But alas, in this new era of walking together, the newly elected Prime Minister of Canada stated on October 15th 2015, "As a first order of business the Liberal Party of Canada in Government will implement the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights" see the two minute mark at 01:95 below: http://aptn.ca/news/2015/10/15/trudeau-a-liberal-government-would-repeal-amend-all-federal-laws-that-fail-to-respect-indigenous-rights/

On November 12, 2010, the Federal Government of Canada opened the door to interpet the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in a manner that fits within the Constitution of Canada. Below are excerpts of a few relevant cases but I seem to have lost the original citations; nevertheless: Canadian courts have increasingly used international law to interpret Canadian law and have worked to ensure that Canadian law conforms to international law, see Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1999), 174 DLR (4th) 193 (SCC); at para 70. See also, Daniels v R, [1968] SCR 517 at 541; Schreiber v Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 62 at para 50; Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alberta), [1987] 1 SCR 313 at 349 (per Dickson CJC in dissent, though not on this point). Para. 70 of Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1999), 174 DLR (4th) 193 (SCC): Nevertheless, the values reflected in international human rights law may help inform the contextual approach to statutory interpretation and judicial review. As stated in R. Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd ed. 1994), at p. 330: [T]he legislature is presumed to respect the values and principles enshrined in international law, both customary and conventional. These constitute a part of the legal context in which legislation is enacted and read. In so far as possible, therefore, interpretations that reflect these values and principles are preferred. [Emphasis added.] The important role of international human rights law as an aid in interpreting domestic law has also been emphasized in other common law countries: see, for example, Tavita v. Minister of Immigration, [1994] 2 N.Z.L.R. 257 (C.A.), at p. 266; Vishaka v. Rajasthan, [1997] 3 L.R.C. 361 (S.C. India), at p. 367. It is also a critical influence on the interpretation of the scope of the rights included in the Charter: Slaight Communications, supra; R. v. Keegstra, 1990 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697.