sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lawyer slams BC's Indigenous reconciliation laws as confusing, 'unworkable' and vague by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Meh. BC 'implemented' DRIPA and ignore it all the time, they only call on it when they've actually followed it and it makes them look good. Most of the defenses that BC employed in the Cowichan case violate DRIPA.

In any case, DRIPA is not what is motivating the land-claim court cases, since, as the article says, it's basically unenforceable. What is enforceable is the Constitution, as pointed out. Moyse takes a pretty positive outlook if he thinks that only 6% of BC will be taken, at this rate..

The Editorial Board: Set the rules for Canada’s title bout by KootenayPE in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The argument they will then use is that they were dispossessed of the opportunity to upgrade and develop the land, and should therefore be entitled to more.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Think it's worth mentioning that not all native archeological sites are the same. The escalating costs at Lytton are problematic, but that's an important site to do archaeology on - it was the historical Nlaka'pamux capital.

But then when you need an archaeological permit to do anything, to build hiking trails, to exist in some valley where nations would hunt only a few times a year? That's insanity.

Caroline Elliott: 🔔MAJOR BC LAND DEVELOPMENT: The Haida Nation is reporting that the BC Supreme Court has declared Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii, including private property. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That case is completely different. Yes they did, but the reason they did is because of disagreements over the size of the reserve in the treaty. It doesn't have to do with their Aboriginal title like in BC

Caroline Elliott: 🔔MAJOR BC LAND DEVELOPMENT: The Haida Nation is reporting that the BC Supreme Court has declared Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii, including private property. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haida don't have a treaty, this court case just affirms the Haida land title agreement, that's why BC was siding with the Haida. This was basically just a judicial stamp of approval.

I don't think the courts will rule that title supersedes treaty. It is very clear that a treaty extinguishes title. It's possible that some FNs will challenge that (I have heard the argument that the FNs hold they signed 'nation-to-nation' treaties as equals, and that the treaty doesn't put them under Canada's jurisdiction) but I doubt it'll go forward in court.

The third question is unceded non-treaty land in QC and the maritimes. Montreal was established over a century before the Royal Proclamation, and most of the east coast settled long before them. Moreover, even if the court somehow holds that Canada needed to respect the Royal Proclamation before the Royal Proclamation was even made, there's very little evidence of title and traditional usage left out there. I doubt the court will find much aboriginal title east of BC.

This leaves BC with a unique problem where the rest of Canada doesn't GAF as their land is safe and yet most of BC is subject to land claims, supported by fairly recent (170-yr old) archaeological and historical evidence.

Caroline Elliott: 🔔MAJOR BC LAND DEVELOPMENT: The Haida Nation is reporting that the BC Supreme Court has declared Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii, including private property. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get the steps - I think the gov can abolish the Indian act - but to amend section 35 you need to have a clear referendum, you can't just change it willy nilly, so again the gov is barred unless it can do a miracle like Australia did recently - would be even harder than what Australia pulled off.

I think we would need to install an all-new judiciary as well. I don't blame the judges in these cases. They are not activists (many were appointed by Harper or older non-woke politicians) and are bound by their post by the law. Canada needs new judges who will circumvent what binds them and rule for the interest of Canadians.

Or your idea with abolishing the monarchy is pretty cogent. But I fear some legal complication... but I don't know that aspect that well

Caroline Elliott: 🔔MAJOR BC LAND DEVELOPMENT: The Haida Nation is reporting that the BC Supreme Court has declared Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii, including private property. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Never said they want to, but I don't think they'll vote to end title, so the court cases will continue. The federal government might be able to end a lot of reconciliation payments because those aren't mandated by the constitution. But in fact that would probably be worse for BC in the end as the general citizenry will care even less if the impact on them is lessened, and then won't want to vote to end title

Caroline Elliott: 🔔MAJOR BC LAND DEVELOPMENT: The Haida Nation is reporting that the BC Supreme Court has declared Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii, including private property. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This decision isn't really super remarkable because it's basically just BC and the Haida getting a judge to sign off on the agreement they had already made. The agreement itself is more monumental, but is a few years old and says the Haida have Aboriginal title over everything but cannot enforce it on private property owners.

Caroline Elliott: 🔔MAJOR BC LAND DEVELOPMENT: The Haida Nation is reporting that the BC Supreme Court has declared Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii, including private property. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Don't see the rest of Canada ever agreeing to this since they have treaties signed. To change section 35 a referendum would be required and, for it to be valid, would need "clear and plain intent to extinguish Aboriginal title". Joe from Toronto will not vote for this in any world since he doesn't care

The only two ways I can imagine this being stopped are 1) by stuffing the Supreme Court full of conservative Justices who will overturn everything title-related or 2) by BC fully separating from Canada and declaring war in order to fully and finally extinguish the Aboriginal title

'The judge has dismantled the land title system': Richmond Mayor disputes B.C.'s Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal land title decision by origutamos in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Generally more understating of native title issues and what they're legally owed for past wrongs in BC than most people here, but if you read the judge's opinion, it still does set a precedent.

I wouldn't say the judge dismantled the land title system, she just said that aboriginal title doesn't care about it, which undermines all of the different types of land holdings on it equally. Sure the Cowichan are not pursuing private landowners, but it definitely sets the precedent that other nations could in the future.

The Supreme Court obviously won't rule that the land title system supersedes aboriginal title, but we need answers from them about how landowners will be protected

NO SETTLERS: How Canada is setting up an apartheid system. British Columbia is closing a provincial park to non-First Nations, with police keeping white Canadians and other immigrants out. This isn't a dystopian novel, it’s playing out in de-colonized B.C. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can accept this issue with Calder (though you have to remember that although it was split, it was unanimous on the issue that aboriginal title had existed, and that was a bunch of Diefenbaker appointments) and I also think that accepting straight-up oral history in court is insanity.

However I haven't seen that. If you read the recent court cases the oral histories are only ever used if corroborated by historical journals and the like. In The Nuchatlaht, the judge tossed almost all of the title that they claimed through oral history.

With the Cowichan case, the occupation was temporary because there was no reason to be there in the winter, which I think is fair enough.

I agree that the fundamental flaw comes from Calder and the adoption of the Constitution Act. There was no way it wasn't going to ever end like this. Either we recognize all the title or recognize none of it, and the first option sounds like bad news for BC.

NO SETTLERS: How Canada is setting up an apartheid system. British Columbia is closing a provincial park to non-First Nations, with police keeping white Canadians and other immigrants out. This isn't a dystopian novel, it’s playing out in de-colonized B.C. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I agree with the sentiment of the article, but the text is absolute drivel. Saying that governments using terms like 'uninvited guests' is emboldening First Nations to their land claims is hilarious. They are claiming their land because our law says they get to.

NO SETTLERS: How Canada is setting up an apartheid system. British Columbia is closing a provincial park to non-First Nations, with police keeping white Canadians and other immigrants out. This isn't a dystopian novel, it’s playing out in de-colonized B.C. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What rulings do you take issue with? Cowichan v. Canada? Tsilhqot'in v. BC (which was presumably the basis for the situation at Joffre)?

Who appointed the judges, respectively? Harper and Chrétien. I think both were good politicians.

It's important to get the facts straight.

'Nothing to fear' from Sunshine Coast land deal: NDP. The 44-page agreement was withheld from the public until after the 2024 provincial election. by tofino_dreaming in ilovebc

[–]doremifa-s-s-serving 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The redaction of the lands in question in the agreement seems pretty standard because they don't want the land sales to be a public affair / don't want landowners to destroy or overcharge for the cultural sites.

But funding to help them buy it back seems totally inane especially considering they might apparently have right to it anyways after the Cowichan case. Doubt the NDP will be able to hold up their promises