dripa, mineral claims and the bigger picture: what happens while we're arguing?

British Columbia is preparing for a new government, and one of the BC Conservatives' stated priorities is repealing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).

Premier-elect Lorne Doerkson says repeal could be brought forward in the spring legislative session. He argues that the province needs a different approach to working with First Nations. Indigenous leaders, meanwhile, warn that repealing DRIPA could damage relationships and lead to further court challenges.

But there's another issue that deserves public attention: B.C.'s mineral-claim system, who controls the resources beneath our feet, and what happens while politicians argue about the rules.

a mining system with colonial roots

For generations, B.C. has operated under a system in which someone can acquire rights to minerals without necessarily owning the surface land above them.

You might own your home and property but not the mineral rights beneath it. The Crown may hold those rights instead.

This system has historical roots in the colonial gold rush era. It developed when governments encouraged prospecting and mineral exploration while failing to properly recognize Indigenous peoples' existing rights and relationships with their territories.

That history matters. So does the question of whether the laws governing mineral exploration adequately protect Indigenous rights, private property and the environment today.

the law has already had to change

In 2023, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in the Gitxaała mineral-tenure case that the province's system of automatically registering mineral claims without consulting affected First Nations breached the Crown's duty to consult.

The government subsequently introduced the Mineral Claims Consultation Framework, which took effect on March 26, 2025.

Under the new framework, applications for mineral claims must go through consultation with affected First Nations before the province decides whether to approve, accommodate or reject them.

This is an important distinction: the old automatic-registration system has changed. New claims are no longer simply registered through the same automatic process.

However, the new framework does not, by itself, resolve every question about Indigenous rights, mineral ownership or the province's mining laws.

what happens if dripa is repealed?

DRIPA did not create the mineral-claim system. That system operates under separate legislation, the Mineral Tenure Act.

Repealing DRIPA would not automatically restore the old automatic-staking process, erase existing Indigenous rights or remove the Crown's constitutional duty to consult First Nations.

But the relationship between DRIPA, mineral-tenure reform and Indigenous rights is precisely why this debate deserves careful scrutiny.

The province has been working on modernizing the Mineral Tenure Act in consultation and cooperation with First Nations. We need to know what the incoming government intends to do with that work.

Will consultation protections remain? Will the mineral-claim system be strengthened, weakened or replaced? Will First Nations have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their territories? And what safeguards will apply to resource development while the legislation is being reconsidered?

These are practical questions with consequences for communities across B.C.

don't let the debate distract us from the land

I worry that the public will become so caught up in arguments for and against DRIPA that we lose sight of the underlying issues.

Corporations and prospectors have economic interests in mineral resources. First Nations have rights and responsibilities connected to their territories. Property owners may discover that their surface ownership does not include the minerals beneath their land. The public has an interest in protecting watersheds, forests, wildlife and the places we all depend on.

These interests need to be considered openly and fairly.

We should not assume that every mining company is acting improperly, or that every proposed project is automatically harmful. Nor should we assume that repealing a law will make complex legal disputes disappear.

The question is what protections will remain, what will change, and who benefits from those changes.

While governments debate legislation, mineral-claim applications, resource-development proposals and legal disputes do not cease to matter. We need transparency about what is happening now, not simply promises about what a new government might do later.

ask questions before the rules change

I want people to look beyond the headlines and ask some basic questions:

• What does DRIPA actually do, and what does it not do?
• What legal protections do First Nations have independently of DRIPA?
• How does the Mineral Tenure Act work, and who owns the mineral rights in a particular area?
• What consultation is required before a new mineral claim is approved?
• What will happen to the existing mineral-claim consultation framework and the work to modernize the legislation?
• If DRIPA is repealed, what specific framework will replace it?

We can debate how reconciliation should work. We can discuss economic development, mining, jobs and the legal uncertainty surrounding major projects.

But we should not dismantle a framework without understanding what it does, what problems it was intended to address, and what will take its place.

The land, the resources beneath it, and the rights of the people connected to it are too important to become collateral damage in a political fight.

Let's pay attention to the legislation, follow the decisions, and demand clear answers before the rules change.

Sources: Government of British Columbia, Mineral Claims Consultation Framework; B.C. Supreme Court's 2023 Gitxaała decision; B.C. government's Mineral Tenure Act reform program; CityNews, October 27, 2026.

#DRIPA #IndigenousRights #BritishColumbia #FirstNations #MineralRights #Mining #Reconciliation #ProtectTheLand #PublicAccountability #KnowTheLaw