Transcript
Speaker: Hello and welcome to today's episode of Red Eye. I'm Jane Williams. Over the summer, mo we're bringing you some of the highlights of our 2025-26 season, which wrapped up in mid-May.
Speaker: We're going to be back with our brand new fall season in September. Our first live radio broadcast will be on September 19th on Vancouver Cooperative Radio CFRO 100.5 FM and streaming live at coopradio.org slash red eye.
Speaker: Podcasts of interviews from that show will be posted the following week. On the podcast today, Lorraine speaks with Jamie Lee Gonzalez about the current debates revolving around BC's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Speaker: Following recent court decisions around Indigenous rights and Aboriginal title here in BC, the public discourse has become confusing and full of conflicting assertions. and NDP Premier David Eby criticized the court and called their decisions overreaching and unhelpful. In response, the National Canadian Bar Association put out a statement saying it's important for politicians to respect the line between legitimate criticism of a particular court decision and making unfounded attacks on the courts themselves.
Speaker: Raven is a nonprofit that works to support indigenous nations who are upholding their rights in court. It has published an article to clarify some of the confusion comparing what they're hearing to what they know to be true. And I'm joined by Jamie Lee Gonzalez. She is communications manager at Raven, and she joins me right now. Hello, Jamie Lee.
Speaker: Hi, thanks for having me. It's great to have you. Why did you write what we know to be true, unpacking the recent DRIPA decision?
Speaker: Yeah, I'd say, honestly, internally as a team at Raven, we were sharing a lot of articles with each other that were coming out since the Gekatla decision in December. And we felt like there was a lot of misinformation spreading quite rapidly, and not just in relation to Gekatla's case, but generally around DRIPA. And often the popular or dominant narrative, I would say, can can spend a lot of time dividing people. And it even has a tendency to spiral relatively quickly into what can seem to be catastrophizing, I would say.
Speaker: And we wanted to just take a moment of pause and ground the dialogue happening in truths as we know them and in what's really been going on the last few years.
Speaker: DRIPA and UNDRIP are really important pieces of legislation. Can you give us a quick refresher on the two of them? Sure. I mean, there's tons of information out there about UNDRIP. So that's the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Speaker: A quick Google search is going to give you more than enough information. But the Declaration on the Rights of an Indigenous Peoples Act as DRIPA is basically BC's version of implementing UNDRIP, right? So it was passed into law in 2019 by this current provincial government.
Speaker: The BC government's own website says the Declaration Act establishes the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the province's framework for reconciliation as called for by the TRC's call to action. That's a direct quote from their web website. So really like all the information we need for, for what DRIPA is and how the government has promised to implement it is right there on that their website. But in particular, I want to just highlight one section, which is section three, which mandates the government to bring provincial laws into alignment with the UN n declaration or UNDRIP, right? So basically DRIPA includes implementing UNDRIP into BC laws. It supports the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada and it recognizes and develops relationships and the decision-making abilities of indigenous governing bodies.
Speaker: And, you know, I'm sure we'll get more into this, but now, right, like we have BC who's applied to the Supreme Court of Canada just the other day to hear an appeal against the decision made in the Gakatla case, as well as they're publicly committing to amend DRIPA, which is really concerning to see that the BC government seems to be taking any action available to avoid accountability to their own legislation, right? Yeah.
Speaker: Well, let's dive into it a bit. We at Red Eye spoke with Jamie Neen of Mining Watch about the recent court decision finding that the province's mineral tenure system, which allows claims to be staked online, was inconsistent with DRIPA and thereby UNDRIP.
Speaker: Why is this important to First Nations? Yeah. So the Gikatla case is one that Raven does support. So I'll just put that out there already. so the mineral tenure system in BC was so archaic and outdated, right? It was like you pay a super small fee, like 50 bucks or something to stake a claim. And you just like go online and and you click a few mouse clicks and then you would...
Speaker: be able to stake a claim without any form of consultation. And this is something that led to the disaster that happened on Banks Island in Gakatlas territory, which really sparked this case.
Speaker: So UNDRIP being incorporated into positive law through DRIPA doesn't just mean consultation, it means cooperation with First Nations. This is still something that's being figured out, I would say, between First Nations and the province. But it's definitely happening. And we've actually already seen this, like with the Talton central government nbc um in in 2002, where they agreed upon a consent-based decision-making process for the Eskay revitalization project and the Red Criss Mine.
Speaker: But what Gakala's decision takes further for First Nations here is that... Two of the three judges said that there's actually a violation to UNDRIP, and specifically Section 32.2. This requires like the free prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before any mining can take place.
Speaker: There was not a remedy, so like you know we're not sure exactly how this moves forward yet, and Gekatla wasn't pushing for that, but this declaration could see significant strides for First Nations' consent around mining, which would ensure their lands, waters, and communities are protected from unsustainable mining while providing economic opportunities and developments for everyone. Realistically, what it does is it puts First Nations in the driver's seat instead of having to go through
Speaker: what I think I would call like a faulty consultation process, like we've been seeing, like what like we are seeing today, which largely doesn't allow for the time it really takes for First Nations to properly provide their perspectives through community engagement and honestly through their own governance systems. It's it's really based on that colonial government moving things forward and doesn't take into full account the consultation needed to work with First Nations.
Speaker: Yeah, and although this case is pretty specific to mining, the nature of the BC Court of Appeal decision makes it so all of UNDRIP rights are incorporated into positive law in BC.
Speaker: This could really see radical systemic change to BC's laws and regulatory systems that would align with the basic fundamental rights that Indigenous peoples need in order to thrive.
Speaker: alongside and within their territories. And honestly, better yet, having these rights enshrined in the legal system, like for Raven, this is one of our dreams of visions of the future is having these rights enshrined in the legal system, because then they can be protected and upheld through the courts.
Speaker: Now, Jamie Lee, probably one of the biggest fears that seems to be circulating is that DRIPA and UNDRIP threaten private property owners. Is that true?
Speaker: So first there, Isn't any mention in both DRIPA or UNDRIP that Indigenous peoples have rights to take land away from private property owners, nor is that the intent, right? The relationship that First Nations have with the Crown and the authorization of industry on their territories is what really needs to be addressed, especially in making UNDRIP rights consistent with the BC laws. And it shouldn't threaten private property rights. I think sometimes people are mixing up Aboriginal title and DRIPA in this context. as Aboriginal title has some direct relevance to private property, while Drippa doesn't.
Speaker: And in all manners regarding title that we've seen so far, and even with the Cowichan tribes, there's no intent by the First Nations to take away private property. Rather, the issue of private property is with the crown and them issuing it out in the first place. And even when underlying Aboriginal title exists with private property, both can coexist harmoniously with little to no changes to that property. So again, greater certainty is like equaling greater investment in a sense. If anything, the settling of Aboriginal title should increase property value because the rest of the land in BC is unseeded it could have underlying title to it. So if Aboriginal title is proven in an area that is private property, legally that means the area was sold by the Crown unlawfully and must be reconciled with First Nations, not through changes to private property, but through compensation and other measures. So again, it's
Speaker: DRIPA and UNDRIPA really not in any way threatening private property owners. So as you talked about before, it was the and NDP government BC under David Eby that brought in DRIPA. They were very proud of it There was like a huge ceremony. and what do you make of the assertion, and Premier David Eby is one who has put this forward, that the courts have no place getting involved in reconciliation?
Speaker: Mm-hmm. Yeah, so we have this premier in BC saying, reconciliation is the this is his quote, right? Reconciliation is the business of government-to-government relationships between the provincial government, the federal government, and First Nation governments. And it's not for the courts to take over.
Speaker: So this just like really isn't a sound argument for a few reasons, not the least of which being that reconciliation in Canada has always involved all branches of the government, including the courts, because the courts themselves are constitutionally independent branch of the government.
Speaker: So in response to BC's recent statement regarding DRIPA, even like the Law Society of BC said, interpreting legislation is a constitutional function of the courts. So if DRIPA is BC's legislative framework for reconciliation, according to their own website, to me, that's an invitation from the provincial government for the courts to be a part of that.
Speaker: Beyond that, the language of reconciliation has been used in the courts as far back in the nineteen ninety s in relation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. And reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the Crown has been consistently a central goal of constitutional law.
Speaker: At the same time, reconciliation can't happen only through the court decisions. It also requires the governments to act in good faith and work directly with First Nations. I would really recommend folks read the BC Assembly of First Nations statement that they released in response to all of this, in which they they call out how recent narratives suggest that the framework exists.
Speaker: being DRIPA, that they built together with the government and with First Nations is the problem when in fact it's been part of the solution. So this and the statement also, like the statement that they put out also warns that amending DRIPA and appealing the court rulings would backtrack on a lot of the progress made in recent years when it comes to the government to government relations, right? So reconciliation, it needs action and commitment from governments.
Speaker: And the courts do play an essential role in ensuring rights can be upheld and protected. And I feel like this statement that's coming up from the premier, like reconciliation, it's painting reconciliation as only political. So reconciliation is not only political as it's being described here. it is legal. It is constitutional. And ultimately, it has to be practical. And all branches of the government have a role to play in making it real.
Speaker: Now, Jamie, another thing that people have been saying is that implementing DRIPA or upholding UNDRIP will harm economic growth in BC. What do you say to that? Hmm.
Speaker: I would say, firstly, from my experience at Raven, the cost of litigation is so high. right That's why Raven exists in the first place. So so like we support Indigenous-led litigation that protects lands and waters and upholds Indigenous rights.
Speaker: Obviously, we do that in a few ways, but primarily through fundraising to help cover legal fees that the nations incur as a result of asserting their rights. On the flip side of that, we have the government spending taxpayer dollars to go through these lengthy legal challenges instead of just committing to their own legislation. and working in cooperation with indigenous nations and communities.
Speaker: Secondly, i say that respecting indigenous rights through DRIPA and UNDRIP, it just doesn't threaten economic growth. It actually helps create more stable, predictable, and sustainable economic relationships, right? When projects move ahead without respecting indigenous sovereignty or environmental limits, We tend to see the same pattern, this like same pattern or even some combination of legal challenges, project delays, maybe even shutdowns, environmental damage, all of which have impacts on not just people's cost of living, but on their health. The cleanup costs of doing things in this way is expensive for everyone, to be honest.
Speaker: And at the same time, as we know, climate change is already driving up everyday costs for people in BC. We see this with the cost of food, with our utilities bills. the cost of insurance and infrastructure damage. As we know, a lot of the economic growth in BC and Canada, to be honest at large, has been fast-track development with short-term profits in mind.
Speaker: They've really lacked the proper safeguards and environmental and even like honestly sometimes human rights approaches needed for long-term stability. Unless there's real changes made to this approach, the costs are going to keep adding up for us regular folks, right? DRIPA being incorporated into positive law means government and industry has to work in partnership with Indigenous nations from the start. So that's with proper consultation and, you know, ideally environmental protections in place.
Speaker: Upholding DRIPA and ANDIP not only values Indigenous peoples and ways of being, but it also creates the opportunity for greater economic certainty in a way that benefits everyone. And I feel like the the statement from the BC First Nations Assembly has a similar narrative and thread in there where it really talks about we are creating economic opportunities. We are creating opportunities for collaboration here.
Speaker: Jamie Lee, if you wanted people to take one thing away from your article, what would it be?
Speaker: I think it would be that, well, it's hard for me to so just choose one thing. But other people gaining rights is not something to be afraid of. UNDRIP and DRIPA do not take away or infringe upon the rights of us, like of other citizens.
Speaker: They reaffirm the rights of indigenous peoples and the duty of governments to protect and uphold those rights. Yeah, if there's one thing I would like people to do, not just take away, it would be to check out raventrust.com. And obviously we are maybe predicting that this court case, that this litigation, this legal challenge is not over for Gikatla. So there's also opportunities to donate to support Gikatla at raventrust.com slash Gikatla.
Speaker: It's been really, really good talking with you. I'm so happy you joined me. Thank you for having me. I've been speaking with Jamie Lee Gonzalez. She is communications manager at Raven, and you can find them, as she said, and support their campaigns at raventrust.com.
Speaker: You've been listening to the Red Eye Podcast, produced by an independent media collective based in Vancouver. If you enjoyed this episode, it would be great if you left a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps other people to find us.
Speaker: Also, please consider sharing this episode with a friend or telling someone about our podcast. To keep up with the show, you can subscribe to Red Eye wherever you listen to your podcasts. And you can follow us on Blue Sky at Red Eye Radio.
Speaker: I'm Jane Williams. Thanks for listening.
