The BC Cattlemen’s Association (BCCA) aims to raise its concerns about the British Columbia Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in a legal setting.
On Wednesday, May 6, the BCAA announced its intention to intervene in the ongoing Pender Harbour and Area Residents Association’s (PHARA) legal challenge to DRIPA. The PHARA originally filed its case with the BC Supreme Court on Feb. 9, seeking a constitutional challenge to DRIPA and requesting the court to declare the legislation of no force and effect.
By becoming an intervenor in this case, the BCAA are seeking leave from the B.C. Supreme Court to speak on the ranching industry’s interests in this matter. They explained DRIPA is a concern for B.C. ranchers because they believe it could jeopardize the security of private land and Crown tenures that support ranch operations.
Specifically, the BCCA is worried that the co-governance model between the provincial government and First Nations communities could impact its water and land use tenures.
“These are the very tenures that allow us to produce food for the public and steward the resources under our care,” Werner Stump, the BCCA’s president, said. “We are concerned that co-governance models erode the stability that tenures are meant to guarantee.”
The BCCA, established in 1929, noted the province proclaimed Tuesday, May 5, as B.C. Beef Day and hosted a delegation of ranching industry representatives in Victoria. During a meeting with Premier David Eby, the BCCA said it urged him to clarify the province’s reconciliation plans and to ensure protection for landowners and tenure holders.
In its release, the BCCA stated that this application to intervene is not a challenge to Indigenous rights or reconciliation. The release noted the BCCA supports a “fair and transparent” reconciliation process that strengthens relationships over the long term.
“Rather, it is about exploring whether the province has made a mistake in delegating decision-making responsibility not balancing non-Indigenous interests,” the BCCA said.
According to the BCCA, PHARA is seeking declarations from the court that DRIPA is unconstitutional because it is:
• Inconsistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as it does not balance Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests, allow for justified infringements of Aboriginal rights by the Crown, or follow court-established processes for determining those rights;
• Beyond provincial jurisdiction, as it intrudes into matters under Canada’s exclusive authority and creates the potential for Aboriginal rights to be recognized differently across the country; and
• Alternatively, a violation of democratic rights protected by section 3 of the Charter, on the basis that DRIPA allows for agreements that transfer governance authority to bodies that are not accountable to the electorate.
According to an April 28 Facebook post by PHARA, it said that the presiding judge in its case has recommended to the Chief Justice that a dedicated case management judge be assigned to the case. PHARA said this should keep proceedings moving efficiently, noting its case has been recognized as “significant constitutional litigation.”