Just released in June, the 2024–2025 Annual Report on B.C.’s implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) outlines a major shift in how the province governs land, resources, and decision-making. While the goal of reconciliation is widely supported, the process underway raises serious concerns.
As Sunshine Coast residents, we are alarmed by the lack of transparency and public involvement in these sweeping changes. Through behind-closed-doors agreements and legislative reforms, the Province is reshaping key aspects of governance—without the consent or input of those most affected. To review the 168-page Annual Report, please click here.
Below is the Pender Harbour and Area Residents Association’s (PHARA) analysis.
While the DRIPA report proudly boasts progress on 78 out of 89 action items, it is silent on the lack of public consultation. Most of these initiatives—including foundational agreements like the renewed shíshálh–B.C. Foundation Agreement—were negotiated behind closed doors. The report highlights Indigenous co-development, but it fails to acknowledge the absence of public forums, hearings, or input from residents, municipalities, and local stakeholders.
This exclusion is not an oversight—it reflects a systematic sidelining of democratic process. Legislative changes such as the Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act (Bill 13), Anti-Racism Act (Bill 23), and the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act (Bill 25) were passed with extensive Indigenous consultation, but no meaningful engagement with the general public. These laws embed new rights and governance structures into the province’s legal framework without giving ordinary British Columbians a say in their creation.
PHARA’s own experience underscores the problem. Our February 2025 letter to Premier David Eby requested clarification on the renewal of the shíshálh Foundation Agreement—an agreement that profoundly affects land use and governance in our region. Minister Christine Boyle responded in July, confirming that no public consultation occurred prior to signing the agreement. She offered vague explanations about delays and internal coordination, without disclosing who approved the agreement or provide a reasonable explanation as to why it was withheld until after the 2024 election.
The Minister’s response avoids critical questions about authorization, timelines, and the scope of the agreement. While she assures us that private property will not be affected and dock mandates have been repealed, she leaves open the possibility of future land returns and expanded jurisdiction without local input. Promises of future engagement ring hollow when the core agreement was already finalized without us.
Perhaps the most alarming mechanism introduced under DRIPA is the creation of “section 7 agreements.” These allow for shared or exclusive Indigenous jurisdiction over key areas of public policy—forestry, land use, emergency planning, and more. These are not minor administrative tweaks; they constitute a reallocation of decision-making power from elected governments to unelected bodies through bilateral deals.
There is no requirement for legislative review, public debate, or referendum. The Province can enter into binding agreements that alter how decisions are made across vast territories, impacting residents who have no voice in the process.
Financially, the Province is making major long-term commitments to reconciliation—including revenue-sharing, loan guarantees for Indigenous equity stakes, and dedicated funds such as the $100-million Watershed Security Fund. These are public funds, allocated without public input or cost-benefit analysis. The DRIPA report fails to include any budget transparency or sustainability assessments, despite the enormous fiscal implications.
The economic uncertainty created by these agreements affects everyone—businesses, homeowners, and local governments alike. As co-governance frameworks proliferate, questions arise about land access, infrastructure development, and legal clarity. Yet these concerns are largely ignored in the government’s narrative, which prioritizes reconciliation over transparency and public oversight.
The Province continues to return Crown lands and recognize Aboriginal title without involving nearby residents or regional planning authorities. For example, large parcels have been transferred near Cowichan Falls and elsewhere as part of land back commitments. While framed as voluntary and symbolic, these transfers have real consequences for land use, taxation, and local governance. In our region, the Foundation Agreement with the shíshálh Nation is intended to pave the way for Aboriginal title recognition—but no public discussion was held before this path was chosen.
The DRIPA report downplays these impacts. It treats land transfers and title recognition as administrative details, even though they may alter access rights, zoning, and service delivery for thousands of non-Indigenous residents. Promising that “private property will not be affected” is not sufficient when Crown land and public resources are being reallocated without consultation.
Another troubling aspect of the DRIPA report is its dismissal of public concern. The report implies that opposition stems from racism or denialism, rather than from legitimate questions about democratic process, land rights, and governance. By framing all dissent as regressive, the Province attempts to silence debate and cast critics as morally suspect.
This tactic undermines civil discourse and prevents the public from engaging meaningfully with the profound changes being made in their name. Many British Columbians support reconciliation, but that support should not come at the expense of transparency, accountability, and shared governance.
Despite citing progress on most action items, the report offers few verifiable outcomes. There are no independent audits, cost analyses, or mechanisms for measuring success. Much of the language is symbolic or aspirational—statements of commitment rather than hard data. This lack of clarity makes it impossible for the public to assess the real effects of DRIPA’s implementation or understand how these changes serve the common good.
PHARA fully supports the goal of reconciliation and justice for Indigenous Peoples. However, reconciliation must occur within a democratic framework that includes all citizens. It is not enough to consult Indigenous governments while excluding local residents, municipal councils, and taxpayers. The Province is embarking on a once-in-a-generation restructuring of governance and land rights—yet the people it governs are largely left in the dark.
The DRIPA Annual Report reflects a quiet transformation—one made without a mandate, without dialogue, and without safeguards. We urge the Province to halt further section 7 agreements and land transfers until meaningful public engagement is established. The future of our province must be built on open dialogue, not closed-door deals.
To support PHARA’s legal challenge against DRIPA, please click here.
