at the very end, she mentions indigenous title, and this is in fact a very limited specific situation where there is a good argument that indigenous sovereignty (if not title, per se) is a way out, because the area in question is outside of the douglas treaties.

first, the explanation in this video is rather bizarre; a head of state cannot just sign whatever they want, what they sign does remain subject to domestic law, and particularly insofar as it relates to the court's jurisdiction, in the domestic country. in canada, the way it's supposed to work is that the international agreement gets introduced into the house of commons, at which point it becomes domestic law, and subject to constitutional requirements. it is only after the agreement is "ratified" in the house that it gains any actual legality. so, if harper (or trudeau)were to sign an agreement, and the agreement were to be found to be unconstitutional, it would no longer be law in the areas under the jurisdiction of canada's law - the government can't just sign whatever it wants and then claim it's a contract and we're all on the hook for it. that's some kind of imperialist nineteenth century logic. harper wasn't an emperor; we don't even have an executive branch, in this country. nor is a country a corporation. he acts merely as a spokesperson, and can be overturned by the house, if it comes to it - even if that is only likely in a minority scenario.

fipa was indeed tabled in the house of commons, and is now a part of canadian law. so, if fipa were to be repealed in the house of commons, it is unclear what kind of legal recourse the chinese would have to claiming it's still valid. again: we don't have an executive branch in canada, so it was only law because the house ratified it, and if the house had not ratified it, it would not become law. so, can any country modify the terms of an agreement unilaterally? well, if they pass a law against it, they can - that's called democracy. and, while some quasi-judicial international body may order us to pay some kind of compensation for it, they can't force us to uphold something we've struck down in law, as that would be an infringement of sovereignty. democratic legitimacy trumps everything else, in the end.

so, that is one way to get rid of the fipa - to repeal it. we may be ordered to pay a fine, but we could do it. sure.

the other way out is to question if the government had jurisdiction to it, in the first place. indigenous title is not the correct legal idea, as it does not provide for real sovereignty, or the ability to override federal authority. but, the reality is that this area was neither conquered, nor was it settled, nor was it purchased. the actual reality is that the federal government really has no legitimate jurisdiction over much of british columbia at all, as it doesn't even fall under the area covered in the 1763 proclamation. the situation in much of british columbia, including most of vancouver, is, legally, best described as an occupation; it's not very different from the illegal israeli occupation of the west bank in terms of the rule of law, even if canadian soldiers aren't murdering people - or at least not every day, anyways.

so, if enough of the bc tribes could come together to make the argument, there may be some way to question the jurisdiction of the government over the area. this might be a s. 35 argument, but it wouldn't have to do with title. see, i'm being careful in what i'm typing, because the premise that s. 35 is even in force presupposes some kind of jurisdictional primacy in an area that was never ceded in any way at all. they may have to use s. 35 as a kind of trojan horse, but they'd essentially be making a kind of succession argument, which itself is linguistically imprecise, because they were never under the jurisdiction in the first place.

i believe this would be novel, and i'm not entirely certain how to do it. nor does this argument apply in most of canada, which was ceded in some way or another. there are also potential risks in requesting this much sovereignty - if they were to win it, they might wish they hadn't. but, there are some legal avenues here around the issue of sovereignty, in that particular area of british columbia, because there's not really a good argument that the federal government really has any jurisdiction, in the first place.