Indigenous rights should not be an election issue in B.C.

Canada and Canadians have long held themselves out as promoters, protectors and champions of human rights. From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Canadian Bill of Rights, to the key role Canada has played in the promotion of human rights on the international stage, respect for human rights is woven into Canada’s national fabric.

But we live in a time of great upheaval, transition, and division. Domestic and international crises are causing our national fabric to fray. Sadly, as is often the case when political and economic instability reign, bad actors blame and target minority groups, immigrants, and marginalized populations—and in doing so, those bad actors narrow, recast, and reinterpret the shared values and protections we all hold dear, and the people they apply to.

In times like these, First Nations and our rights are often the first to be thrown under the bus. In the territory known as British Columbia (B.C.), this has resulted in politicians placing a target squarely on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). Lost in all the related bluster and rhetoric is what UNDRIP and DRIPA actually are and are meant to do, and what those who seek to weaken or do away with them are asking British Columbians to give up.

Understanding UNDRIP and DRIPA

UNDRIP is an international human rights instrument. Developed through a series of forums beginning in 1982 and ending with the UN General Assembly voting to adopt UNDRIP in 2007, it is the product of more than 20 years of international deliberations, diplomacy, and compromise between UN member States and Indigenous Peoples’ representatives.

UNDRIP does not create new rights, nor does it extend any unique privileges or entitlements to Indigenous Peoples. Rather, it expresses long-standing international human rights norms in the specific context of the world’s Indigenous Peoples. Grounded fundamentally in the inherent right to self-determination enjoyed by all peoples, it is intended to protect the collective human rights of the more than 470 million Indigenous People worldwide that may not be adequately addressed in other human rights instruments that emphasize individual rights, and it also further elaborates on specific individual human rights with particular emphasis on the rights of Indigenous women and children.

Stated simply: UNDRIP recognizes and is meant to protect broadly accepted, basic human rights. Indigenous rights are human rights.

DRIPA, on the other hand, is a provincial statute which the B.C. legislature passed unanimously in 2019.The purpose of DRIPA is to advance the domestic implementation of these rights in B.C. DRIPA made B.C. the first jurisdiction in Canada to formally adopt UNDRIP as its framework for reconciliation, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada explicitly called for. Since then, DRIPA has played a key role in enabling First Nations to take our rightful place at the decision-making table while facilitating economic growth and prosperity.

In January of this year, the Tahltan Nation and the government of B.C. announced that they had both approved the Eskay Creek Revitalization Project, a proposed restart of operations at a gold and silver mine in Tahltan Territory. Approval of the project was subject to a consent-based decision-making agreement, marking the first time in B.C. history that the approval of a major project was subject to the consent of a First Nation under DRIPA.

The project is expected to create more than 700 jobs and contribute $1.1 billion to B.C.’s economy in tax revenue alone. More agreements have been negotiated under DRIPA since, with others still under negotiation, creating further benefits for B.C. while helping avoid unnecessary and costly conflict in the courts.

Despite this, the churn of alarmist misinformation about the effect of DRIPA and the threat First Nations and our rights pose has increased. Nonsense, all of it.

The real threat is not the rights of First Nations. It is a political system that repeatedly forces First Nations to prove and defend our rights in court instead of providing a durable, co-developed framework for governments to work together. This is a problem DRIPA has begun to address.

More than an election issue

Now that the B.C. government has called a snap election, what’s certain is that First Nations and our rights will once again be a central topic of conversation.

First Nations leadership across B.C. have made their positions clear. Resolutions passed by the Chiefs-in-Assembly of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Assembly of First Nations, and First Nations Summit express unequivocal opposition to the amendment or suspension of DRIPA and related provisions in the Interpretation Act, and support for clearer and more structured approaches to implementing DRIPA that fully uphold UNDRIP and First Nations’ inherent and Aboriginal rights, title, and jurisdiction.

There are legitimate questions about how DRIPA should operate, how its obligations should interact with existing law, and what role courts should play when conflicts arise. But those questions should not be allowed to obscure the fundamental question at the heart of this debate: whether the rights of First Nations will be treated as enduring human rights or as political concessions that can be suspended whenever they become politically inconvenient.

We stand at an important crossroads in B.C., and some choices, once made, cannot easily be undone. Who are we? What do we value? Who do we value? Whose human rights are we willing to stand up for?

These are heavy questions to weigh, and they are ones I have been forced to contemplate on a profoundly personal level since losing my wife and partner of 49 years a short month ago. Joan was an incredible person. She judged no one and saw the best in everyone. She believed in and stood up for the rights of all peoples, not just her own, and held a strong belief in our collective ability to work together for the common good. Joan urged everyone to do the right thing. She set an example I believe we should all strive to live up to.

As British Columbians head to the ballot box in this snap election, all political leaders must be held to that same standard. True leadership does not look for loopholes in basic dignities. Human rights either belong to everyone, or they become privileges extended at the discretion of whoever holds political power. If those running for office want a prosperous and united B.C., then human rights cannot be treated as expendable political capital and tools for division.

We cannot allow this election to become a race to the bottom. All political parties must make an unqualified commitment that the basic human rights of every person— and every people— are sacred and non-negotiable.

About the author

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip has served as the President of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) since 1998. He has dedicated his life to defending Aboriginal Title and Rights, achieving reconciliation and self-determination for B.C. First Nations. Prior to his tenure as President of UBCIC, he served his community as Chief of the Penticton Indian Band (PIB) for 14 years.