Eby s legislative retreat and the erosion of dripa

The Fragility of Reconciliation: Eby’s Legislative Retreat and the Erosion of DRIPA

By Vladmir Angelblazer,
International Lawyer and Representative of the Veps Indigenous Peoples of the North in Canada.
Victoria, British Columbia,
February 10, 2026


The enactment of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in 2019 was heralded as a "watershed moment" — a formal commitment by British Columbia to dismantle the colonial scaffolding of its legal system. However, the recent maneuvers by Premier David Eby’s government suggest that this commitment is not a bedrock principle, but a conditional convenience. By proposing amendments to DRIPA in response to judicial oversight, the Province risks transforming a historic instrument of reconciliation into a hollow shell of political expediency.

The current friction stems from a pivotal December 2025 ruling by the B.C. Court of Appeal. The court correctly identified an inherent friction between the antiquated Mineral Tenure Act — a relic of "free entry" mining philosophy — and the modern imperatives of DRIPA. Rather than embracing this clarity as a mandate for systemic evolution, Premier Eby has framed the ruling as "judicial overreach."

This rhetoric is legally concerning. To suggest that the judiciary "destabilizes economic development" by upholding statutory rights is to prioritize short-term resource extraction over the long-term rule of law. It implies that DRIPA is only applicable when it does not interfere with the Province's industrial ambitions.

Perhaps the most egregious affront to the spirit of the UN Declaration is the government’s demand that Indigenous leaders sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) as a prerequisite for consultation. These "contractual gag orders" are antithetical to the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. Silencing the very voices the law was designed to empower creates a chilling effect on democratic discourse and underscores a profound power imbalance that reconciliation was supposed to rectify.

A Manufactured Uncertainty. The Premier argues that these amendments are necessary to create "certainty" for investors. Yet, as the joint statement from over 100 First Nations poignantly notes, this is a fallacy. By undermining the legal framework that governs Indigenous relations, the Province invites a new era of protracted litigation. As the signatories noted:

"These actions do not create certainty; they invite chaos. They force First Nations back into the courtrooms to defend rights that the government had already promised to uphold."

The tragedy of this legislative retreat is deepened by the professional history of its architect. David Eby, KC, rose to prominence as the Executive Director of the BC Civil Liberties Association and a professor of law — a career built on the bedrock of transparency, judicial independence, and the protection of the vulnerable from the excesses of the State.

Today, we witness a disturbing inversion of these values. When a leader with such a pedigree seeks to insulate resource management from judicial review and mandates secrecy in matters of constitutional importance, it raises a painful ethical question for the legal community: At what point does a lawyer’s role in undermining the administration of justice become conduct unbecoming of the profession?

If the Eby government proceeds to strip DRIPA of its teeth, it will not only alienate Indigenous partners but also signal to the international community that British Columbia’s adherence to human rights is subject to revocation at the first sign of economic friction.

True leadership lies in navigating the complexities of co-governance, not in legislating away the checks and balances that ensure justice. It is time for the Premier to honor the spirit of the law he once championed, or risk a permanent stain on his legal and political legacy.