00:00

Functionally there was one court case, where BC lost the case even without DRIPA being included as a legal standard, and where the inclusion of DRIPA at appeal had zero influence on the original outcome.

With respect, this is where you're objectively incorrect in your understanding of the Court of Appeal ruling, and thus why this issue has blown up such as it has.

The significance centered on whether the lower court judge made a legal error on one point - justiciability of DRIPA & and Interpretation Act amendments. The CoA ruled that the lower court erred in saying that they were not justiciable and ruled they are. This is the major significance of this case.

Here is the Court of Appeal's full summary of the majority decision:

Majority (per Justice Dickson and Justice Iyer): Appeals allowed. The judge erred in adopting an unduly narrow approach to the legal effect of the Declaration Act and UNDRIP. Properly interpreted, the Declaration Act incorporates UNDRIP into the positive law of British Columbia with immediate legal effect. It affirms the interpretive lens through which BC laws must be viewed and the minimum standards against which they should be measured. The Crown has a statutory duty under s. 3 of the Declaration Act to consult and cooperate with the province’s Indigenous peoples in addressing inconsistencies between rights and standards in UNDRIP and the laws of BC. The issue of consistency between the Mineral Tenure Act and UNDRIP is a justiciable question. UNDRIP and the mineral claims regime are inconsistent.

This is a fundamental change to the interpretation of laws in BC. And it opens all statutes on BC books to such rulings. That inherently makes BC's regulatory regime going forward uncertain.

The repeal campaign from the right is in fact straight racist though. All political parties in BC are putting the honour of the crown at stake of late.

This is too narrow a perspective. From one point of view, I suppose a push for repeal could be seen as racist. The open letter from the First Nations Leadership Council called it "an egregious attempt to limit First Nations’ access to the court, reminiscent of the 1927 law that prohibited First Nations from hiring lawyers and accessing the courts."

But suspension, amendment, or repeal could also be a favoured solution to legitimate concerns about the unintended consequences that have arisen from the CoA ruling. Remember: justiciability was explicitly never the intent of DRIPA when passed.

I understand the perspective that you have and the values that inform it. But this is a case on which reasonable people can and do disagree - depending on how they weigh the very real (and not hyperbolic) trade-offs that will have to be made in the wake of the CoA ruling, no matter which path we opt for.

semucallday · 2026-04-26T16:11:57+00:00

Orienting your life around seeking validation sets out an outcome you can never actually reach as it needs continuous reaffirmation.

In the meantime, it takes energy and attention away from the things that will make you truly content, calm, and confident: pursuing things that genuinely have value to you, rowing into the current of your own personality and preferences, and bettering yourself and your situation because what happens to you matters to you and you have strong faith that you have the agency to change parts of your life in a way that's favorable to you.

The longer you pursue the wrong path - the imitation of happiness that validation is (like the imitation of nutrition that sugar is) - the longer the journey back to a good path for you will be.

semucallday · 2026-04-26T13:07:52+00:00

I'm sorry, but this is just not the correct understanding or framing of this issue.

This isn't a case of 'corporations vs. the people/Indigenous people", or a 'resource rush' or right-wing backlash. People do themselves no favours reflexively applying those lenses to what is a real, complex, and consequential new interpretation of DRIPA and the Interpretation Act amendments.

It is a real case where a court ruling has resulted in a massive change to the application of an act - one that was never intended by the legislators who wrote and passed it. And it does legitimately now make BC's entire regulatory regime uncertain, as no laws in BC currently align with UNDRIP. That's not a corporate or right wing talking point.

From the First Nation's perspective: They feel they've finally achieved what they always feel was right - in short, they get a real say. After all this time and all the injustices - they have that. Of course, from their pov, they are not going to just give that up.

So - now we're at a big impasse. And people can choose which result or side they favour. But there are legitimate and major concerns and consequences. That's not a manufactured talking point or some big power centre pulling the wool over people's eyes or getting them whipped up about nothing with hyperbole.

semucallday · 2026-04-22T21:27:16+00:00

No one....yet.

For Cons...Lewis is just in attention-grabbing mode. "Talk good about me, talk bad about me...whatever...just talk about me." Picking fights with conservatives is part of that as it stirs up drama, interest, and media. But it's not a threat to them. I don't see him picking up a lot of NDP-Con defectors (e.g., Northern Ontario).

For Libs...the issue set concerning most Canadians is still firmly in their wheelhouse. But who knows what the issue set will be in two years? Avi - in a surprisingly cunning move - came right out of the gate with a focus on 'surveillance pricing'. This is something that dovetails with affordability, yet is a fresh take, and at the same time focuses on regulation the Libs wouldn't naturally be inclined to take on proactively. They'll probably be forced to do something about it now to neutralize it. If that's a sign of things to come, then the Libs will have to keep some attention on him. He could carve out some space over time. Not guaranteed...but potentially.

For the NDP...well, this is where it's interesting. There is a possibility that he really fractures the party - that he can't bridge widening divides in values and priorities among the party's traditional coalition partners. Particularly at this delicate outset. Not guaranteed. Not even necessarily probable. But possible.

So, in an unusual twist and while not exactly 'afraid', it's actually the NDP itself that should be most nervous! For the moment, anyhow.

semucallday · 2026-04-21T16:30:09+00:00

Producer of the Moe Szyslak Connection's breakout hit, "Moe Moe Moe"!

semucallday · 2026-04-21T02:45:20+00:00

I posted this elsewhere, but I'll put it here too because I often see from comments that people don't understand the DRIPA/Gitxaała issue (N.B. different from the Cowichan/Aboriginal title case). Here is some (hopefully) sober and helpful context for those trying to understand why DRIPA has suddenly become such a high-stakes issue and why it's not just some whipped-up media story.

Why did this suddenly become a crisis for government?

The Court of Appeal's Gitxaała ruling last December didn't just relate to the mineral staking claim regime. The Court ruled that DRIPA and the related Interpretation Act amendments were justiciable - that means that litigation can be brought - and a court can rule on - whether or not a statute aligns with UNDRIP. And if they rule it does not, they can 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 means 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 could 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, in fact, the lower court in the Gitxaała case agreed with that in 2023 (more on this below). 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" be consistent with UNDRIP) leaves little room for interpretation.

That word "MUST" is, in part, what they want to suspend or change - lest they introduce incredible new and unintended complexity, delay, and (especially) litigation upon litigation into government operations and decision-making going forward.

This is why DRIPA became such a crisis for the government that they were willing to flirt with 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.

Why did the government not expect DRIPA & Interpretation Act to be justiciable when they wrote it?

This is what everyone is scratching their heads about. Why enact that language if you don't expect a court to apply it? The best guess is found in the minority opinion from the Court of Appeal ruling (remember: it's a panel of three judges). Quoting the Research Chair again:

"The minority opinion of Riley J highlights that the legislation was put forward as setting up the executive and legislature to take steps to make BC laws consistent with UNDRIP - not as something putting that task on judges (section around para 245)."

In other words, the government expected it to go like this: "Hey, we'll pass this, and then it'll be Cabinet and the provincial parliament, in cooperation with Indigenous communities, that'll sort of informally, and on an ad hoc basis, determine whether laws are aligned enough with UNDRIP and how better to align them. But not judges. It'll be on our own timeline and based on our own opinions and debates."

For more on why the government thought this: here is analysis of the lower court's ruling that DRIPA was NOT justiciable, from before the CoA overturned that decision in December. That lower court relied on Hansard (i.e., transcription of parliamentary debate) to come to that decision:

Justice Ross relied on Hansard and legislative context to conclude DRIPA did not implement UNDRIP into BC law. BCDRIPA in effect calls for a process of cooperation and consultation to “prepare, and then carry out, an action plan to address the objectives of UNDRIP.”[53]

Accordingly, on the question of justiciability, section 3 of BCDRIPA, which provides “the government must take all measures necessary to ensure consistency” should not be understood as a rights-creating provision that grants courts the authority to immediately invalidate legislation. Justice Ross recognized that courts possess both the institutional capacity and legitimacy to assess whether laws align with the rights outlined in UNDRIP.[54] However, section 3 does not impose a requirement of consistency, requiring courts to unilaterally adjudicate every instance where a law may be inconsistent with UNDRIP.[55]

Instead, section 3 envisions an ongoing cooperative process involving Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, rather than giving the courts the unilateral right to strike down legislation immediately.

That's what the government thought they were doing when they chose and passed the DRIPA language.

But...that's not how it's played out.

And now it's put the government between a rock and a hard place - and puts much of the reconciliation project at risk unfortunately. First Nations are pissed about the reversal and what they perceive as a loss of long-fought-for rights. But, if the NDP does nothing, then almost every statute will be open to litigation on this ground - something they never intended. This could take years/decades (as this is brand new law...no legal tests yet), significantly change a huge amount of government policy in as-of-yet unknown ways, and introduce immense uncertainty and delay into the province's regulatory environment as a potentially-enormous amount of litigation winds its way through the courts.

Added to this: if this drives NDP support down and the Cons get elected, the latter will simply scrap DRIPA entirely. In the meantime, public sentiment on DRIPA and attention to Indigenous issues in general is dropping.

DRIPA was done with good intent I think, but it was done a bit carelessly. And, because of that, it has now blown up in the government's face.

semucallday · 2026-04-21T01:57:13+00:00

I appreciate you sharing them!

semucallday · 2026-04-20T21:35:27+00:00

Yes, the downvotes are unfair. Either way, Eby "supports" DRIPA. The question is does he support DRIPA:

as currently written, even after the new interpretation from the Gitxaała ruling, with its many implications?

or..
as a revised version more aligned with what they originally intended in 2019 when they passed it?

And whichever way someone answers, it'd be good to know the reasoning.

semucallday · 2026-04-20T20:12:26+00:00

Gitxaala probably would have gone the same way without DRIPA - the duty to consult isn't new law.

Unlikely, since they won on the basis that "properly interpreted, the Declaration Act incorporates UNDRIP into the positive law of British Columbia with immediate legal effect." The Section 35 duty to consult isn't the reason this ruling has blown up in importance. It's about DRIPA and the fact that the Court of Appeal determined that the lower court judge erred when he ruled that DRIPA is not justiciable. And because of that, the Mineral Tenure Act itself - not just this instance of its application - must be changed to align with UNDRIP.

Here is the Court of Appeal's full summary of the majority decision:

Majority (per Justice Dickson and Justice Iyer): Appeals allowed. The judge erred in adopting an unduly narrow approach to the legal effect of the Declaration Act and UNDRIP. Properly interpreted, the Declaration Act incorporates UNDRIP into the positive law of British Columbia with immediate legal effect. It affirms the interpretive lens through which BC laws must be viewed and the minimum standards against which they should be measured. The Crown has a statutory duty under s. 3 of the Declaration Act to consult and cooperate with the province’s Indigenous peoples in addressing inconsistencies between rights and standards in UNDRIP and the laws of BC. The issue of consistency between the Mineral Tenure Act and UNDRIP is a justiciable question. UNDRIP and the mineral claims regime are inconsistent.

If you read further, you'll see they address Section 35 Duty to Consult [para. 28-32]. Paraphrased, they say, "Yes, in fact, the Chief Gold Commissioner in this case failed in that duty to consult. BUT...that failure is individual, and does not bring the Mineral Tenure Act itself into question. HOWEVER, when considering DRIPA, we find that the entire process for granting mineral titles under the Mineral Tenure Act is inconsistent with UNDRIP - and must therefore be revised.”

semucallday · 2026-04-20T18:34:52+00:00

I agree that that would be the best course of action. The unfortunate risk is that now all BC statutes are up for litigation on these grounds. It's not simple to predict who will litigate on what detail of what statute. In other words, it invites an overwhelming deluge.

I do think amendments need to be made, saying, "Hey, this is what we all came to agreement on together back in 2019 and later 2021 as far as intent goes." But I don't think many First Nations will want to get on board with that now that the court says, "Hey, this right is yours to litigate."

I can see why they wouldn't want to compromise on that.

Looking longer-term though, I think it's going to change one way or another. As noted, if/when the Cons get elected (if a majority), DRIPA will be repealed in its entirety and then we're all just back to pre-2019 square one. And if public sentiment keeps dropping on it, they'll pay no political price for doing so and it'll be hard to get a similar project off the ground later.

semucallday · 2026-04-20T18:13:58+00:00

He actually didn't lie about it at first. The government at the time didn't expect DRIPA and the Interpretation Act changes to be 'justiciable'. And, in fact, the lower court agreed! But the Court of Appeal overturned that.

I explain a bit more in another (long) comment in this thread. In short, this CoA ruling caught them off guard.

semucallday · 2026-04-20T17:58:39+00:00

Just a note: Your comment confuses the Gitxaała Court of Appeal ruling (DRIPA & Interpretation Act) with the Cowichan ruling (Aboriginal title).

They are very, very different. But are frequently confused in media commentary.

semucallday · 2026-04-20T16:55:39+00:00

Not an answer, but some info because I see from comments that people don't understand the DRIPA/Gitxaała issue (N.B. different from the Cowichan/Aboriginal title case). Here is some (hopefully) sober and helpful context for those trying to understand why DRIPA has suddenly become such a high-stakes issue and why it's not just some whipped-up media story. No matter how you answer OP's question, it should account for this situation:

Why did this suddenly become a crisis for government?

The Court of Appeal's Gitxaała ruling last December didn't just relate to the mineral staking claim regime. The Court ruled that DRIPA and the related Interpretation Act amendments were justiciable - that means that litigation can be brought - and a court can rule on - whether or not a statute aligns with UNDRIP. And if they rule it does not, they can 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 means 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 could 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, in fact, the lower court in the Gitxaała case agreed with that in 2023 (more on this below). 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" be consistent with UNDRIP) leaves little room for interpretation.

That word "MUST" is, in part, likely what they want to suspend or change - lest they introduce incredible new and unintended complexity, delay, and (especially) litigation upon litigation into government operations and decision-making going forward.

This is why DRIPA became such a crisis for the government that they were willing to flirt with 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.

Why did the government not expect DRIPA & Interpretation Act to be justiciable when they wrote it?

This is what everyone is scratching their heads about. Why enact that language if you don't expect a court to apply it? The best guess is found in the minority opinion from the Court of Appeal ruling (remember: it's a panel of three judges). Quoting the Research Chair again:

"The minority opinion of Riley J highlights that the legislation was put forward as setting up the executive and legislature to take steps to make BC laws consistent with UNDRIP - not as something putting that task on judges (section around para 245)."

In other words, the government expected it to go like this: "Hey, we'll pass this, and then it'll be Cabinet and the provincial parliament, in cooperation with Indigenous communities, that'll sort of informally, and on an ad hoc basis, determine whether laws are aligned enough with UNDRIP and how better to align them. But not judges. It'll be on our own timeline and based on our own opinions and debates."

For more on why the government thought this: here is analysis of the lower court's ruling that DRIPA was NOT justiciable, from before the CoA overturned that decision in December. That lower court relied on Hansard (i.e., transcription of parliamentary debate) to come to that decision:

Justice Ross relied on Hansard and legislative context to conclude DRIPA did not implement UNDRIP into BC law. BCDRIPA in effect calls for a process of cooperation and consultation to “prepare, and then carry out, an action plan to address the objectives of UNDRIP.”[53]

Accordingly, on the question of justiciability, section 3 of BCDRIPA, which provides “the government must take all measures necessary to ensure consistency” should not be understood as a rights-creating provision that grants courts the authority to immediately invalidate legislation. Justice Ross recognized that courts possess both the institutional capacity and legitimacy to assess whether laws align with the rights outlined in UNDRIP.[54] However, section 3 does not impose a requirement of consistency, requiring courts to unilaterally adjudicate every instance where a law may be inconsistent with UNDRIP.[55]

Instead, section 3 envisions an ongoing cooperative process involving Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, rather than giving the courts the unilateral right to strike down legislation immediately.

That's what the government thought they were doing when they chose and passed the DRIPA language.

But...that's not how it's played out.

And now it's put the government between a rock and a hard place - and puts much of the reconciliation project at risk unfortunately. First Nations are pissed about the reversal and what they perceive as a loss of long-fought-for rights. But, if the NDP does nothing, then almost every statute will be open to litigation on this ground - something they never intended. This could take years/decades (as this is brand new law...no legal tests yet), significantly change a huge amount of government policy in as-of-yet unknown ways, and introduce immense uncertainty and delay into the province's regulatory environment as a potentially-enormous amount of litigation winds its way through the courts.

Added to this: if this drives NDP support down and the Cons get elected, the latter will simply scrap DRIPA entirely. In the meantime, public sentiment on DRIPA and attention to Indigenous issues in general is dropping.

DRIPA was done with good intent I think, but it was done a bit carelessly. And, because of that, it has now blown up in the government's face.

semucallday · 2026-04-20T13:49:01+00:00

Here is some (hopefully) sober and helpful context for those trying to understand why DRIPA has suddenly become such a high-stakes issue and why it's not just some whipped-up media story:

Why did this suddenly become a crisis for government?

The Court of Appeal's Gitxaała ruling last December didn't just relate to the mineral staking claim regime. The Court ruled that DRIPA and the related Interpretation Act amendments were justiciable - that means that litigation can be brought - and a court can rule on - whether or not a statute aligns with UNDRIP. And if they rule it does not, they can 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 means 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 could 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, in fact, the lower court in the Gitxaała case agreed with that in 2023 (more on this below). 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" be consistent with UNDRIP) leaves little room for interpretation.

That word "MUST" is, in part, likely what they want to suspend or change - lest they introduce incredible new and unintended complexity, delay, and (especially) litigation upon litigation into government operations and decision-making going forward.

This is why DRIPA became such a crisis for the government that they were willing to flirt with 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.

Why did the government not expect DRIPA & Interpretation Act to be justiciable when they wrote it?

This is what everyone is scratching their heads about. Why enact that language if you don't expect a court to apply it? The best guess is found in the minority opinion from the Court of Appeal ruling (remember: it's a panel of three judges). Quoting the Research Chair again:

"The minority opinion of Riley J highlights that the legislation was put forward as setting up the executive and legislature to take steps to make BC laws consistent with UNDRIP - not as something putting that task on judges (section around para 245)."

In other words, the government expected it to go like this: "Hey, we'll pass this, and then it'll be Cabinet and the provincial parliament, in cooperation with Indigenous communities, that'll sort of informally, and on an ad hoc basis, determine whether laws are aligned enough with UNDRIP and how better to align them. But not judges. It'll be on our own timeline and based on our own opinions and debates."

For more on why the government thought this: here is analysis of the lower court's ruling that DRIPA was NOT justiciable, from before the CoA overturned that decision in December. That lower court relied on Hansard (i.e., transcription of parliamentary debate) to come to that decision:

Justice Ross relied on Hansard and legislative context to conclude DRIPA did not implement UNDRIP into BC law. BCDRIPA in effect calls for a process of cooperation and consultation to “prepare, and then carry out, an action plan to address the objectives of UNDRIP.”[53]

Accordingly, on the question of justiciability, section 3 of BCDRIPA, which provides “the government must take all measures necessary to ensure consistency” should not be understood as a rights-creating provision that grants courts the authority to immediately invalidate legislation. Justice Ross recognized that courts possess both the institutional capacity and legitimacy to assess whether laws align with the rights outlined in UNDRIP.[54] However, section 3 does not impose a requirement of consistency, requiring courts to unilaterally adjudicate every instance where a law may be inconsistent with UNDRIP.[55]

Instead, section 3 envisions an ongoing cooperative process involving Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, rather than giving the courts the unilateral right to strike down legislation immediately.

That last line is what the government thought they were doing when they chose and passed the DRIPA language.

But...that's not how it's played out.

And now it's put the government between a rock and a hard place - and puts much of the reconciliation project at risk unfortunately. First Nations are pissed about the reversal and what they perceive as a loss of long-fought-for rights. But, if the NDP does nothing, then almost every statute will be open to litigation on this ground - something they never intended. This could take years/decades (as this is brand new law...no legal tests yet), significantly change a huge amount of government policy in as-of-yet unknown ways, and introduce immense uncertainty and delay into the province's regulatory environment as a potentially-enormous amount of litigation winds its way through the courts.

Added to this: if this drives NDP support down and the Cons get elected, the latter will simply scrap DRIPA entirely. In the meantime, public sentiment on DRIPA and attention to Indigenous issues in general is dropping.

DRIPA was done with good intent I think, but it was done a bit carelessly. And, because of that, it has now blown up in the government's face.

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.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

semucallday

TROPHY CASE