British Columbia’s Indigenous rights law was supposed to reduce conflict and uncertainty, but nearly seven years after it was adopted, some First Nations, municipal and business leaders say it’s producing more of both.
At the annual Union of BC Municipalities convention in Vancouver on Tuesday, speakers in a session on the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act described confusion over the practical consequences of the legislation, which has become a legal and political lightning rod.
Some argued that inadequate efforts by the government to consult with affected groups and explain the law to the public have undermined its promise.
Chief Aaron Pete of the Chawathil First Nation said that DRIPA, which was passed unanimously under then-premier John Horgan in 2019, was intended to advance Indigenous rights and create greater economic certainty. Instead, he said, it has created community divisions about the role that First Nations play, made political debates emotionally charged and stoked anti-Indigenous racism.
“I think we need to look at other alternatives that are going to advance similar interests of economic reconciliation,” Mr. Pete said.
“DRIPA isn’t bringing those results that we all hoped that it would in 2019, and if we can’t acknowledge that and adapt, I think we fall short [for] future generations.”
The slow evolution of Aboriginal title in Canadian law
The province, local governments, First Nations, businesses and property owners are grappling with the practical and legal implications of the legislation, which the late Mr. Horgan once called a “crucial step towards true and lasting reconciliation” with Indigenous peoples.
B.C. was the first province to enact legislation implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Together with the Interpretation Act, the legislation requires the province, in consultation and co-operation with Indigenous peoples, to ensure that B.C. laws are consistent with the UN declaration.
What that means in practice became the subject of intense political and legal debate after a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling last December. The Gitxaala decision found that the province’s mineral-claims regime is “inconsistent” with UNDRIP and that the government was bound to uphold its commitments to the UN declaration “with immediate legal effect.”
Premier David Eby said the ruling created “huge legal uncertainty” and could be used as a basis to challenge other B.C. laws. The province is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada; Mr. Eby said he hopes for a final ruling in the next three years.
The Premier had also considered amending or suspending key provisions of DRIPA and the related Interpretation Act, but retreated amid pushback, including from First Nations leaders and NDP MLA Joan Phillip, who died on Aug. 28.
Questions about DRIPA have also intensified since the landmark Cowichan Tribes ruling in August, 2025, which recognized Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres of land in Richmond and generated concern among municipalities and property owners over its implication for private properties.
All parties involved in the case have filed appeals, and UBCM, the municipalities group, has sought to intervene over concerns about local governments’ ability to regulate, tax and provide services on affected lands.
However, the case is grounded in Section 35 of the Constitution Act and was not brought under DRIPA.
Laura Jones, president and chief executive officer of the Business Council of B.C., told the UBCM crowd on Tuesday that a survey of members conducted in April found that 98 per cent of respondents were “very concerned” by the legislation. About three-quarters said it has caused them to hold out on investing in B.C.
“It isn’t First Nations that are creating uncertainty; it’s that the rules of the road are really unclear,” Ms. Jones said.
Opinion: The Rights of Nature movement is great, but we also need a Responsibility to Nature movement
In a separate panel on the same topic, Karen Restoule, director of Indigenous affairs at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said more clarity is needed on issues such as what happens when governments and First Nations disagree, what to do in cases of overlapping territories and what consent-based decision-making looks like, all in the service of Indigenous self-determination.
“Genuine self-determination, which we say that we’re hoping to achieve with DRIPA, is much stronger when nations have their own revenues, their own businesses, their own investments and their own sources of wealth, rather than remaining overwhelmingly dependent on transfers from government,” she said.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Ms. Phillip’s husband, received a standing ovation as he spoke of honouring his late wife by carrying her work forward.
“Joan did not want to see DRIPA as we know it modified or watered down,” he said.
“That makes our work perhaps a little bit more difficult, but I have faith in government, and ourselves, to be able to find a way through that.”
Attorney-General and Deputy Premier Niki Sharma acknowledged the province has work to do to address the legal uncertainty stemming from the Gitxaala decision. But she defended DRIPA’s broader record, saying it has advanced Indigenous self-determination and helped to unlock major economic projects.
She implored those in attendance to continue the dialogue.
“We want to make sure that the work we do on DRIPA and the work we do together in reconciliation reflect the needs of every town and city, and the work you do across the province,” Ms. Sharma said.