A recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the federal government and Alberta regarding a potential new oil pipeline to the West Coast has reignited discussions about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Critics argue that Canada should abandon UNDRIP in favor of its own reconciliation framework, specifically Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Opponents of UNDRIP point to its negative impacts, particularly in British Columbia, where the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was passed in 2019. This act aims to align provincial laws with UNDRIP principles, but critics claim it has led to detrimental effects on both the province and the reconciliation process.

Among the 46 articles of UNDRIP, Article 26 has drawn significant attention. It asserts that Indigenous peoples have the right to own and control lands and resources based on traditional ownership. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has established a more complex standard for recognizing Aboriginal title, which requires proof of exclusive occupancy as of 1846. This has resulted in Aboriginal title being granted to much smaller areas than those traditionally claimed. For instance, in the Tsilhqotʼin Nation v. British Columbia case, the Supreme Court awarded title to less than five percent of the band’s traditional territory.

In August, a B.C. judge ruled that Aboriginal title is a “senior interest” to fee simple title, indicating that the province's Land Title Act may not fully protect private property from Aboriginal title claims. This ruling coincided with an agreement between the B.C. government and the Haida Nation, which recognized the Haida's Aboriginal title over all of Haida Gwaii. As a result, private landowners in that area may find their ownership status precarious, dependent on the Haida's recognition rather than secure title under existing laws.

Another contentious aspect of UNDRIP is Article 32.2, which mandates that states must consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples to obtain their free and informed consent before approving projects affecting their lands. This requirement extends beyond the Supreme Court's established “duty to consult,” leading to confusion and delays in major projects of national significance. Critics argue that this is hindering Canada's economic progress as politicians grapple with the need for First Nations' consent.

The Assembly of First Nations recently passed a resolution opposing changes to the oil tanker ban outlined in the MOU between Alberta and the federal government. B.C. Premier David Eby has warned that lifting the ban could jeopardize billions of dollars in projects that require First Nations' consent.

Despite a recent poll indicating that a majority of British Columbians support a pipeline to the coast, critics maintain that UNDRIP, which was never intended to be legally binding in Canada, is obstructing the country’s economic development.