We’ve been hearing a lot of conflicting information lately when it comes to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), Aboriginal title, the role of the Courts in B.C., and private property rights. The Premier of B.C., David Eby’s statements and actions of late are seemingly adding to the confusion. Let’s take a moment to refresh our understanding and unpack some of the historical and current contexts of recent debates around the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), DRIPA, and the role the Courts play in Government-First Nations relations.
What is UNDRIP?
UNDRIP is a framework that outlines the minimum standards for respecting and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada was one of four countries that initially refused to sign UNDRIP in 2007, concerned that it would undermine the sovereignty of the state. They later changed their position and implemented the UNDRIP Act in 2021, saying the purpose of the Act is “to affirm the Declaration as an international human rights instrument that can help interpret and apply Canadian law. It also provides a framework to advance implementation of the Declaration at the federal level” (Government of Canada, 2021). Implementation of UNDRIP at the federal level is still in process, and there has been plenty of heel-dragging.
What is DRIPA?
In 2019, the provincial government of B.C. enacted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). Some of the purposes of DRIPA include implementing UNDRIP into B.C. laws, supporting the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada, and recognizing and developing relationships and the decision-making abilities of Indigenous governing bodies.
Deciphering the Public Discourse
Now, following recent court decisions in B.C., in particular Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 and RAVEN supported Gitxaała v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430, the public discourse around rights and justice is being obfuscated. The B.C. government is shifting the narrative to centre economic priorities and how they can continue business as usual, instead of what the conversation is really about: the B.C. government acting in truly lawful and reconciliatory ways.
What we’re hearing: Recent court decisions have created confusion around what DRIPA is about.
What we know to be true: Gitxaała v. British Columbia clarified that DRIPA does, in fact, incorporate UNDRIP into the positive law of B.C. with immediate legal effect. This means that B.C. is obligated to consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples, and update inconsistencies between B.C. law and UNDRIP.
What we’re hearing: The government and judicial system work together, and therefore, court outcomes should “help” the government.
What we know to be true: A key role of the Courts is to implement a system of checks and balances for the government in power. There is intentionally a separation of powers within the three branches of government in Canada for this very reason. Read more on how Premier Eby may be overstepping with his critique of recent rulings around DRIPA from The Tyee
What we’re hearing: Court decisions should uphold the economic goals of the current government. According to Eby, “In the current economic climate where work is being done with First Nations to move various projects forward, ‘such dramatic overreaching and unhelpful court decisions as we have seen over the last couple months is deeply troubling.’” Read more in this article from The Tyee.
What we know to be true: Provincial and federal governments have implemented excessive and nonconsensual resource extraction practices on Indigenous lands since their very outset. Going right back to the Doctrine of Discovery, this has most often been done in direct conflict with Treaty and Aboriginal rights and title. The Courts should not be influenced by any ruling government’s current economic promises to businesses, and should be concerned only with the rule of law. Learn more with RAVEN’s own 10-part course, Home on Native Land.
What we’re hearing: Land in B.C. was purchased and therefore is owned by the government.
What we know to be true: B.C. never bought Indigenous land. And, very few historic treaties were signed in B.C., outside of Treaty 8 and the Douglas Treaties. This means that Indigenous Nations never surrendered their land or agreed to transfer ownership to the Crown. The designation of “Crown land” reflects Britain’s assertion of sovereignty, but Aboriginal title existed prior to that assertion — it’s now considered an Aboriginal right in Section 35 of the Constitution Act. So, in a sense, Crown title in B.C. exists alongside and “on top of” Aboriginal title in B.C. Underlying Aboriginal title allows for more sovereignty and jurisdiction for Nations who have proven their title to specific lands in court, especially around economic rights. Laws and regulations, particularly to get consent from the Nation for Crown-authorized activities, are typically negotiated as a result of Aboriginal title.
This gets a little more nuanced when we bring in the fact that governments can own buildings or land in fee simple (a form of freehold ownership), too, but the truth remains that Indigenous land was never purchased by the government. Read more in this article from Ng Ariss Fong about how property law works and how the government has taken on risk in how they have administered and sold lands that they have no lawful ownership of.
What we’re hearing: Implementing DRIPA or upholding UNDRIP will harm economic growth in B.C.
What we know to be true: Respecting Indigenous rights through DRIPA and UNDRIP does not prevent economic development, but rather helps to create more stable, predictable, and sustainable economic relationships. Projects and extraction that ignore or bypass Indigenous sovereignty or environmental limitations often create longer-term costs like litigation, project delays and shutdowns, environmental damage, and impacts on people’s health and affordability. Climate change itself is already driving up costs for families and individuals through food prices, utility bills, insurance, infrastructure damage, and more. Responsibly developing industrial projects and implementing proper consultation practices and environmental precautions – in cooperation with Indigenous Peoples – will reduce these costs in the long term. If the government can stop chasing short-term gains with fast-tracked projects, DRIPA has the potential to be a framework for building an economy that can sustain B.C. residents long term and maybe even make life more affordable for us all. For even more context, read this article on how UNDRIP is a pathway to economic stability from Ng Ariss Fong.
What we’re hearing: DRIPA and UNDRIP threaten private property owners.
What we know to be true: The concept of Aboriginal title has been around long before DRIPA was implemented. There is plenty of misinformation that stems in particular from the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General) 2025 BCSC 1490 ruling, that Indigenous Nations claiming Aboriginal title are going after homeowners, which is not their intent when pursuing title. In the Wolastoqey Nation title claim in New Brunswick, the Nation is seeking Aboriginal title to fee simple land held primarily by forestry companies, but also oil and gas, railway, and other companies — but the Nation has made it clear it is not seeking title when it comes to homeowners or municipalities. In addition, property law upholds purchases made in good faith. “Where a private owner has bought land in good faith, without notice of an Aboriginal title claim, courts will preserve that interest,” says Ng Ariss Fong in this article. In other words, homeowners are not at risk, but governments are at risk of being held accountable for benefiting from unceded and unsurrendered lands.
What we’re hearing: Reconciliation has no place in this conversation. According to Eby, “Reconciliation is the business of government-to-government relationships between the provincial government, the federal government, and First Nations governments. It is not for the courts to take over.” Read more on this statement in this CBC article.
What we know to be true: Upholding UNDRIP and DRIPA through the courts IS reconciliation. This is where the government has the opportunity to turn the work of learning Truth into the action of Reconciliation.
What we’re hearing: DRIPA is dividing British Columbians.
What we know to be true: Government and industry trying to bypass the rule of law is dividing us. The B.C. government and extractive industries are attempting to fan the flames of division, as implementing UNDRIP into positive law may mean slowing down and leaving room for “cooperation” with Indigenous Peoples when it comes to projects on their lands — turning short-term economic gains into long-term economic growth. Proper consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples must mean that their rights and sovereignty are being respected and upheld as the bare minimum. The application of UNDRIP reaffirms those rights.
British Columbians may be conflicted over DRIPA and UNDRIP, but this more likely stems from a misunderstanding of their implications. Most people are concerned about the impacts on their private property, which, as mentioned previously, is not related to the implementation of UNDRIP into B.C. law. Instead, the implementation of UNDRIP ensures long-term economic growth while balancing the needs of Indigenous lands, and keeping communities safe during the climate crisis.
If there is one thing to remember here, it’s that UNDRIP and DRIPA do not take away or infringe upon the rights of other citizens; they reaffirm the rights of Indigenous peoples and the duty of governments to protect and uphold those rights.
