The British Columbia government has shelved plans to suspend or amend the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) this spring. While this decision may ease immediate political tensions, it does little to resolve the uncertainty facing the province’s mining sector, according to legal and industry experts.

On April 20, B.C. Premier David Eby and the First Nations Leadership Council announced the government would not introduce legislation this spring to change DRIPA or related provisions in the Interpretation Act. Instead, both sides said they would work together with First Nations leaders on a path forward before the fall legislative session.

For the province’s mining sector, the decision means that some legal and regulatory questions around consultation requirements, land permitting certainty and future court risk that are at the centre of the DRIPA debate remain unsettled. Passed in 2019 by the B.C. government, DRIPA enshrined the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into provincial law and has become a key framework for how the province approaches consultation, consent and reconciliation across a range of decisions, including natural resource development.

The debate around DRIPA was triggered by a court case between B.C. and the Gitxaała Nation. In December 2025, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that parts of DRIPA are justiciable, meaning courts can assess whether provincial laws are consistent with the principles of UNDRIP.

The government said it would appeal the ruling and initially signalled plans to amend DRIPA. In early April, Eby said the government was considering suspending parts of the legislation for up to three years while awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on their appeal. That proposal drew criticism from First Nations leaders before the province reversed course.

Impact on mineral exploration

Where the mining sector has felt the greatest effect from the broader DRIPA debate has been in recent changes in mineral exploration processes.

Under B.C.’s previous Mineral Tenure Act regime, mineral claims could be registered online automatically with little or no prior consultation with affected Indigenous communities. That system was challenged by the Gitxaała Nation, who argued in part that it breached the Crown’s duty to consult under Section 35 of the Constitution Act and UNDRIP.

In 2023, the B.C. Supreme Court agreed with the Gitxaała Nation and ordered the province to redesign the claims process. In response, B.C. introduced the Mineral Claims Consultation Framework (MCCF) in March 2025, requiring consultation before new claims are issued.

The new system has raised concerns within the mining industry, particularly around administrative capacity, delays and protection of intellectual property.

According to a 12-month review of the framework by the Association for Mineral Exploration (AME) published on April 14, the median turnaround time for mineral claim applications during the first year of the MCCF rose to 143 days—exceeding the government’s target of 90 to 120 days. Less than 15 per cent of applications were processed within the target timeframe.

“Is it working as smoothly as the old system? No,” said Sharon Singh, co-head of McMillan LLP’s Indigenous and Environmental practices in an interview with CIM Magazine. “There are delays. It’s taking time. Government needs capacity.”

While demand for mineral claims remains strong, AME warned that persistent delays could push exploration investment to other jurisdictions.

The group also reported a sharp decline in claims activity since the framework was introduced, with the average number of new claims issued per week dropping by 79 per cent compared to pre-MCCF levels. Compounding all of this is a growing backlog of applications.

“The data indicate a steadily increasing backlog and longer approval times,” the association said in the report. “If immediate action is not taken, these delays could have significant negative impacts on B.C.’s mineral exploration industry.”

Why DRIPA remains under review

While the province has stepped back from immediate legislative changes, the underlying dispute over DRIPA has not been resolved.

When the courts found that judges can assess whether provincial laws are consistent with the principles of UNDRIP through DRIPA, according to Singh, that decision expanded the legal significance of the legislation beyond what the government originally intended.

“Courts can opine on whether a law is consistent or inconsistent with DRIPA, and what measures should the government take to ensure that it is consistent,” she explained.

Singh said the province had initially framed DRIPA as a collaborative process with Indigenous nations to gradually review and modernize laws over time, rather than as a mechanism for judicial oversight.

“DRIPA doesn’t create in and of itself legally enforceable rights, and the fact that it could, creates uncertainty,” said Singh, explaining that this is because it potentially opens the door for challenges for a wide range of provincial laws as inconsistent with UNDRIP. She added that some UNDRIP articles, as noted by the courts as well, are broadly framed or aspirational, while others require interpretation in a Canadian legal context, making direct application complex.

This is why the government began considering amendments and later floated the idea of suspending portions of the legislation while it appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Premier Eby said during an April 20 press conference that concerns about the Court of Appeal’s decision remain unresolved, even after the province paused spring legislation.

“My concerns about the legal exposure of the province are serious,” Eby said.

Future changes to DRIPA therefore remain possible. For now, the government said it will try to resolve those concerns through renewed talks with First Nations leaders rather than immediate legislation.

“They need to be addressed,” Eby said. “It’s my hope that we’ll be able to address it through this process with Indigenous leaders. I won’t prejudge the process, but I’m certainly hopeful that we’re able to come up with a constructive solution to move forward.”

For some industry groups such as AME, the review is welcome. The organization argued the appeal court decision created uncertainty around project permitting and investment.

In January, AME published a letter it sent to the premier calling for amendments to DRIPA. The group said it supported DRIPA when introduced in 2019 on the understanding that it would be accompanied by timely and transparent permitting systems.

“The current pathway government is on has dramatically increased delay and confusion in mineral exploration,” said Todd Stone, president and CEO of AME in a Jan. 13 press statement. “Many of our early-stage and smallest members are hit the hardest.”

Deeper legislation concerns and constraints

Other legal experts cautioned that even if the province eventually revisits DRIPA, legislative changes alone may not resolve many of the deeper issues facing the province or the mining sector.

Sara Ghebremusse, assistant professor at the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia and former chair in Mining Law and Finance at Western University, said constitutional protections for Indigenous rights would remain regardless of any amendment.

“There’s still recognition of Indigenous rights under Section 35, and there are still duty-to-consult obligations,” Ghebremusse said in an interview with CIM Magazine. “Making changes to DRIPA won’t alter that legal landscape entirely.”

In her view, narrowing DRIPA may only limit some types of claims, but it would not eliminate court challenges. Instead, she said it could shift disputes into other forums while creating longer-term friction between First Nations, government and industry.

What the province and industry often describe as “certainty” on knowing where First Nations rights start and where they end, she said, cannot be achieved simply by narrowing legal avenues. Many proposed mining projects are located on Indigenous territories, meaning durable relationships remain essential to development.

“In the short term, [suspending DRIPA] might seem like this is a win for industry,” Ghebremusse said. “But in the long term, it could be a lot more harmful to the relationships that industry needs to foster or establish and advance with First Nations.”

An unresolved policy question is how resource development in B.C. should be governed in the years ahead: through the existing consultation model, or through approaches that move closer to consent-based principles reflected in UNDRIP, which include the rights of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

“The process of seeking consultation is not the same as seeking consent. You can consult with First Nations, check the box and say the Crown satisfied its obligation in Section 35,” said Ghebremusse. “But what I think First Nations were really keen on is that DRIPA is affirming and recognizing additional Indigenous rights, including FPIC. That’s why DRIPA is important because it moves the needle on what potentially are the obligations of the Crown.”

Critics of DRIPA argue the legislation creates ambiguity over whether consent could effectively be required for projects to proceed. Supporters counter that consent does not necessarily mean a veto, but rather a more meaningful framework for addressing impacts, benefits and Indigenous governance.

For many mining companies, the legal arguments may matter less than on-the-ground realities.

“The ingredients for a successful project don’t change,” said Singh, adding that mining companies have long recognized that projects move more efficiently when Indigenous nations are genuine partners.

“The mining industry has been forging partnerships not just in Canada, but elsewhere. Good and efficient regulatory process is made even more efficient and timely when you have the First Nations’ support,” said Singh.

“[The industry] has been operating under that premise without the need for DRIPA or UNDRIP.”