LaPointe: Why B.C.'s innovation framework needs a rewrite for Indigenous tech

Indigenous tech

Photo: Pixabay

Nationally, less than one-half of one per cent of venture capital flows to Indigenous-led companies. That figure reflects less a calculation of risk than a failure of alignment between Indigenous business models and prevailing investment norms.

Indigenous participation in the tech sector remains strikingly low, below one per cent. It would take an eight-fold increase for participation to have parity with population.

That gap is often framed as a pipeline problem, suggesting the solution lies in more training, more exposure, and more time. But the persistence of the disparity points to something deeper. The constraint is not a shortage of talent or ideas, but the design of the innovation system itself.

Modern tech ecosystems are built around a narrow set of assumptions: rapid scaling, standardized ownership structures, short commercialization timelines and access to risk capital that expects a predictable exit. Those assumptions work far less well for Indigenous enterprises, because many operate under governance and ownership models involving community accountability, shared equity and longer time horizons.

The economic implications of that mismatch are increasingly difficult to ignore. Indigenous businesses already contribute more than $50 billion annually to Canada’s GDP, despite being concentrated largely in such sectors as construction, tourism and resource services. Technology remains one of the lowest-penetration areas of Indigenous enterprise, so the fastest-growing segment of the economy is also among the least inclusive. For a province that competes on innovation, productivity, and exports, that represents a structural weakness, not simply a social gap.

Indigenous tech entrepreneurs encounter barriers that are rooted in history but enforced through contemporary systems. Access to education pathways, venture and growth capital, procurement opportunities and professional networks remains uneven. Geography compounds those challenges. Digital infrastructure across British Columbia is still inconsistent, with many rural and remote Indigenous communities lacking reliable high-speed broadband or facing significantly higher connectivity costs. Building a technology business is difficult under those conditions, and scaling one is harder still.

Most Indigenous tech firms operate at small scale, often as founder-led enterprises with limited staff. That profile makes it more difficult to absorb market volatility or to meet the expectations of conventional venture capital, which tends to favour standardized governance and rapid growth. Nationally, less than one-half of one per cent of venture capital flows to Indigenous-led companies. That figure reflects less a calculation of risk than a failure of alignment between Indigenous business models and prevailing investment norms.

Yet Indigenous tech firms are innovating within and around these constraints. Cultural values, data sovereignty and community consent are often embedded directly into product design. While that can lengthen development timelines, it also builds trust and legitimacy in areas where demand is accelerating, including health data, land and resource management, digital identity, education and artificial intelligence. These are domains where public trust, regulation, and long-term stewardship matter, and where governments and institutions are major customers.

The challenge, then, is not intent but fit. Capital markets, procurement systems and innovation programs are optimized for a particular model of growth and ownership. When firms do not conform to that model, they are often filtered out quietly rather than deliberately excluded. The result is a persistent participation gap that compounds even as awareness increases.

That context helps explain why momentum within the Indigenous tech ecosystem itself has become so important. Peer networks and Indigenous-led organizations are beginning to reduce isolation, improve mentorship and create pathways for collaboration across regions and sectors. Those efforts signal a growing coordination largely absent until now.

Later this month, that momentum will be visible in Vancouver, where approximately 250 Indigenous founders, investors and members are expected to gather at what is being described as the largest event of its kind. Organized by the Indigenous Tech Circle, the Jan. 20-21 conference reflects both the scale of interest and the fragility of progress. Ryan Saint Germaine, the organization’s chief executive, describes the moment carefully. “Our aim is equitable outcomes,” he says. “There is a positive movement here, working to make things better.”

That cautious optimism is warranted. Governments, financial institutions, and industry partners are increasingly present in these conversations, and support for Indigenous tech has grown over the past 18 months. Still, systemic challenges remain. Procurement is a clear example. Governments are among the largest purchasers of digital services, yet Indigenous-owned tech firms receive only a small share of those contracts. The issue is not a lack of stated commitment, but the absence of frameworks that accommodate early-stage firms, smaller scale and alternative ownership structures.

Capital presents a similar challenge. Many Indigenous founders point to the lack of transition pathways from start-up life into Indigenous-led capital vehicles that understand patient growth and community-based ownership. Without those off-ramps, firms often remain perpetually early-stage or face pressure to dilute ownership in ways that undermine long-term sustainability.

Skills development also warrants reconsideration. Training programs have expanded, but they frequently emphasize workforce participation over ownership. Pathways into entrepreneurship, acquisition, and leadership remain limited, even though Indigenous businesses often demonstrate strong retention and local reinvestment rates.

Taken together, these dynamics suggest that Indigenous under-representation in tech is best understood not as an inclusion failure, but as a systems design challenge. Innovation ecosystems tend to reproduce the assumptions on which they were built. If those assumptions remain narrow, outcomes will remain uneven regardless of intent.

The test ahead is whether British Columbia’s innovation systems can adapt. Not by lowering standards or creating carve-outs, but by broadening the models of ownership, scale, and growth they are designed to support. The answer will shape not only the credibility of reconciliation in the digital economy, but the province’s long-term competitiveness as well.

Kirk LaPointe is a Business in Vancouver columnist with an extensive background in journalism. He is a special advisor at Fulmer and Company and an adjunct professor in media law at University of British Columbia.