When governments sign a document committing to obtain the free and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before approving projects affecting their lands or resources, do they mean it?
That is the question at the heart of the controversy that has plagued the B.C. government for months.
The document is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, or UNDRIP. The question is to what extent it has the power to shape laws in Canada.
The controversy over B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, can essentially be understood as the tension between two competing viewpoints.
One view, which has largely carried the day, is that UNDRIP – and the federal and provincial laws implementing it – are aspirational; legislative north stars meant to act as interpretive aids, but not capable of conferring rights or upending the status quo.
The other is that it means something tangible, that it creates actionable rights for Indigenous people that could affect how resources are used and how wealth is apportioned in this province.
And when this view prevails, as it did in two recent court rulings, it became an issue that shook the government to its core.
So how did we get here?
The story begins in 1851, when the colonial government set up a system of selling “Crown land” to non-Indigenous interests before B.C. joined confederation.
However, most Indigenous nations in what is now B.C. never signed treaties. This means Indigenous rights and title to land in the province did not ever disappear.
The Crown is obligated to consult with First Nations, as Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada are guaranteed under Section 35 of the Constitution.
This particular chapter starts in 2007, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People as a means of establishing an international set of standards “for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous Peoples of the world.”
Canada was one of four countries to vote against the resolution, alongside the U.S., Australia and New Zealand. The Conservative government of the day, led by Stephen Harper, was heavily criticized by opposition politicians and Indigenous leaders for doing so.
The concerns raised by Canada’s then-ambassador to the UN, John McNee, in his address to the General Assembly almost two decades ago will sound familiar to anyone following the news in B.C. in recent weeks: UNDRIP, including its provisions on lands and resources, was “overly broad, unclear, and capable of a wide variety of interpretations, discounting the need to recognize a range of rights over land.”
Three years later, Ottawa reversed course, supporting UNDRIP as “an important aspirational document” that would represent “a significant step forward in strengthening relations with Aboriginal peoples.”
The government fully endorsed the UN Declaration in 2016.
It wasn’t only Conservative politicians who warned about UNDRIP.
In 2016, Canada’s first Indigenous Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould told the Assembly of First Nations that implementing UNDRIP would not help Indigenous people in Canada develop their own independent systems of governance.
“Simplistic approaches, such as adopting the Declaration as being Canadian law, are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work to actually implement it,” she said at the time.
Signing on to an international declaration, however, is not binding. For it to have any effect, elected officials must pass legislation implementing it.
The birth of DRIPA
In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called on all levels of government to adopt UNDRIP as the basis for reconciliation in one of its calls to action. B.C. became the first province to do so through legislation in 2019. It was known as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People Act, or DRIPA. It passed unanimously.
B.C.’s Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Minister at the time, Scott Fraser, repeatedly assured MLAs that the act was aspirational in nature, meant only to provide guidance.
“Upon passage, there is no immediate effect other than as an interpretive aid on laws. It does not give legal force and effect,” he assured the B.C. legislature at the time.
Six years later, two judges reached a different conclusion.
The courts weigh in
Those rulings came into a world that looked very different than it did in 2019.
South of the border, Donald Trump had been re-elected and imposed significant tariffs on Canadian goods, sparking a trade war resulting in a national push to approve projects that would generate jobs and revenue domestically, reducing Canada’s reliance on the U.S.
Into that context came the Quw’utsun (Cowichan) decision in August 2025, in which a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled the Quw’utsun hold Aboriginal title over 300-350 hectares of land in Richmond, including around 150 pieces of private property.
The land was the site of a traditional village that pre-dated the establishment of British Columbia and Canada, given by the Crown more than a century ago to largely absentee settlers. The case has raised questions about how private property rights and Aboriginal title co-exist.
Then in December came the Gitxaala decision, which was about mineral rights.
In that case, the Gitxaala First Nation of northwestern B.C. and the Ehattesaht First Nation of northern Vancouver Island argued the province’s legislation for granting mineral rights, whereby anyone can stake a claim on Crown, private or Indigenous land without consulting First Nations, was inconsistent with UNDRIP and by extension, DRIPA.
The B.C. Supreme Court justice who initially heard the case ruled the government has a duty to consult First Nations about such claims, but that the proper remedy was a declaration to this effect.
That decision found DRIPA “does not implement UNDRIP into the domestic law of B.C.” and “does not create justiceable rights.”
The B.C. Court of Appeal disagreed.
In reaching that conclusion, two of the three judges noted the language of DRIPA is obligatory and imperative.
“In consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration (emphasis added),” the Court of Appeal decision reads.
The justices noted similar language in the province’s Interpretation Act, which instructs the government on how to implement laws.
It was amended in 2021 by then-attorney general David Eby to include the following clause:
“Every Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration.”
Premier David Eby has been widely criticized for his handling of his attempt to change the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. To hear his reasoning and response to critics, CBC’s Stephen Quinn spoke with Eby about his leadership and his approach to Indigenous relations.
Both rulings took the position that despite 175 years of selling land in B.C., Indigenous rights and title have effectively been ignored, but never extinguished.
The dissenting judge in Gitxaala argued DRIPA only applies to legislators and does not give courts a role in determining questions of inconsistency between UNDRIP and B.C. laws, a view aligned with that of the B.C. government.
But the majority ruled the courts do have jurisdiction, and found the province’s online system for registration of mineral claims without requiring prior consultation with affected Indigenous people is inconsistent with UNDRIP.
The fallout
The reaction was swift.
The B.C. government appealed both rulings and Premier David Eby vowed to amend DRIPA.
The B.C. Conservatives called for DRIPA to be repealed altogether.
The worry was the ruling set a precedent that could be used by other First Nations in court to upend B.C. laws affecting resource development, among other things.
“There are hundreds of laws in British Columbia that have direct bearing on Indigenous people in this province,” Eby told CBC’s The Early Edition, noting that it took six months and $3 million to address the issues with just one law.
“When you amplify that across all the laws in British Columbia, plus every statutory decision that’s made in the province, it is simply impossible for the government to do the work together with First Nations in a way that would be meaningful and effective.”
Earlier this month, the government shared with First Nations leaders amendments to DRIPA that would have suspended some of that imperative language in the court ruling – specifically the clause requiring the government to “take all measures necessary” to ensure B.C. laws are consistent with UNDRIP.
Another amendment would have changed the stated purpose of DRIPA from applying UNDRIP to the laws of B.C. to working “towards aligning enactments with [UNDRIP].”
Those amendments were met with staunch opposition from the First Nations Leadership Council, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, as well as within Eby’s own NDP caucus.
‘Incredibly challenging’
In the end, the government backed down.
Earlier this week, Eby announced the government would work with First Nations to develop a joint approach to addressing the government’s concerns with DRIPA before the fall session of the legislature begins in October.
That plan, too, has its critics. They include representatives of industry looking to attract investment to launch major projects, said Stewart Muir, President and CEO of Resource Works, which advocates for natural resource development in B.C.
B.C. Premier David Eby accepted responsibility for his handling of tabling legislation to pause parts of the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). Eby says he decided not to table the amendments after prioritizing First Nations’ concerns.
Large industrial employers and property developers are looking for clarity on what the laws are in B.C. around things like land title and mineral claim rights, Muir told CBC’s The Early Edition.
“This is something that I think everyone in those areas wanted quick solutions to. Punting it by six months is going to create uncertainty.”
As for Eby, he says the previous months have taken a toll.
“This is the hardest issue I have had to take on as premier,” he said.
“It is incredibly challenging.”