B.C.’s First Nations legislation worries ranchers

Farmers and ranchers in British Columbia are caught amidst uncertainty and “havoc” regarding legality, investment and land as questions continue about the provincial Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) and the related Interpretation Act.

“In the ranching industry, people are uncertain with their private land and their tenures that they have,” said Werner Stump, past president of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association.

“We operate on grazing tenures because there’s a lot of Crown land in British Columbia, and we also operate with water licenses.”

Stump runs his second generation cow-calf operation of more than 200 head in the Shuswap area near Salmon Arm, B.C. Like most other B.C. ranchers, he owns a small percentage of the land on which he operates.

The status quo is using Crown land for grazing, but even then, some have a “very light footprint,” depending on the terrain, harvestable forest and what’s actually accessible for animals.

“Without that Crown land, I become a hobby farm,” he said.

“And my commercial operation no longer would exist without that grazing tenure.”

Water licences are critical to farm operations for both livestock watering and irrigation for pasture, hayland and cropland, particularly in the southern and interior parts of the province.

These licences are attached to land and parcels based on historical applications with a first-in-time, first-in-right system. As a farm grows, it will have an amalgamation of licenses from different years and of various sizes.

These aspects hold the key to B.C. ranchers’ business models and futures, but the potential effects of DRIPA, such as the sharing of jurisdictions like Crown land and water, have them at a crossroad.

Stump said he knows of a few ranch sales that have fallen through because of this uncertainty.

B.C. is also viewed as being in a unique position compared to provinces such as the Prairies because it has a lot of unceded land and some of the most recent treaty agreements, which raises additional questions for B.C. agriculture, and the rest of Canada. The earliest treaties signed are seen as the least strong and lack reliability, while the newest are robust.

To represent the interests of B.C. cattle producers and help get to the bottom of what DRIPA means for the province, as well as what the precedent could be for the rest of Canada, the BCCA applied for intervenor status in the Pender Harbour and Area Resident’s Association (PHARA) court challenge.

“Certainly, given the rich, multi-generational and important history of ranching in this province and including the whole issue of food security, the ranchers have a very important voice to have heard,” said Thomas Isaac, a lawyer who has specializes in Aboriginal law and has spent 26 years in the area.

PHARA’s challenge is that DRIPA is unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, reaches beyond provincial jurisdiction and is a violation of democratic rights protected by Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the basis that DRIPA allows for agreements that transfer governance authority to bodies that are not accountable to the electorate.

PHARA is calling for a declaration that the legislation is of no force and effect.

DRIPA in the beginning

DRIPA is the provincial legislation in B.C. that was introduced in 2019 by then-attorney general David Eby to follow the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Initially, the understanding of the legislation was a consistent application with the Canadian constitution and steps toward reconciliation.

“As long as it’s applied consistent with the Constitution of Canada, that gives you some assurance that we’re not really treading on new ground here,” said Stump.

“In 2021, that took a different flavour when the government amended the Interpretation Act in our province.”

According to the Interpretation Act, every law and regulation flowing from each act set by the provincial government — from the Real Property Act and Land Title Act to Wills and Estates Act and environmental legislation — must be interpreted consistently with UNDRIP.

Article 26 of the Declaration summarizes Indigenous rights to lands and their resources traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise acquired, which would apply to privately owned land, Crown land, tenures and water.

This extends to treaties because it isn’t about the treaty itself but the implementation of treaty rights. With the Interpretation Act, both treaty and non-treaty lands are treated the same.

Isaac said that whether it’s treaty land, non-treaty land or an unsettled claim is “irrelevant” because the act is applied to every statute and regulation. The difference is in the outcome of implementation for treaty, non-treaty, Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

For example, if a province that only has treaties, such as Alberta or Saskatchewan, would follow the B.C. model, each would be in the same situation.

However, Article 46 says UNDRIP shouldn’t be applied in manners in which it hampers the rights and freedoms of others or would “dismember or impair” the integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states.

While the Northwest Territories and the federal government have UNDRIP-like legislation, it isn’t to the same degree as B.C., and there isn’t anything akin to the Interpretation Act.

Isaac says the Interpretation Act is “doubling down on the crazy.”

Creating legal precedent

In December 2025, the Gitxaala case was precedent-setting for the interpretation of DRIPA in B.C.

The Court of Appeals agreed that “must” was indeed defined as “must,” as in required or obliged.

“And what did the premier do? ‘Oh, my goodness, we have an activist court, the court is quote confused end quote,’ ” said Isaac.

“And I say no, it’s not. Its crime is that it read English because ‘must’ means ‘must.’ ”

The provincial government is now appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

On CBC’s The Early Edition with Stephen Quinn on April 23, Eby, now premier, said, “the intent was, where there were two possible interpretations of a law in B.C., that the interpretation consistent with the Declaration Act be preferred by the court.”

Isaac said the premier is describing an inconsistency clause rather than an interpretive clause, but the way it was written by Eby, as attorney general, and currently sits, it is as an interpretive clause.

The premier should know the difference, Isaac added.

BCCA’s stake in the fight

For B.C. cattle producers, the rulings on the Gitxaala case and Interpretation Act are increasing concerns because the precedent changes how UNDRIP can be applied. The impact to land and water use and availability is just one piece. There are also trespassing laws, hunting and fishing rights, and fencing bylaws to consider.

Stump clarified that BCCA is in no way opposed to reconciliation or Indigenous rights, but rather believes there is a lack of understanding of what the application of UNDRIP, and by extension DRIPA, will mean for all parties across B.C. and Canada.

“UNDRIP has sort of been sold as equating to reconciliation, but it is a pathway to reconciliation, and there are many pathways to reconciliation,” he said.

“Before we build our house on this foundation called UNDRIP, we need to understand what that looks like and make sure that foundation is solid.”

For Stump, reconciliation is about harmony — communities and people working together, respecting one another. He said the BCCA has been working on improving relations with Indigenous peoples, acknowledging that they are operating rurally and remotely.

“It (DRIPA) is destroying that respect and harmony … and people getting along in communities throughout British Columbia,” he said.

“From that social perspective, we are not on the right path.”

There is a lack of consideration for the infrastructure and current systems that are in place, he said, and no attempts to balance Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests.

The domino reaction that this process could create would impact the country.

“It doesn’t just relate to ranchers or even the agriculture sector. It’s everybody,” Stump said.

“Everybody should really be concerned about this, even if you don’t own property.”

He gave the example of property ownership, saying the Canadian financial system is based on the ability to hold property. Without that ability, certainty of the financial system, economy and the infrastructure built around it could collapse.

BCCA has had extensive discussions with the provincial government since 2024 to try and gain clarity about the plans. Despite repeated pleading, the organization said it was met with silence and ambiguity.

“We have businesses to run. We have investments that we’re considering making,” said Stump.

“You got to tell us. You got to include us. What’s your big plan? And either they didn’t want to share it with us, or they didn’t have a plan. And to this day, I don’t know.”

The lack of transparency, paired with the “flip-flopping” on decisions, was the motivation for the BCCA to step in publicly and try to resolve on the issue.

Threats to democracy

Isaac says there has been a significant lack of transparency between the government and the general public, and little consultation with stakeholders because the government is claiming it is government to government.

“Even if it is government to government, that’s irrelevant whether it’s transparent or not,” Isaac said.

“Somehow, they think because it’s government to government, it doesn’t need to be transparent. Well, I reject that outright.”

Section 7 of DRIPA allows the province to enter agreements to help implement UNDRIP with First Nations. Some of the agreements that have been reached are co-jurisdictional, in which the provincial government is sharing jurisdiction with non-democratically elected governments.

The jurisdiction extends to land, water, Crown leases, environmental approvals and more — all of which are tied to the core of ranching and cattle production.

“Our ranchers have a right to be represented and governed by publicly, democratically elected governments,” said Isaac.

“That’s not an anti-Section 35; it’s not anti-reconciliation.… In fact, what they purport to do under these Section 7 agreements, I would say is undemocratic, and it does breach the Charter.”

He explained that the agreements would set a precedent that a province can share constitutional jurisdiction with other, non-elected bodies. To do so, there would need to be an amendment to the constitution.

Stump is asking for an open discussion to determine implications and find a constructive reliable path forward for everyone, saying the situation of following the “UNDRIP model” has gone on for too long with little clarity.

“The way forward is to clearly understand where we want to end up,” he added.