Todd Stone: 'We need some leadership'

PODCAST: Joan Young on why landowners must be heard

“You can't have two sets of owners having ownership interests, with mutually exclusive rights, over the same piece of land. It just, in our view, doesn't work." As litigator for Montrose Properties, Joan Young has taken on an unenviable but some say, noble task. Last month, Young was in the BC Supreme Court petitioning to reopen the Cowichan Tribes v Canada [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/25/14/2025BCSC1490cor1.htm] trial to add Montrose as a defendant. If successful, Montrose will speak not only for its own interests as the largest property owner within the newly declared 800 acres of Aboriginal title land in Richmond, but also for the 150 or so others who were deliberately shut out of the 11-year-long court proceedings that led to the landmark ruling [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/explainer-cowichan-aboriginal-title-decision/]. Young sat down with us this week to explain how property titles are affected by the Cowichan Tribes decision, why Montrose is compelled to be the voice of landowners and has taken the extraordinary step to apply to reopen the trial, and what’s at stake if it doesn’t succeed. Watch the full podcast: Precedent-setting decision In August 2025, Madame Justice Barbara Young (no relation to Joan) issued the decision that rocked property owners in Richmond and beyond, marking the first time a court found Aboriginal title co-exists with private property. Overnight, Montrose Properties was thrust into ground zero of what may well be the epic societal conundrum of our time. Who owns the land in British Columbia? Framed as reconciliation, the current provincial and federal governments have committed to implementing the principles of a United Nations declaration [https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf] that equates Indigenous land claims with land ownership. Given there are 2.3 million private properties in BC and enough overlapping Aboriginal title claims to cover up to 120 per cent of the province, the math doesn’t lead anywhere harmonious. And if the Cowichan Tribes case is an indication of how the courts will treat private property owners whose land falls within an Indigenous land claim; how weakly [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/one-two-sucker-punch-bc-ottawa-bury-province-under-aboriginal-title-chaos/] governments will defend [https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/nothing-to-fear-from-sunshine-coast-land-deal-ndp]those public interests, and how vociferously Indigenous groups will pursue Aboriginal title, landowners might be on their own. Because so far in this case, the burden of defending what most consider an inalienable right in a democracy—property ownership [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/covert-haida-bc-government-court-action-may-strip-landowner-protections/]—has landed squarely on Montrose’s head. Despite more than a decade of legal proceedings, none of the parties of the Cowichan Tribes case, particularly Cowichan, Canada and BC, notified private landowners their property fell within the title claim area. And neither Canada nor BC argued to protect private property to the full extent they could have, according to Young. If this a trend, there will be consequences. The first casualty may be the very cause the courts and governments are purportedly pursuing. When the system for generations says private property is the most reliable investment we can make, then allows that foundation to erode without notice or voice, says Young, public support for reconciliation will erode with it. Podcast excerpt: ‘A death knell for reconciliation’ If you enjoyed the podcast, consider upgrading to paid [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe]—support independent news! All fees go to our sweatshop teeming with freelance writers and producers. Thanks as always for your support and interest in the endlessly eventful politics and public policy ecosystem in BC. —Fran Podcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach Proulx Feedback: Fran@NorthernBeat.ca For more BC politics: Northernbeat.ca This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

PODCAST: Political skeet-shooting with Keith Baldrey & Vaughn Palmer

Listen to the 5-minute highlights reel: If you follow BC politics, veteran political journalists Vaughn Palmer and Keith Baldrey need no introduction. For everyone else, Vancouver Sun political columnist, Palmer, and Global BC legislative bureau chief, Baldrey, have chronicled the triumphs and disasters of 11 premiers (“and counting:” Vaughn). “If [BC Conservatives] stick to the economy, I think they can stick together. If they stray into social conservatism and faith and all that that goes with that, it’s going to be a problem.” —Keith Baldrey They’ve seen governments rise and fall and rise again. They’ve watched political stars burn bright and flame out or fade away as a new wave of legislators took their place. They’ve heard eloquent speeches, tedious pontificating and everything in between. They’ve analyzed more laws, public policies, election campaigns, press conferences, official reports and legislative maneouverings than the cabinet ministers and Premier running the province. With 40 years of backstory, they see the whole iceberg. They can spot patterns, smell trouble and contextualize the significance before it's barely hit the radar of mere mortals. “Horgan was more inclusive, a team leader, a chair of the board, and he delegated. Eby doesn’t do any of those things.” –Vaughn Palmer Both Vaughn and Keith stopped by Northern Beat this week to share their insights into the session’s top story, leadership styles of past and present premiers, where the newest BC Conservative leader [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/does-kerry-lynne-findlay-have-what-it-takes-to-be-premier-of-bc/] can take her caucus if she chooses, how some First Nations leaders have dangerously over-reached, why both major parties are in flux, and more. Podcast excerpt: ‘You don’t need to be a 10 to win an election in BC’ Hope you enjoy this pod as much I did. Let us know what you think! As always, thanks for supporting independent news. Please share our stories and pods and consider subscribing if you haven’t already. All subscriber fees to to our freelance writers, helping us get more great content, one story at a time. Cheers, —Fran Upgrade to paid [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe] Podcast producers: Rob Shaw & Zach Proulx Feedback: Fran@NorthernBeat.ca More BC politics: www.northernbeat.ca This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Werner Stump: 'We really have to take a pause'

“The only way that we can create a sustainable long-term situation is if we have this foundation of equality… there needs to be only one class of British Columbians.” —Werner Stump The BC Cattlemen’s Association is throwing its considerable weight behind a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the BC NDP government’s most contentious legislation. If successful, the case could radically change the course [https://www.conversationsthatmatter.ca/episodes/606-dripa-and-legal-consequences] of reconciliation in the province and neutralize what critics view as a direct threat to BC’s governance structure. And it would force BC Premier David Eby's hand on what to do [https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-bc-premier-david-eby-not-in-charge-dripa-first-nations] with his prized Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, but most certainly not in the way he likes. [https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-dripa-troubles-dragging-down-david-eby-bc-ndp-government] Why are the province’s cattle ranchers wading into the DRIPA [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19044] legal fray as an intervenor in the court challenge? “It’s hard to imagine who might not be interested with DRIPA because it impacts potentially, in my opinion, pretty much everybody in the province,” says association president, Warren Stump. Listen to the audio highlight reel: [Upgrade to Paid [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe]] DRIPA confusion DRIPA channels the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP [https://www.ohchr.org/en/indigenous-peoples/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples]) into BC law. But Aboriginal law experts say UNDRIP does not conform with Canadian constitutional law and threatens our governance structure in BC. UNDRIP stipulates all legislation must be co-developed with First Nations, groups that have no electoral accountability to the broader public governed by those the laws. As well, any territory an Indigenous group choses to claim is treated as owned, bypassing the onerous burden of proof required under constitutional law. And use of that land, including resource development, requires the community's free, prior and informed consent. In BC, those territorial claims cover almost all of the province. Shoving this framework into practice has triggered chaos on the ground as government decision-makers, Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous residents and businesses scramble to understand how to comply. Ranchers are at the bleeding edge of this land-use imbroglio. Their livelihoods depend on grazing tenures and water rights on Crown land. “We're just feeling a lot of uncertainty as to where those things lie and where the rights to those things lie in the future,” says Stump, who wrote about how DRIPA leads to a system of unworkable co-governance. [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/if-dripa-stands-it-will-make-bc-an-undemocratic-society/] Podcast excerpt: ‘The biggest misstep’ Secret deals and mounting uncertainty This crisis has been brewing for years. According to Stump, the cattle sector first noticed international investors getting spooked by the uncertainty in BC’s market after the government’s botched attempt to amend the Land Act in spring 2024. The Land Act changes would have handed First Nations statutory decision-making power (aka a veto [https://northernbeat.ca/news/proposed-legislative-changes-give-indigenous-nations-statutary-power-on-land-use/]) over land use. The NDP government ultimately backed down [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/bc-ndp-pause-indigenous-statutory-decision-making-land-use/]amid public anger, just months before the provincial election. But the retreat was superficial. Similar powers quietly resurfaced [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/ndp-land-deals-are-faustian-bargain-for-indigenous-consent-says-ex-deputy/] in “reconciliation” agreements the BC government subsequently signed in the name of DRIPA. Take the agreement with shíshálh Nation which recognizes rights and title, grants joint and sole decision-making over land use, transfers Crown land, formalizes a controversial co-managment dock management plan and commits to $80 million [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/first-nations-a-z-listing/sechelt-sh-sh-lh-first-nation/sh-sh-lh-nation-british-columbia-foundation-agreement#2024FoundationAgreementRenewal] in funding over five years. It was signed two months before the election and kept secret [https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/secrecy-over-bc-land-management-deals-destroys-ndp-credibility] from the public for five months. Pender Harbour and Area Residents Association [https://phara.ca] pushed back with a lawsuit [https://phara.ca/phara-files-updated-legal-action-to-strike-down-dripa-post/] that evolved into the constitutional court challenge the cattlemen are now joining. “The PHARA litigation is entirely about what does this UNDRIP mean? Is it sound to have DRIPPA as a foundation moving forward? Is it consistent with Canadian law? Is it consistent with our rights and freedoms under the Charter of Canada?” The lawsuit alleges DRIPA fails to balance Indigenous and non-Indigenous rights, it exceeds the province’s constitutional jurisdiction by expanding Indigenous resource management, and breaches people’s democratic rights by ceding governance to individuals with no duty or accountability to the public affected by their decisions. ‘Existential threat’ to the rule of law The legal landscape was already a minefield of uncertainty for private property owners. The BC government-Haida agreement [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/covert-haida-bc-government-court-action-may-strip-landowner-protections/] awarded Aboriginal title over private land, then the Cowichan Tribes [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/p/special-cowichan-aboriginal-title] BC Supreme Court decision found Aboriginal title over private property in Richmond BC, followed by the federal government-Musqueam [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1772569109838/1772569128589] rights recognition agreement that recognized Aboriginal title somewhere in the Lower Mainland. Layered onto all of this is the Gixaala [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1680/2023bcsc1680.html] BC Court of Appeal decision which found the province in violation of its own DRIPA-related legislation [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billsprevious/2nd42nd:gov29-3], penned by then-Attorney General David Eby, that directs all laws “must” conform to the Declaration Act. The Premier denounced the Gixaala ruling and vowed to correct course. This was followed by three months of indecision and two months of political whiplash, featuring a series of flip-flops as the Premier pivoted weekly on how best to manage First Nations’ demands versus “significant legal liabilities” and the “existential threat” created by his own legislation. Unsurprisingly, capital is nervous. “They’re looking at British Columbia and saying, ‘Hey, these guys don’t have their act together. We don’t know what the rules are.’ “Anyone can challenge any law in British Columbia and question whether it’s consistent with the principles of UNDRIP. So that does leave us in a position of essentially we don’t know where we stand.” Enjoy the podcast and let us know what you think. Thanks for supporting independent media. —Fran Podcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach Proulx Feedback: Fran@Northernbeat.ca For more BC politics: Northernbeat.ca This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Todd Stone: 'We need some leadership'

Listen to the audio highlight reel (above) or scroll to the bottom to watch the full podcast Todd Stone is speaking for an embattled industry. The CEO and president of the Association of Mineral Exploration joined our podcast to share how his members are faring under BC Premier David Eby’s handling of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). In a couple of words: not good. Despite Prime Minister Mark Carney and Premier Eby identifying critical mineral development as a key priority, BC’s mineral prospectors report permitting processes mired in delays, Indigenous consultations without a clear beginning or end, project requirements that keep expanding, with no one apparently in charge. Prospectors, or junior mining companies, are the ones who spend months and sometimes years searching the hills and valleys for gold, silver, copper and more. They are often only a one or two-person, self-financed operation. They have high hopes and shallow pockets. Without them, major deposits would never get found, let alone developed. Podcast excerpt: ‘Everyone’s best interest’ In BC, prospectors’ anecdotes reveal permitting processes mired in indecision and confusion, largely stemming from how the Eby government is interpreting two recent court cases and implementing DRIPA. The first court ruling in 2023 [https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/92499] stated Crown breached its duty under Section 35 of the constitution by not consulting with First Nations at the time a claim was staked. Since implementing the new consultation framework a year ago, 85 per cent of claims were not completed within the government’s promised maximum of 120 days. Previously, anyone could instantaneously stake a claim on Crown land as long as the area hadn’t already been claimed. In the second case, the 2025 Gitxaala [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/25/04/2025BCCA0430.htm]decision [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/25/04/2025BCCA0430.htm] in the BC Court of Appeal ruled that DRIPA, which basically channels the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into BC law, is not just an inspirational framework, but an enforceable law. “This would make British Columbia the only jurisdiction in the entire world that has ceded authority from the Crown and the elected representatives of the BC legislature to a set of principles from the United Nations,” says Stone. [Upgrade to paid [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe]] The Appeal Court did as instructed The court basically did as David Eby instructed when he was attorney general, since he introduced DRIPA in 2019 and the Interpretation Act in 2021. The latter directs “every Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with [DRIPA].” “This was never, ever, ever the intention of the DRIPA legislation. It certainly was not sold to British Columbians on that basis,” says Stone, who was a BC Liberal MLA when legislators unanimously passed DRIPA. “What this decision therefore opens the province up to is a massive amount of potential litigation from First Nations on almost any law or any regulation in the province of British Columbia,” says Stone. “They [can] bring forward a case and say, ‘Well, the Appeals Court of British Columbia said that this particular law must be in alignment with UNDRIP. It’s not. We would like a ruling.’” The Premier denounced the Gitxaala decision, saying the court was “confused” and had misinterpreted his one-line instruction in the Interpretation Act. He later defended his plan to amend DRIPA, saying the ruling had created “significant legal liabilities” for the province. He’s since publicly brainstormed multiple fixes to the Gitxaala decision, including suspending DRIPA provisions for three years. Then last week, he abandoned amending the law at all, following threats by Indigenous chiefs of mass protests and major project blockades if so much as a word was altered in DRIPA. “He has changed his mind a number of times as he’s gone through this process to the point where it almost feels like whiplash and no one really knows what the road map ahead looks like,” says Stone. Confusion among government decision-makers In the midst of the Premier’s successive positions on the DRIPA amendments, federal government Indigenous rights agreements [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1772569109838/1772569128589], BC land agreements and trilateral treaties [https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/121/2026/04/Komoks-Treaty_MCA1-Version_2026.pdf] have continued adopting UNDRIP principles as the “minimum standards” and the “authoritative source” for implementing Aboriginal rights. Just days before Eby abandoned his power struggle with Indigenous leaders to amend DRIPA, he said provisions needed to be paused to provide clarity to statutory decision-makers trying to interpret how to apply DRIPA and UNDRIP in areas such as permitting and regulations. “DRIPA was never intended to be driven deep, deep, deep, deep down into the regulatory requirements and processes that involve mineral exploration… permits that now take months and months and months and months to be approved,” Stone says. UNDRIP not compatible with Canadian law Adding to the mounting perplexity in the permitting process, are the provisions in UNDRIP that are incompatible with Canadian constitutional law. One UNDRIP provision recognizes all territory claimed by Indigenous groups must be treated as territory owned, without any need for legal proof, as required under Section 35 and Canadian constitutional law. As owners of whatever territory they claim, Indigenous communities then also have the inherent right to decide how that land is used. Another section of UNDRIP stipulates this right must be free, prior, informed consent over land use, aka, a veto. From this perspective, nearly all of BC is “owned” by First Nations. UNDRIP also has no provision for overlapping claims, and in BC, there are many. All of which has created a regulatory nightmare for statutory decision-makers. “We shouldn’t leave it people to guess because when you do, most people are going to not want to get it wrong,” Stone says. “They’re not going to want to make a mistake. They’re not going to want to take a risk. And so what are they going to do as a default? They’re going to default to more consent, deeper consent, more frequent consent.” All this and more in my conversation with Todd Stone. If you work in a business that requires engaging in government regulatory or permitting processes, reach out, we’d appreciate hearing about your experience. Thanks for listening and supporting independent journalism. —Fran Watch the full podcast: Podcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach Proulx Feedback: Fran@nothernbeat.ca For more BC politics: NorthernBeat.ca This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Who's governing BC?

Hot off the press… Shortly before publishing this podcast, Premier David Eby’s office announced his government will not introduce amendments to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) this session. Suddenly, the issues we discussed in this week’s podcast are all the more relevant for what lies ahead in BC. Aboriginal law expert Geoffrey Moyse [https://www.moyselaw.ca] sat down with us this week to talk about the end goals of DRIPA and UNDRIP, what’s different about the first treaties ratified under them (introduced as legislation last week), and what it means to be co-governed [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/if-dripa-stands-it-will-make-bc-an-undemocratic-society/] by an elite group of Indigenous leaders without a public mandate who represent less than three per cent of the province’s population. Podcast excerpt: Has co-governing already begun? The Gitxaala BC Court of Appeal decision last December ruled that DRIPA is “the law” and all BC legislation must be interpreted through the lens of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). According to the Premier, this has unleashed “significant legal liabilities” [https://www.biv.com/news/premier-eby-says-changing-dripa-is-non-negotiable-and-will-be-pushed-into-law-12090739] in court cases against his government, creating an “existential threat.” Indigenous leaders, in the form of the First Nations Leadership Council, is having none of it, and called Eby’s reasoning a “tall tale” [https://www.bcafn.ca/news/in-the-news/david-ebys-abandonment-human-rights-betrays-his-own-government] Eby vowed to amend DRIPA to neuter the provisions cited by the Appeal court. But after two overt attempts to get Indigenous leaders onside to accept his amendments of DRIPA, the premier has today backed down entirely… for this session at least. Most likely, he will now, cap in hand, take the time to consult in a manner acceptable to the First Nations Leadership Council on the province’s strategy going forward. Though, one can only wonder how he will “negotiate” any kind of reasonable compromise when the other parties have thundered he cannot so much as touch a comma in DRIPA. If, as Moyse says, UNDRIP and DRIPA have as end goals the co-governance of BC by Indigenous leaders, there may be no way to convince advocates to scale back their ambitions. Yet, if this is the existential threat the Premier said it is, carrying infinite liabilities for the province, it’s hard to see how his backdown serves the wider public interest, or if indeed he’s considering the public good at all. Watch the full podcast: Is Premier Eby really in charge? The need to have sign-off from an elite group of Indigenous chiefs is extremely problematic for democracy, says Moyse. “It’s a pretty good indication that he feels he’s unable to move on governing the province without first nations basically agreeing to what he’s proposing to do,” Moyse says. “You can’t govern a province waiting for two per cent of the population represented by a fairly activist [First Nations Leadership Council] to have to accede to whatever it is you want to do legislatively. “It’s ridiculous. But it is a product of UNDRIP.” So far, DRIPA has been an instrument of chaos There has been considerable chaos and acrimony—not to mention legislative debate, court battles and media coverage—surrounding what DRIPA is and isn’t. One indesputable fact is that this provincial legislation channels the principles of a United Nations declaration into BC law. And both the British Columbia and federal governments have embraced UNDRIP as the new “minimum standard for human rights” when negotiating Aboriginal rights and title agreements in this province. That Premier David Eby was surprised [https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-bc-premier-upset-courts-accepted-his-use-of-the-word-must] the BC Court of Appeal adopted a similar logic in its Gitxaala decision last December remains a perplexity given he was the attorney general who introduced the two laws, DRIPA in 2019 and the Interpretation Act in 2021, responsible for breathing life into UNDRIP. Whether you think UNDRIP is a political triumph or a threat to democracy, neither DRIPA nor UNDRIP conform to Canadian constitutional law and both have already begun to change how BC is being governed, [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/under-dripa-co-governing-with-indigenous-leaders-has-begun/] says Moyse. Podcast excerpt: ‘Entirely undemocratic’ Moyse has logged more than 35 years in the Aboriginal law trenches, most of those for the BC government as legal counsel on treaty negotiations and Aboriginal law matters. Now retired from the public service, he advises an eclectic roster of clients on the current Aboriginal law landscape, including the Public Land Use Society [https://publiclanduse.ca/about-us/]. He is also a regular contributor [https://northernbeat.ca/opinion/one-two-sucker-punch-bc-ottawa-bury-province-under-aboriginal-title-chaos/] to Northern Beat. Enjoy the pod and let us know what you think! These are important issues that deserve public debate. As always, thanks for supporting independent journalism and sharing our work. —Fran Podcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach Proulx Feedback Fran@NorthernBeat.ca For more BC politics NorthernBeat.ca This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe [https://northernbeatnews.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]