B.C. First Nations threaten legal action over any weakening of DRIPA law | Daily Hive

First Nations threaten legal action against B.C. government over any weakening of DRIPA law

David Eby. (Government of B.C.)

A coalition of First Nations leaders in British Columbia is calling on provincial lawmakers to reject proposed legislation that would suspend key provisions of the provincial government’s highly controversial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), warning it could undermine reconciliation efforts and trigger legal challenges.

In an open letter on Sunday, the First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC) urged MLAs to oppose the bill, which Premier David Eby previously indicated his BC NDP-led government intends to introduce.

On Monday afternoon, Eby and the FNLC issued a joint statement to formally announce DRIPA will not be changed or suspended in the Spring 2026 legislative session. Instead, both parties will work on a “solution” ahead of the upcoming session this fall.

The FNLC represents the political leadership of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

You might also like:

“Each member is being needlessly forced into a vote by Premier Eby, which will have immediate and lasting consequences for reconciliation and the legal, political and economic stability of this province. We are writing to urge members to oppose this proposed bill,” reads the letter.

Shortly after the letter was sent to MLAs, the premier’s office told media on Sunday that the plan to pause certain components of DRIPA would not go ahead during this legislative session. This amounts to the latest change of position, after Eby first announced in December 2025 — following the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision relating to mineral rights, which implied that DRIPA should be applied to all B.C. laws — that DRIPA would be amended to uphold the provincial government’s authority. Earlier this year, he began to pivot from amendments to a pause of DRIPA.

Furthermore, up until very recently, the vote on DRIPA in the legislature was positioned by Eby as a confidence vote that could topple the BC NDP-led government and force a snap provincial general election this spring. But this was something the premier also later reversed course on, after it became apparent that some MLAs within his party were fully prepared to join the two MLAs under the B.C. Green party to vote against his proposal.

From the outset, following the appeal court’s decision in late 2025, the Conservative Party of B.C. called for an urgent repeal of DRIPA to quickly restore economic uncertainty.

“The Government has spent months avoiding and delaying good faith negotiations with First Nations. We hope that they have now realised that the only path forward is active reconciliation, as defined in legislation. The problem isn’t DRIPA. The problem is the government’s failure to implement DRIPA. We provided a constructive plan to resolve tension, increase certainty, and advance DRIPA to the government,” said BC Greens house leader Rob Botterell, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, in a statement today.

“The Premier, mirroring the Conservatives, has been reckless with the truth, aimless in his leadership, and irresponsible in putting political calculations ahead of the human rights of First Nations. That inconsistency has fuelled confusion and made First Nations a scapegoat for the Crown’s ineptitude.”

DRIPA, originally put forward by the BC NDP, passed unanimously in the legislature in 2019, and committed the provincial government to aligning its laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). FNLC accuses the provincial government, now under pressure over the ramifications of the bill, of reversing course.

“Just over five years later, BC seeks to renege on this legislative promise,” states the letter by First Nations leaders.

However, DRIPA has become so controversial because of concerns about how it is being implemented and its potential impacts on governance, legal certainty, economic development, and investment attraction across the province. Critics contend that aligning provincial laws in such a manner introduces enormous ambiguity around decision-making authority, which they fear could create delays or unpredictability for major projects and investments.

Others worry that the evolving legal interpretation of Indigenous title and rights, alongside DRIPA, would be highly undemocratic by shifting power away from elected governments without clear frameworks in place, raising questions about accountability and jurisdiction.

At the same time, the current political conflict — highlighted in this open letter from First Nations leaders opposing any suspension of the law — shows how deeply polarized the issue has become, with some viewing DRIPA as essential to reconciliation and others seeing aspects of its application as a source of legal risk, economic uncertainty, and social instability.

The leaders also criticized Premier Eby’s rationale for the proposed suspension, rejecting claims that it is necessary to address legal uncertainty stemming from recent court decisions.

“His framing is not only misleading but is also inherently wrong,” the letter reads, adding that the real risk comes from “decisions to undermine it through unilateral action.”

The FNLC suggests that suspending parts of DRIPA and related legislation could interfere with the judicial system and limit First Nations’ “access to justice.” The letter compares the move to historical restrictions, stating it would be “an egregious attempt to limit First Nations’ access to the court, reminiscent of the 1927 law that prohibited First Nations from hiring lawyers and accessing the courts.”

The FNLC also argues that the proposed legislation could increase, rather than reduce, legal and economic uncertainty. They threatened legal action should the provincial government move to weaken the components of DRIPA.

“If you choose to support efforts to weaken these Acts and our co-developed framework for constitutionally required reconciliation, you are not avoiding legal risk — you are increasing it. First Nations around the province have made their position clear — attempts to unilaterally suspend or repeal DRIPA and the Interpretation Act will invite legal challenge,” reads the letter.

Instead of suspending DRIPA, the group says it has offered alternative solutions, including new implementation measures and oversight mechanisms, but claims these proposals were rejected by the provincial government.

The letter concludes with a direct appeal to MLAs to uphold the province’s commitments and pursue reconciliation through collaboration rather than unilateral action.

“The choice is yours; however, First Nations, the courts, investors — and your constituents — will judge it accordingly.”

The controversy over DRIPA comes on top of already intense debates around Aboriginal title impacting public and private lands, broader reconciliation policies and proposed laws, and the Eby government’s high degree of secrecy over these matters. Court rulings affirming Indigenous rights have heightened tensions over land use and decision-making, and critics argue that, combined with DRIPA, they represent a rapid shift that creates legal and economic uncertainty.

You might also like: