When ancestry becomes a qualification, debate shifts from evidence to identity.
The growing use of political terms such as “Indigenous” and “settler” is dividing Canadians along lines the Constitution does not recognize. In British Columbia, the government has elevated these labels from legal descriptors to timeless moral identities, reshaping who holds authority and who it serves.
When identity becomes a source of moral authority, terms like “asserted territory” by First Nations begin to be treated as settled jurisdiction. Claims over public land acquire political force even where their legal foundation remains unresolved through title or treaty. Now consider what happens when the government itself describes much of British Columbia as “stolen land” and a “colonial mistake.” It casts existing law, private property, resource tenures, and public access as morally suspect by default. Decisions favour alignment with that narrative, not those grounded in statute or equal citizenship.
When the outcome has already been decided, legality is beside the point. Does the province retain authority over its lands? Under practices influenced by UNDRIP, the answer appears to be “it depends” – not on constitutional law, but on politics.
Premier Dave Eby insists BC’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) is consistent with Canadian law. If so, it should have nothing to fear from judicial review. Yet efforts to sidestep the courts suggest discomfort with having its scope tested. If DRIPA requires all provincial laws to conform to it, the implications are sweeping. All of the province is subject to overlapping ancestral claims, from foreshore and water to highways, public land, and even airspace. Aligning all legislation with consent-based frameworks is not some minor adjustment, but a full redistribution of authority.
Canadian law, however, is precise on this point: Aboriginal rights and title must be established through evidence or agreement. Until they are proven, claims to exclusive jurisdiction do not become law through repetition or endorsement. Canada has repeatedly rejected asserted sovereignty when it conflicts with constitutional order. Such rights either exist in law or they do not.
In a liberal democracy, the merit of an argument does not flow from race or bloodline. When ancestry becomes a qualification, debate shifts from evidence to identity. Indigenous legal status in Canadian law has nothing to do with anthropological origins. It is a legal concept, not a biological claim.
Read the full article at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute: Are we all settlers? How identity politics is reshaping law in Canada