Juno News - December 09, 2025
Repeal UNDRIP, Fire Eby
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
185.63165
Summary
Another massive court ruling in BC, and this one could lead to an overhaul of much of our legal system. The BC Court of Appeal has drastically expanded the role of the courts to allow them to strike down BC laws for inconsistency with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hi, Juno News. Alexander Brown here back for another episode of Not Sorry. Thrilled to be
00:00:07.440
here. Thrilled to read all your comments. And while you are here, go to junonews.com slash
00:00:12.640
not sorry for 20% off. The situation in British Columbia, it continues to deteriorate. Was the
00:00:18.760
road to hell paved with good intentions or has this always been skullduggery of a sort? BC's
00:00:25.460
Court of Appeals put down a precedent-setting game-changer this week. With immediate effect,
00:00:31.120
every piece of legislation in BC must now seemingly be interpreted through the lens of the United
00:00:36.360
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, or UNDRIP. This was previously viewed as
00:00:41.760
a non-binding instrument, a virtue signal. But look where it's gotten us. And this could have major
00:00:47.400
ramifications for the rest of Canada. Surely we can't have the province run by 200 plus small
00:00:54.980
governments that have no democratic relationship to 95% of BC citizens. The economy will be
00:01:01.860
unworkable, the province ungovernable. Watch this urgent video from our guest today, friend of the
00:01:07.380
show and leading BC common sense advocate and commentator, Caroline Elliott. Another massive
00:01:13.280
court ruling in BC, and this one could lead to an overhaul of much of our legal system. The BC Court
00:01:17.880
of Appeal has drastically expanded the role of the courts to allow them to strike down BC laws for
00:01:22.960
inconsistency with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples known as UNDRIP. Now much of
00:01:29.360
UNDRIP is inconsistent with many of BC's laws and it's behind some of the most problematic policies in
00:01:34.780
BC like the secretive land agreements that threaten our democracy and our prosperity. This really means
1.00
00:01:39.900
that the court has now given itself the ability to determine whether provincial laws align with UNDRIP
00:01:44.560
and where that isn't the case, the court will now get to decide what action is required. This undermines
00:01:50.960
our elected government's ability to act in the public interest and could lead to some serious upheaval.
00:01:56.160
For those working in the natural resource sector, this means more uncertainty, less investment and more
00:02:00.960
job losses. For all of us, that potential lost investment means lower revenues to fund the programs and
00:02:06.560
services we rely on. It's another layer on top of an already unworkable situation in BC. Our government should
00:02:12.960
never have adopted UNDRIP in the first place because it's fundamentally inconsistent with our existing
00:02:18.240
laws and with our government's ability and duty to act in the public interest. The message I have for
00:02:24.160
David Eby is clear. Repeal your UNDRIP legislation or resign. Unworkable indeed. Through Trudeau era
00:02:32.320
sabotage, NDP malfeasance or acquiescence, a province with a growing land use crisis where lenders are being
00:02:39.680
denied loans under suddenly uncertain matters of property rights, it has now been pitched into even
00:02:45.680
further crises. The BC conservatives, at least, are finally stepping up. John Rustad has resigned,
00:02:52.400
months too late, and the party under interim leadership is calling for an immediate recall
00:02:57.120
of the legislature. To repeal DRIPA, BC's now codified interpretation of UNDRIP with immediate effect.
00:03:04.240
It's a start. But British Columbians have been well and truly caught out by the NDP's work,
00:03:10.000
primarily in secret and behind closed doors, that sought to limit the rights and bring their very
00:03:15.440
fee-simple reed property rights into question over the past few years. If it can happen here,
00:03:21.040
and I'm coming to you from the rainy BC Lower Mainland along with my guest, it can happen anywhere.
00:03:27.280
The virtue signals can come home to roost. And in breaking news as I'm taping here,
00:03:32.160
BC's 22nd Premier Duff Batullo was just removed from a bridge that carried his namesake
00:03:37.360
for an Indigenous title the public cannot pronounce. Well-meaning actors on this file who do exist,
00:03:44.160
have been boxed out by profiteers, radicals, and even initially foreign-funded NGOs,
00:03:49.920
like Coastal First Nations, which we explored in my episode with Brian Lilly over the weekend,
00:03:54.880
which is the name of an organization, not a legitimate assembly of Indigenous Canadian interests.
00:04:00.720
It's a mess. And British Columbians now poll overwhelmingly in their concerns on this file.
00:04:07.120
They're filling up assembly halls and events with major concerns about what this means for their land
00:04:11.520
rights, water rights, air rights, even charter rights. There can't be two laws of the land,
00:04:17.920
surely. And DRIPA is being positioned to supersede all else. That's not the Canada we can or should be.
00:04:25.120
We can find a path to reconciliation that doesn't involve selling out our population and giving
00:04:31.680
ourselves over to an industrial complex and dishonest far-left radicals. Join us for this
00:04:37.520
important chat. And first, a word from our sponsor. This is a campaign called Unsmoke. Look, folks,
00:04:43.840
it's time to modernize Canada's rules on nicotine. Alternatives to cigarettes like heated tobacco vaping
00:04:48.640
products and oral smokeless products don't burn tobacco or produce smoke. They aren't risk-free,
00:04:53.840
but the growing body of scientific evidence shows that they have the potential to be substantially
00:04:58.000
less harmful than smoking. Despite this, Canadians are banned access to critical information and even
00:05:03.120
some products. Nicotine pouches remain banned in convenience stores. And current laws ban
00:05:07.760
communication about the risks of these products compared to cigarettes. It's unbelievable. The
00:05:12.400
evidence is here. The tools exist. Canadians should have the freedom to know. You can learn more by
00:05:16.800
visiting unsmoke.ca. Our recurring guest and friend, Dr. Caroline Elliott, joins the show.
00:05:22.160
Caroline's with the Aristotle Foundation Public Land Use Society. She's doing vitally important work
00:05:27.520
in the common sense political stream in British Columbia. Caroline, thanks for joining us.
00:05:31.040
Thanks for having me on again. Now we have to stop meeting like this. I caught you at the sold out
00:05:35.920
public land use event last week in Vancouver, where you spoke to a full room of concerned British
00:05:40.080
Columbians who are witnessing UNDRIP and DRIPA, its Canadian interpretation,
00:05:44.560
bring into question their very rights once thought to be inalienable. What's the latest? Tell our
00:05:49.600
audience about this bombshell ruling and why should we all be concerned?
00:05:53.760
Well, look, so it's a complicated ruling. It's very technical. It can seem almost obscure in some ways.
00:06:00.400
It relates to the consultation required in the Mineral Tenures Act. But the actual bigger question is,
00:06:09.360
I think, probably more accessible to people and is more important in many ways.
00:06:14.240
So when UNDRIP, or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was first brought into
00:06:21.360
BC's laws, it was done through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA,
00:06:26.640
it was unanimously accepted in the BC legislature, something I've always thought was a mistake. I
00:06:30.560
don't think it should ever have been brought into BC law, primarily because it's inconsistent with many of
00:06:36.240
BC's laws. Now, the way that I think they squared that circle was to say, look, this doesn't change
00:06:42.880
BC laws, it just requires us to bring laws into alignment, kind of, and I think they maybe even
00:06:47.680
thought, as we see fit, right? Some wiggle room there where you really need the law to be the way
00:06:52.240
it is today. This judicial ruling changes that. It actually makes it an issue for the courts to decide
00:06:59.280
if laws are counter to what's in that UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
00:07:05.920
It's a big problem. As I say, many, many BC laws are not consistent with UNDRIP. It also removes the
00:07:12.080
ability of our elected decision makers to make those decisions about what to do when that's the case, and
00:07:16.480
it puts it in the hands of the courts. So it's one of those really big, technical, but very important
00:07:22.400
decisions coming down the pipe. Yeah. And your breakdown of this ruling,
00:07:27.200
I've been reading through your tweet. I'm going to just nuke the name here. Gitshala, Gitshala.
00:07:33.760
It highlights how UNDRIP now has, in Canada, DRIPA, has immediate legal teeth in BC. And the concern
00:07:40.000
would be, is this going to supersede our existing laws? What do you see as the biggest risk
00:07:45.840
to everyday peoples right now, property rights, something like that?
00:07:50.800
Well, there's all kinds of things in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
00:07:55.760
that are counter to BC laws, as I say. But some of them are things like, you know,
00:08:01.520
Article 26, where it talks about how Indigenous Peoples have the rights to own and use, essentially,
00:08:07.840
and the words are different, but effectively, the land by which they own by nature of it being their
00:08:14.000
traditional territory. Well, how does that translate into BC laws when the traditional territories of
00:08:20.320
British Columbia's 200-plus First Nations cover over 100% of the province due to overlapping claims
00:08:27.280
between groups? How do you square that? Something like Article 32, I believe, that talks about the free,
00:08:35.040
prior, informed consent of Indigenous groups before any projects can proceed within their lands.
00:08:40.400
Okay, well, how do you square consent, or essentially like a veto-style decision-making power,
00:08:47.600
as it's been interpreted by BC in many agreements under UNDRIP or DRIPA? How do you square that with
00:08:53.440
the ability of our elected decision-makers being able to make decisions in the public interest?
00:08:58.320
So something like the Site C project, which is a very necessary project, I think most people would
00:09:03.600
agree, was opposed by certain First Nations. Could a project like Site C actually proceed in today's,
00:09:10.320
UNDRIP world, especially if we're being bound now by the courts, to take that into account. So
00:09:19.520
Yeah, and expanding by the day. Look, doctor, there's obviously a leadership question here. Lenders
00:09:25.760
are already pulling back sort of post-Cowachan ruling, like in that Richmond building project.
00:09:30.880
How is EB's behind closed doors or cowardly hands-off approach to these court rulings,
00:09:37.280
already hitting families in the economy? And, you know, the BC conservatives have finally moved on
00:09:42.240
from John Rostead and are rallying strong into the holidays. What do you want to see from BC's
00:09:47.680
leadership, like in this apparent vacuum over the last few months on this file?
00:09:51.840
Well, the BC conservatives are absolutely right to have shifted significantly, I think,
00:09:56.560
since John Rostead's departure in calling for an immediate repeal of DRIPHA. That's, again,
00:10:01.440
did I explain this? It's the legislation that puts UNDRIP into BC's laws. So that's the right call. I
00:10:07.840
think that absolutely has to happen. It's an incredibly damaging framework in a country that
00:10:13.760
actually already has really well-established constitutional rights that protect the rights
00:10:17.760
of Indigenous peoples in various ways. Now, yeah, we're seeing huge uncertainty on the land base.
00:10:22.960
We're seeing concern around lenders pulling out of deals in Richmond. We're seeing all kinds of title
00:10:29.520
claims being made all around British Columbia on the Vancouver Island, in the interior, in Coquitlam,
00:10:36.080
you name it. And it's only going to keep happening. As I say to people all the time,
00:10:40.560
the Cowichan title ruling was not the end of something. It was the beginning of something.
00:10:45.120
It was the first of many. It actually wasn't even the first title declaration, but it's the first one
00:10:49.840
over private property. So we have a very complex situation here. It does require really strong
00:10:55.360
leadership. And what we've seen from the provincial government is an unwillingness to fight these
00:11:01.280
claims adequately in court due to a directive issued by David Eby himself when he was Attorney General.
00:11:07.120
It tied the BC lawyers hands behind their back when they were making their arguments against some of
00:11:12.240
these claims. That directive is still in place, by the way. He has not walked it back. So when we see
00:11:19.120
these other claims being made, we should be very worried about the case that the government's putting
00:11:23.360
forward. And there's a whole host of other issues, but I want to give you a chance to ask a question
00:11:26.720
before I keep yakking. No, that's why you're here. You're the expert in the room. And I imagine
00:11:30.880
that has ramifications for the memorandum of understanding as well, which I know that for
00:11:35.440
our listeners from coast to coast, probably particularly Alberta, they're thinking they
00:11:39.840
can finally get a pipeline to the Pacific Northwest coast here. And what they're seeing is, wait,
00:11:45.680
who's in charge? When it comes to these resource projects, there's even talk of great reporting
00:11:52.400
recently on this Tall 10 gold mine where there's these pre-vote payouts to alter the course of the
00:11:58.800
project. I mean, how concerning is this for resource jobs and for the so-called sort of Team Canada
00:12:05.440
recovery here? Yeah. And I mean, in that case with the big gold mine and the payouts, look,
00:12:11.920
mining is a crucial industry for BC. It's so important. And what the government has done is it's
00:12:16.240
walked into these kind of agreements with these different First Nations in the key critical mineral
00:12:22.000
mining area of British Columbia, actually the size of England, like we're talking a large landmass here,
00:12:28.480
and they're entering into these agreements that give all kinds of decision making powers,
00:12:32.400
including consent based agreements. And again, as I said earlier, like if consent is required,
00:12:36.960
it means the nation's approval has to happen before a project can be developed and before permits are
00:12:42.560
issued for that to happen. So when you enter into these kinds of agreements, you're placing essentially
00:12:49.040
a veto power in the way that the BC government has interpreted these provisions in the hands of
00:12:54.000
very small governments who do not necessarily share the same public interest mandate that the
00:12:58.160
provincial government does. In fact, their mandate is to represent the interests of their members,
00:13:02.480
not the interests of the broader public. That's their job and it's their duty and they do it,
00:13:06.320
I think, well in many cases. But here we are, right? So you have projects of national
00:13:11.440
importance, provincial importance, whether it's a gold mine or a pipeline from Alberta to BC's coast,
00:13:16.000
and then you have the government sitting there saying, however, we're going to place the ultimate
00:13:19.760
decision in the hands of very small governments with very small populations that may not share that
00:13:24.800
interest. Yeah. Now you have a major national post feature that came out last week and you nailed
00:13:31.440
David Eby's so-called atonement project for Canada's supposed original sin. Can you unpack how
00:13:39.440
this mindset is fueling these land use overhauls? Can you tell our audience a little bit about that?
00:13:43.920
Yeah, I'd love to. So look, David Eby has surrounded himself with advisors who are on the reconciliation
00:13:53.200
file, including his, I think the title is his special counsel on reconciliation, like a key person
00:13:58.560
in the premier's office who's earning a lot of money to advise the premier on what direction he
00:14:02.640
should be taking on all of these things. And if you actually go back and read what these guys have
00:14:08.080
written, I would say it's actually very radical. It's revolutionary, the language they use. They
00:14:14.560
talk about a utter transformation of human affairs. They use the, they use words like rupture and they
00:14:21.280
use the word painful change, sacrifice. These are the things they're talking about and they actually use
00:14:26.960
the word original sin to describe, you know, Canada's early beginnings and the basis of our entire
00:14:32.400
nationhood essentially. So, and so I think what's happening is, is a lot of these policies, like one
00:14:38.240
of the most common questions I actually get asked when I speak with business groups or even campus
00:14:43.280
clubs or wherever I speak, cause I speak on this a lot lately. I get asked like, why are they doing
00:14:48.080
this though? Like, it's not even good for them politically. This just seems crazy. It's not good
00:14:51.680
for the economy. It's not good for British Columbians. And the answer I give them is like, I think that they're
00:14:57.520
really committed to this very radical agenda. And it almost sounds conspiracy theorists to talk about,
00:15:03.600
but I encourage people to actually check out the article. I link to all the places where all
00:15:06.960
of these things have been written. So you can see the words for yourself and, and make that
00:15:10.640
determination on your own. Yeah. And it's not, it does feel like a conspiracy theory. And yet I had
00:15:15.920
Brian Lilly on the show over the weekend and we went into like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund
00:15:22.400
sort of degrowth playbook and it, it sounds too crazy to believe, but like, there is this whole
00:15:28.000
outline of like how we're going to help these like Canadian NGOs that we're going to fund, like just
00:15:34.160
absolutely sabotage resource development and, and degrow the economy. And so it's, it's the crazy is in
00:15:41.040
the wool there. It's the dye is in the wool. Like there, there is, I think there are meaningful
00:15:46.560
reconciliation efforts that have been largely boxed out in places by, by these radicals,
00:15:52.320
by these groups and, and by unfortunately the wrong leaders at the wrong time. Caroline,
00:15:57.920
you've been sounding the alarm on, on these potential impacts for over 15 years. Like it
00:16:02.160
was in your, your 2010 MA work. What, I like looking for positives here. Like what recent consensus
00:16:10.400
building on this file, you know, feels validating to you now? Like what are, what are you encouraged by
00:16:16.000
when it comes to maybe the public's response to this? Yeah. You know, when I first started,
00:16:21.040
like, it's true, I have been doing this for a long time and I started kind of innocently
00:16:24.880
enough poking around at the, the theory behind all of this, uh, back in 2009, 2010, when I started my
00:16:30.640
master's and, uh, and I wrote about it then just saying like, okay, but how does this actually relate
00:16:35.120
to like our liberal democratic principles, our democratic foundations, but also the public
00:16:39.360
interest, prosperity, uh, individual rights, uh, those kinds of things. And so that took me down
00:16:44.880
an interesting rabbit hole that, you know, I, I left, I, you know, when I finished my master's,
00:16:49.280
I went and did some, some other things and, um, and then ended up actually, I worked on site C for many
00:16:54.800
years, as you may know, and had some experience of what that, what this file looks like on the ground
00:16:59.920
there. Um, but, and then even into my PhD, so not to kind of belabor that point, but I have been
00:17:06.160
thinking about this for a very long time. And for a long time, I was not the only one, but there were
00:17:11.200
very few voices willing to speak up on this. And I think because even when you look at the, um,
00:17:15.280
unanimous adoption of UNDRIP in the BC legislature, there was a feel good sense to all of this. It kind
00:17:21.360
of like, what's the harm we're all trying to be good people. We all recognize as I do that there have
00:17:26.480
been some real injustices in the past and let's try to do what we can to, to make it right. And
00:17:30.960
it just felt so good, I think to a lot of people, but I kept thinking, yeah, but when you really get
00:17:36.800
down to it, like how do you square some of these really fundamental problems like democratic rights
00:17:42.080
for all British Columbians, like the public interest for all British Columbians, how do you
00:17:45.600
square that with, with decision-making being handed to very small groups that don't represent the
00:17:50.160
public interest and that don't, that we have no role in electing as British Columbians,
00:17:53.680
like you can't really do that. So that's why I was down that rabbit hole in the first place.
00:17:57.760
Um, it has been really good to see even, um, when I started speaking up on the provincial
00:18:03.280
park closure at Joffrey Lakes, just a wider segment of voices saying, hey, that doesn't seem right.
00:18:08.400
Like BC's parks belong to all British Columbians. Right. And then you move on to things like some
00:18:12.800
of these land use agreements and you move on to these, some of these court rulings. And I think
00:18:17.120
what's happened is the public has just gradually steadily become aware of the fact that,
00:18:21.120
you know, this probably isn't going to work. And so it has been validating, but it's also
00:18:26.720
important and I'm really pleased to see it. Yeah. And I think it's good to find the positive
00:18:30.880
there because especially through your advocacy, your leadership here, this now rates as a majority
00:18:35.840
concern on Canada's left coast. And it is a left coast, like the politically speaking and the fact
00:18:41.200
that it, that resonates even with a kind of virtue signaling voter base, I think is encouraging. And
00:18:48.080
you're building momentum against these trends. I, now I'm thankful that the BC conservatives are
00:18:53.920
getting it together because we have so many other domestic issues to solve for as a, as a working
00:18:59.120
parent and active community member on the North shore, what else rates for you as a pocketbook issue
00:19:04.320
besides, you know, just sounding the alarm on, on, on DRIP and DRIPA.
00:19:08.800
Yeah. And, and, and on that note, I will say it's, before I get into your actual question,
00:19:14.480
it's been amazing to me, the non, or the lack of like partisan nature to concern on that
00:19:20.320
reconciliation front and the direction that's been taken. I have people who I know vote liberal. I
00:19:25.040
have people I know who even vote NDP who say, you know, things don't really seem like they're going
00:19:29.360
on in the right direction on this. I have, I have moms in North Vancouver coming up to me and saying,
00:19:33.520
I agree with you. I'm worried. I have people in Kitsilano at the coffee shops in, in, in crunchy
00:19:38.880
granola mom, Kitsilano, like talking about your videos and like how they're worried about this
00:19:42.720
stuff. So there is, there is, you know, it, that, that is penetrating the market.
00:19:46.800
Yeah. And, and, and I think that there's an understanding, like this isn't just private
00:19:50.560
property rights, although of course that's like a huge piece of it, but also this is our economy.
00:19:54.880
This is, this is affordability in, in many, in a big sense, but yeah, there's, there's other issues
00:19:59.680
that people are talking about as well. People are, I think, worried about the state of this
00:20:05.600
economy in this province, which is partially due to, but not exclusively due to the reconciliation
00:20:10.560
file, but there's a whole host of other government policies that are standing in the way. You look
00:20:13.920
at those mill closures, right? Where we lost, I think it's 350 jobs so far on the island with the
00:20:20.160
crafted mill shut down. We've saw another 100 mile house. That's devastating. That's sending,
00:20:24.640
it's a very small community up there. It's sending people to the food bank. It's, it's awful to
00:20:29.520
see. And you know, it's, there's so many pieces to this. There's the fact that 70,000 British
00:20:36.080
Colombians left BC last year for other places in Canada, where they see more opportunity. Like
00:20:41.200
we should be the place where people come for opportunity. And instead we're losing the,
00:20:46.400
our brightest minds. So I, you know, I, I, there's a whole bunch of concerns that people have
00:20:51.920
across the spectrum from economic to healthcare, to everything else, to public safety, to drug policy.
00:20:57.360
It's hard to know where to begin. Uh, but this province is, um, on the wrong track on a lot of
00:21:03.920
Yeah. I, I seemingly bucked that trend. I arrived here, I guess, to do some
00:21:08.000
on the ground reporting on, on sheer calamity. And so if you could pitch a common sense reform,
00:21:14.960
say to the balance reconciliation with a kind of temper tempering of what I call reconciliation
00:21:20.800
incorporated, what would it look like to protect indigenous rights and all British Columbians'
00:21:26.640
rights and interests? Is it as simple as repealing DRIPA and starting over? Is it firming up treaties
00:21:32.800
that are outstanding or is it just punting David Eby and the degrowth anti-civilizational left from office?
00:21:39.200
Well, certainly the last one is a must do, uh, but it's not the only one punting David Eby and his
00:21:46.080
crowd from office, as I think the public is going to be eager to do in the next election,
00:21:50.400
um, is, is necessary to do the things, uh, that we need to do. So, uh, do we need to repeal DRIPA?
00:21:57.360
Absolutely. We have to, it's a must do as well, but there's more, I mean, there's countless agreements
00:22:02.320
that have been signed that very irresponsibly take away government's ability to act in the public
00:22:07.520
interest. We need to walk those back to make sure that government can still make decisions in the
0.90
00:22:11.520
public interest. Um, and they're all over the province, these agreements, but you have to walk
00:22:15.440
those back. Uh, I think we want to get back to, um, you know, we have to accept the fact and, and, and
00:22:20.880
be aware of the fact that we live within a, we operate within a constitutional framework in Canada
00:22:26.000
under section 35, which guides this whole issue. Um, and we need to, um, I think get back to that,
00:22:32.960
which required consultation where, you know, consultation with affected indigenous groups for
00:22:37.440
for projects that affect them accommodation where necessary. Um, you know, and you have to prove in
00:22:43.520
courts the depth of your consultation. Like this is not just, um, like, you know, feel good stuff.
00:22:48.800
It's, it's meaningful. Uh, but at the end of the day and the case law since 1982, when our constitution
00:22:54.480
was adopted, um, has been clear government needs to be able to make decisions in the public interest.
00:23:00.720
And we have to get back to that. And I think we can.
00:23:03.600
Wise words from our resident BC political expert, Dr. Caroline Elliott. Thanks for joining us.