The B.C. government is making reconciliation harder than it needs to be

Polls have shown British Columbians, by and large, support reconciliation, but they do so without an honest explanation from the government of what it means structurally. The government has insisted for years that UNDRIP does not affect who makes decisions in B.C., a statement neither true nor sustainable. Reconciliation is not a values exercise. It is a redistribution (albeit, it appears, not a relinquishing) of authority over land, resources, and governance. Refusing to say this out loud is political malpractice. Now, as court decisions accumulate and DRIPA’s inadequacy becomes undeniable, the public is suddenly confronted with the reality the premier declined to explain. And the reaction is predictable: anti-Indigenous backlash that would be better aimed at their own government for treating them like passengers on a flight where the captain refuses to announce why the plane is losing altitude. Secrecy has become a strategy, not a symptom. The mistrust did not materialize on its own. It was cultivated through the government’s approach. Major shared-decision agreements have been negotiated behind closed doors, shielded with broad confidentiality clauses, released (if at all) in edited form, and explained only in abstract language about “partnership” and “collaboration.” The public, even at times the NDP caucus, learns about these arrangements the same way industry and municipalities often do, through brief statements that reveal nothing about operational authority, dispute resolution, or who actually gets to decide what. The opacity has been so consistent that it cannot be accidental. The government clearly believes transparency would make reconciliation harder. They have it backwards. People have a much better chance of tolerating major change if they understand it. What they will not tolerate is being told nothing has changed when the evidence around them says otherwise. Eby’s new concession to revise DRIPA is a tacit recognition that B.C. cannot continue improvising. The current act is too vague, too aspirational, and too reliant on behind-the-scenes agreements to provide legitimacy or predictability. If DRIPA is going to work, it needs a clear statutory mechanism for decision-making, defined timelines for negotiations, transparent roles, legislated pathways, and public-facing explanations. Right now, none of that exists. DRIPA is a vision statement, not a governance framework. And that vacuum has left British Columbia in the worst possible position, with all the political heat of reconciliation and none of the clarity that makes it workable. This is the part the government misjudged. By trying to spare the public difficult truths, they made the eventual confrontation far more volatile. It has meant that far too many British Columbians are angry about Indigenous rights as part of their anger about being kept in the dark. Housing projects, infrastructure plans, and resource approvals are now caught in a fog of uncertainty that the government refuses to acknowledge, let alone explain. B.C. now finds itself undergoing a constitutional shift in slow motion, one the government knew was coming and chose not to articulate. Eby has now committed to amend DRIPA to bring greater clarity. True, but incomplete. The real issue is not the text of DRIPA. It is the government’s unwillingness to level with the people who live under it, and it’s hard to restore public trust when you’ve been cavalier about it repeatedly. Reconciliation is not something done quietly. Not when it alters the structure of provincial governance. Not when it affects every sector of the economy. And not when the courts have already set the path we’re headed.