DRIPA is the 2019 law that ties B.C.’s laws to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Here is what it does, how B.C. got here, and what it means for the Crown land the public uses.

On 31 January 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada decided a lawsuit brought by Frank Calder, a Nisga’a chief who sat in the B.C. legislature as the MLA for Atlin. The Nisga’a had asked the court to declare that their title to their territory in and around the Nass River Valley, in northwestern B.C., had never been lawfully extinguished. They lost, on a procedural point. But six of the seven judges agreed that Aboriginal title existed in Canadian law, and Justice Wilfred Judson explained it in a sentence the Court was still quoting a quarter of a century later.^1,2,3

Fifty-three years later, B.C. is still working out what that sentence means for the land, and most of the land in question is public. Provincial Crown land is 94% of B.C. It is where people hike, hunt, fish, camp and ride, and where they drive the forest service roads that get them there. It is open to them by default. Even land the Province has set aside for transfer to a First Nation is, in its own words, Crown land that “can be used for activities like hiking, hunting, and fishing until transfer.”^4,5,6

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, known as DRIPA, is B.C.’s newest answer to the question Calder raised. This guide explains what the law says in plain terms, how B.C. got here, and why it matters for 30 by 30, the promise to protect 30% of the province by 2030. Reconciliation is a legal obligation under the Constitution and a moral one. The question for anyone who uses the backcountry is a practical one: when land is shared, protected or handed over, is the public’s way in written down?

01 DRIPA is a short B.C. law that makes a UN declaration the yardstick for the province’s other laws. Four of its ten sections do most of the work.

The yardstick is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the UN General Assembly adopted on 13 September 2007 by 143 votes to 4. Canada was one of the four against at the time. The Declaration has 46 articles. Two of them matter most for land. Article 26 says Indigenous peoples “have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources” they hold by traditional ownership or use. Article 32 says governments must consult them “in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources.”^7,8

That phrase is the source of a term you will hear often: free, prior and informed consent. In plain language it means a First Nation is asked before a decision is made, is given the full picture, and agrees without pressure. Article 19 applies the same idea to new laws and regulations. The Declaration was adopted as a resolution of the General Assembly, and on its own it does not bind any country. DRIPA is how B.C. chose to give it weight at home.^8,9

The Act itself is ten short sections, with the Declaration printed in full as its Schedule. Here are those four, with the rights clause and the reading rule that go with them, in plain language and in the law’s own words.^8,10

1. s. 3Every law

   B.C. must bring its laws into line with the Declaration.

   Working with Indigenous peoples, “the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” The Act sets no deadline.

2. s. 4Action plan

   The government must publish a plan to meet the Declaration’s goals, and report on it every year.

   “The government must prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.” The first plan, in March 2022, set out 89 actions.

3. s. 6Agreements

   Ministers may sign agreements with Indigenous governments.

   A cabinet minister “may enter into an agreement with an Indigenous governing body.”

4. s. 7Shared decisions

   Cabinet may let a minister share a legal decision with a First Nation, or agree to need its consent first.

   An agreement may cover “the exercise of a statutory power of decision jointly by” the Nation and the government, or “the consent of the Indigenous governing body before the exercise of a statutory power of decision.” It must be published in the Gazette before it takes effect.

5. s. 1(3)Rights

   The Act does not take away from rights the Constitution already protects.

   “For certainty, nothing in this Act, nor anything done under this Act, abrogates or derogates from the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

6. s. 8.1Interpretation Act

   Since 2021, every B.C. law is to be read in a way that fits the Declaration.

   “Every Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration.” This is the line the courts have leaned on.

Section 3 is the duty, section 7 is the tool, and section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, introduced in 2021 by David Eby when he was Attorney General, is the reading rule. None of the Act’s ten sections mentions public access, recreation, hunting or fishing. That does not mean the public loses anything by default. It means the public’s way onto the land is settled somewhere else: in each agreement, each treaty and each protected area made in the Act’s name.^8,10

02 B.C. got here through fifty years of court rulings, a UN vote and a legislature in which no one voted against. Each step gave First Nations more say over the land.

Calder opened the door in 1973. In 1982 the Constitution recognized those rights: section 35 says “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” In 1997, in Delgamuukw, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Aboriginal title is a right to the land itself, and that “aboriginal title encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land held pursuant to that title.”^3,11

In 2000 the Nisga’a, Calder’s nation, brought into effect the first modern treaty in B.C. In 2004, in Haida, the Court held that the Province must consult First Nations even before their title is proven: “The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof.”^12,13

Then came the decision that changed the map. On 26 June 2014, in Tsilhqot’in, the Supreme Court declared Aboriginal title to more than 1,700 square kilometres of land, the first time Indigenous title had been confirmed outside a reserve. On title land, the Court said, “governments and others seeking to use the land must obtain the consent of the Aboriginal title holders.”¹⁴

By then the UN Declaration existed, and governments were deciding what to do with it. The minister responsible told the house the bill “commits us to an action plan and to aligning our laws with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples over time.” In the fall of 2019 it passed second reading 79 to none and committee 82 to none, and Hansard records that third reading was “approved unanimously on a division.” It became law on 28 November 2019.^8,15

03 Since 2023 the courts have been deciding what DRIPA actually does. Their answer has grown stronger, and it is still under appeal.

The first court to test the Act agreed with the minister. In September 2023, in a case brought by the Gitxaala Nation over mineral claims staked on land it claims, a B.C. Supreme Court judge held that the Act did not make the Declaration enforceable: “As such, UNDRIP remains a non-binding international instrument.”⁹

In December 2025 the B.C. Court of Appeal disagreed. “Properly interpreted, the Declaration Act incorporates UNDRIP into the positive law of British Columbia with immediate legal effect.” the majority wrote. It also held that “The consistency question raised by the appellants is justiciable,” which means a court can now be asked whether a B.C. law fits the Declaration.¹⁹

A separate case raised the stakes on private land. In August 2025, in Cowichan, a judge found that “the plaintiffs have established Aboriginal title to a small area on the Fraser River where they historically had a village and harvesting areas.” The area is on the south arm of the Fraser in Richmond, and it includes land the Crown had granted to others. It is a title case under section 35, not a DRIPA case, but the judge found support in section 8.1 for the view that the land title system’s guarantees do not override Aboriginal title. “In this case, the Cowichan do not challenge the validity of the private landowners’ fee simple interests.” the judge noted. B.C. said it would appeal, and in March 2026 the Province and the Cowichan said neither was seeking to cancel any private title.^22,23

After the appeal ruling, Premier David Eby said his government would, “if necessary, amend the Declaration Act to ensure that our original intention when we introduced it is clear.” By April 2026 his office and the First Nations Leadership Council had announced that “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.” The legislature was dissolved for the election in September with no bill to amend it.^24,25

The courts are not finished. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed in May 2026 to hear B.C.’s appeal in Gitxaala and has not set a date. Arguments in the Cowichan appeals are scheduled to begin in November 2027. The parties on the ballot are split. Lorne Doerkson, interim leader of the Conservative Party of BC, has said he will repeal the Act, and the BC NDP platform does not mention it.^20,21,26,27

We set out every ruling, every appeal still open and each party’s position in its own words, with the page it is on, in our in-depth piece on DRIPA.

04 On Crown land, DRIPA’s main tool is the section 7 agreement. It changes who decides, not who owns the land, and it says nothing about who may enter.

Most of what happens on Crown land needs a government decision: a permit to log, a mining approval, an environmental certificate, a tenure for a lodge. The law calls these statutory decisions. Section 7 lets cabinet share them. As the Province explains it, using IGB for a First Nation’s governing body: “In a joint agreement, the Province and IGBs make decisions together. Under a consent-based agreement, both the Province and the IGB must approve a project before it can proceed.”^8,28

The first agreement, with the Tahltan Central Government in 2022, covered the Eskay Creek gold mine, and in January 2026 the mine was approved under it, a decision that “required the free, prior and informed consent of the Tahltan Nation for the project to proceed.” In December 2025 the Province signed a joint agreement with the ‘Namgis First Nation on forestry on northern Vancouver Island, and in July 2026 a consent agreement with the Simpcw First Nation on a proposed copper mine.^28,29

The Province says the aim is “The intent of these agreements is to provide certainty and stability in statutory decision-making.” The land stays Crown land, and nothing in section 7 closes it. But nothing in section 7 protects access either. Its only mention of anyone outside government is the summary the minister must publish of “the local governments and other persons” to be consulted. If a shared decision closes a road or a riding area, the public’s way in depends on what that decision says.^8,28

05 B.C. has promised to protect 30% of its land by 2030. Its agreement says every new area needs the consent of the First Nations concerned, and it does not mention public access.

The 30% target comes from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed at the UN biodiversity summit in Montreal in December 2022. Its Target 3 is to “Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas” are effectively conserved and managed, while “recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable.” Canada has made it national policy.^17,30

In B.C. the target runs through one document, the Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation, signed on 3 November 2023 by Canada, the Province and the First Nations Leadership Council, with up to $500 million from Ottawa matched by B.C. It is where DRIPA and 30 by 30 meet. Its principles commit the governments to “act on the respective commitments and obligations of Canada and B.C. to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and Action Plan.”¹⁸

The agreement’s own annual report puts B.C. at 19.9% in the 2024 national database, so about a tenth of the province is still to be found. The gap can be closed with “any combination of federal, provincial, municipal, or Indigenous-led protected areas, and OECMs,” the agreement says, OECMs being other areas managed for conservation. Canada defines Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas as “lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance, and Knowledge.” As we have reported, the agreement’s 20 pages never mention public access, recreation or hunting.^{18,30,31,32,33}

Whether the public can use a protected area depends on what kind it is. A Class A park is set aside by law “for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public.” A conservancy is set aside, among other things, “for protection and maintenance of their recreational values,” but hunting is allowed only in those listed in the regulations. Canada’s definition gives Indigenous governments the primary role in an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area, so the public’s place in each one depends on how that area is set up.^30,34

Co-governed land can stay open when the terms say so. The Kitlope, on the central coast, is 322,020 hectares of rainforest protected in 1996 in cooperation with the Haisla Nation. BC Parks says “Kitamaat Village Council provides on-site Haisla First Nation co-management of the Kitlope through their Kitlope Watchmen program” from about May to October. Its page also says: “This Conservancy is open to hunting during lawful hunting seasons but is closed to grizzly bear hunting.” That is the point. The access is written down, and anyone can read it.³⁵

06 When the Province hands over Crown land, its own documents show the public keeps access only where it is written down. B.C.’s first modern treaty wrote it in.

DRIPA does not transfer land. Treaties and land-transfer agreements do, and the Province has more of them in progress: as we reported, leaked documents show it planning to transfer about 400 parcels of Crown land. The question for the public is what each one says about getting in. The Province’s own documents give three different answers.³⁶

The first answer comes from the Province’s transfers of Crown land to First Nations in the northeast, under Treaty 8 land entitlement and Site C agreements. After transfer the land is private or reserve land, though the Province says “The Province will keep public roads and provincial recreation trails open for travel through parcels.” The second is the K’ómoks treaty in the Comox Valley: most of the land becomes private, but public roads and major resource roads are kept out of it, and the fact sheet names places such as Sandy Island, “which would always remain a publicly accessible park.”^5,37

The third answer is the oldest, and the strongest. The Nisga’a treaty, the one that grew out of Calder’s case, wrote the public in: “Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government will allow reasonable public access to and onto Nisg̱a’a Public Lands for temporary non-commercial and recreational uses.” The Tla’amin treaty of 2016 goes further: “The Tla’amin Nation will allow reasonable public access on Tla’amin Public Lands for temporary recreational and non-commercial purposes, including reasonable access for the public to hunt and fish on Tla’amin Public Lands.”^38,39

The pattern holds across our reporting on the Province’s land deals. Where access is written into a treaty or a park’s rules, the public keeps it. Where it is not, access depends on whoever holds the land next.^6,36

07 In our view, every land agreement made in DRIPA’s name should say in writing whether the public can still get in. The first modern treaty showed it can be done.

DRIPA is B.C.’s commitment to give First Nations a real say over their lands, and the B.C. Court of Appeal has given that commitment legal force while the appeal is heard. Whatever happens to the Act after this election, section 35 and the title rulings remain, and so do the treaties, the shared decisions and the agreement behind 30 by 30.^8,11,18

What the Act does not do is speak for the people who use the land. In our view, that gap should be closed in every agreement made in its name: in each section 7 agreement that decides the fate of a road or a riding area, in each area counted toward 30%, and in each treaty and transfer of Crown land. The public’s access should be stated, in writing, before the agreement is signed.^5,8,18

DRIPA decides who has a say over B.C.’s land. Whether the public can still walk, drive, ride, hunt or fish on it is decided in each agreement, and it should be written into every one.

Frank Calder’s case began this in 1973. When his nation’s treaty took effect twenty-seven years later, it included a promise of “reasonable public access” to Nisga’a public lands. Fifty-three years after Calder, that is still the test for every agreement that follows, and it is the question to put to the next government.^2,38