QUESNEL: British Columbia’s DRIPA experiment is scaring away investment without fixing indigenous poverty

When British Columbia (BC) passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in 2019, the government promised to align provincial law with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and to pursue “free, prior, and informed consent.” The government’s DRIPA Action Plan framed the goal plainly: greater indigenous control and better outcomes. The central question is whether DRIPA advances that goal or mostly adds symbolism and legal uncertainty while leaving untouched the practical tools that improve lives.DRIPA does not itself grant land, create new tax powers, or set clear boundaries for when indigenous law applies. Its order to align provincial statutes with UNDRIP and to develop new decision‑making models leaves the meaning of “free, prior, and informed consent” unclear. Does consent amount to a veto? Which industries and which project stages require it? How will overlapping claims be resolved? Authorities have responded with shifting policies and negotiated deals rather than fixed rules. That ambiguity matters because companies, regulators, and communities need predictable rules to negotiate agreements, invest capital, and enforce commitments.Investors have noticed. Fraser Institute surveys show BC scoring below its geological potential on policy perception. Many firms cite disputed claims and regulatory uncertainty as reasons to avoid the province. As DRIPA is parsed by court rulings, policy scores have slipped, and mineral claim activity has fallen even while global demand for commodities rises. Fewer projects mean fewer chances for indigenous communities to secure equity stakes, jobs, and revenue. Where projects proceed under fuzzy rules, better‑resourced parties typically extract the stronger terms, leaving smaller nations at a disadvantage..Recognition matters. Public acknowledgment of rights can change norms and open political space. But recognition without a real shift in power, land, and revenue will not by itself improve housing, health, education, or employment. Those outcomes depend on ownership, clear governance authority, and predictable revenue streams.Experience at home and abroad shows how to achieve those outcomes without relying on declaratory law alone. In the United States, many tribes exercise substantial economic sovereignty despite the absence of DRIPA‑style legislation. Tribes run courts, set business rules, levy taxes, own companies, and sign binding compacts with states. The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development finds that when tribes control institutions and decisions, incomes rise, jobs grow, and social indicators improve. Those gains flowed from three concrete reforms — clear jurisdiction, secure land and resource rights, and dependable revenue powers — not from the adoption of UNDRIP.Canada offers the same lesson. First Nations that negotiated modern treaties, self‑government agreements, or built strong own‑source revenues — examples include Nisga’a, Tsawwassen, and Maa‑nulth — show higher employment, higher incomes, and greater fiscal autonomy. Impact‑benefit and revenue‑sharing deals tied to mines, pipelines, hydro projects, and forestry have delivered equity stakes, steady payments, and jobs. Courts recognized Aboriginal rights and title, and governments negotiated binding arrangements under the Constitution long before DRIPA..If BC wants DRIPA’s promise to become reality, it should stop treating an international alignment exercise as a substitute for hard transfers of power and assets. The province should conclude more modern treaties and self‑government agreements that transfer clear jurisdiction and land and give communities and investors firm, enforceable certainty. Those agreements should include binding transition schedules, dispute resolution mechanisms, and performance metrics tied to funding.Strengthening indigenous fiscal powers and administrative capacity is essential. Indigenous groups should be able to levy and retain taxes, access capital markets backed by predictable revenue streams, and receive transitional funding for capacity building. Training and institution-building in financial management and regulatory administration will help indigenous governments manage new powers effectively.Transparency, monitoring, and measurable outcomes will keep reforms honest. Tracking employment, income, housing, health, and fiscal autonomy would show what works and allow successful approaches to be scaled.These reforms demand provincial willingness to transfer real power, federal cooperation where jurisdictions overlap, and funding to build indigenous capacity. DRIPA can signal respect and intent, but unless the province pairs it with treaties, tenures, and revenue powers, it is just symbolic rather than transformative. Indigenous communities seek control over their lands and a fair share of the wealth those lands generate. BC should pivot from aligning laws with an international declaration to doing the hard work of transferring land, law, and resources. Those are the levers that will translate recognition into lasting improvements in well‑being.Joseph Quesnel is a policy commentator based in Nova Scotia.

QUESNEL: British Columbia’s DRIPA experiment is scaring away investment without fixing indigenous poverty

Related Stories

HYPOCRISY ALERT : Eby once opposed Olympics, now hides FIFA spending

Top court accepts B.C. challenge to landmark Gitxaala mineral rights ruling

Footage of DRIPA’s over-the-top first reading spectacle resurfaces

Do U.S. tribes present a 'sovereignty threat' to British Columbia under DRIPA?