Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentDavid Livingstone: Premier Eby is fuelling Alberta separatismB.C. premier lectures Alberta while DRIPA law and property-rights rulings undermine pipelines and Canadian unityLast updated 1 day ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Premier David Eby makes an announcement about suspending sections of DRIPA on Thursday, April 2, 2026 at the B.C. Legislature. Alec Lazenby photoLast month, B.C. Premier David Eby criticized host Danielle Smith for encouraging Alberta separatists at a western premiers meeting. While the agenda included lowering provincial trade barriers and other forms of cooperation, Eby said, “These topics seem at best confusing, if not totally awkward in light of the referendum question that Premier Smith has put forward.” Yet, Eby failed to mention the role he’s played in exacerbating Albertan frustrations with Confederation.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorHovering in the background is the cascade of recent British Columbia court decisions that are throwing private property rights into doubt. According to the B.C. Supreme Court ‘s Cowichan Tribes ruling last August, where Aboriginal title is found it is “a prior and senior right to land” vis-à-vis fee simple title (the most common form of private property ownership in Canada). What was once indefeasible title in B.C. is suddenly defeasible.This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againSome argue that the worry over property rights is overblown. After all, the Cowichan First Nation asserted they were not interested in taking anyone’s private property. But as Indigenous law expert Thomas Isaac, notes, such assurances are meaningless. The court declared that where Aboriginal title is found the province’s land tenure act is “defective and invalid.” The judge in the Cowichan ruling suggests that Aboriginal title and fee simple title can “coexist,” but she doesn’t state how that is possible.The entire province is subject to future land claims. Left unchanged, the ruling potentially undermines property title across British Columbia. This is occurring just when Canada is struggling to maintain its sovereignty and resiliency in the face of U.S. threats and tariffs. The net effect is massive uncertainty.Adding to the mess is the Declaration of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples Act (DRIPA). Two years after the B.C. legislature passed this aspirational document in 2019, then-attorney general David Eby amended section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act. The B.C. Court of Appeal declared in the 2025 Gitxaala decision that “the government must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of British Columbia are consistent with UNDRIP,” and that preparing and carrying out an action plan to address UNDRIP objectives should be a process that takes place “in consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia.”Back in December, Premier Eby told reporters at a news conference in Surrey, B.C., that the courts “seem to have some confusion” about “what was clearly intended when we introduced this legislation,” suggesting that the courts were not supposed to read it so strictly and it wasn’t supposed to bind the hands of the government. But in light of the Interpretation Act’s unambiguous language, it’s hard to imagine he believes that.Thanks to Eby’s amendment of the Interpretation Act, the court has determined that every law and regulation in B.C. must now conform to DRIPA It’s far from clear that this is even possible. Thomas Isaac asserts, “it is impossible to read every statute in British Columbia consistent with all 70 paragraphs of the non-binding UN declaration. You wouldn’t have a government or province if you were to do that.”David Eby has tied the B.C. government in knots. He’s effectively given a veto to 200 B.C. First Nations groups representing only five per cent of the province’s population.And it’s not as though these groups all agree. The Musqueam First Nation is joining the provincial government in the Cowichan Tribes appeal. They claim the Cowichan title overlaps with their traditional territory.And no sooner was a framework for a modern treaty with the K’ómoks First Nation announced than their neighbours, the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, began threatening civil disobedience. Here again, the treaty’s boundaries overlap with their own territorial claims.So the Western provincial premiers can gather to discuss issues of trade and cooperation all they want. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Premier Danielle Smith can even agree to a pipeline to the West Coast. But with DRIPA and the continuing uncertainty around fee simple property, these talks might not amount to anything.And that returns us to Alberta’s growing frustrations. After 10 years of the Trudeau government erecting regulatory roadblocks in the way of Alberta’s resource development, a significant proportion of the province is frustrated.Are there enough votes to force separation? Personally, I hope not. But unless the B.C. government repeals DRIPA and helps successfully appeal the Cowichan Tribes decision, the mess Eby helped create will further stymie Alberta’s plans to build a pipeline to tidewater. It’s no wonder so many Albertans are fed up.So the next time David Eby feels the urge to lecture Danielle Smith about encouraging the separatists, he might need to look in the mirror to see who’s really causing their frustration.National PostDavid W. Livingstone, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.