In 2019, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia enacted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act,[1] (“DRIPA”), which incorporated the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[2] (“UNDRIP”) into British Columbia law. UNDRIP is an international human rights instrument that sets out the rights of Indigenous peoples around the world.
Since its enactment, there has been uncertainty around how DRIPA will interact with existing law, and in particular, with existing labour laws. It is possible that DRIPA will result in the unique application of British Columbia labour laws to Indigenous individuals where such differential application did not previously exist. For example, in some circumstances, requiring that Indigenous individuals be bound by the terms of a collective agreement may now contravene DRIPA.
In Gitxaala v British Columbia,[3] the British Columbia Court of Appeal clarified that the enactment of DRIPA does not create or confer new substantive legal rights or obligations, but rather, it “affirms the interpretive lens through which British Columbia laws must be viewed and the minimum standards against which they are to be measured”.[4] Therefore, when striving to comply with applicable legislation, both employers and employees must interpret it through a lens that incorporates the rights and principles enshrined in DRIPA. However, where DRIPA appears to conflict with existing legal frameworks, novel issues arise that are not easy to reconcile.
An instructive example of such a tension was observed in the context of the Cowichan District Hospital Replacement Project (the “Project”). In July 2018, British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits Inc. and Allied Infrastructure and Related Construction Council of British Columbia entered into a Community Benefits Collective Agreement (the “CBA”) to undertake various major infrastructure projects across British Columbia. The CBA included a clause requiring that all skilled trade workers obtain and maintain union membership as a condition of employment. Similar clauses requiring union membership are often included in collective agreements to ensure all employees are protected by the union. However, this clause in the CBA had the unintended effect of barring Indigenous business owners, and particularly those with ancestral connection to the land being used for the Project, from being hired as contractors on the Project because they did not possess—and refused to obtain—union membership, as required under the CBA.
In response, a local Indigenous business owner argued that the CBA’s requirement to obtain union membership conflicted with Article 17(3) of UNDRIP, which states that “Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to any discriminatory conditions of labour and, inter alia, employment or salary.”[5]
The question of how Article 17(3) of UNDRIP should be applied in the context of British Columbia labour law gained traction and was eventually debated by the British Columbia Legislative Assembly at the start of 2023, following which, the Premier of British Columbia issued a Letter of Understanding and amended the CBA to “[provide] for certain opportunities for Indigenous groups on the [Project]”[6].
Going forward, Indigenous individuals were permitted to work on the Project without being union members, as was previously required under the terms of the CBA.
Ultimately, the Premier’s amendment to the CBA preserved the autonomy of Indigenous individuals without resorting to tribunal or court intervention. Although this expedited response by the government was efficient, it leaves us without the guidance of a binding decision. Therefore, it is possible that a tribunal or court may reach a different decision on this issue in the future. We note that the Premier’s decision to amend the CBA will likely at least be considered by the British Columbia Labour Relations Board or the British Columbia courts if a dispute centering on the application of Article 17(3) of UNDRIP is heard.
Given the uncertainty in the current legal landscape and the complex intersections between DRIPA and existing labour laws, we recommend that employers and employees who may be impacted by DRIPA seek legal advice regarding its impacts, including when negotiating collective agreements.
On a related note, employers and employees should also carefully ensure that employment parity exists between the terms of a collective agreement and any discrete employment contract entered into between a related employer and an Indigenous individual. For example, if compensation between an Indigenous employee and a union member is significantly different, a decision maker may find that the Indigenous employee has experienced discrimination under Section 13 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code.[7]
[1] Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SBC, 2019, c 44 s. 1.
[2] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGA., 33rd Sess, UN Doc A/RES/61/295 (2007) (accessed May 19, 2026), online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/Indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf.
[3] Gitxaala v British Columbia, 2025 BCCA 430.
[5] Supra note 2 at article 17(3).
[6] Community Benefits Agreement, BC Infrastructure Benefits Inc. and Allied Infrastructure and Related Construction Council of British Columbia, amended and restated July 1, 2025 (accessed May 19, 2026), MS5 of MS 57, online: https://bcib.ca/wp-content/uploads/Amended-and-Restated-CBA-July-1-202564859246.1-_Fully-Executed.pdf
[7] Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 210, s. 13.
