UNDRIP and DRIPA in British Columbia: What they are, how they work, and what’s changing

In British Columbia, conversations about Indigenous rights increasingly use two acronyms: UNDRIP and DRIPA. UNDRIP is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 as a global human-rights standard. DRIPA is B.C.’s 2019 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which commits the province to implementing UNDRIP’s standards in provincial law, policy, and day‑to‑day decision‑making.

United Nations General Assembly Hall in New York City
United Nations General Assembly Hall, New York City. Photo: Patrick Gruban (CC BY‑SA 2.0). Source: Wikimedia Commons.

UNDRIP in a nutshell

UNDRIP sets out minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well‑being of Indigenous peoples worldwide. Its articles address self‑determination and self‑government, language and culture, education and health, and relationships to lands, territories, and resources. It embeds the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for state actions that affect Indigenous rights. While the declaration is an international instrument rather than a domestic statute, UN bodies and governments—including Canada—use it to guide law and policy.

Canada passed federal UNDRIP legislation in 2021, which frames a national action plan and reporting cycle. B.C.’s work under DRIPA complements, but is distinct from, the federal statute.

What DRIPA does in B.C.

Passed in 2019, DRIPA made B.C. the first Canadian province to adopt UNDRIP in legislation. The law has three core duties: align provincial laws with UNDRIP (section 3), co‑develop and implement a five‑year action plan (section 4), and publish annual progress reports (section 5).

British Columbia Parliament Buildings in Victoria
British Columbia Parliament Buildings, Victoria. Photo by Guy Delsaut, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Aligning laws with UNDRIP (section 3)

Section 3 requires the province, in consultation and co‑operation with Indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure B.C. laws are consistent with UNDRIP. To coordinate that work across ministries, B.C. created the Declaration Act Secretariat in 2022, which supports co‑development and reviews of legislation and policy.

Action plan and annual reporting (sections 4 and 5)

B.C.’s five‑year Declaration Act Action Plan (2022–2027) lists 89 actions across four themes, from self‑government and title to ending Indigenous‑specific racism and improving social and economic well‑being. The province reports annually on progress; the most recent report summarizes work on the majority of those actions.

How decisions are made together: joint and consent‑based agreements

Section 7 of DRIPA allows B.C. and Indigenous governing bodies to enter agreements that make Indigenous jurisdiction part of the province’s statutory decision‑making. These can be joint decision‑making agreements or consent‑based agreements that require an Indigenous government’s consent before a specific statutory decision is exercised. B.C. documents these agreements and related Orders in Council publicly.

Two widely cited examples involve the Tahltan Central Government in northwestern B.C. The first, finalized in 2022, sets a consent‑based process for the Eskay Creek Revitalization Project’s environmental assessment. The second, signed in 2023, makes substantial changes to the Red Chris mine subject to Tahltan consent, with the legal mechanism tied to both DRIPA section 7 and the Environmental Assessment Act.

What FPIC means in practice

UNDRIP’s FPIC standard requires states to consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous peoples to obtain consent before adopting measures that affect them. In B.C., FPIC is operationalized by specific agreements or processes—such as DRIPA section 7 decision‑making agreements or Environmental Assessment Act provisions—not as a blanket, immediate veto across all decision‑making. Where an order and agreement prescribe consent, projects cannot proceed without it; elsewhere, the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate continues to apply under Canadian law.

Totem poles at Thunderbird Park in Victoria, BC
Totem poles at Thunderbird Park, Victoria. Photo by Cacophony, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.5).

How this fits the wider legal landscape

DRIPA sits alongside constitutional protections of Aboriginal and treaty rights (section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982) and case law that shapes consultation, accommodation, and cumulative‑effects analysis. For example, in 2021 the B.C. Supreme Court found that cumulative industrial impacts had infringed Blueberry River First Nations’ Treaty 8 rights, prompting new approaches to land management in the northeast.

Court guidance to date has also emphasized that DRIPA’s section 3 is a commitment to a process of aligning laws with UNDRIP, rather than an immediate, stand‑alone cause of action to invalidate provincial statutes. The province has published interim guidance and built the Secretariat to structure that process.

What to watch next

Ongoing work includes co‑developing legislative changes, expanding section 7 decision‑making agreements where appropriate, and delivering on the 2022–2027 action plan. Annual reports track progress and course‑correct where needed. For communities, local governments, and project proponents, the practical takeaway is straightforward: plan early, engage in good faith, and be prepared to work within consent‑based or joint frameworks where they apply.

Winter view over the Peace River in northeastern British Columbia
Peace River region, northeast B.C. Photo by tuchodi, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0).

Royal Proclamation of 1763 vs. UNDRIP: which is the stronger law, and which has the stronger words?

Short answer

As enforceable law in Canada, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 sits on firmer ground because rights it recognized are expressly referenced in section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982. UNDRIP is a United Nations declaration and, internationally, it is not itself legally binding; in Canada it operates through implementation statutes and policy. In British Columbia, UNDRIP informs provincial action via DRIPA (2019), but courts have said DRIPA’s general alignment clause does not by itself create enforceable, stand‑alone rights. In practical terms, the Proclamation is the stronger law; UNDRIP carries the stronger rights language—especially on free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

What each instrument is

Royal Proclamation of 1763

Issued by King George III after the Seven Years’ War, the Proclamation recognized Indigenous interests in lands and reserved unceded territory to Indigenous nations, restricting private purchases and requiring that cessions be made to the Crown. In Canada today, rights recognized by the Proclamation are shielded by section 25 of the Charter, which says the Charter cannot be used to abrogate or derogate from them.

Scholars and courts have debated the Proclamation’s direct geographic reach in what is now British Columbia; a split in Supreme Court reasoning in the 1970s left room for argument about application, even as Canadian law recognized Aboriginal title at common law independent of the Proclamation.

UNDRIP

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a General Assembly declaration adopted in 2007. As a UN declaration, it is not a treaty and is generally not legally binding under international law, though it sets minimum standards and guides interpretation. Canada enacted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021, which incorporates the Declaration’s text as a schedule and creates an ongoing framework to align federal laws and report on progress.

How UNDRIP works in British Columbia

B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA, 2019) commits the Province to align its laws with UNDRIP (section 3), co‑develop and implement an action plan (section 4), and allows consent‑based and joint decision‑making agreements with Indigenous governing bodies (section 7). The section 7 agreements can make consent a binding condition for specified statutory decisions.

In 2023 litigation about B.C.’s mineral tenure system, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that DRIPA did not, on its own, implement UNDRIP as directly enforceable law and that section 3 did not create justiciable rights to invalidate legislation. The Court nonetheless found constitutional consultation duties were triggered.

Where the words are strongest

UNDRIP uses directive language about consent: Article 19 says states shall consult and cooperate to obtain FPIC before adopting measures that may affect Indigenous peoples, and Article 32 requires consultation in order to obtain free and informed consent prior to approving projects affecting lands, territories, or resources. This wording is clearer and more expansive than the Proclamation on participation and consent.

The Proclamation’s language is strongest on two other points: recognizing Indigenous interests in unceded lands and making the Crown the sole intermediary for land cession—a foundation that influenced treaty practice and later Canadian jurisprudence.

Putting it together

  • Stronger law in Canada: the Royal Proclamation, because section 25 constitutionally protects rights it recognized from being undercut by the Charter, and Canadian courts have built a constitutional framework for Aboriginal and treaty rights alongside it.
  • Stronger words on participation and projects: UNDRIP, due to its explicit FPIC articles and comprehensive articulation of Indigenous self‑determination, lands, cultures, and governance.
  • How it lands in B.C. today: UNDRIP’s effect is mediated through statutes and agreements. DRIPA guides alignment and enables consent‑based decision‑making by agreement; courts have said DRIPA’s alignment clause is not a free‑standing basis to strike laws. The practical impact comes from negotiated section 7 agreements and from section 35 jurisprudence on Aboriginal rights and title.

References

  1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 25.
  2. CIRNAC overview: The Royal Proclamation of 1763.
  3. Collie, “Unsettling the Royal Proclamation of 1763: A Substantive Analysis of Section 25 of the Charter”.
  4. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Canada), S.C. 2021, c. 14.
  5. Schedule to the UNDRIP Act: full text of UNDRIP (see Articles 19 and 32).
  6. UN FAQ: legal status of UN declarations.
  7. B.C. DRIPA overview and DRIPA text.
  8. JFK Law summary of Gitxaala v. British Columbia (2023 BCSC 1680); see also Cassels and Gowling WLG.
  9. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014) overview.
  10. UBC Indigenous Foundations: Royal Proclamation, 1763.
  11. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (full text, UN DESA PDF)
  12. UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/61/295 (2007)
  13. UN Office of the High Commissioner: UNDRIP overview
  14. OHCHR: Consultation and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)
  15. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 44 (DRIPA)
  16. Alignment of Laws (Section 3) – B.C. Declaration Act site
  17. Declaration Act Secretariat – Province of B.C.
  18. Declaration Act Annual Reporting – Province of B.C.
  19. JFK Law: Overview of the 2022–2027 Action Plan (89 actions)
  20. Declaration Act Consent Decision‑Making Agreement for Eskay Creek Project (PDF)
  21. Declaration Act Consent Decision‑Making Agreement for Red Chris Mine (PDF)
  22. Province of B.C. news release: consent‑based agreement for Red Chris (Nov. 1, 2023)
  23. Making Decisions Together – DRIPA section 7 overview
  24. Yahey v. British Columbia (2021 BCSC 1287) case summary
  25. DRIPA section 7 Orders in Council list
  26. Department of Justice Canada: UNDRIP Act overview (federal)

Image credits

All images above are from Wikimedia Commons and used under Creative Commons licenses. Captions include author and license details; click any image to view the source page in a new tab.