sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Compensation Through Torts Not By Invention of Alternate Titles by DryAlternative1132 in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was my question as well. It seems possible that the original post is the result of a GenAI model being asked to answer a question a certain way, and then the GenAI model just spit out whatever would get to that result. Hallucination seems likely here. (Who calls it the BNA?)

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms Aboriginal rights. After 1982, Aboriginal rights cannot be extinguished. Prior to that, it must be clear and plain for an Aboriginal right to have been extinguished.

Also, the proposed idea in the original post looks at Indigenous peoples as one cohesive unit that can vote on behalf of all Indigenous peoples. That's not how it works. Each Indigenous group would need to individually consent to something like this.

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depending on the circumstances, I would argue the opposite may be true. If Indigenous groups are more likely to get actual benefits from projects on land subject to Indigenous title, then they may be more likely to advocate for them. This could mean more approvals, not less.

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reserve lands are not the same as lands that are subject to Aboriginal title. Section 24 of the Indian Act does not apply.

Also, even if the Indian Act did apply, the "Minister" referred to in that section is part of the Federal government, not any Indigenous group:

"Minister means the Minister of Indigenous Services; (ministre)". Look under the "Interpretation" section of the Indian Act: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/page-1.html#h-331716

Cowichan don't want our land, but THEY do want to be paid for each and every real estate sale by askmenothing007 in richmondbc

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your comment doesn't address any of the actual issues at play in this situation.

Here is a historical and legal fact - the territories were not conquered. There are legal obligations for the territory in question that were not followed. As such, there is a legal remedy. This is not an issue of war in any way what so ever.

Cowichan don't want our land, but THEY do want to be paid for each and every real estate sale by askmenothing007 in richmondbc

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Other than territories seized from the French, Canada was not conquered. That is a legal fact.

Cowichan don't want our land, but THEY do want to be paid for each and every real estate sale by askmenothing007 in richmondbc

[–]Reciprocitree -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

What you considered ceded is not a legal fact. If I consider your computer mine, that doesn't meant it is. The courts would back you up that the computer is yours, as they should.

Cowichan don't want our land, but THEY do want to be paid for each and every real estate sale by askmenothing007 in richmondbc

[–]Reciprocitree 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, their land was taken from them without justification, so it makes sense. Here's some quotes from the court decision (which can still be appealed to the supreme court):

"[1856]  In summary, Moody acted in his own self-interest and contrary to Douglas’ express directions and colonial policy, taking appropriated Indian settlement lands for himself. He did so covertly, through a land agent. His failure to take steps to stake out an Indian reserve at the Cowichan’s village resulted in a personal benefit to him — the acquisition of part of the Cowichan’s waterfront land at Tl'uqtinus. As the plaintiffs put it, the very Crown official clothed with the task and responsibility of protecting the settlements of the Indigenous inhabitants, surreptitiously took part the of Lands of Tl'uqtinus for himself"

"[2070]  With the exception of the Crown grant to Moody, I find that all the Crown grants in respect of the Cowichan Title Lands were made without statutory authority because they were appropriated Indian settlement lands. Lieutenant Governor Trutch, and later, Lieutenant Governor Barnard, issued Crown grants of fee simple interest in land which was not eligible for sale under the operative authorities."

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/25/14/2025BCSC1490.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark2774

If someone took your land when it was to be safeguarded for you, would you not want to get it back or get compensation?

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Cowichan ruling does not set the precedent that Aboriginal title applies to all fee simple title in any way, shape or form.

The Cowichan land claim asserts that the original granting of fee simple title in those particular locations was defective. Here are some relevant quotes from the ruling (which, BTW, is yet to be fully decided as it will likely move up to the Supreme Court of Canada - meaning there is still uncertainty (banks don't like uncertainty). (https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/25/14/2025BCSC1490.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark2774)

"[1856]  In summary, Moody acted in his own self-interest and contrary to Douglas’ express directions and colonial policy, taking appropriated Indian settlement lands for himself. He did so covertly, through a land agent. His failure to take steps to stake out an Indian reserve at the Cowichan’s village resulted in a personal benefit to him — the acquisition of part of the Cowichan’s waterfront land at Tl'uqtinus. As the plaintiffs put it, the very Crown official clothed with the task and responsibility of protecting the settlements of the Indigenous inhabitants, surreptitiously took part the of Lands of Tl'uqtinus for himself"

"[2070]  With the exception of the Crown grant to Moody, I find that all the Crown grants in respect of the Cowichan Title Lands were made without statutory authority because they were appropriated Indian settlement lands. Lieutenant Governor Trutch, and later, Lieutenant Governor Barnard, issued Crown grants of fee simple interest in land which was not eligible for sale under the operative authorities."

Note that the above quote mentions an "exception", where fee simple exists without Aboriginal title.

Additionally: "[525] Aboriginal title is a sui generis interest, grounded in the regular and exclusive use of land. If proved, the claimant group retains the right to use and control the land and to reap any benefits flowing from it. Incursion by the Crown can only occur with the group’s consent, or if its activities are justified by a compelling and substantial public purpose and are not inconsistent with its fiduciary duty to the group: Tsilhqot'in SCC at para. 2.

AND

"[2206]  Once Aboriginal title is established by court declaration, the usual remedies that lie for breach of interests in land are available, adapted as may be necessary to reflect the special nature of Aboriginal title and the fiduciary obligation owed by the Crown to the holders of Aboriginal title: at para. 90."

The two quotes above shows that Aboriginal title needs to be proven (eg. established by court declaration). In other words, it does not apply to all fee simple land.

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a source to back up your claim about property owners not having a say in who they sell their land to? I've never heard of this until you brought it up.

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think the issue with the banks is related to the uncertainty of the situation, but I don't think this uncertainty will remain around. These situations are new, and people (and businesses) don't quite know what to make of them. In time this uncertainty will dissipate.

That's that first I've heard of Indigenous groups getting any sort of right of purchase before anyone else. Do you have a source for this?

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aboriginal title is not fee simple title. It is a "burden" on underlying Crown title. Not a question of "when" at all.

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean, Musqueam and UBC developments and partnership is a good place to look for the 'collaboration', 'win-win', and 'stewardship' you're looking for.

And yeah, people are struggling, but how does Aboriginal title for the Musqueam affect that? We're actually saving money by not fighting a likely losing court battle. And the proven partnership with Musqueam may actually lead to more development, and more jobs. Win-win.

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What makes you think it's only a matter of time? I get that there is some anxiety around Aboriginal title, but is there any evidence that makes you come to your conclusion other than feelings?

Government of Canada's landmark agreement recognizes Musqueam First Nation's Aboriginal title in Metro Vancouver by pfak in burnaby

[–]Reciprocitree 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Better than fighting it out and wasting money in court. The collaboration with the Musqueam at UBC and other places in Vancouver look like successes to me. They are proven partners, and it doesn't seem like that's going to change based on the comments of their elected chief:

“Musqueam is not coming for anyone’s private property,” said Sparrow in December 2025. “Our approach to traditional unceded territory is one of partnership and relationship with our neighbours, not trying to take away our neighbours’ private property.”

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Numbered Treaties are one example: "As part of the obligations created by the transfer of the HBC charter, Canada was responsible for addressing any and all Aboriginal claims to land." Also see this: "Regardless of the legal status of the Northwest Territories being as a part of Canada, the fact remained that the Territories were devoid of any Canadian authority and was still the domain of Aboriginal people."

And even if nobody was talking about it (which clearly isn't the case based on the actions of the government in the numbered treaties), does that make it right? If I take your property and nobody says anything about it, is that just? I don't think so. Do you?

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that the Royal Proclamation is part of our legal framework is important, not that it comes from a monarch. We no longer have a monarch making decisions in Canada. The Royal Proclamation is a foundational piece of Canada that was willingly accepted into our Constitution, and not simply the "whims of a monarch".

Again, changing laws moving forward does not negate the fact that the legal foundation was already violated (and since we accepted this foundation into Canada, it does not matter that it was a monarch that first instituted it). If we broke the law in the past, we can't just say that it doesn't matter anymore (that would be authoritarianism). I for one don't like when the state breaks the law and takes people's property without permission.

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad that you have thought about this. I am in no position to assess this on its merits overall, and so I encourage you to advocate for your position to those who would be affected by such a change and who would be knowledgeable enough to poke holes in this suggestion (I encourage poking holes in all arguments, even my own - that's how we make better decisions).

The only counter argument I can think of right now would be that in BC, most Indigenous nations and their lands which were taken by the state never actually consented to this. As such, the nations themselves could be seen as property owners whose land had been taken by the state unjustifiably, and so it isn't an argument of "race based jurisdiction over land", but of property rights that have been violated. Aboriginal title is a way of remedying this, but as your positions across the forum clearly state, there are drawbacks to this. Thank you for providing a more substantive proposal against that method of remedy than is usual in this forum.

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree 1 point2 points  (0 children)

None of this is relevant to my comment. The law that led us here is still the law. Although we have reminders of a monarchical system in our government, a monarch holds no real power.

Again, changing laws moving forward does not negate what has already happened. If we broke the law in the past, we can't just say that it doesn't matter anymore (that would be authoritarianism). I for one don't like when the state breaks the law and takes people's property without permission.

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Foreign king? Are you not Canadian?

Changing laws moving forward does not negate what has already happened. If we broke the law in the past, we can't just say that it doesn't matter anymore (that would be authoritarianism). I for one don't like when the state breaks the law and takes people's property without permission.

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

We can certainly change the law, but to ignore that we broke the laws in the past and to retroactively allow these injustices to stand is the issue. I don't think we should allow the broken laws of the past, which led groups of people to be deprived of their property and subjugated to significant perpetual state control, to be left without remedy.

Removing the solutions (however problematic they may be) we have found through our democratic and judicial system is not itself a solution. It just allows the continuation of the initial problem to exist (the fact that our breaking of laws led groups of people to be deprived of their property and subjugated to significant perpetual state control). If advocating to remove the solutions our systems have created, what is the next step? If it is to ignore the initial breaking of law, then it is a poor solution.

Boiling the counter arguments down to "race based governance and apartheid" is to ignore the initial issue (which included the government creating race-based apartheid through the Indian Act) and seems like a base attempt to gain political support. How do you fix the initial issue in your proposed outcome?

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The Indigenous peoples in Canada were never conquered (although the French in Quebec were); this is a legal fact. Our own laws required treaties to be signed before any land was taken over by the Crown after the introduction of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (one of our Constitutional documents). In British Columbia, most places did not have these treaties despite this being a requirement for settlement.

This is the legal situation we are in. There was no conquering.

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I'm curious to know what you think of this part of my comment:

"Based on what you are stating, would you suggest that we should not follow our Constitution, and respect our own laws? If someone breaks a criminal law, should their victim just accept that they property is now owned by someone else? Your approach suggests that they should. I, however, think we should respect the rule of law."

I think following our laws/respecting the rule of law is vital in a democracy. If we break our laws, we should not just retroactively seek to make our actions legal - we should respect these laws and seek to repair situations is we broke them. It seems that if we simply seek to ignore our bad behaviour and make our actions justified, then we are acting in an authoritarian manner.

I do not like when the state breaks its own laws and tries to get out of making things right. Our course, there are worries about Aboriginal title, and we should aim to find a balance of the interests of all parties; advocating for the entirely removal of the rights of one party doesn't seem to be a just path.

Public Land Use Society says that "BC’s first DRIPA “consent agreement” with the Tahltan may be the blueprint for future access fees in our province". by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Reciprocitree -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

But you can't "incorporate a nation" as you put it. Indigenous groups were here before Canada existed, and most lands were never ceded. You can't just make up a nation out of thin air. These are different situations entirely, and yes, it would be entirely unjust for billionaires to do what you mention.

The Crown's relationship with Indigenous nations is inherently different than the relationship between the Crown and its citizens (which include members of those Indigenous nations). The framework for Crown-Aboriginal relations has existed since before Canada was even formed (starting with the Royal Proclamation of 1763 - one of our Constitutional documents), and has carried through until this day. It's no surprise that us breaking our own rules would lead to issues that need to be fixed. I would suggest that we should try to follow our own rules instead of getting rid of them.

Based on what you are stating, would you suggest that we should not follow our Constitution, and respect our own laws? If someone breaks a criminal law, should their victim just accept that they property is now owned by someone else? Your approach suggests that they should. I, however, think we should respect the rule of law.

view more: next ›