Back to all facts
Recurring talking point

Nobody votes for them except their communities. They have no obligation to the public interest, for the other 5.7 million British Columbians. And they are co-developing British Columbia's legislative agenda. From my understanding and my training as a lawyer, that's completely unconstitutional. [Also]: there's nowhere else in the world that has done this to itself. [Moyse referring to the First Nations Leadership Council.]

Geoffrey Moyse, KC, Global News
Retired senior counsel, BC Ministry of Attorney General (Aboriginal law section, 30+ years) · Apr 2026

Fact-checked - verified

Each claim is contradicted by primary sources.

(1) 'Completely unconstitutional.' No court has held DRIPA unconstitutional. The BC Supreme Court chambers judgment in Gitxaała (2023 BCSC 1680) held DRIPA's Section 3 did not create 'justiciable rights,' a narrower finding than unconstitutionality. The BC Court of Appeal overturned that reading in 2025 BCCA 430 and held DRIPA is valid provincial law with 'immediate legal effect.' Two levels of Canadian court have applied DRIPA; neither struck it down. See the receipt below for what Moyse himself wrote eight months before the Global News interview.

(2) 'Nowhere else in the world has done this.' The closest direct comparator is Canada's own federal UNDRIP Act (Bill C-15), which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2021 under Prime Minister Trudeau. UNDA is structurally the same as DRIPA: it requires the federal government to take measures to align federal laws with UNDRIP. No court has struck it down. Bolivia went further than DRIPA in 2007 when Law No. 3760 elevated UNDRIP's 46 articles directly to national law; the 2009 constitution then made Bolivia a plurinational state with extensive Indigenous-rights provisions. Separately, Indigenous-rights statutes that align with UNDRIP principles exist in other jurisdictions, including the Philippines (Republic Act 8371, 1997, which predates UNDRIP and is recognized internationally as one of the most progressive Indigenous-rights laws) and Norway (Finnmark Act 2005, transferring joint management of 96 percent of Finnmark county to the Sami under ILO Convention 169). Whether 'this' means UNDRIP-implementation legislation or broader statutory Indigenous-rights frameworks, DRIPA is not unprecedented.

(3) 'Nobody votes for them. No obligation to the public interest.' The MLAs who passed DRIPA 87-0 in 2019 were elected by all British Columbians; every party voted yes. First Nations chiefs are elected by their communities. Section 35 Aboriginal and treaty rights have been constitutional since 1982 and form part of the Canadian public-interest framework. The FNLC advises the government; it does not govern. The BC Legislature retains full legislative authority.

(4) Moyse and the Nisga'a Treaty. The BC government's own 2013 announcement of Moyse's Queen's Counsel designation credits him as 'one of the principal architects of key treaty provisions' of the Nisga'a Treaty and states that those provisions 'have become the template for subsequent treaties in B.C.' The Nisga'a Treaty, in effect since 2000, gives the Nisga'a Nation its own elected government, protects Nisga'a laws under the Constitution, and includes shared management of lands and fisheries with BC and Canada. In plain language: Indigenous self-government and co-management in BC are not something invented by DRIPA. They exist because of treaties Moyse himself helped build.

Moyse worked in BC's Aboriginal law section for over 30 years, retiring in 2022.

Full source details

Gitxaała v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

British Columbia Court of Appeal · 2025-12-05[2025 BCCA 430]

Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner) - chambers decision

Supreme Court of British Columbia · 2023-09-26[2023 BCSC 1680]

Letting the Eby government negotiate Aboriginal title is perilous

Northern Beat · Geoffrey Moyse, KC · 2025-08-13

Republic Act No. 8371 - Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA)

Republic of the Philippines · 1997-10-29[RA 8371]

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Canada)

Parliament of Canada · 2021-06-21[S.C. 2021, c. 14]

DRIPA recorded division - 87 yea, 0 nay (Rustad voting yea)

Hansard, BC Legislature (41st Parliament, 4th Session, Issue 299) · 2019-11-26

Constitution Act, 1982, Section 35

Government of Canada · 1982-04-17

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Bill 41 - 2019)

Province of British Columbia · 2019-11-28[S.B.C. 2019, c. 44]

Live tracker

Gitxaała SCC appeal tracker

Case timeline, leave-to-appeal status, BC government responses. Updated as filings become public.

See the full tracker

Share this fact-check

dripafacts.ca/en/myth/dripa-unprecedented-unconstitutional/

Cite this fact-check

Pick a style and copy. Attribution keeps our work cite-able and helps journalists and researchers verify claims.

APA
DRIPA Facts. (2026, April 1). No court has held DRIPA unconstitutional - the BCCA held it has 'immediate legal effect.' UNDRIP-implementing legislation exists in Bolivia (2007), Philippines (1997), Norway (2005), and Canada federally (Bill C-15, 2021). MLAs who passed DRIPA 87-0 were elected by all British Columbians. Moyse's own April 3, 2026 article said Cowichan's private-property outcome is not a DRIPA result. DRIPA Facts. https://dripafacts.ca/en/myth/dripa-unprecedented-unconstitutional/
Chicago
DRIPA Facts, "No court has held DRIPA unconstitutional - the BCCA held it has 'immediate legal effect.' UNDRIP-implementing legislation exists in Bolivia (2007), Philippines (1997), Norway (2005), and Canada federally (Bill C-15, 2021). MLAs who passed DRIPA 87-0 were elected by all British Columbians. Moyse's own April 3, 2026 article said Cowichan's private-property outcome is not a DRIPA result," DRIPA Facts, April 1, 2026, https://dripafacts.ca/en/myth/dripa-unprecedented-unconstitutional/.
MLA
DRIPA Facts. "No court has held DRIPA unconstitutional - the BCCA held it has 'immediate legal effect.' UNDRIP-implementing legislation exists in Bolivia (2007), Philippines (1997), Norway (2005), and Canada federally (Bill C-15, 2021). MLAs who passed DRIPA 87-0 were elected by all British Columbians. Moyse's own April 3, 2026 article said Cowichan's private-property outcome is not a DRIPA result." DRIPA Facts, 1 Apr. 2026, dripafacts.ca/en/myth/dripa-unprecedented-unconstitutional.

First published: April 1, 2026