British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) is encroaching on the democratic rights of British Columbians, according to a new analysis by Geoff Russ. The legislation, developed by the provincial NDP government and defended by the First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC), has moved beyond mere consultation into a system of co-governance between First Nations and the provincial government.
DRIPA, as currently implemented, allows Indigenous governing bodies and the FNLC-centered alignment process to shape laws, permits, land use, and the provincial government’s ability to amend its own statutes. Only a tiny subset of B.C. residents can elect First Nations authorities, yet the NDP has created a statutory and political process that gives these bodies significant influence over governance.
The Core Conflict
Democracy and DRIPA cannot coexist in B.C. if the legislation means that leadership bodies not elected by the general provincial electorate can veto or threaten a government elected by British Columbians when it tries to revise its own laws. The text of DRIPA has always contained the seeds of this conflict. Section 3 mandates that B.C. bring its provincial laws into alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Sections 6 and 7 allow agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to include statutory decision-making and consent before a statutory power is exercised.
The B.C. government’s own words indicate that, under a consent-based agreement, both the province and the Indigenous governing body must approve a project before it proceeds. This represents political control being exercised without accountability to voters.
UNDRIP’s Legal Standing
Article 19 of UNDRIP states that states should obtain free, prior, and informed consent before passing any legislative or administrative measures affecting Indigenous peoples. Article 32 says consent should be obtained before projects affecting lands, territories, and resources, especially those involving mineral, water, or natural resource development. Once given legal standing, UNDRIP can be used to constrain democratic governance.
For example, the December 2025 Gitxaala decision from the B.C. Court of Appeal found that DRIPA incorporated UNDRIP into all B.C. laws, not just future legislation, and that B.C.’s mineral claims regime was inconsistent with UNDRIP Article 32(2). Legal thinkers have declared that the decision elevated UNDRIP’s principles beyond mere symbolism, while critics have warned that it has turned those principles into a legal and political weapon.
Political Reactions
After either realizing the full consequences of DRIPA, or merely reacting to public outcry, Premier David Eby and the NDP government attempted to amend or suspend the legislation to weaken it. However, the FNLC and its constituent members—the B.C. Assembly of First Nations (BCAFN), First Nations Summit, and Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC)—have dug in their heels, resisting any changes that would reduce their influence.
Geoff Russ concludes that as long as DRIPA remains in its current form, democratic accountability in British Columbia is compromised. The co-governance model, he argues, undermines the fundamental principle that those who make laws should be answerable to the electorate.
