This isn’t going to lead anywhere good. I understand why the first nations are doing it, but somebody needs to quickly make a definitive decision quickly.
If all the land becomes owned by just 2% of the population (regardless if they should be the owners legally), it will turn into a very difficult situation to manage I would imagine.
dekuweku on
Yeah this feels like it is not going away. Politicians need to tread carefully here because the backlash when it comes will mean entire parties eliminated from existance.
green_tory on
People need to understand that aboriginal title and fee simple can coexist. No one is going to lose their home to aboriginal title.
Per the judge in the Cowichan ruling:
> „Richmond’s submission that a declaration of Aboriginal title will destroy the land title system and the [Land Title Act], wreak economic havoc and harm every resident in British Columbia is not a reasoned analysis on the evidence,“ the judge wrote in her ruling.
> „It inflames and incites rather than grapples with the evidence and scope of the claim in this case.“
> …
> Aboriginal title is a communal right to land that „cannot be encumbered, developed or used in ways that would prevent future generations of the group from using and enjoying it.“
> And while fee simple title allows owners and their successors to „do with the property as they wish, within the limits set by the law,“ it also has constraints including „environmental protection statutes, planning and zoning legislation, expropriation by the state.“
> „This should not be a zero-sum game,“ Young writes, echoing the author of a 2015 article titled Aboriginal Title and Private Property Rights.
> “The court assured us that they would make a decision that didn’t affect landowners in the claim area, so they didn’t have to be served — they didn’t have to be told about the case, that it was going ahead in court. Unfortunately, that obviously turned out not to be the case,” said Eby.
Probably will get lost in the shuffle but this statement makes no sense to me. The court isn’t allowed to assure a party how they will rule and I simply don’t believe Eby was told that.
JarryBohnson on
This approach feels like it’s going to blow up in the FN’s faces. They don’t have any *actual* hard ability to resist the populist backlash that they will inevitably cause.
The courts only have power here as long as most Canadians accept that they do. If they start making a bunch of decisions 80% of the population hates to serve a tiny minority, that faith will evaporate rapidly.
I mean, the end result way down the line is that current property owners will lease the land from First Nations.
There are already plenty of residential developments in Kelowna and Tsawwassen and Chilliwack that are like this.
WeightImaginary2632 on
This is going to get struck down, or it will have a caveat that where fee simple title is held that it will not affect it. I believe this is probably what is going to happen with decision for Cowichan as well. It will get overturned and new negotiations will have to occur. Though I am glad that this is getting people riled up so that the government will have to finally deal with this.
I am assuming that there will be a middle ground that is met, but I have no idea what that will look like.
Manitobancanuck on
Somebody needs to figure out a realistic resolution to this. Was the land incorrectly taken? Most likely.
Are the individual people / companies who currently live on the land or own at fault? In most cases no. (Not all but most)
Is it reasonable to give all power of the land to a group representing about 2-4% of the population? No.
The federal and provincial governments should sit down t with the bands in these areas and come to some kind of agreement. Failing that, they may have to create new legislation or even amend the constitution to properly define this in such a way that doesn’t result in most people losing control of their property but still coming to some kind of reconciliation with the indigenous people that is reasonable. Even if they cannot get all the various bands to agree.
Because if you just give all the land to one group, that makes the vast majority of people second class citizens and the vast majority probably will not accept that. Dont say,“ but that’s what the white folks did to us“ because, end of the day an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Two wrongs won’t make a right here.
Forcing it this way will lead somewhere dark. I don’t see the police or anyone other government authority actually ultimately enforcing this, because at some point if you’re taking all their land from them too, they might not do their jobs, because at that point, why would they?
Hopefully people see reason and sit down and figure something out.
ChimoEngr on
> Elenore Sturko, the independent MLA for the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, is calling on Premier David Eby and the B.C. NDP-led provincial government to publicly disclose all lawsuits filed by First Nations asserting Aboriginal title over land in the province —
That’s already public, isn’t it? Aren’t trials and what they’re about listed on the web already and maintained by the courts? If you want to know that shit, look it up.
> There are concerns that the case sets a precedent for Aboriginal title trumping over fee simple title,
Overwrought concerns. The Cowachin ruling stated that the two types of land title could work together.
> The Project Area is located largely on privately held fee simple lands, which were lawfully granted,” wrote B.C.’s lawyers in their response.
Were they? There was no agreement by the First Nations in BC to turn over the land, so calling it stolen has a lot of truth to it. Stolen property can’t be lawfully sold.
> The provincial government also claims any infringement of Indigenous rights was justified by “pressing and substantial objectives” for the collective good of B.C. society as a whole, including direct and indirect benefits for First Nations.
That’s quite the claim. One that could be easily ripped to shreds as to the purported benefits to First Nations. I’m really not sure how forcing people off their land and fucking them over for generations is beneficial.
> These were the arguments made by the Province’s lawyers at a time when the B.C. Liberals governed the provincial government.
That fits. They always were the conservative party in the province.
> He asserts Alberta will simply work to push more of its oil exports south to the United States, with B.C. forfeiting the potential revenue and economic benefits.
What benefits? The complete unwillingness of Alberta to share any revenue from the oil being piped across BC is a main source of the opposition to any new or expanded pipelines.
10 Kommentare
This isn’t going to lead anywhere good. I understand why the first nations are doing it, but somebody needs to quickly make a definitive decision quickly.
If all the land becomes owned by just 2% of the population (regardless if they should be the owners legally), it will turn into a very difficult situation to manage I would imagine.
Yeah this feels like it is not going away. Politicians need to tread carefully here because the backlash when it comes will mean entire parties eliminated from existance.
People need to understand that aboriginal title and fee simple can coexist. No one is going to lose their home to aboriginal title.
Per the judge in the Cowichan ruling:
> „Richmond’s submission that a declaration of Aboriginal title will destroy the land title system and the [Land Title Act], wreak economic havoc and harm every resident in British Columbia is not a reasoned analysis on the evidence,“ the judge wrote in her ruling.
> „It inflames and incites rather than grapples with the evidence and scope of the claim in this case.“
> …
> Aboriginal title is a communal right to land that „cannot be encumbered, developed or used in ways that would prevent future generations of the group from using and enjoying it.“
> And while fee simple title allows owners and their successors to „do with the property as they wish, within the limits set by the law,“ it also has constraints including „environmental protection statutes, planning and zoning legislation, expropriation by the state.“
> „This should not be a zero-sum game,“ Young writes, echoing the author of a 2015 article titled Aboriginal Title and Private Property Rights.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cowichan-aboriginal-title-land-ownership-9.6965257
> “The court assured us that they would make a decision that didn’t affect landowners in the claim area, so they didn’t have to be served — they didn’t have to be told about the case, that it was going ahead in court. Unfortunately, that obviously turned out not to be the case,” said Eby.
Probably will get lost in the shuffle but this statement makes no sense to me. The court isn’t allowed to assure a party how they will rule and I simply don’t believe Eby was told that.
This approach feels like it’s going to blow up in the FN’s faces. They don’t have any *actual* hard ability to resist the populist backlash that they will inevitably cause.
The courts only have power here as long as most Canadians accept that they do. If they start making a bunch of decisions 80% of the population hates to serve a tiny minority, that faith will evaporate rapidly.
This is from 2015, BC vigorously objected.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016JAG0003-000043?utm_source=chatgpt.com
I mean, the end result way down the line is that current property owners will lease the land from First Nations.
There are already plenty of residential developments in Kelowna and Tsawwassen and Chilliwack that are like this.
This is going to get struck down, or it will have a caveat that where fee simple title is held that it will not affect it. I believe this is probably what is going to happen with decision for Cowichan as well. It will get overturned and new negotiations will have to occur. Though I am glad that this is getting people riled up so that the government will have to finally deal with this.
I am assuming that there will be a middle ground that is met, but I have no idea what that will look like.
Somebody needs to figure out a realistic resolution to this. Was the land incorrectly taken? Most likely.
Are the individual people / companies who currently live on the land or own at fault? In most cases no. (Not all but most)
Is it reasonable to give all power of the land to a group representing about 2-4% of the population? No.
The federal and provincial governments should sit down t with the bands in these areas and come to some kind of agreement. Failing that, they may have to create new legislation or even amend the constitution to properly define this in such a way that doesn’t result in most people losing control of their property but still coming to some kind of reconciliation with the indigenous people that is reasonable. Even if they cannot get all the various bands to agree.
Because if you just give all the land to one group, that makes the vast majority of people second class citizens and the vast majority probably will not accept that. Dont say,“ but that’s what the white folks did to us“ because, end of the day an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Two wrongs won’t make a right here.
Forcing it this way will lead somewhere dark. I don’t see the police or anyone other government authority actually ultimately enforcing this, because at some point if you’re taking all their land from them too, they might not do their jobs, because at that point, why would they?
Hopefully people see reason and sit down and figure something out.
> Elenore Sturko, the independent MLA for the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, is calling on Premier David Eby and the B.C. NDP-led provincial government to publicly disclose all lawsuits filed by First Nations asserting Aboriginal title over land in the province —
That’s already public, isn’t it? Aren’t trials and what they’re about listed on the web already and maintained by the courts? If you want to know that shit, look it up.
> There are concerns that the case sets a precedent for Aboriginal title trumping over fee simple title,
Overwrought concerns. The Cowachin ruling stated that the two types of land title could work together.
> The Project Area is located largely on privately held fee simple lands, which were lawfully granted,” wrote B.C.’s lawyers in their response.
Were they? There was no agreement by the First Nations in BC to turn over the land, so calling it stolen has a lot of truth to it. Stolen property can’t be lawfully sold.
> The provincial government also claims any infringement of Indigenous rights was justified by “pressing and substantial objectives” for the collective good of B.C. society as a whole, including direct and indirect benefits for First Nations.
That’s quite the claim. One that could be easily ripped to shreds as to the purported benefits to First Nations. I’m really not sure how forcing people off their land and fucking them over for generations is beneficial.
> These were the arguments made by the Province’s lawyers at a time when the B.C. Liberals governed the provincial government.
That fits. They always were the conservative party in the province.
> He asserts Alberta will simply work to push more of its oil exports south to the United States, with B.C. forfeiting the potential revenue and economic benefits.
What benefits? The complete unwillingness of Alberta to share any revenue from the oil being piped across BC is a main source of the opposition to any new or expanded pipelines.
This whole article gives me the ick, and reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Hive#Criticisms_and_controversies „Notable accusations included unethical journalism practices, plagiarism, and fearmongering.“ explains why. This isn’t a very reputable publication.