BURST
Nearly seven years ago, the B.C. legislature unanimously passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
It was supported by the governing NDP led by then-Premier John Horgan, the B.C. Greens and the B.C. Liberals, the province’s right-of-centre party at the time.
Since then, that support has fractured.
In the Oct. 24 provincial election campaign, B.C. Conservative Leader Lorne Doerkson has said that repealing DRIPA is a top priority . NDP Leader David Eby, as premier, recently embarked on consultations with First Nations on potential amendments, although he has been silent on what they might be.
Other parties — including CentreBC — are calling for changes to DRIPA.
The concern, according to the B.C. Conservatives, which is now the main right-of-centre party in the province, is that the legislation has created uncertainty for First Nations, homeowners and investors.
The Conservatives have not said exactly what that uncertainty is or what they would replace DRIPA with, if anything, or how they expect major economic projects to proceed without a framework for working with First Nations.
“Lorne Doerkson will build strong partnerships with First Nations that deliver jobs and prosperity for communities across the province, and our platform will lay out how,” said a statement from the party provided to Postmedia.
Their full election platform has not been unveiled.
The NDP did not respond to questions put to them after the election was called on what its plan is for DRIPA.
In a statement, CentreBC leader Elenore Sturko said her party would move away from the NDP’s bureaucracy and legislation that is creating economic uncertainty, and added that it will continue to recognize constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.
The B.C. Greens, which have supported DRIPA, pointed to their previously published policy brief, which says the party supports establishing an expert-advisory committee on Indigenous rights, DRIPA and constitutional law to advise the government on legislative developments and making that advice public.
OneBC, led by Dallas Brodie, has called for a repeal of DRIPA, but party officials did not respond to questions about what would replace it.
Despite claims that DRIPA is affecting economic development, there is evidence of projects moving forward since the legislation was introduced and the type of joint-based decision making it is meant to foster.
This year, the Tahltan First Nation consented to the $3 billion expansion of the Red Chris copper and gold mine , which will add hundreds of permanent jobs at the mine, and create about 1,800 jobs during peak construction of the expansion.
The Tahltan also consented to a new $900 million open-pit mine on the site of the former Eskay Creek underground mine that closed in 2008, which is expected to create 800 jobs during construction and 800 jobs during operations.
In both cases, the Tahltan consented after joint-decision making and assessment with the province.
Robert Phillips, a member of the political executive of the First Nations Summit, which focuses on Aboriginal title and rights negotiations with B.C. and Canada, has said these agreements bring more certainty , not less, and jobs for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.
In response to calls to amend or repeal DRIPA in B.C., 100 First Nations and First Nation groups, such as the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs, have warned that such steps risk pulling the province backward toward a time marked by blame, conflict, increased litigation, and even real threats of violence against Indigenous peoples.
When introduced in 2019, the new law required the B.C. government to review and align all provincial laws with the articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the first province to take such action in Canada. The legislation was meant to strengthen consultation and co-operation with First Nations, foster joint and consent-based decision-making agreements and provide a framework for reconciliation.
Two years after the introduction of the Declaration Act in B.C., the NDP pushed through an amendment to its Interpretation Act dictating that every B.C. law and regulation must be construed as being consistent with DRIPA.
Soon after, concerns rose that the laws went too far, and peaked in December 2025, when the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in a case brought by the Gitxaała Nation that the province’s open-entry mineral claims system was inconsistent with the B.C. government’s implementation of UNDRIP .
It ruled that DRIPA obligations are legally binding and enforceable, rather than non-binding and aspirational.
Dwight Newman, a law professor at the University of Saskatchewan, says there could be legal challenges to repealing DRIPA, but they are not likely to succeed because of the basic principle that a parliamentary legislature can repeal past legislation.
Newman, a Canada research chair in rights, communities, and constitutional law, highlighted that repealing DRIPA does not mean that all Indigenous rights and Indigenous policy questions go away.
“So, parties that are proposing (a repeal of DRIPA) may want to say something about how else they are going to deal with those issues. They might want to do that now to inform voters,” he said.
In the meantime, a challenge by the B.C. government of the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that DRIPA obligations are legally binding and enforceable is headed to the Supreme Court of Canada.