New Agreements expand the Implementation of Section 7 under DRIPA

This Insight was prepared with the assistance of Summer Articled Student Mercedes Belcourt-Rothe.

Over the past year the Province of British Columbia and Indigenous Nations have completed a number of new agreements under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). In particular, two new agreements under Section 7 of DRIPA (the Section 7 Agreements) highlight changes in how the Province is approaching implementation of Section 7 Agreements, both with respect to the territorial scope and the content of the decision-making processes under each agreement.

On December 15, 2025, the ‘Namgis First Nation (‘Namgis) entered the ‘Namgis First Nation – British Columbia Decision-making Agreement with the Province (the ‘Namgis Agreement). The ‘Nagmis Agreement establishes a joint decision-making process between the ‘Namgis and the Province concerning certain forestry decisions within ‘Namgis territory, whereby decisions that fall under the agreement must be made mutually.

More recently, on July 15, 2026, Simpcw First Nation (Simpcw) entered the “Consent Decision-Making Agreement for Mine Projects” (the Simpcw Agreement) with the Province under Section 7 of DRIPA. The Simpcw Agreement establishes a consent-based decision-making framework concerning key permitting decisions under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, including for mining projects that may be appended to the agreement on a project-by-project basis within Simpcw territory.

What are Section 7 Agreements and what do they do?

DRIPA was passed into law in in 2019, affirming the application and contributing to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the law of British Columbia.

Section 7 of DRIPA sets out a scheme that authorizes the Province to enter agreements with Indigenous governing bodies (IGBs) concerning the exercise of statutory powers of decision-making for the purposes of reconciliation. Whereas, generally, the Province holds sole authority for statutory decision making, Section 7 Agreements can address: i) under Section 7(a), the exercise of statutory decision-making powers jointly between the Province or a decision maker and an IGB; or, ii) under Section 7(b), the consent of an IGB prior to the Province exercising such powers. Generally, these two forms of Section 7 Agreements are described as “joint decision-making agreements” and “consent-based decision-making agreements,” respectively.

Further, Section 7 Agreements must be prescribed concerning Provincial decisions under statutes that have appropriate authorizing provisions. To date, Section 7 Agreements have been developed relating to decisions under the EA Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA).

Note that notwithstanding the existence of a Section 7 Agreement, the Crown is still required to consult with, and potentially accommodate, Indigenous communities where it contemplates decisions that may impact their Section 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982.

Previous Section 7 Agreements

Prior to 2025, the Province had entered two Section 7 Agreements with the Tahltan Central Government (TCG), each limited to decisions under the EA Act regarding the approval of two major mining projects: the Eskay Creek Revitalization Project and the Red Chris Mine Expansion Project (the TCG Agreements).

Both agreements established consent-based decision-making processes relating to the TCG’s involvement in the respective environmental assessments of these major mining projects under the EA Act. The TCG provided its consent to both projects, and they received the necessary approvals to proceed.

The decision-making model established under the TCG Agreements created clear requirements for the treatment of consent decisions by the TCG. Generally, this model provides more certainty about how a consent decision will inform the Province’s decision-making regarding an environmental assessment approval when compared to the consensus-building process already established under the EA Act itself.

The role of Indigenous Impact Assessments

A common component of the consent-based processes under each of the Section 7 Agreements that concern decisions under the EA Act is the elevated role assigned to the impact assessment reports of the party Indigenous Nations (Indigenous Impact Assessments) in establishing the foundation for the consent decisions that may be provided under those agreements.

By comparison, the decision-making models under each of the Section 7 Agreements concerning EA Act decisions broaden the scope of how Indigenous Impact Assessments are considered within the environmental assessment process, which itself does not establish a robust framework for how Indigenous Impact Assessments are to be considered, and potentially applied, by the decision makers. These Section 7 Agreements each provide distinctive roles for Indigenous Impact Assessments in directly supporting the basis for the Indigenous Nation’s consent (or non-consent) decision for the project under review. As such, Indigenous Impact Assessments can form an integral part of the decision-making frameworks under Section 7 Agreements, which agreements also provide substantive sets of rights and remedies for the party Indigenous Nation.

Generally, the Section 7 Agreement model that we have seen to date provides more clarity for party Indigenous Nations and certainty on the use of Indigenous Impact Assessments through a project’s environmental assessment and permitting processes.

Expanding the scope of Section 7 Agreements

Whereas the TCG Agreements were project-specific, the ‘Namgis and Simpcw Agreements demonstrate a broadening in the approach by the Province as to how Section 7 of DRIPA is being implemented.

‘Namgis Agreement

The ‘Namgis Agreement is the first joint-decision making Section 7 Agreement and the first concerning the forestry sector. Unlike the TCG Agreements, the ‘Namgis Agreement is not a project-specific consent-seeking agreement, but rather a joint decision-making agreement that captures broad categories of statutory decisions under FRPA within areas of Tree Farm License 37, which overlap ‘Namgis territory. The ‘Namgis Agreement’s joint decision-making process governs to the extensions, amendment and cancellation of Forest Landscape Plans and Forest Operation Plans within ‘Namgis territory, each respectively requiring the Chief Forester or the Minister to make relevant statutory decisions together with ‘Namgis through agreement.

Because the ‘Namgis Agreement is a joint decision-making agreement it requires that the Province make the decisions captured under the agreement only where the Chief Forester or the Minister and ‘Namgis have “jointly agreed” on such decisions. In this way, the ‘Namgis Agreement enables ‘Namgis to participate in the decision-making processes for key forestry decisions affecting ‘Namgis territory and supports the integration of long-term forest management strategies through this consent model.

Simpcw Agreement

Most recently, Simpcw and the Province entered the Simpcw Agreement, which establishes a consent-based decision-making process for assessing current and future proposed mining projects that may be located within Simpcw territory.

However, unlike the TCG Agreements, which also address decisions made under the EA Act for major mining projects, the Simpcw Agreement could be applied to decisions on whether to issue an Environmental Assessment Certificate to any proposed mining projects within Simpcw territory that is appended to the agreement in accordance with the designated process. Trekor Metals Limited’s proposed Yellowhead Copper Project is the first of such projects appended to the agreement.

Under the Simpcw Agreement, if either the Province or Simpcw become aware of a proposal for a mine project located within Simpcw territory, they will meet to discuss whether that project should be subject to the prescribed decision-making process. If appended to the agreement as an Included Mine Project, the scope of any collaboration between Simpcw and the Province, and consent decisions concerning that project’s approval under the EA Act, will be established on a project-by-project basis.

This process requires that the Province and Simpcw agree that a proposed mine:

• Is located in an area where Simpcw is the primary Indigenous decision maker
• Requires an Environmental Assessment Certificate to proceed
• Be subject to the Simpcw Assessment Process to review the project’s impacts
• Has advanced to a stage where the proponent is reasonably expected to proceed through each assessment under the EA Act and the Simpcw Assessment Process

Importantly, the Simpcw Agreement expands on the approach established by the TCG Agreements by creating a framework to potentially append newly proposed mining projects to the agreement, reducing the need to negotiate fresh Section 7 Agreements on a project-by-project basis. However, the requirement that Simpcw is “the primary Indigenous decision maker” in the area of a newly proposed project before that project can be appended to the Simpcw Agreement may give rise to new issues, particularly in circumstances where a proposed project is located in an area of overlapping claims or disputed jurisdiction with neighboring Indigenous Nations. The Simpcw Agreement does not speak to how Simpcw’s own jurisdiction will be assessed by the Province in these cases.

Notwithstanding this issue, the Simpcw Agreement provides process certainty for proponents of mining projects seeking Simpcw consent and for Simpcw concerning how its consent will influence whether a given project proceeds.

Key takeaways

The ‘Namgis Agreement and Simpcw Agreement each demonstrate the broadening scope of Section 7 Agreements beyond single projects. This development recognizes Indigenous decision-making authority and the requirement for Indigenous consent in relation to resource developments more broadly within Indigenous territories.

Taken together, the expanded scopes of these agreements create space for Indigenous Nations to exercise their own laws and legal processes within their territories – a form of jurisdiction that recognizes Indigenous governance authority in relation to resource development decisions that directly impact their lands and peoples.

Share