Northern Beat News Podcast

“We need to be building that wider coalition.” —Peter MilobarTwo-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 ProulxFeedback to [email protected] 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 decisionIn 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.—FranPodcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach ProulxFeedback: [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

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 BaldreyThey’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 PalmerBoth 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 ProulxFeedback: [email protected] 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 StumpThe 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 confusionDRIPA 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 uncertaintyThis 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 lawThe 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.—FranPodcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach ProulxFeedback: [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

Listen to the audio highlight reel (above) or scroll to the bottom to watch the full podcastTodd 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 instructedThe 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-makersIn 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 lawAdding 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.—FranWatch the full podcast:Podcast producers: Rob Shaw and Zach ProulxFeedback: [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