Where Is BC Going With The Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA)?

The BC Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (“DRIPA”), and the related United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (“UNDRIP”), has attracted considerable public attention recently, especially following the BC Supreme Court rulings in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (“Cowichan Tribes“)¹ and Gitxaala v British Columbia (“Gitxaala“).²

In Cowichan Tribes, Justice Young relied on DRIPA in supporting her conclusion that the provisions of the Land Title Act that provide “indefeasible” title to private landowners do not apply to protect against Aboriginal title claims over private land.³

In Gitxaala, the court relied on DRIPA as an “interpretive aid” in addressing the “proper reading” of the BC Mineral Tenure Act and declared that the Province’s online mineral claim system used to grant mineral claims under that Act is inconsistent with UNDRIP.⁴

Background: DRIPA and UNDRIP

DRIPA, enacted in 2019, is BC’s legislative framework for aligning provincial law and government decision-making with UNDRIP. It imposes obligations on the Province to ensure that BC legislation is consistent with UNDRIP and creates mechanisms for agreements that would confer statutory decision-making authority on Indigenous governing bodies.

A key interpretive provision sits not in DRIPA itself but in the Interpretation Act. Section 8.1(3) of the Interpretation Act provides that “[e]very Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration [UNDRIP].” This provision was relied upon by the BC Supreme Court in both the Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaala cases.

Pending Amendments

The BC government has publicly announced an intention to amend DRIPA. Although it has released no public information about the substance of the potential amendments and has not consulted the public, media reports regarding leaked information suggest the changes being considered may be modest.⁵

A “Communique To First Nations” from the First Nations Leadership Council (“FNLC“) – which is published on the internet – indicates there has been numerous steps taken to engage First Nations on the proposed amendments. Specifically:

• The Province wrote First Nations on proposed amendments on January 29, 2026;
•  On January 30 the Province provided a discussion paper;
• The Province provided proposed options for amendments to those individuals who submitted a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) to the Province with a deadline of February 13 for written feedback;
• On March 9 the Province held an engagement session with First Nations;
• On March 23, First Nations were provided a copy of the Consultation Draft of amendments conditional on having a signed NDA;
• A technical session was to be held with First Nations under NDAs on March 27; and
• A follow-up virtual session with the Premier, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation was confirmed for April 1.

Interestingly, the Communique also indicates that the Consultation Draft goes beyond amendments to DRIPA and also proposes repeal of section 8.1(3) of the Interpretation Act.

First Nation Responses

The proposed amendments have not gone over well with First Nation leaders. The FNLC Communique states:

…In our view, the amendments will deeply compromise the Declaration Act. First Nations have indicated unequivocal opposition to amendments.”

Therefore, the Consultation Draft is unacceptable and the FNLC calls upon the Province to withdraw the proposed amendments. The process by which these amendments have been generated has provided no opportunity for meaningful consultation and cooperation, with extremely tight timelines for feedback, shambolic and insufficient dialogue meetings that have not allowed most Chiefs to speak, and a disingenuous “offramp” distraction tactic.

We urge all First Nations in B.C. to review the Consultation Draft and register opposition to the proposed amendments publicly…

Such concerns have indeed been registered by First Nation leaders in the media since the public announcement of the BC government’s intent to amend DRIPA.⁶

Members’ Bills Proposing to Repeal or Amend DRIPA

Two Members Bills have previously been introduced in the Legislature seeking to repeal DRIPA. MLA Dallas Brodie introduced the “Property Rights Protection Act” on October 29, 2025⁷ and MLA Jordan Kealy presented the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Statute Repeal Act” on November 19, 2025.”⁸ Neither secured enough votes to pass First Reading.

MLA Elanore Sturko has also publicly announced an intention to table a Members Bill that would (among other things) repeal sections 3, 6 and 7 of DRIPA, though no such Bill has yet been introduced. Those sections address the requirement to ensure all BC laws are consistent with UNDRIP, and agreements to confer statutory decision-making powers on Indigenous governing bodies.⁹

On a related note, on November 19, 2025 MLA Sturko introduced Private Member’s Bill M233 entitled the “Interpretation Amendment Act (No. 2)”.¹⁰ This Bill would repeal section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act (discussed above). It passed First Reading on November 19, 2025 and was placed on the orders table for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Constitutional Challenge to DRIPA

A constitutional challenge to DRIPA is presently is working its way through the BC Supreme Court. The challenge alleges DRIPA is unconstitutional and should be struck down in whole or in part for various reasons including:

• DRIPA is fundamentally about Indigenous rights and is thus outside the authority of a provincial government under Canada’s constitution;
• DRIPA is inconsistent with the existing Aboriginal rights regime under Canada’s constitution, which provides for a greater balancing of Indigenous and non-indigenous interests;
• Provisions of DRIPA that direct what future governments must do violate the principle of supremacy of Parliament. That is, a government cannot pass a law telling ^other governments in future what laws they must or cannot pass; and
• DRIPA violates the voting rights guaranteed to Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it contemplates Indigenous governing bodies being given governance authority over British Columbians that do not get to vote for those bodies in First Nation elections.

The BC government Response can be found here, and the case has not yet been heard in Court.

The constitutional challenge was filed by the Pender Harbour and Area Residents Association (“PHARA“).¹¹ More information about the PHARA claim can be found here.

Where Will it All Land?

It remains unclear where matters will ultimately land. The constitutional challenge will take time to work through the courts. Members’ bills generally face significant obstacles in a majority Legislature, and the only certainty about the government’s pending amendments is that whatever their final form, they face strong opposition from First Nation leaders.

As one of the authors wrote in a Vancouver Sun op-ed¹² in 2019 when DRIPA was first passed: while much of the debate has focused on high-level statements of principle relating to reconciliation and narrowing the socioeconomic gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians — principles that are broadly uncontroversial — the picture becomes more complicated on closer examination. The Act and the language of UNDRIP raise difficult legal questions and risks that it will be impossible for government to live up to the expectations that Indigenous groups will now reasonably hold, without fundamentally affecting the rights and interests of third parties. Those observations remain as relevant today as they were six years ago.

For clients with interests in resource development, land title, mineral claims, or any regulatory approvals in British Columbia, the following issues warrant close monitoring:

• Court interpretation of DRIPA and UNDRIP: The Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaala decisions demonstrate that courts are prepared to use DRIPA and section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act to reinterpret established property and resource rights frameworks.
• Proposed DRIPA amendments: The consequences of any amendments.
• First Nation legal responses: Given the strong opposition from First Nation leaders, any amendments are likely to face legal challenges.
• Members’ bills: Legislative proposals to repeal or modify DRIPA continue to be introduced, and their progress (or failure) will signal the appetite for legislative reform.
• Constitutional challenge: The PHARA litigation raises fundamental questions about the constitutional validity of DRIPA itself. The outcome could significantly reshape the landscape.

Clients should seek legal advice tailored to their specific circumstances as these developments continue to unfold.

Footnotes

1. Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490.

2. Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680.

3. Cowichan Tribes at para. 2258.

4. Gitxaala at para. 14.

5. The Canadian Press reports that the potential amendments will change the wording to promise “ongoing processes” to align “select” legislation with DRIPA (B.C. mulls plan to weaken DRIPA, in secret document shared with First Nations leaders | Politics).

6. The FNLC published a February 19, 2026 news release describing sources suggesting that DRIPA must be amended to protect private property interests in BC as “highly damaging misinformation” and rejecting the proposed amendments to DRIPA. See also B.C. chiefs say NDP’s changes gut DRIPA legislation, predict lawsuits (Vancouver Sun).

7. Hansard – October 29, 2025.

8. Hansard – November 19, 2025.

9. Elenore Sturko Post (X).

10. Hansard – November 19, 2025.

11. McMillan LLP is counsel to PHARA in this litigation.

12. Robin Junger: B.C.’s new UNDRIP act — more questions than answers (Vancouver Sun).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.