Advertise on podcast: Northern Beat News Podcast

“We need to be building that wider coalition.” —Peter Milobar Two-and-a-months after an unsuccessful bid for the BC Conservative Party leadership and his subsequent pledge to support newly elected leader, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Peter Milobar quit caucus and the party, and now sits as an Independent. What changed? “A lot changed,” Milobar said, citing a misalignment of values with the direction Findlay is taking the party, including “a purge” of caucus and party staff not deemed of the same mind, namely former BC Liberals (which was, despite the name, was the province’s former right-leaning party). For the first time in nine years and eight leaders, Milobar chose to walk away. “I’m not known as someone that just flies off the handle or does a knee-jerk decision or reaction. If I got to that place in two-and-a-half months to walk away when I’ve never done that before… perhaps that’s all people need to realize just all the turmoil that is going on behind the scenes, and will continue to go [on]. “And I didn’t want to be a part of that.” [Upgrade to Paid] Pod clip: ‘Purge the Milobar people’ Ten days after Milobar quit the Conservatives, former Opposition agriculture critic and farmer, Ian Paton, joined him and the two announced they would form a new centre-right party to gain the resources of official party status and give voters an alternative to the Conservatives and the BC NDP. Today, three more Conservative MLAs—Rosalyn Bird, Teresa Wat and Brennan Day—bolted for the Independent benches, citing untenable ethical issues under Findlay’s leadership. Also today, Findlay fired her party operations manager and key fundraiser after a tape circulated online with him allegedly bragging about a plan to defraud the BC Conservative party. For her part, Findlay’s initial graciousness at Milobar’s departure soon wore off as other MLAs followed. She has alternately dismissed them as lacking vision or excoriated their motivations as selfish and a betrayal. Some of her supporters have defended their leader’s integrity and derided their former colleagues as “old BC Liberals.” Other Conservative MLAs vow not to quit the Conservative movement or have maintained radio silence. Either way, Milobar’s departure seems to have opened the floodgates of discontent within caucus ranks. How many legislators will follow, and whether they will join the fledgling new party he and Paton are teeing up, is an open question. Podcast clip: ‘My biggest concern’ Listen to the audio highlights reel [at the top of the page] or watch the full podcast [below] to learn why Milobar and others believe a new centre-right party, led by sitting MLAs, is the most viable path forward. Watch the full podcast here: Podcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach Proulx Feedback to [email protected] For more BC politics read 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

“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 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. 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 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 governments will defend 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—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—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: [email protected] 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

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 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 Podcast producers: Rob Shaw & Zach Proulx Feedback: [email protected] 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

“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 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 with his prized Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, but most certainly not in the way he likes. Why are the province’s cattle ranchers wading into the DRIPA 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] DRIPA confusion DRIPA channels the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 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. 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) over land use. The NDP government ultimately backed down amid public anger, just months before the provincial election. But the retreat was superficial. Similar powers quietly resurfaced 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 in funding over five years. It was signed two months before the election and kept secret from the public for five months. Pender Harbour and Area Residents Association pushed back with a lawsuit 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 awarded Aboriginal title over private land, then the Cowichan Tribes BC Supreme Court decision found Aboriginal title over private property in Richmond BC, followed by the federal government-Musqueam rights recognition agreement that recognized Aboriginal title somewhere in the Lower Mainland. Layered onto all of this is the Gixaala BC Court of Appeal decision which found the province in violation of its own DRIPA-related legislation, 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: [email protected] 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

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 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 decision 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] 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, BC land agreements and trilateral treaties 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: [email protected] 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

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 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 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” 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” 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 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, 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. He is also a regular contributor 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 [email protected] 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

[Listen to the highlights reel above or scroll to the bottom to watch the full podcasts] Did the BC government order Dr. Julian Somers to destroy vital scientific data? If so, why? If not, then where is it? That was the crux of contention between Opposition critic Claire Rattée and BC Health Minister Josie Osborne during several question periods last week. For four consecutive days, Rattée pressed Osborne for answers. “Why did this government order the destruction of critical addiction and public safety data right before launching its decriminalization experiment, and will [the minister] release all underlying data for independent review today?” asked Rattée on Apr. 1. Osborne dismissed the assertion as “false and absolutely misleading,” saying Somers had been a mere government contractor who was simply asked to “transition his data” to a new government database so it could be more widely accessible to researchers. “The data that Dr. Somers collected was not destroyed,” Osborne said, as former health minister Adrian Dix, on whose watch the order-to-destroy was issued, nodded and clapped in agreement. Then in a classic relationship-gone-bad fight-club pivot, Osborne resorted to a personal attack on Somers, accusing the distinguished professor and renowned addiction researcher of peddling misinformation. Podcast excerpt: ‘An orchestrated campaign’ Retorical deflections aside, the directive Somers received from government rang with chilling clarity. “… all data must be destroyed and all media storage devices that housed Ministry data must be sanitized,” writes a BC government official in a letter addressed to Somers, dated Mar. 5, 2021. Despite this documentary evidence, the minister insists the data survives. If the data lives on, then where is it? Northern Beat reached out to Minister Osborne for an interview but her office demurred, citing a lack of time. In response to a follow up request for access to the database the minister says now contains Dr. Somers’ research, government communications staff emailed a light description, with a link to the Data Innovation Program. Upon review, it’s difficult to understand which data the minister believes represents Dr. Somers’ unique body of research. His team’s data was the culmination of more than two decades of collaboration with researchers around the world, underwritten by tens of millions of federal government dollars. While various provincial ministries permitted access to certain records, the BC government did not design the group’s studies and provided only minimal funding for a fraction of them, Somers said. Much of the research his team had accumulated was specialized, requiring consent from participants and hard-won approvals from multiple ministries and ethics boards. Even if he’d wanted to, Somers lacked authorization to share or use his team’s data for any purpose beyond the strict parameters of the original studies. “We were an arm’s length, independent entity expected to design research to the highest standard,” said Somers, who was running a renowned mental health and addictions research centre at Simon Fraser University at the time. “There’s no way we could simply turn those data over to another party, another research group, let alone the BC government… that is a preposterous statement by the minister.” All research is not equal In one seminal study, Somers and his co-investigators followed 500 British Columbians who gave consent for the group to monitor their ongoing interactions with health, social services, homelessness, employment and the justice system over five years. Researchers also tracked as far back as 15 years to understand the trajectory of their interactions and intervention outcomes over time. By contrast, in the government’s database, the supposed current repository of Dr. Somers’ research, available data sets on homelessness are entirely “de-identified,” showing shelter use, social assistance payments and healthcare visits from 2019 to 2022. Somers’ research also revealed risk factors that weighted individuals towards a probable future of severe homelessness, mental illness and addiction. It revealed the migration of people from across BC to the Downtown Eastside and why. It showed predictors of the future demographic who would one day make their way to the infamous neighborhood. Crucially, his team’s research questioned the efficacy of major new, untested public policies the BC NDP government was in the midst of escalating. In fact, the order to destroy his data arrived mere days after he presented senior government officials—including then Attorney General and Housing minister David Eby—with his team’s evidence-based plan for dealing with homelessness, addiction and mental illness. Podcast excerpt: Inconvenient research What harms might have been prevented? For her part, Rattée questioned if the BC NDP administration implemented decriminalization and safe supply without adequate evidence and ignored Dr. Somers’ findings because they ran counter to government ideology. If government officials had heeded Dr. Somers’ research, allowing his team to evaluate key programs it has since abandoned, the province would now be on a very different public health policy path, she said. All of which raises troubling questions: What kind of regime tells a scientist to destroy years of valuable data underpinning all their ground-breaking research? How many people could have been helped, and how much harm prevented if the BC government had genuinely considered the findings of Dr. Somers and his team? [Upgrade to Paid] Capping the legislative debate last week, Rattée raised what’s called a question of privilege, asking the Speaker to determine whether the Health minister deliberately misled the house, and thus the public, in her statements about Dr. Somers’s data. The Speaker will consult with government to hear its arguments, before ruling on whether the minister breached her privilege, or essentially committed contempt of parliament. He will likely deliver his decision next week when session resumes. Listen/watch the full conversations below to learn more about Somers’ research and the perplexing narrative adopted by the BC government. Full Podcasts In the interests of sharing this story with everyone, we’re not putting the podcasts behind a paywall today. That said, good journalism takes time and money. If you haven’t yet upgraded to paid, please consider doing so. As an independent media outlet, we don’t have the deep pockets of large corporations. What we do have is the flexibility, editorial freedom and motivation to delve into policies and situations that might not otherwise get flagged or investigated for the public good. We take that job seriously and appreciate your support! As always, thanks for reading, watching and sharing our work. —Fran Claire Rattée Julian Somers Podcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach Proulx Feedback to [email protected] 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

“The federal [Crown-Indigenous Relations] minister is on the record right now saying the [Musqueam] agreement protects private property. There’s not a word in the agreement that does that, not a word, not a comma.” —Tom Isaac Welcome to the Northern Beat podcast. First, a glimpse behind the curtain… we’re testing a few new video and audio formats this week. The audio highlights reel (above) features excerpts of the podcast to give you a punchy, speed-thru of the interview. If you want to catch it all, paid subscribers can now watch the full video interview. And all subscribers can access video previews for a quick peek of podcast guests. Let us know if you have apreference! It’s an important topic this week, focussed on the Musqueam rights and recognition agreement, which, among other things, acknowledges Aboriginal title somewhere in the Lower Mainland. We asked Aboriginal law expert Tom Isaac back to the pod to translate what the agreement means, why it matters, and the burning questions at the centre of it all: Why are our governments doing this? And why now? As always, thanks for caring about BC politics and supporting independent journalism. —Fran [Upgrade to Paid] Musqueam rights and recognition agreement “Musqueam laws and legal orders, grounded in our snəw̓eyəɬ now exist alongside and independently of Canada’s legal system.” —Musqueam rights recognition agreement Landowners and investors in British Columbia were already on tenterhooks when the federal government signed an agreement with Musqueam Indian Band that, among other things, recognizes “unextinguished” Aboriginal title somewhere within the group’s massive asserted territory spanning much of the Lower Mainland. News of the agreement followed an already tumultuous couple of years for private property owners. The 2024 Haida-BC government agreement recognized Aboriginal title over all private property on Haida Gwaii (subsequently constitutionally enshrined with a secret court declaration). Then last August, the BC Supreme Court Cowichan Tribes ruling found Aboriginal title is the “senior interest” over roughly 150 private properties in Richmond. So when news of the Feb. 20 agreement between Ottawa and the Musqueam Indian Band finally leaked out to the public, it detonated like a political bomb. Two additional agreements were also signed that day, related to stewardship and marine management over water and resources , as well as shared decision-making over fisheries within Musqueam claimed territory. But is was the rights recognition deal that rocked already shell-shocked landowners. “Our legal tradition addressed key principles such as permissible access and presence in the territory and mechanisms to address uninvited or unwelcomed people… we have consistently protected and governed access to our territory and resources throughout our history.” —From the Musqueam rights recognition agreement Under the terms of the rights recognition agreement, the federal government not only recognizes Aboriginal title somewhere within Musqueam’s claimed territory, it also commits to using UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as the template going forward. Tom Isaac explains why this is unprecedented and how the effects could reverberate across the province and country… and not in a good way. Podcast preview: What worries investors It’s more than a framework for negotiations Some proponents of the deal have told everyone to calm down, that it’s just a framework to tee up future negotiations. “That’s half the story, but it’s not the full story,” says Isaac. Yes, it’s a framework, but it also recognizes Aboriginal title—which confers exclusive use of the land–without identifying where that land is located within BC’s largest, most populous city. Crucially, the federal government commits to the articles of UNDRIP as the “minimum standards” that must be met when dealing with all Indigenous people. Accordinging to Isaac, UNDRIP is an impossible standard that no justice system anywhere could actually meet. UNDRIP accepts asserted territory as ownership of land, bypassing the rigorous legal test of occupation set out in Canadian constitutional law. “It’s not a test for Aboriginal title. There’s no evidentiary burden there. It’s basically all of Canada.” Where Canadian law requires onerous proof of aboriginal title and has legally defined title, accounting for overlapping claims, and justifiable infringement, explains Isaac. “[UNDRIP] is like, ‘No, it’s yours.’” Given the constitutional provision of the “honour of the Crown,” courts will now be well within their right to hold Canada accountable to meet the standards of UNDRIP, says Isaac. “Otherwise they’re just empty words. So which one is it, minister, do you mean what you say, or are they empty words?” We’ve seen this play out already when last December, the BC Court of Appeal called the BC government on its ‘words’ in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which commits to incorporating the principles of UNDRIP into all BC laws. Elected officials had framed DRIPA as alternately inspirations, or a guiding framework, but the court ruled the legislation “actionable” in court, meaning government is legally bound to uphold it to the letter of the law. The premier reacted with outrage, lashing out at the court, vowing to amend the legislation this session. Ironically, hypocritically, Eby himself introduced the law he was now angrily pledging to amend. Everybody knows that UNDRIP can’t be fully implemented, says Isaac. “So then you go, ‘Well, why are we saying sort of silly statements that on their face cannot be implemented?” Why our governments keep doing this is a perplexity we examine in this podcast. [Upgrade to Paid] Podcast Preview: ‘This is not going to end well’ Private property is not protected in Musqueam agreement Both the Musqueam chief and the federal Crown-Indigenous Relations minister tried to assuag public panic, insisting the deal only involves federal lands and leaves private property “unaffected.” But Isaac challenges the notion. “There’s not a comma in the agreement that restricts this agreement, or Canada’s agreements in it, to federal lands.” Tom Isaac is a leading Aboriginal law expert in Canada. He’s represented multiple levels of governments, industries and businesses across the country and court systems, on major projects, on regulatory and constitutional matters. He led negotiations on the largest class-action suit settlement for residential school students in Canadian history ($2.8 billion). He’s currently 300 pages deep into writing his 17th law book (spoiler: it’s on the duty of the Crown). Upgrade to paid to WATCH the FULL Video PODCAST Podcast producers: Rob Shaw & Zach Proulx Feedback: [email protected] 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

“We’re paralyzed. Our economy is falling over on its side…. that’s the horror of the position we’ve been put into by the government.” Iain Black has so many concerns with how the province of BC is being governed, he’s jumped back into the political fray to do something about it. A BC Conservative leadership candidate, Black is a former BC Liberal cabinet minister and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. He also led multiple private companies in the tech sector. “I’m an experienced CEO. I take over companies, I restructure them, I build executive teams… leadership development and growing teams is my expertise.” All of which makes him well-suited to lead the Conservative party, become premier, and tackle the challenges facing the province, he argues. We caught up with Black while he was campaigning on Vancouver Island. He pulled over to speak with us from his car. —Fran [Upgrade to paid] ‘The province is broke’ According to Black, there are a lot of complex problems that need solving: a bloated executive-heavy health sector with frontline staffing shortages, “tragic souls” needing mandatory mental health and addictions care, a “mis-hit” on values between what the majority believe and what government is delivering, unaffordable housing, and layers of regulations strangling the housing and resource development sectors. “You’ve got an entire generation of voters stepping back and saying, ‘Whatever this is, it’s not working for me.’” Add to that, a historic $13.3 billion deficit, a tripling of the provincial debt in nine years, and more. “The financial situation and the financial management of this province is absolutely at a crisis.” The swing from a $5 billion surplus in 2022 to a $13 billion deficit this year is especially concerning because you can’t point to anything taxpayers got for that, says Black. “Show me the bridges, hospitals, the schools, the roads, show me something that we got for this money… there’s nothing there.” The fix won’t be simple, easy or quick, but it will involve spending cuts and restructuring how government does things, including rolling back the regulatory burden on businesses and getting certification in place for professional firms serving housing and the “dirt” sectors like mining, oil and gas, forestry, agriculture, to speed up permitting. Mining permits take years or even decades, and it takes five years to build a mid-sized apartment complex in Surrey, Vancouver or Victoria, he says. “The permitting process is killing us right now.” Podcast preview: Secret BC NDP deals hurt reconciliation The ‘shadow’ that looms over nearly everything Along with the dire fiscal situation, Black says DRIPA and the way the BC NDP government is implementing reconciliation, looms over nearly everything. “A shadow is being thrown over them by the current urgency around where the heck are we at with First Nations,” says Black. “And a great deal of push back is now building resentment towards the NDP government for bringing us to this place where we clearly don’t need to be.” The whole reconciliation file is “continuing to dominate the psyche of every British Columbian.” He says it’s the number one issue that people bring up as he travels the province. Much of the angst and uncertainty tracks back to the way government has made decisions around rights and title and the involvement of Indigenous communities with economic development, Black says. “By the authorship of [Premier] David Eby and the NDP, we have a crisis on our hands with respect to our relationship with First Nations.” At a time when the economy needs billions of dollars of new investment, he says government policy has created an environment where British Columbia is now “largely uninvestable.” Because of this, and the huge uncertainty it has fuelled over private property rights (on top of the Cowichan Tribes court decision), the damage is already done, he says. We really don’t have a choice, DRIPA has to be repealed. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was passed in 2019 with all-party support, but Black argues the way it has been implemented by the BC NDP has proven unworkable. The fallout of repealing the law will be immense, but there’s no alternative, he says, because “we’re paralyzed. Our economy is falling over on its side…. that’s the horror of the position we’ve been put into by the government.” [Upgrade to paid] Secretly enshrining Haida title is ‘beyond unethical’ The BC and federal governments’ secret actions to enshrine the Haida land title agreement into the Constitution is one such move, according to Black. “What really bothered me was the quiet, sneaky way that the government got that deal enshrined into the Constitution, which means that any subsequent government cannot undo that decision.” Regardless of the contents of the agreement, or whether you vote Conservative, Liberal or NDP, it is anti-democratic to take away powers from a future government, Black says. “And to do so secretly, without debate in the Legislative Assembly… it’s beyond unethical. I think it’s immoral.” ‘It’s deceitful’ Different governments bring in different policies, and voters can decide every four years “whether they’re with you or not,” but, the current government is undercutting that democratic process by demonstrating a disturbing “pattern of secrecy,” says Black. He cites the shifting narrative by BC NDP officials on what they knew when about the Federal government-Musqueam agreement. “At the beginning of the day, you had our provincial government saying, ‘No, we knew nothing about it. This is a surprise to us. Boy, let’s look into this.’ And within even an hour or so, they immediately backtracked and said, ‘Actually, we did know about it, and the agreement did involve Premier Eby, and it was actually signed in his own riding in his backyard.’ “It’s deceitful,” says Black. “What I struggle with is this denial [by government] that there is this type of an agenda in place, but then one deal after another, one situation after another, one negotiation after another, we learn about it after the fact. “The deals themselves are not put in front of the Legislative Assembly—which is the people's representatives—to decide, to debate whether something is being done the right way, and whether that outcome is what was good for British Columbia and the 5.7 million people who live here,” says Black. “If you want to have a debate about a good idea being right or wrong. Let’s have that debate, but this is just, it’s sneaky and dishonest, and the people have lost the trust on the government on this point, and I think deservedly so. “These chickens are coming home to roost right now for the NDP.” Podcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach Proulx For more BC politics, check out NorthernBeat.ca Feedback to [email protected] 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

“I fully well understand what the role of the Premier is and that's about the protection, and an eye to the protection, of all in British Columbia.” BC Conservative leadership contender, Peter Milobar, has a reputation as a serious legislator who knows his files. A skilled debater, impervious to heckling from the government side, his arguments are logical, often dense with facts and occasionally punctuated with deadpan retorts. A former city councillor, Milobar was elected mayor of Kamloops three times and board chair of the Thompson-Nicola Regional Distist five years in a row. In 2017, he won the Kamloops North Thompson riding and joined the Official Opposition BC Liberals (later, renamed BC United) where he served variously as house leader, critic of the environment, Indigenous relations, and finance. When BC United folded in 2024, Milobar was recruited by the BC Conservatives and won the riding of Kamloops Centre. For the last four years, he has been finance critic opposite three finance ministers, largely under Premier David Eby. In that time, “there is no doubt that fiscal restraint has gone completely out the window,” Milobar says. Arguably, no one in the legislative chamber, outside of the current BC NDP Finance Minister, knows the BC government’s budgets better than Milobar. There are worse starting points for a man with his eye on the premier’s chair. Postcast preview: Being OK with a ‘D’ Grade Before he can make his case to the province, Milobar must first convince BC Conservative members he’s the best candidate to lead their party into the next general election. Like other contenders, Milobar is working hard to meet members and raise his profile so people understand who he is and what he stands for. [Conversations that Matter host Stu McNish aired an informative interview with Milobar on Vancouver Sun, giving a shotgun overview his views across several key areas.] In our conversation this week, we went deeper into the province’s most complex problems, namely, historic levels of government debt and deficit, and a mismanaged reconciliation agenda. Milobar parses through the strategy to rein in spending, arguing that fiscal measures must be tied to improving outcomes. “We are not a competitive tax jurisdiction when it comes to job creators, when it comes to attracting investment.” He says the BC government must clarify decision-making on the land base to restore investor and landowner certainty and accelerate resource development and project permitting. “It's been eight months [since government introduced] the legislation to accelerate projects and they don't have the regulation written for the legislation that's supposed to accelerate projects,” he said. “I'm not saying you can just wave a magic wand… but what we have right now is a government that is just in paralysis to actually move forward with anything. We need to put a little bit of common sense into this to actually get the permits flowing.” ‘DRIPA is not the vehicle’ Milobar lays out why he and other Opposition MLAs voted with the BCNDP to pass the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in 2019, along with the disconnect between how the legislation was presented at the time by elected officials of the late John Horgan's government, versus what has been implemented since. He is clear on what must happen next to advance genuine reconciliation. “DRIPA is not the vehicle; it needs to be repealed.” After a court ruling stated all laws must conform with DRIPA, Premier David Eby promised to bring in amendments to essentially restrict the courts from being able to treat DRIPA as an actionable law. Leaders of some First Nations groups have warned DRIPA must stay as is. Eby hasn’t yet shared the substance of the amendments. “We just have to acknowledge it was a failed attempt by government to try to do something that didn't work. There's no shame in admitting that and moving on,” says Milobar. Instead, he says, government needs to find another way forward that protects private property rights, respects the constitutional obligations and duties to Indigenous people, and negotiates in good faith with First Nations. “I full well understand what the role of the Premier is and that’s about the proterction, and an eye to the protection, of the rights of all in British Columbia, not one subsection or the other,” says Milobar. “But that means treating everybody fairly and with respect. It doesn’t mean everyone just gets what they want.” Listen to the podcast to hear all this and more. As always, thanks for reading and supporting independent journalism. And let us know what you think of today’s pod. —Fran Podcast producers: Rob Shaw & Zach Proulx Feedback: [email protected] 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

Dr. Caroline Elliott may not yet be widely known to British Columbian voters, but the emerging frontrunner in the BC Conservative leadership race is no stranger to the BC political arena. Her work as a political staffer in Gordon Campbell’s government evolved into operating her own independent consultancy in BC’s major projects resource sector, which in turn spurred her academic pursuits, and ultimately led to her decision to vie for leader. All these experiences opened her eyes to the intersection of public policy development and the tensions of governance within and between Indigenous bodies in a Liberal democracy—the subject of her PhD in political science. Armed with this uniquely informed expertise and frontline view of the threats, vulnerabilities and promise facing the province, she launched many eviscerating critiques of the BC NDP’s education policies, the Anti-Racism Act, dysfunction in the Heritage Conservation Act, restrictions on non-indigenous citizens’ access to Crown land, and more. “The very principle that BC’s beautiful parks belong to all British Columbians is actually under threat, because this government is endorsing an idea that actually, ‘No, [parks] belong to some [citizens] more than others,’ [is] just fundamentally not right, and British Columbians know that.” A pain in the (NDP) body politic Elliott has been an incessant and very sharp thorn digging into the open wound that the NDP’s “radical reconciliation” agenda has become. Her political commentary— here, here, and here— has drawn attention to public policy she views as dangerous to democracy, including uncertainty over private property rights and land use deals that award statutory decision-making or de facto veto to First Nations over public resources. “When you have those small Indigenous governments with no democratic relationship with the people that they’re making decisions over, you really enter into a lot of conflicts from a democratic perspective.” But the OpEd that really seemed to rattle some BC NDP teeth was this deadly piece of research published in the National Post that delved into the “Land Back” ideology behind the DRIPA legislation and the David Eby government’s action on the reconciliation file: “The extreme ideology behind B.C.’s radical reconciliation agenda. [Upgrade to Paid] Podcast preview - ‘This province is at a crucial time’ Listen to a preview of the podcast with Caroline Elliott. On other policy fronts… Spending must be reduced—”you can’t shovel money off the back of a truck”— and a review conducted of where money is going, Elliott said. “It’s about holding every dollar accountable, because we owe that to the British Columbians who are taking, in some cases, half of their pay cheques and giving it to this government.” The education system: “Our literacy outcomes are falling, our math outcomes are falling, our science outcomes are falling, and their solution isn’t to fix those things. Their solution is to stop measuring. They get rid of letter grades. ” And public disorder has to be reined in. “Violent offenders don’t belong in neighbourhoods. They belong in jail,” Elliott said. Elliott recommends researching other jurisdictions for efficiencies and improvements in health care delivery. “If more money was the answer, we would be have the most wonderfully functioning health care system.” And to solve some of the toughest issues plaguing local communities, municipalities need to be consulted. “Sometimes we think we’re going to have all the answers from here in Victoria or from downtown Vancouver, when people have thought about those things very, very deeply in those communities and have some ideas that we really should be looking at.” Nearly a political candidate Elliott almost ran as a candidate in the 2024 provincial election alongside her brother-in-law, then BC United leader Kevin Falcon (Elliott introduced Falcon to her sister and the two are now married). But Elliott’s name never made it onto the ballot. Shortly before the election, she helped Falcon broker a deal with the BC Conservatives that led to the voluntary collapse of BC United, so as not to split the vote in the contest against their common opponent, the BC NDP. The move garnered Falcon (and Elliott) criticism for abandoning the BC United membership and agenda, and praise for sacrificing ego and party towards the higher purpose of beating the BC NDP. Certainly, without the political manoeuvre, the BC Conservatives would never have won so many seats, landing just shy of forming government, and the NDP would’ve have then formed another majority government. Since then, Elliott became senior fellow with the Aristotle Institute, director with the Public Land Use Society and co-founder of Without Diminishment, among other things. She has since stepped away from those roles to focus on the leadership race. Being leader can be thankless As Falcon and former BC Conservative leader John Rustad painfully learned before her, being leader of BC’s right-leaning coalition party is no cakewalk. Rustad left the party during Falcon’s tenure. And within a few months of winning Official Opposition in the 2024 election, the Conservative caucus bled five MLAs under Rustad. As well, the senior party executive demanded his resignation, which he eventually remitted. While leadership is always a factor, it wasn’t the only issue at play. Successfully leading a coalition party is a tricky business. On this front, Elliott seems to have a plan. Listen to our conversation and let us know what you think. As always, thanks for reading and listening. —Fran Podcast producers: Rob Shaw & Zach Proulx Feedback: [email protected] 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

“This is a pivotal moment in our history right now that the Premier is absolutely failing to lead on, and my worry is that things are going to get worse before they get better.” Podcast teaser: ‘I see an abdication of leadership’ Listen to a clip from the podcast Into the hot seat Trevor Halford was born and bred in White Rock, B.C., the community he now represents in the legislature, along with a portion of Surrey. After five years as an MLA, the first four for the BC Liberal/BC United, and the last year with the reborn BC Conservative Party, Halford now finds himself in what started out as a very hot seat – interim Opposition leader. In the two weeks since he stepped into the role, that seat has cooled significantly, he says. No small part because of him. Known as a well-spoken, competent legislator, who can occasionally whip up his caucus bench with a flash of inspired oratory, he is also one of the clean up hitters in Question Period. Projecting calm, Halford seems circumspect about the caucus and party divisions that plagued his predecessor, John Rustad. He shrugs off the acrimonious dysfunction that culminated in the caucus mutiny that propelled him into the interim leader’s office, and instead steers the conversation onward. “Every caucus is going to have growing pains. My previous caucus had growing pains. I can guarantee you the NDP have a lot of growing pains, and credit to them that they’ve kept that in-house,” he said. “Whether you’re an MLA, whether you’re a minister, a leader of the opposition or you’re premier… you’re not there forever. Somebody is going to come in after you. And somebody will be definitely coming in after me, hence the interim title.” His goals for the job Halford said he has two goals as interim leader: to stabilize caucus and the party, and hand the office off to the next person in better place than how he found it. “That’s no shot at anybody that held it before me. It’s just an opportunity to really embrace that role.” Halford enthuses about the talent in the Conservative caucus and says part of his job will be finding and unlocking people’s strengths. Who knows but his caucus and party may do the same for him. Leadership race signals ‘exciting times’ As far as the leadership race goes, “it’s exciting times,” said Halford. He’s looking forward to having a “front-row seat” to the Conservative leadership race and is anticipating high-quality candidates and lively debates enough to invigorate party members and BC voters. “When you look at some of the names that are getting talked about, there’s no person where you’re saying, ‘It’s over,’ that this person’s going to take it. And I think that’s going to be a credit to how many people are interested in taking this job.” Which would be a good thing, he says, because he believes the next Conservative leader will become premier of British Columbia. [Upgrade to paid] ‘This is an emergency’ On the policy front, the government is failing on many fronts – healthcare, education, housing, public safety – but the most urgent right now may be uncertainty to the economy and land title on people’s homes, said Halford. Premier David Eby can’t have it both ways, he said. The Conservatives have made it clear what they want to do – recall the legislature and repeal DRIPA. But the premier hasn’t given any explanation of what his potential amendments are or would do, he said. Even if the BC NDP introduce amendments, the house won’t sit again until Feb 12. “This is an emergency…. and my worry is that things are going to get worse before they get better.” Trevor Halford dropped by our legislative recording studio to talk about all this and more. Listen to our conversation and let us know what you think. If you appreciate our work here and on NorthernBeat.ca, consider upgrading to paid. The world needs independent media we need our loyal community of supporters! Enjoy the podcast! —Fran Podcast producer: Rob Shaw Photo credit: Francesca Guetchev Feedback: [email protected] 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

“I’m really trying to stay out of the politics of all this, but it’s very difficult to when the behaviour that I see is not acting in the public interest and I believe is negligent.” —Tom Isaac Podcast teaser: ‘Perversity factor’ Listen to a clip from the podcast. [Upgrade to Paid] Tom Isaac pulls few punches. He has been around the block on the Indigenous law circuit. Make that many blocks. And all levels of court, in provincial, territorial and federal jurisdictions across Canada, representing businesses, industries and governments on Aboriginal law and related constitutional matters, and more. He hasn’t just written dozens of legal articles, news OpEds, 17 books, and multiple editions of legal textbooks, he wrote THE book on Aboriginal Law. His latest is timely as ever and written with colleague Grace Wu: Canada and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The point being, he knows Aboriginal and constitutional law. Not only that, he led negotiations on the single largest class action suit settlement for residential school students in the country’s history, resulting in a $2.8 billion settlement held in trust and to be disbursed over 20 years. Going ‘to the wall’ This week, the Premier told a gathering of business leaders he will “go to the wall” to defend private property but, four months out from the Cowichan decision and his government has yet to do anything concrete to make good on this promise. This week, he announced a stopgap measure by way of loan guarantees for landowners who can’t get financing because of the Cowichan ruling.. Despite the escalating pressure, Eby has so far rejected calls from opposition Conservative legislators, Independent MLAs, the business community, Indigenous law experts and others to repeal DRIPA. He said his government will consult with Indigenous leaders and the business community, implying it may come up with amendments in the spring. None of which reassures Isaac. “An amendment is possible in a perfect world. The problem is, this isn’t a perfect world, and we’re dealing with a government that has not shown itself to be trustworthy...” Gitxaala court decision Then there was last week’s Gitxaala v. British Columbia BC Appeal Court decision which overturned a lower court decision and ruled DRIPA is not just inspirational, but does indeed incorporate UNDRIP into B.C law. It is therefore “justiciable” – a law that can be used in a trial and upheld in court. The court also held, as per DRIPA, that all BC laws must conform to UNDRIP, effective immediately. The Premier has denounced the ruling, calling the court “confused” and “unhelpful” even going so far as to saying the judiciary “overreached” in determining DRIPA was an enforceable law. To which Isaac says, “I don’t think the court was confused at all. I think it was a very articulate, well-written decision.” On treaties The recent Cowichan Tribes v. Canada court decision that recognized Aboriginal title over about 800 acres of private, public and industrial land in Richmond landed like shock therapy for many British Columbians, but while the issues imploding under Premier David Eby’s watch have been inflamed by the harried pitch of his reconciliation agenda, problems on the file have been building for a long time, said Isaac.. “This has been decades in the making of the lack of a sustainable, long-term public policy framework in this province. The closest we have had to it started with the Glen Clark government in the 90s with the treaty process.” Isaac started his career in Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, but he was chief treaty negotiator for the B.C. government in the Clark era. “I’m a big fan of the treaty process. Now, the devil’s in the detail. I’m not giving a pass for every single treaty... But at least that’s a strategy.” Cowichan ruling As for the Cowichan court ruling, Isaac pushed back against the assurance by some that that nothing material has changed for property owners in Richmond on recognized Aboriginal title land. As Cowichan’s lawyer conceded, property owners may now have to obtain First Nations consent to make changes to their property or to sell their home. “Any government, public or indigenous, has no business telling me what to do with my property. Sorry, I said it. And to suggest that there’s no effect on third parties. All you need to do though, is just come to us for consent. I mean, come on. Let’s all be serious.” Whether or not the Cowichan want to possess the private lands is irrelevant to the fact there is now a cloud on people’s private property title, he said. “What lender is going to go, ‘Well, great, they’re not going after it today. I’ll lend money on the basis that they’re not going to seek possession of it on a Wednesday. But man, if Thursday rolls around, you know, all bets are off.’” Haida land title agreement Many might think the Cowichan decision was the first time Aboriginal title was recognized on private property. While it was the first time a Canadian court had done so, more than a year earlier, the BC government negotiated the precedent-setting Haida Land Title Agreement which also recognizes Aboriginal title on private property. The Haida agreement went beyond previous court rulings in another way too, recognizing title on the entirely of Haida’s land claim without the nation having to legally prove title. Premier Eby hailed it as the template for future reconciliation agreements and a peak achievement of his career. Isaac describes the Haida land title agreement as “one of the most poorly drafted agreements I’ve seen in my career in this area.” His comments, he said are absolutely not directed at the Haida, but rather the public government of BC that negotiated it. He said the province ignored all commentary and legal advice from many sources, stating “serious, serious concerns” with the Haida agreement and not only went ahead and signed it, but after the Cowichan Aboriginal title ruling,the government quietly slipped into court and had the agreement affirmed in a BC Supreme Court order and didn’t “change a comma.” “Shame on the government of BC,” he said. “That does not further reconciliation in our province.” [Upgrade to Paid] All this and more in our conversation. Let us know what you think! Fran Podcast producer: Rob Shaw Feedback: [email protected] 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

“We’ve gone through so many dark roads in this world the last couple of years… and eroded, basically, societal norms, political norms, all of those things. It is time for all of us to take a stand and say, ‘This is the bar.’” Like most locally elected officials across BC, Merlin Blackwell is the ears, eyes and voice of his community. As mayor of Clearwater, he grapples with many of the usual issues, along with a few of the thornier variety. Several years ago, after too many emergency room closures, Blackwell brought provincial attention to Clearwater when he waged a public campaign to attract healthcare workers and make sure they would stay. Since the problems in the healthcare system will take years to resolve, his community recently signed on to an ER telehealth pilot project to reduce stress on doctors and maintain local access to care for residents. Blackwell is also trying to fend off a $250,000 hit to Clearwater’s 2,400-population tax base thanks to a pending drop in the assessed value of pipelines. On the other hand, the mayor has the fortunate problem of needing to build 450 new homes to accommodate the expected workforce of a massive new mining project being co-developed with the region’s Simpcw First Nation. Now he just needs to find the funding to pay for the infrastructure to support all this new housing. Law unto themselves Thanks to the pandemic and other factors, Blackwell has gained some unwanted expertise dealing with people operating outside of the law. He says he sympathizes with those who are tired of rules, because he feels it too sometimes, but at some point, a line has to be drawn for larger society. “It’s not just because they want to live differently. This is about putting health, safety, all sorts of things at risk, and not being fair to the citizens that live around them.” Municipal governments are closest to the action and often the first line of defence against lawlessness, whether it be health and safety regulations, bylaws, street disorder, leniency in the justice system, or individuals opposed to rules of any kind. And it’s time for the province to step up, Blackwell says. “We all look to the provincial government to start doing their part, doing the enforcement, fixing the laws.” [Upgrade to paid] One last thing… Blackwell was at the legislature in Victoria last month, meeting with ministers. He stopped by the press gallery recording studio for a chat. Have a listen and let us know what you think. Fran Podcast producer: Rob Shaw Feedback: [email protected] 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

“I get if we were 15 points behind the NDP and the NDP were sailing high… [but] we’re 42-44 in the polls, and we’re not doing well enough?” —John Rustad If the BC Conservative Party were a ship and John Rustad its captain, in the last couple of years he helped refit a paretic vessel, then took it into battle on the high seas; he weathered storms and won bounty; he made crew walk the plank, while others jumped the rail; he narrowly averted a mutiny, and now despite choppy seas and restless factions still circling the deck, he remains resolute at the helm, eyes fixed on the horizon. About this tumultuous political odyssey, he appears more sanguine than agitated. “I believe most things in life, if not all things in life, come and go in waves. And those waves can be nice and smooth and simple, or those waves can be very sharp and condensed and have huge peaks and valleys.” Taking over leadership and re-building a party from zero elected MLAs in spring 2023, to securing Official Opposition in October 2024 “was an unbelievable climb,” he said, with an inevitable downside – people’s expectations. “Everybody saw themselves differently in terms of what the Conservative Party should be... but it’s impossible to meet perfection.” [Upgrade to Paid] Aboriginal title, reconciliation agreements and private property It is a relished pastime of the BC NDP government premier and his ministers to hold Rustad’s previous time in BC Liberal cabinet as an indictment of the whole Opposition bench. Everything the NDP perceive as corrupt, heartless or unwise done by previous Liberal governments is laid at Rustad’s feet. But as the former Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation minister for four years (along with Forests for a time), who served directly prior to the BC NDP forming government in 2017, his experience has perhaps never been more relevant. Because no one else in the legislature has spent four years in that chair. Agree or disagree with his opinions and approach to reconciliation, there’s no doubt he knows the file. And these days, no political topic is hotter in B.C. than the government’s reconciliation agenda, with no tasks more contentious, complex and imperative to resolve than how to both justly recognize Aboriginal title and irrevocably protect private property rights. John Rustad joined me in the press gallery recording studio this week to discuss all this and more. Hope you enjoy the conversation and let us know what you think! Fran Podcast producer: Rob Shaw Feedback: [email protected] 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