The Province is proposing to amend its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). Here’s what you need to know.
Q: Why is the Province trying to change DRIPA?
The Province is reacting to a decision called Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner) (Gitxaala), which the BC Court of Appeal (BCCA) released in December 2025.
Q: What happened in Gitxaala?
At trial in the BC Supreme Court, the Gitxaala and Ehattesaht First Nations argued that the Province’s Mineral Tenure Act (MTA) was inconsistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The MTA has not been meaningfully updated since the Gold Rush era and it allowed companies and individuals to acquire mineral rights in First Nations’ territories without consultation, consent, or even notification of the impacted Nations. First Nations and other advocates have been calling for the Province to reform the MTA for decades, and the Province has consistently failed to respond to those requests.
The trial judge agreed with Gitxaala and Ehattesaht that the Province’s mining laws breached the Crown’s duty to consult under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The trial judge gave the Province 18 months to consult and design a mineral tenure regime that allows for consultation. This was a big victory for First Nations. However, the trial judge also held that section 3 of DRIPA, which requires that the Province take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with UNDRIP, does not call upon the courts to adjudicate the issue of consistency. In other words, the trial judge held that section 3 does not allow for the courts to be involved in determining whether the Province’s laws are or are not consistent with UNDRIP. Gitxaala and Ehattesaht appealed that part of the BC Supreme Court decision.
At the BCCA, the majority agreed with Gitxaala and Ehattesaht and the minority agreed with the Province. The majority held that section 3 of DRIPA is justiciable in the sense that where consistency is disputed, the question of consistency is on its face justiciable, and that the Province’s online system allowing for automatic registration of mineral claims without requiring prior consultation and cooperation of affected Indigenous peoples is inconsistent with article 32(2) of UNDRIP. This is a precedent-setting decision that gives First Nations an important tool to hold the Province accountable when it denies any inconsistency between a law of British Columbia and UNDRIP.
Q: What happened next?
The Province has tentatively begun the process of reforming the Mineral Tenure Act as required by section 3 of DRIPA, see Government of British Columbia, “Mineral Tenure Act Reform”. This was already underway before Gitxaala was decided. The Province has also established a Mineral Claims Consultation Framework to comply with the BC Supreme Court’s finding that the MTA breached the Province’s section 35 duty to consult.
The Province has responded to the BCCA’s ruling by moving to amend DRIPA. The provincial government claims it wants to keep the courts out of the process of implementing UNDRIP and bringing provincial laws into alignment with it, as required by section 3 of DRIPA. The move to amend DRIPA is happening unusually quickly: the Province wants to implement the amendments within 6 months. For context, it took about 18 months to develop DRIPA back in 2018-2019, and that was considered fast.
Q: What are the amendments?
There is an element of secrecy to the Province’s amendment process and the proposed amendments have not been publicly released. The Province has required that First Nations leaders sign a non-disclosure agreement before being allowed to review the proposed amendments. Many of the organizations that have seen the proposed amendments have come out strongly against them – the First Nations Leadership Council has taken the step of launching a dedicated website to counter disinformation and protect DRIPA, and UBCIC and BCAFN each passed a resolution in opposition to the proposed amendments. The head of the Province’s Declaration Act Secretariat (responsible for developing and implementing the DRIPA Action Plan), has left government.
Q: What does all this mean for my Nation?
DRIPA is human rights legislation co-developed with First Nations and passed unanimously by the British Columbia Legislature. It establishes UNDRIP as the Province’s framework for reconciliation, as called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and aims to create a path forward that respects the human rights of Indigenous peoples. More than 100 First Nations leaders have signed onto a joint statement objecting to the Province’s proposed amendments. If your Nation opposes the amendments, it could consider signing onto this statement. Additionally, the Province has been holding short engagement sessions related to its proposed amendments which your Nation may attend (though often subject to signing a non-disclosure agreement). The Province has also asked for feedback on its proposed amendments which you can sent to DeclarationActSecretariat@gov.bc.ca.
Organizations such as the First Nations Leadership Council have periodically distributed related communiques and template letters.
Additionally, if your Nation has an interest in mining, or if there is mining activity in your territory, you may want to participate in the Province’s process to update the Mineral Tenure Act if and when that resumes.
