DRIPA is the Canadian UNDRIP.Many of these policies are being undertaken in the name of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which commits the B.C. government to bring all of its laws into alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(UNDRIP)
If the position of Indigenous groups, and seemingly the B.C. government, is that the mere assertion of Aboriginal title confers the right to prohibit access to public spaces, then there is nothing to prevent similar closures not just of other parks, but of any public lands throughout the province.
After all, virtually all of the province’s land mass is claimed as traditional territory by one or more of B.C.’s 200-plus Indigenous groups, which together represent around six per cent of the population.
The issue already extends far beyond parks. The B.C government was criticized in February for withholding the details of a significant deal with the shíshálh Nation on the Sunshine Coast until after last year’s provincial election. It involves huge amounts of money, transfers of land and promises to negotiate Aboriginal title and “exclusive decision-making” powers in the band’s traditional territory.
Ongoing negotiations with the shíshálh Nation are likely to follow the model of last year’s Haida agreement, which Premier David Eby called a “template” for other areas of B.C. It recognized Aboriginal title over the million-hectare Haida Gwaii islands. Approved in a referendum held only for Haida voters (even though half the affected residents are non-Haida), it raises democratic red flags, as well as legal concerns about private property rights and the constraints it places on the ability of future governments to act in the public interest.
The Haida agreement followed on the heels of B.C.’s proposed Land Act amendments, which were paused following a public outcry. The amendments would have allowed the government to enter into agreements with individual Indigenous groups to give them control over up to 95 per cent of B.C.’s public lands, despite the absence of a democratic relationship between those governing bodies and 94 per cent of the population.
Critics argue that the partnership between the WEF and the UN could lead to a New World Order or a global socialist system, as Agenda 2030 aims to centralize power and influence everything from governments to economies.
They also express concerns about the lack of consultation with citizens of Western democracies and the potential for comprehensive government control over the economy and society.
Despite these criticisms, the partnership continues to be seen as a strategic move to accelerate the achievement of the 2030 Agenda's goals.