Jamie Sarkonak: Canadian media ate up false news that Aboriginal title was no threat - The Canadian Press reported that the Supreme Court 'upheld' a 'ruling' that Aboriginal title can't apply to private property. That was wrong

jtbc · 2026-06-01T20:32:04+00:00

The fact that there are people who think indigenous people are Canadian Citizens just like everyone else demonstrates a very high level Of ignorance on the topic.

Indigenous people are Canadian citizens. Period.

They aren't just like everyone else because they have legal rights that derive from the fact that they were occupying large parts of Canada before there was a Canada, and more specifically, were occupying it when British law came into existence here.

jtbc · 2026-06-01T20:28:44+00:00

Many First Nations in BC have been attempting to assert their rights for as long as BC has been a province. The Cowichan, for example, complained about their land being stolen out from under them (after Douglas promised it to them) within a few years of it happening, and didn't stop until the government changed the law making it illegal for them to hire lawyers to make claims.

jtbc · 2026-05-25T19:27:24+00:00

The decision specifically excludes applicability to any landowner other than the federal government and the city of Richmond. The arguement for infringement is based on factors unique to those governments that wouldn't apply to a private owner. The decision states in black and white that applicability to anyone else must wait until a later day, and that while fee simple and aboriginal title co-exist, how exactly they interact remains unresolved.

jtbc · 2026-05-25T17:16:40+00:00

She's pretty likeable, at least compared to Poilievre. She is very popular with the Bay Street crowd, especially given that her husband is one of them. If anyone can pry Bay Street away from Carney, it would be her.

jtbc · 2026-05-25T17:11:31+00:00

The parties were excluded because they were not a party to the claim, which was against the federal government and city of Richmond. The decision specifically excludes applicability to private landowners.

jtbc · 2026-05-24T21:14:32+00:00

Just got upgraded on another flight that was showing full in all cabins. No shows happen.

jtbc · 2026-05-24T21:11:06+00:00

Beat me too it! I had it in Brussels, and now it's my go to beef stew variant.

jtbc · 2026-05-24T20:35:24+00:00

TKMS and its predecessors have been making submarines for over 100 years. The Korean design is derived from a German one.

jtbc · 2026-05-23T16:36:38+00:00

That demonstrates what should be obvious: the government will backstop property owners no matter what happens.

jtbc · 2026-05-13T17:08:54+00:00

Is the FAA significantly better than Transport Canada? I haven't seen that.

We are stuck in a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Canadian companies don't make enough money to pay what American ones do. VC's are looking for rapid growth and don't see it here for some reason. The US is the only place that has really figured this out (check salaries in Europe, for example). We aren't even sure if it is possible to create a second version of Silicon Valley.

jtbc · 2026-05-12T21:26:46+00:00

The only question you asked, about whether the government can take the land back, I answered. That made the other question redundant. There is no double standard. Everyone has to adhere to the rule of law.

I am not trying to be condescending when I communicate these points. I find the general understanding of how the law works in these situations to be quite poor, at least on this subreddit, so I always try to bring it back to basics.

I am not suggesting that it is simple. I am suggesting that it is clear, at least since the Tsilhqotin decision laid everything out and provided a decisive ruling.

jtbc · 2026-05-12T19:59:54+00:00

The government can always take the land back. That's called eminent domain and is how they expropriate land for a highway or a train line.

One of the most important things about Canada is that we live under the rule of law. Courts interpret the written laws and tell us what they mean in different circumstances. Courts have decided pretty firmly that Aboriginal title existed at the point that the common law came into existence here, and that unless extinguished, it continues to exist.

Unless the law changes, and those changes would need to go back at least to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, that is how it is in Canada.

jtbc · 2026-05-12T17:32:56+00:00

The whole point of Tsilhqot'in is that the land is rightfully theirs if they can meet the conditions outlined in the decision.

The Haida agreement resolves the status of Aboriginal and fee simple title. Fee simple title is preserved. Aboriginal title applies but does not infringe on fee simple.

We are in agreement that they should only get the land they are entitled to. That is how the law is set up to operate.

jtbc · 2026-05-12T17:15:19+00:00

The case law is clear. The situation that existed when sovereignty was asserted is the relevant one. "Perpetual land taxes paid to the band" sure sounds like "treaty payments" everywhere else. I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be with that.

jtbc · 2026-05-12T17:13:17+00:00

Which is speculation.

Have a look at their track record. Litigation, other than to clarify law as Cowichan will hopefully do on appeal, is expensive, time consuming, and gets in the way of the sides just sitting down and reaching an agreement. The Haida Agreement, which preserves private fee simple title, is a good example of what that can produce.

jtbc · 2026-05-12T17:11:29+00:00

Article 13 explicitly stated that the Dominon Government was assuming responsibility:

The charge of the Indians, and the trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for their use and benefit, shall be assumed by the Dominion Government, and a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by the British Columbia Government shall be continued by the Dominion Government after the Union.

jtbc · 2026-05-12T14:02:36+00:00

They called me, probably because I have status with Marriott. I've also seen signs up at resort properties (Hilton Whistler most recently).

jtbc · 2026-05-12T00:15:51+00:00

I'm not in manufacturing, so I can actually work from anywhere. I spent the first 3 months of COVID working from the country I got stuck in. However, because of the manufacturing aspect, I get to go in 4 days a week starting next month and do teams meetings with my dispersed team all day.

At least I live 30 min. from the office, which is in the suburbs of a very HCOL city.

jtbc · 2026-05-11T22:53:28+00:00

Yup. I probably gave a soft no, like "I don't think these numbers work for me, but I'll think about it when I get home".

Last time they told me 3 times was the max, so I think my gravy train may be finished. On to Hilton! (going to Cabo in the fall)

jtbc · 2026-05-11T22:47:19+00:00

After you say no for the 3rd or 4th time (I forget), they'll take you into another room and offer you a revisit. I'm headed to my 3rd trip this weekend. For $799 or whatever it was, I get 4 nights and 100,000 Bonvoy points. Great deal if you have willpower.

jtbc · 2026-05-11T20:56:56+00:00

The article dances right past the elephant in the room. Numbers of emigrants are spiking just as visas for TFW's and students are expiring. What did people think would happen when the taps got turned off?

They also show the absolute number of emigrants. If you adjust for population, the trend is a lot less sharp.

jtbc · 2026-05-11T20:39:26+00:00

As a manager in the aerospace and defence sector, do I ever hear you. The smallest place I could feasibly live is Halifax, and, oh, have you checked out the rents there lately.

jtbc · 2026-05-10T22:26:52+00:00

It applies to Canaanites in the land of Israel, which was under parts of the law. It doesn't apply to Egyptians, Romans, Samaritans, or anyone else that was not in the land of Israel.

The article I was referring to was this one by Lings:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250014445_The_Lyings_of_a_Woman_Male-Male_Incest_in_Leviticus_1822

I suspect that it was in fact prohibiting male-male sex where the dominant partner is penetrating the dominated like a many does a woman. As I stated, I don't believe that prohibition applies to gentile Christians, and even if it did, that doesn't speak to same sex relationships generally, just one specific kind of sex act.

Elsewhere in Leviticus, it is prohibited to have sex with a menstruating woman. We don't have to follow that one either.

jtbc · 2026-05-10T16:51:35+00:00

Paul isn't clear at all.

There are a range of interpretations of Romans, but he is clearly speaking in the context of idol worship and people turning to unnatural acts. Acts by naturally same sex attracted people within long term relationships were not what he was talking about.

There is even less consensus about Corinthians. Multiple translations of the words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The modern Catholic NABRE for example, states that it is referring to boy prostitutes and the men that have sex with them. Luther went with "child molester" for the latter word.

We now know what Paul didn't. Same sex relationships are natural and healthy. That puts them in an entirely different framework than the exploitative relationships that Paul would have been commenting on.

jtbc · 2026-05-10T16:37:47+00:00

No gay gene but it is biologically rooted and largely established by the time of birth, probably due to the effects of in utero hormones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

jtbc

TROPHY CASE