In 2019 not one MLA voted against DRIPA. Now the courts have given it legal force, three parties on the ballot would repeal it, and the NDP’s platform does not mention it.

Late on the afternoon of 26 November 2019, in the fifth day of committee debate on Bill 41, the B.C. Liberal MLA Michael de Jong read the minister’s own words back to him. “I just want to be clear. Bill 41 does not bring UNDRIP into legal force and effect.” the minister had said, and again: “To be clear, it doesn’t give legal force and effect.” Scott Fraser, then the NDP Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, had already told the house what the bill would do: “To be clear, this bill doesn’t in itself change the laws of B.C. It commits us to an action plan and to aligning our laws with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples over time.”¹

At 6:20 p.m. the committee divided, and not one MLA voted no. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was read a third time and passed, and Hansard records the applause.^1,2

Six years later, the B.C. Court of Appeal read the Act differently, and the gap between those two sentences is where B.C. finds itself on the eve of the 2026 election. Two of the five parties seeking votes would repeal the Act outright, a third would repeal and replace it, one would carry it further, and the governing NDP has left it out of its platform.

For anyone who hunts, fishes, rides, hikes or camps, this is not a lawyers’ quarrel. Provincial Crown land is 94% of B.C., and it is open to the public by default.⁴ It is the land on which DRIPA’s decision-making agreements, the courts’ title rulings and the treaty tables all operate. When the Province transfers it, its own answer on access is short: “After transfer, the land is no longer public.”⁵ Here is how DRIPA came to be, what the courts have done with it, what each party would do with it, and what all of it means for the public’s way onto the land.

New to DRIPA? Our plain-language guide explains what the Act does, how B.C. got here and what it means for the Crown land the public uses. This piece sets out the record in full: the vote, the rulings, the appeals and each party’s position.

01 In 2019 not one MLA voted against DRIPA. Its own minister told the house the bill did not, in itself, change B.C.’s laws.

The Declaration the Act adopts is older than the Act by twelve years. The UN General Assembly adopted it on 13 September 2007 by 143 votes to 4, with Canada among the four against.⁶ Ottawa became a full supporter on 10 May 2016, “without qualification.”⁷

B.C. moved first among the provinces. Bill 41 was introduced on 24 October 2019, and the house set aside its business so that four First Nations leaders could address it. Second reading carried 79 to none on 31 October. On 26 November the committee motion to report the bill carried 82 to none, with the Opposition leader, Andrew Wilkinson, and John Rustad, who later led the Conservative Party of BC, among the yeas. Royal Assent followed on 28 November.²

Two years later the Act’s reach grew. In November 2021, as Attorney General, David Eby carried an amendment to the Interpretation Act that added section 8.1: “Every Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration.” That single sentence is the one the courts would later lean on.¹⁰ Ottawa had passed its own version of the Act that June.⁹

02 The Act is ten short sections. Section 3 binds the government, section 7 lets it share decisions, and none of the ten mentions the public’s access to land.

The whole Act fits on two pages before its Schedule, which reproduces the UN Declaration in full. These are the provisions that matter for the land.⁸

Section 3 is the duty, and section 7 is the tool. A section 7 agreement lets cabinet share a statutory decision with an Indigenous governing body, or require that body’s consent before a decision is made. The first decision under one came in January 2026, when the Tahltan Nation and the Province jointly approved the reopening of the Eskay Creek mine, under a 2022 agreement that “required the free, prior and informed consent of the Tahltan Nation for the project to proceed.”²²

Look for the public in those provisions and you find one line. Before negotiating a section 7 agreement, the minister must publish a summary of the local governments “and other persons” to be consulted. There is no requirement to consult people who use the land, and none of the ten sections mentions recreation or public access.⁸

The Declaration itself is about land as much as anything. Article 26 says: “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use.” Article 32(2), the article the Court of Appeal applied in 2025, asks states to obtain consent “prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources.”⁸

03 The 2022 action plan set out 89 actions. Its land actions promise shared decisions and road talks on First Nations land, and none mentions the public’s access to Crown land.

Section 4 required an action plan, and the Province released it on 30 March 2022 with 89 actions across every ministry. Its goal for title and rights includes “including the rights of First Nations to own, use, develop and control lands and resources within their territories in B.C..”¹¹

Action 2.4 commits the Province to “Negotiate new joint decision-making and consent agreements under section 7 of the Declaration Act.” Action 2.13 is the only one about roads, and it concerns roads on First Nations’ own reserve, treaty and title lands: “Identify and advance reconciliation negotiations on historical road impacts and road accessibility with First Nations on reserve, treaty and title lands.”¹¹

The seventh annual report, released on 26 June 2026, says work is under way on 84 of the 89 actions. It also says: “While no legislation to align laws with the Declaration Act was introduced in 2025–26, alignment efforts continue across government.” and “A recent Court of Appeals decision has raised questions about how the Declaration Act should be implemented.”²³

04 In 2023 a B.C. judge held that DRIPA did not make the Declaration enforceable. In 2025 the Court of Appeal held that it does.

The test case came from the north coast. The Gitxaala Nation, joined by the Ehattesaht First Nation, challenged B.C.’s online registry of mineral claims, which let anyone stake a claim on their territory without notice to them.^3,12

Justice Ross of the B.C. Supreme Court found on 26 September 2023 that the Province owed a duty to consult before claims were registered, and suspended that declaration for 18 months. On DRIPA he sided with the Province: “As such, UNDRIP remains a non-binding international instrument.” and “Therefore, I find that s. 3 does not call upon the courts to adjudicate the issue of consistency.”¹²

The Court of Appeal reversed him on DRIPA on 5 December 2025, two judges to one. Justice Dickson wrote that “The consistency question raised by the appellants is justiciable, and the answer is obvious: UNDRIP and the Mineral Claims Regime are inconsistent.” and that section 3’s duty is triggered by “It is the existence of inconsistency between a British Columbia law and one or more provisions of UNDRIP that triggers the Crown’s obligation to take action.” The court declared that the online registry “is inconsistent with article 32(2) of UNDRIP.”³

Justice Riley agreed that the Act brings the Declaration into B.C. law, but not that the courts should police it: “The statutory scheme is not built around, and does not contemplate, the identification and litigation of inconsistency in the courtroom.” The majority also read the 2021 Interpretation Act amendment as a rebuttable presumption that every B.C. statute is consistent with the Declaration.³

B.C. applied to the Supreme Court of Canada on 3 February 2026, and leave was granted on 21 May. The Gitxaala and Ehattesaht are the respondents, and on 14 October the Chief Justice admitted 33 interveners, including Canada and five other governments. Reply factums are due by 18 December 2026, and the docket says the hearing date “will be confirmed following a determination by the Court of its hearing schedule.”¹⁷

On 16 October, the Federal Court of Appeal read Ottawa’s version of the Act the other way. It held that “the UNDA does not immediately implement the articles as set out in UNDRIP but rather provides a framework for the implementation” of the Declaration, and it distinguished Gitxaala because the federal Interpretation Act has no equivalent of B.C.’s section 8.1.¹⁹

05 In Cowichan, a judge found Aboriginal title under land the Crown had already granted away. No party has asked the courts to take back a private home, and the ruling is under appeal.

Cowichan Tribes v. Canada is a title case under section 35 of the Constitution, not a DRIPA case. After a trial of 513 days, Justice Young of the B.C. Supreme Court found on 7 August 2025 that the Cowichan Nation holds Aboriginal title to part of the lands of Tl’uqtinus, a former village site on the south arm of the Fraser in Richmond.¹⁴

She declared that Canada’s and Richmond’s fee simple titles to specified lots are defective and invalid, and suspended that declaration for 18 months. She held that B.C. owes a duty “to negotiate in good faith reconciliation of the Crown granted fee simple interests held by third parties.” On fee simple, she wrote: “In my view, Aboriginal title does not necessarily defeat fee simple title, just as it does not defeat the underlying title of the Crown.”¹⁴

DRIPA is not the basis of the ruling, but it is in the reasoning. Holding that the Land Title Act’s guarantee of an owner’s title does not run against Aboriginal title, the judge wrote: “I find support for the view that the indefeasibility provisions in the LTA do not apply as against Aboriginal title in s. 8.1 of the Interpretation Act” and “To construe it otherwise would also be inconsistent with UNDRIP.”¹⁴

Private owners were not in the declarations. “In this case, the Cowichan do not challenge the validity of the private landowners’ fee simple interests.” the judge wrote.¹⁴ Attorney General Niki Sharma answered within four days: “We disagree strongly with the decision. British Columbia will be filing an appeal and seeking a stay to pause implementation until the appeal is resolved.”²⁴ In March 2026 the Province and the Cowichan chiefs said jointly that “neither the Cowichan Nation nor British Columbia are seeking to invalidate any privately held fee simple titles on the Cowichan Title Lands through the negotiation or appeal processes.”²⁵

Every party has appealed. CBC News reports eight related appeals, six stay applications to be heard in January, and arguments on the appeals scheduled to begin in November 2027.^21,26

On Haida Gwaii the Province and the Haida Nation took another road. In 2024 the Province recognized Haida title across Haida Gwaii by agreement and by statute, and the Act confirms and continues “an estate in fee simple” and the interests that derive from it.¹³

The rulings that frame the debate, from the Supreme Court of Canada’s first declaration of title to the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling of 16 October, are set out below with their citations.

Status as of 23 October 2026, from each court’s own record, except the Cowichan appeal schedule, which is as CBC News reported it.^17,21

06 Premier David Eby said DRIPA had to change. By April he had agreed not to change it before the election, and his platform does not mention it.

On the day of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Premier David Eby said it “potentially puts courts in the driver’s seat, instead of British Columbians,” and that the government would, “if necessary, amend the Declaration Act to ensure that our original intention when we introduced it is clear.”³⁰

The Canadian Press has set out what followed. On 20 January 2026 he said the Act needed amending. On 1 April he called amendment “non-negotiable.” On 2 April the government switched to a bill suspending the Act’s key elements for three years while the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal, and he made it a confidence vote. By 13 April the confidence vote was gone, and on 19 April the bill was off the session’s agenda.¹⁵

The next day the Premier and the First Nations Leadership Council issued a joint statement: “The Government of B.C. will not be introducing legislation to suspend or amend DRIPA or UN Declaration-related provisions in the Interpretation Act, in the spring legislative session.” They promised to find solutions “before the fall legislative session.”¹⁶ There was no fall session. The legislature was dissolved on 22 September, and no government bill to amend the Act or section 8.1 had been introduced. Two private member’s bills from Elenore Sturko, now the CentreBC leader, would have repealed section 8.1; neither was debated.¹⁸

On the campaign trail Eby said on 25 September, “We do have to respond to that court decision, it’s not up for debate,”³¹ At the leaders’ debate on 14 October he said, as CBC reported it, “It is true, we have had a couple of challenging court decisions”³² The BC NDP’s platform does not use the words DRIPA, Declaration, UNDRIP, Gitxaala or Cowichan.³³

07 Five parties are on the ballot with a position on DRIPA, or none. Here is each one in its own words, with the page it is on.

Quotations are from each party’s own platform or website; where a leader’s words are as reported by a news outlet, we say so.

Conservative Party of BC

Lorne Doerkson, interim leader

Repeal

• “Protect private property rights: Repeal DRIPA. Repeal section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act and NDP litigation directives. Restore the section 35 constitutional framework.” Platform, p.46
• “Restore equal access to Crown land and provincial parks: guarantee public access to Crown land, beaches and backcountry for all British Columbians in law, subject only to legitimate conservation and safety requirements.” Platform, p.46
• “We will honour constitutional rights and respect the duty to consult and accommodate where required.” Platform, p.47
• “The reality is that DRIPA has to be repealed” Doerkson at the debate, 14 Oct, as reported by CBC

^32,34

BC NDP

David Eby, leader

Not in the platform

• No position found. The platform does not mention DRIPA. bcndp.ca/plan, read 23 Oct
• “We do have to respond to that court decision, it’s not up for debate” Eby, 25 Sept, as reported by The Narwhal

^31,33

BC Greens

Emily Lowan, leader

Implement

• “Remove uncertainty and opacity that currently exists by implementing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act through legislation.” Platform, p.54
• “Call on the Eby Government to issue a formal apology to the Cowichan and Gitxaała for mishandling his government’s approach to DRIPA.” Platform, p.55
• “DRIPA has no bearing on private property. It sets out the rules for governments to do their homework, and bring up our legislation” Lowan at the debate, as reported by CBC

^32,35

CentreBC

Elenore Sturko, leader

Repeal and replace

• “In our first session, one bill will repeal DRIPA (BC’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act) and section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, and replace them with a new law built on negotiated treaties.” Platform, p.36
• “The elected legislature, not the courts, will decide how BC laws reflect the Declaration. Constitutionally protected rights and the duty to consult are unchanged.” Platform, p.36
• “If surplus land with a public use, such as a campus or public gardens, is transferred in a treaty, the agreement must guarantee that public access continues.” Platform, p.36

³⁶

OneBC

Dallas Brodie, leader

Repeal

• “Repeal DRIPA and declare UNDRIP to have no force and effect in BC” Priorities, 1bc.ca
• “Halt all voluntary transfers of cash, land, and control over public resources to band governments” Priorities, 1bc.ca

³⁷

Party platforms and websites as read on 23 October 2026. Page numbers are the printed ones. The highlights are ours. Portraits: the parties’ candidate pages. The Tyee reached the same reading of the platforms on 22 October.^{33,34,35,36,37,38}

Doerkson has been the plainest. Asked on 22 September what his top priority would be, he told reporters: “I will repeal DRIPA”³¹ His platform puts the repeal under the heading “Protect Private Property Rights,” beside the line that “British Columbians shouldn’t need a constitutional lawyer to know whether they own their home.”³⁴

Read side by side, the platforms differ less on the Constitution than the slogans suggest. The Conservatives say they will “Restore the section 35 constitutional framework” CentreBC says the duty to consult is “unchanged.” Neither repeal touches section 35, which no provincial law can, or the courts’ title rulings under it.^34,36

Two of them say something about access, and both put it in the same breath as DRIPA. The Conservatives would guarantee public access to Crown land, beaches and backcountry “in law,” and CentreBC would require any treaty that transfers surplus land with a public use to guarantee that access continues. The Greens’ DRIPA commitments do not mention access. The NDP has no DRIPA commitment to read.^33,34,35,36

08 Where DRIPA goes next depends on who governs. Here is what each outcome would mean, by the parties’ own promises.

Any repeal or amendment would still have to pass the new legislature, and the Supreme Court of Canada’s appeal in Gitxaala runs on its own timetable. No provincial law can change section 35 of the Constitution or a title ruling made under it, which is why the Cowichan appeals go on whichever party governs.^17,21

09 DRIPA, treaties and title rulings are three different things. On the ground, each one decides who can walk onto the land, and the documents rarely say.

The claims circulating this campaign tend to run the three together, so it helps to separate them. DRIPA is a provincial statute about aligning laws and sharing decisions. Treaties are negotiated under the B.C. treaty process, which the Public Accounts date to 1994, and are ratified by an Act of the legislature. Title rulings come from the courts under section 35, and title agreements such as Haida Gwaii’s come from negotiation.^8,13,39

Across all three, the pattern on this site’s record is the same. A leaked Ministry of Forests plan for about 400 parcels runs to 40 pages without mentioning public access, and forest companies could see it only under a non-disclosure agreement.⁴¹ The 2024 shíshálh agreement, signed before that election and announced after it, contains no term protecting access.⁴² Asked whether the public can see how such deals are decided, Christine Boyle, then the minister, said: “The simple answer is that no.”⁴³ And the $1-billion 30 by 30 agreement never mentions public access either.⁴⁴

When the Province wants to protect access, it knows how to write it down. The K’ómoks treaty fact sheet says public roads, highways and major resource roads are excluded from treaty lands, and it names lands that stay open to the public, while saying plainly that “Most of the land will be designated by K’ómoks as private land, with public access subject to K’ómoks’ agreement.”⁴⁵ That is the standard every agreement could meet, whatever becomes of DRIPA.

10 Four claims about land and DRIPA have gone around this campaign. Each starts from a real document, and each stretches it.

Four posts about land transfers have travelled widely this campaign. Here is what the documents behind them say.

Hatley Castle in Hatley Park, Colwood, 2006. The federal estate is proposed as Songhees treaty land, and the Esquimalt Nation has sued to stop the transfer. Photo: Smably, Public domain

A former logging road leading into Sooke Mountain Provincial Park, 24 June 2007. The park is the other one offered in the Te’mexw talks. Photo: Richard Baer, CC BY-SA 2.0

Discovery Island, off Oak Bay, with its lighthouse and the Olympic Mountains behind, 24 October 2024. Discovery Island Marine Provincial Park is one of the two parks offered in the Te’mexw talks. Photo: Chris Light, CC BY-SA 4.0

The Grand Canyon of the Stikine River near Telegraph Creek, in Tahltan territory, June 2005. Photo: GerthMichael, CC BY-SA 3.0

Two of the posts concern Te’mexw treaty lands around Victoria, one concerns Tahltan territory in the northwest, and one totals the land at every treaty table.

Each of the four is about land, and none of the documents behind them settles the access question either. The Te’mexw report is the frankest: most treaty land will be private, and the public will need permission to enter it.⁴⁰

11 In 2019 the minister said DRIPA did not change B.C.’s laws. The courts now say it does, and the public’s way onto the land is still not written into it.

Scott Fraser told the house in 2019 that the Act committed B.C. to aligning its laws “over time,” and that changes would come back to the legislature for full debate. Seven years on, the alignment has come from the Court of Appeal instead, the promised amendment never reached the floor, and the decision on DRIPA’s future now sits with voters and the Supreme Court of Canada.^1,3,18

Whichever way it goes, the land question will not wait for it. The treaty tables, the 400 parcels and the title rulings are moving on their own schedules, and the public that hunts, fishes, rides and camps on that land has not been given a seat in any of them. In our view, whatever a party would do with DRIPA, the test for the backcountry is simpler: will every land agreement be published before it is signed, and will it say in writing who can still walk onto the land?

Not one MLA voted against DRIPA in 2019. Not one of its ten sections mentions the public’s access to the land.

Ask your candidates both questions before Final Voting Day, scheduled for 24 October.²⁰