DRIPA Fight Roils B.C. Government as Eby Walks Back Amendment Plan

British Columbia Premier David Eby has called the controversy around the province's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act one of the biggest challenges of his political career, after a series of public reversals on whether and how to amend the landmark legislation. The province has now confirmed it will not introduce legislation in the spring legislative session to suspend or amend DRIPA, ending a months-long episode that has strained relationships with First Nations and exposed divisions inside the governing NDP caucus.

The retreat marks a significant shift from earlier in April, when Mr. Eby publicly described amending the law as "non-negotiable" in light of a December 2025 Court of Appeal ruling. The episode has raised broader questions about the province's commitment to reconciliation and about the long-term durability of legislation that purports to bring provincial law into alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

What DRIPA does

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was passed in 2019 and made British Columbia the first jurisdiction in Canada to legislate alignment with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The law commits the province to take measures necessary to ensure provincial laws are consistent with UNDRIP, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, and creates an action plan and reporting framework.

Together with the provincial Interpretation Act, DRIPA was originally framed as a long-term reconciliation tool rather than as a hard legal trigger. For its first several years, the law operated mostly as a guide for policy development and as a public commitment, without producing direct legal effects on existing provincial regulatory regimes.

That changed with the British Columbia Court of Appeal's December 2025 ruling on the Gitxaala mineral rights case. The court found that the province's mineral claims regime was inconsistent with UNDRIP and that DRIPA, properly interpreted, incorporates UNDRIP into provincial law with what the court called immediate legal effect. The ruling shifted DRIPA from aspirational into operative legal territory.

The Gitxaala ruling

The Gitxaala case dealt with whether B.C.'s online mineral claims registration system, which allowed prospectors to stake claims on Indigenous territory without prior consultation, was consistent with constitutional and statutory obligations. The Court of Appeal's December 2025 decision held that it was not, and that DRIPA's incorporation of UNDRIP required the province to revise its system to include consent-based processes.

The ruling has implications well beyond mineral claims. By holding that DRIPA gives UNDRIP immediate legal effect in the province, the court created a legal framework under which any number of provincial laws could be challenged as inconsistent with the declaration. Provincial officials have warned that this opens significant legal liability and uncertainty for resource sectors, infrastructure, and other regulated industries.

The province has appealed parts of the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the appeal has not yet been heard. While that appeal is pending, the Court of Appeal's interpretation continues to govern provincial law, leaving the government to manage the gap between the existing regulatory regime and the new legal expectations set by the court.

The amendment proposal

In response to the Gitxaala ruling, the Eby government floated a series of legislative responses. Initial proposals suggested amending DRIPA to clarify the relationship between the law and existing regulatory regimes, and to limit what the government argued was an overly broad reading of the law's legal effect. Mr. Eby publicly said amendment was non-negotiable, citing the legal liability the province faced.

Following intense opposition from First Nations leaders, the government changed course and proposed instead a three-year suspension of the law's key elements, ostensibly to give the Supreme Court time to rule on the appeal. That proposal too drew sharp opposition, with First Nations leaders arguing that suspension was simply amendment by another name and that any change to DRIPA without the consent of Indigenous peoples would breach the very rights the law was designed to protect.

Within hours of floating the suspension idea, the government walked it back, saying the suspension bill would not be tabled in the current session. The province has now confirmed that no DRIPA-related legislation will be introduced this spring, and that the law will continue to operate as currently interpreted by the Court of Appeal.

First Nations reaction

First Nations Leadership Council members welcomed the decision not to amend or suspend DRIPA but emphasized that the broader process of consultation and co-development must now be approached differently. Indigenous leaders have argued that the government's repeated reversals reflect a deeper failure to engage with Indigenous nations as equal partners in legal reform.

The B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs have both called for a clear, public commitment from the province that any future changes to DRIPA will require the consent of Indigenous nations, not merely consultation. Indigenous leaders have also pressed for the government to publicly acknowledge that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of DRIPA is consistent with the law's original purpose.

The First Nations Leadership Council has issued a joint statement with the Premier emphasizing that the province and Indigenous leaders will work together on the path forward, although the specifics of that path remain to be developed. Public commitments alone are unlikely to resolve underlying tensions about the law's interpretation and enforcement.

Caucus and party tensions

The DRIPA fight has exposed divisions inside the B.C. NDP caucus. Several MLAs publicly opposed the proposed amendments, including Indigenous members of caucus. The party's broader membership, which historically has been strongly aligned with reconciliation, also expressed concerns through internal channels.

Cabinet ministers have publicly defended the premier but have privately acknowledged that the rapid reversals damaged the government's reputation. The province's reconciliation file is now expected to undergo significant internal review, and several senior staff in the premier's office and in relevant ministries are expected to take on revised roles in the coming months.

Opposition parties have used the episode to attack the government on competence and on principle. The B.C. Conservatives have argued that DRIPA's open-ended commitments create unmanageable legal liability that should be limited through legislation. The B.C. Greens have argued that the government's handling of the file shows a lack of seriousness about reconciliation.

What it means for Canadians

The DRIPA controversy has implications beyond British Columbia. Several other provinces have considered similar legislation, and the federal government passed an analogous law, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, in 2021. The Gitxaala ruling and the B.C. government's response will be studied closely as those other jurisdictions develop their own approaches.

For resource and infrastructure sectors, the immediate effect is increased legal uncertainty. Companies operating in British Columbia must factor the Court of Appeal's interpretation of DRIPA into their planning, including for permitting, consultation, and project structure. The Sunrise pipeline approval announced last week, which is co-owned with 38 First Nations, suggests that projects with strong Indigenous partnership may be better positioned than those without.

For First Nations across Canada, the episode is being read in two ways. On one hand, the government's retreat from amendment is a clear win for Indigenous advocacy. On the other hand, the willingness of a self-identified progressive government to even contemplate suspending the law has reinforced longstanding concerns about whether legislative protections of Indigenous rights are durable.

The federal angle

The federal government has not commented directly on the B.C. controversy, but has continued to emphasize its own commitment to UNDRIP implementation. Federal officials have publicly noted that the Sunrise approval was structured around Indigenous co-ownership and that the Canada Strong Fund's mandate will include supporting Indigenous economic participation.

The Carney government has also continued to advance Indigenous-focused investments, including a recent $2 billion commitment to housing through distinctions-based agreements with First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners. Those investments form part of a broader federal narrative on reconciliation, although they do not directly address the legal questions raised by Gitxaala.

The Supreme Court of Canada's eventual ruling on the Gitxaala appeal could carry national implications. If the Supreme Court endorses the Court of Appeal's broad reading of DRIPA, similar arguments could be made in other provinces with similar legislation, or under the federal UNDRIP Act. A narrower reading would limit the legal effects but would not resolve the underlying political and policy questions.

What's next

The B.C. government has committed to working with First Nations on a co-developed approach to DRIPA's implementation, although the specifics of that process have not been announced. Provincial officials have suggested that a refreshed action plan and reporting framework, developed jointly with First Nations leadership, will be released later this year.

Mr. Eby's broader political position has been weakened by the episode. His government holds a slim majority in the legislature, and the NDP's polling lead over the B.C. Conservatives has narrowed. The premier has signalled that his government will refocus on housing, healthcare and affordability through the spring legislative session, files where the government has stronger political ground.

For Canadians watching the B.C. file, the takeaway is that translating UNDRIP commitments into concrete legal frameworks remains genuinely hard. The province has spent six years operating with DRIPA on the books, and only now is grappling fully with what the law requires when courts treat it as legally binding rather than aspirational. How British Columbia and other jurisdictions answer that question will shape the practical content of reconciliation for the coming decade.