Good afternoon,

Over the weekend, it looked like Premier David Eby was going to risk breaking his government’s carefully tended relationship with Indigenous leaders and introduce legislation pausing the province’s landmark law that entrenches the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

But after months of saying the changes were urgent, whatever the cost to damaging the trust of Indigenous groups, Eby announced on Monday a compromise of sorts.

That urgent change had morphed into six months of negotiations with Indigenous groups – such a simple solution, one wonders why it wasn’t considered months ago, a point that a chastened Eby acknowledged.

But it raises the question: What risk does the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling in December, which prompted Eby’s legislation changes, actually pose?

The ruling found the law related to mineral exploration in the province was “inconsistent” with the government’s obligations under the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People’s Act, or DRIPA.

As The Globe’s Editorial Board notes, the Court of Appeal decision is clear. The legislation used to implement DRIPA states: “Every Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act].”

While Eby said the intention of DRIPA was that the province would take decades to align its legislation with the act, the court concluded that alignment is real now.

“No delay was built in, no best-efforts asterisk included,” noted the editorial.

Eby has been consistent – until Monday – that the legislation opens a vast risk of certainty in the province.

Last December, he said, “Clearly, amendments are needed.”

“We have to do something,” he said earlier this month.

But Indigenous groups have also been consistent in their opposition. Over the weekend, when it looked like the government was going to go through with its stated intention to introduce amendments, Indigenous groups issued a statement.

“First Nations title and rights in BC are not up for debate. Any attempt to interfere with the courts’ role and First Nations’ access to justice will be met with collective resistance.”

What hasn’t been consistent is how Eby plans to deal with the issue.

Earlier this month, Eby said changes were “non-negotiable.” But then he backed away from that and said he would simply pause the sections of the law that were causing difficulty.

Indigenous groups have said moves to change the law will lead to more legal uncertainty, not less.

“Attempts to suspend sections of DRIPA and the Interpretation Act to achieve a desired outcome in a court decision is an act of fettering the separation of judicial powers and an egregious attempt to limit First Nations’ access to the court,” they wrote in their statement.

With both sides entrenched in their positions, it’s not clear what an eventual resolution could possibly look like.

This Friday, two pieces written by Globe B.C. reporters are up for awards at the National Newspaper Awards gala. Each year, the NNAs take in submissions from reporters from across the country and as the cliché goes (with truth), it’s an honour to be nominated.

Nancy Macdonald’s piece on the decline of Pandora Avenue in Victoria was one of the most widely read pieces in The Globe last year. It is included in a nomination The Globe garnered for project of the year.

Mike Hager’s delightfully quirky story about Canada’s last waterbed salesman is up for the award in the short feature category. Have a read: it’ll make you smile.

This is the weekly British Columbia newsletter written by B.C. Editor Wendy Cox. If you’re reading this on the web, or it was forwarded to you from someone else, you can sign up for it and all Globe newsletters here.