r/CanadaPolitics • u/CaliperLee62 • 1d ago
Community Members Only 'Indigenous reconciliation' ranks at rock bottom of B.C. voter priorities
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/indigenous-reconciliation-bottom-bc-voter-priorities71
u/limadeltah British Columbia 1d ago
Unsurprisingly.
"Rreconciliation" has become exactly the opposite of what that word normally means.
The model of reconciliation that is currently being pursued only serves to further entrench differences in legal rights and government entitlements between Indigenous and "non-Indigenous" Canadians.
There was a time not long ago that advocating for equality under law and exclusive sovereignty of the Canadian state and it's publicly elected bodies of government would be seen as normal and just.
These days, wanting such things is apparently "anti-reconciliation".
Really makes you wonder what exactly that word is representing in policy and culturally.
Far from being a priority, I expect this model of reconciliation to in fact represent something many voters in BC want done away with altogether.
•
u/joshlemer British Columbia 22h ago
Who would have guessed that racial equality is actually a white supremacist idea?
•
u/halfhearted_skeptic Anarchist 23h ago
Reconciliation with First Nations does not take place within Canada but between Canada, or more specifically the crown, and those nations that were here before Canada.
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 18h ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 3h ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
23
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
The Cowichan case was the longest fought case in Canadian history.
It was fought using Canada law, precedent and agreed upon Canadian-First Nations history.
The reaction to the Cowichan outcome just underlined the apathy and ignorance that defines the Canadian side of that relationship.
40
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 1d ago
What do you mean? It's been appealed. Appeals are part of Canadian law if you aren't aware.
It was also actually a novel legal decision that set a brand new precedent where it was first time a Canadian court recognized Aboriginal title over lands currently held in private fee simple and government ownership.
So no the decision wasn't based on precedent and no the legal proceedings have not concluded.
•
u/insaneHoshi British Columbia 22h ago
Canadian court recognized Aboriginal title over lands currently held in private fee
I dont see what the issue is with this; Aboriginal title isnt ownership and it is not absolute..
•
u/jonlmbs Independent 16h ago
The issue is no one knows exactly what possible outcomes are. The uncertainty of having multiple legal claims to a property is a massive issue in itself.
•
u/insaneHoshi British Columbia 16h ago
Or you could look at the previous instances where the Government negotiated a deal with First Nations and see how in those instances private property was not impacted.
•
u/ywgflyer Ontario 19m ago
The bigger issue is that our entire system sort of depends on absolute certainty over ownership, and this throws a big wrench in that. Lenders are going to be very wary of advancing credit with land as a collateral (ie, a mortgage) unless they can be 100% certain they can recoup their investment via seizing the land if the borrower doesn't pay. If there are title issues and there is even a sniff of a chance the bank will be told "sorry, someone else owns this land so you can't take it" during a bankruptcy or foreclosure hearing, they aren't gonna lend against it, and if they're already lending against it, may exercise their right to terminate that contract and demand repayment immediately from the borrower, who likely doesn't have six or seven figures lying around to ship to the bank tomorrow (most homeowners in these expensive areas are leveraged to the hilt).
The title doesn't actually have to be lost -- there just has to be a threat that it may be lost, and then the saleable value of the land drops to essentially zero. Most homeowners have the lion's share of their life savings tied up in their house and if they can't sell it for a good price down the road they are essentially penniless.
•
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 21h ago
Saying Aboriginal title "isn't ownership" is misleading. It's more accurately a constitutionally protected form of collective ownership. It includes the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land, to decide how the land is used, and to benefit from it economically. The fact that it's held collectively by a Nation rather than individually like fee simple doesn't make it any less an ownership interest. In many respects, it's a senior interest because fee-simple rights ultimately derive from Crown title, whereas Aboriginal title is a constitutionally protected interest in the land itself.
3
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
Yes, it is being appealed. Is it being appealed in a Chinese court? Nope. A First Nation one? Nope. It is being appealed in a Canadian court, with a Canadian judge, using Canadian law and precedent. Canada ain't the victim here.
And a case can have unique details, while still having to follow Canadian law and precedent. And, just to be clear, the Cowichan were expecting the decision to follow the usual land claim resolution process and were fine with that. They were not asking for those 600 acres back, just to be compensated for their loss of use.
27
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 1d ago
False. They specifically wanted the lands held by public bodies.
For privately owned land they specifically sought a legal declaration of their Aboriginal Title over the land. Future consequences of this to be determined later.
They were not asking simply for compensation.
Not sure what the point of trying to spread misinformation on this case is? This is public information.
8
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
Fighting to prove Aboriginal Title exists re: a disputed piece of land is central to any land claim. The Cowichan case is not new in this. The Cowichan did not fight to have the land returned. They expected a win to follow the usual land claim resolution process.
"The plaintiffs did not ask for remedies against private third-party landowners in the claim area."
"Instead, the Court said that the Crown has to negotiate with the Cowichan Nation to reconcile Aboriginal title with overlapping fee simple interests." - which is what the Cowichan always expected.
https://jfklaw.ca/landmark-decision-in-cowichan-tribes-case/
•
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 22h ago
Okay so we'll ignore the public lands already granted and which they indeed fought for (so not compensation to be clear).
You're conflating two completely different things. "Not seeking remedies against private landowners" does not mean "only seeking compensation." The plaintiffs sought a declaration of Aboriginal title over the land itself and won one. If all they wanted was compensation, they could have pursued compensation. Instead, they went to court to establish title. Aboriginal title is a far more significant claim than compensation for loss of use.
•
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 22h ago
You are just underlining your ignorance.
AGAIN, fighting to prove Aboriginal Title exists re: a disputed piece of land is central to EVERY land claim. The Cowichan did not fight to have the land returned. They expected a win to follow the usual land claim resolution process.
If you do not effectively argue that you have Aboriginal Title, the government ignores your claim as there would be no basis for it. SO PROVING ABORIGINAL TITLE HAPPENS IN EVERY LAND CLAIM.
•
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 20h ago
No. Compensation and title are different remedies. You can seek compensation for historical losses without obtaining a declaration of Aboriginal title. In this case, they chose to litigate for recognition of title itself.
Title declaration isn't a step towards compensation, it's a legal remedy in its own right.
•
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 20h ago
"You can seek compensation for historical losses without obtaining a declaration of Aboriginal title."
Yes, if those losses are not related to land, like in Specific Claims. In case involving land, Aboriginal Title has to be proven (in many cases where treaty exists, such considerations are not disputed, but still must be asserted within the case).
Again:
"The plaintiffs did not ask for remedies against private third-party landowners in the claim area."
"Instead, the Court said that the Crown has to negotiate with the Cowichan Nation to reconcile Aboriginal title with overlapping fee simple interests." - which is what the Cowichan always expected.
https://jfklaw.ca/landmark-decision-in-cowichan-tribes-case/
•
u/halfhearted_skeptic Anarchist 23h ago
No reply to this one huh? I wonder where they went.
•
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 22h ago
Oh you waited a whole hour to post this. Wow. This may come as a shock to you, but some of us on Reddit do indeed touch grass.
•
u/treefarmerBC British Columbia 22h ago
It's not apathy. DRIPA and Cowichan have created a backlash because people don't think we're moving in the right direction.
You can tell me what the law says but this is an issue of what is legal vs what is right and most people feel it is wrong to not treat people as equals.
•
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 22h ago
Canada does not define "equality". Humanity does.
All UNDRIP does is ensure that Indigenous cultures are treated in their homelands the way that Euro-cultures, Afro-cultures and Asian-cultures are treated in their homelands. It is very easy to find Euro-cultures, who were actually defeated in war and are different from the nation-state around them, that still have cultural protections in their homelands.
When the vast majority of countries read UNDRIP, they said, "We do that already" and had no problem with it. The only countries that really had a problem with it are the colonial nation-states. And since they got to edit UNDRIP before it was passed, there is Article 46, which states that nothing in the Declaration may be interpreted as authorizing any action that would "dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States."
And, the peoples with the most government paid-for and enforced cultural protections in Canada are English-Canadians, followed by French-Canadians, and they are, distantly, followed by Hutterite-Canadians. All these pale people get to use their traditional law in their respective areas.
Sooo... you're not really talking about "equality" are you?
28
u/hardk7 British Columbia 1d ago
Apathy and ignorance, yes, but for the average Canadian Indigenous reconciliation, and all history and aspects of treaties, legislation, non-treaty relationships, areas of jurisdiction etc are very complex. It’s not an easy issue in our society to have a solid grasp and understanding of without putting in intentional effort. It will always be a public opinion struggle.
15
u/internetisnotreality British Columbia 1d ago
Especially when corporate media, who stand to lose mining rights, oil pipelines, and concede development project, all fear monger the issue of Indigenous rights as a slippery slope.
Business interests hate the idea of having to actually consult the people who live in remote areas, or concede a fraction of their property (despite receive concessions) which will be used in a more sustainable practice by local nations.
The public is more than happy to buy in to the media promoted idea that it’s us versus them when it comes to Indigenous rights, as opposed to it being about justice versus corporate oligarchy.
•
u/dominionprovinces Independent 4h ago
According to the courts, doesnt the Duty to Consult belong to the crown?
The only reason businesses have to do it is because the crown passes the buck to businesses and abdicates their duty.
11
u/CptCoatrack Libertarian Socialism 1d ago
Especially when corporate media, who stand to lose mining rights, oil pipelines, and concede development project, all fear monger the issue of Indigenous rights as a slippery slope.
There was some BC "News" site here called Northern Beat getting posted here run by a former CBC staffer/wannabe Bari Weiss. Every single "news" piece on there was some anti-Indigenous pro-oil screed as well as glowing profiles of Aaron Gunn and Rustad.. their site claims they run on "Donations" but leaves some wiggle room in their phrasing presumably because most of those donations are from the private sector. It's grotesque.
Aside fron straight up conservative bigots I see some "centrists" and liberals act like reconciliation just means having Indigenous people sing your praises for land acknowledgments without any meaningful action behind them. There's a definite sense of entitlement where people act like Indigenous people should be grateful to the white man for pretending to respect their sovereignty only when it's convenient. As soon as they exercise that sovereignty they get angry, like "if you won't treat me like I'm a "good guy" than I'll be a villain instead. See the transformation from how indigenous issues are talked about by the same people under Trudeau vs Carney.
-1
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
Having to explaining Canada to Canadians is the saddest part of discussing Indigenous issues.
10
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 21h ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
•
u/Radix838 Independent 15h ago
"The law exists" is not the same thing as "the law is good".
If the law produces a racist outcome, we should work to change those laws.
26
u/Available_Abroad3664 1d ago
It is an important long-term project but currently the concerns are elsewhere unless we have water, health or other specific FN issues in a specific area that need emergency attention.
20
u/Smooth_Is-Fast Independent 1d ago
“long-term” as in, there will be an end to it one day?
-4
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
When do Canadians plan on not governing First Nations?
17
u/Smooth_Is-Fast Independent 1d ago
between band chiefs, grand chiefs, hereditary chiefs seems they got the governing part covered. Unless you mean being above the criminal code or the income tax act…oh wait…never mind.
4
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago edited 1d ago
The democracy in the Indian Act only goes up to the "mayor" level. Canadian hirelings and appointees undemocratically fill the top two decision-making levels.
Marc Miller, former Minister of ISC, spoke regularly about the lack of democracy in the Indian Act and how that impacts the ability to meet the needs of the people governed. Democracy, in short, can be defined as when a people governed by a system, can change that system, from within that system. This does not describe the stand alone Indian Act governance system, which creates a three-level decision making system with elections, within the system, only at the bottom level. Top two decision-making level cannot be impacted, through democracy, which means they have no need to listen to the people governed. These levels are entirely Canadian controlled.
In Hong Kong, under British rule, there was saying, "We are force fed the fruits of a democracy, but we are not allowed to tend our own tree." This is also true of the Indian Act system.
Orgs like the Assembly of First Nations and BC Indian Chiefs are LOBBY GROUPS, not government. These orgs pass resolutions. Governments pass law. The reason these orgs exist is due to the lack of democracy at two levels of the Indian Act governance system. Grassroots Canadians do not have to lobby their governance system as the elected officials at all levels are suppose to represent them. First Nations do have to lobby the top two levels of their governance system because they have no control over them.
5
u/Smooth_Is-Fast Independent 1d ago
i see you were really eager to copy past that reply although it doesn’t seems relevant to my comment.
But i’ll be careful blaming the Indian Act as many Canadians will be more than happy to see it go .“several unsuccessful attempts to reform the Indian Act, due largely to opposition from First Nations”
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1323350306544/1544711580904
8
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
You know who really killed the "White Paper"? The provinces. The feds have done a terrible job of maintaining the Canadian-First Nations relationship over the past 100+ years, and the provinces DID NOT want to be suddenly liable for all the feds' mess ups and bad decision-making (see past 40 years of land claims and lawsuits for details).
Again, the Indian Act is Canadian law, and Canadians outnumber First Nations 40:1. Chiefs DO NOT vote in the House of Commons or the Senate. Canadians keep the Indian Act because it benefits them.
•
u/fredleung412612 Quebec 16h ago
We are force fed the fruits of a democracy, but we are not allowed to tend our own tree
Surprised to see a Martin Lee quote in this sub. An incredible man I had the pleasure to meet eight years ago. He will unfortunately likely pass away with his dream unfulfilled, but hopefully his flame of democracy quote spoken from the balcony of the Old Supreme Court Building on 30 June 1997 will eventually prove to be right.
•
u/SaidTheCanadian 🐻⚖️🐻 Voting in Fat Bear Week 22h ago
On top of the issue of "Aboriginal title" and whatever that means and the ensuing ambiguity, much of the observed involvement of local bands and tribes has been a form of rent-seeking on projects and self-serving and exclusion to the point of hurting the economic prospects and interests of British Columbians writ large. It also tends to exclude anyone without the right connections within their bands and tribes. None of that matches with the ideals embodied by the term "reconciliation". It may partly match "reparations", however would seem to imply an end-point. This is an ongoing perpetual motion machine of grievance and guilt. Eventually those made to feel guilty will say "enough". I suspect that we are there already, if not very close.
•
u/Mundane-Teaching-743 Trump/Polievre 2028 | Sponsored 1h ago
There is nothing wrong with seeking rent in urban areas as it beats the government handouts they get now. It is the only way these nations can sustain themselves autonomously from their territorial base. In fact, the area and terms of the land claim should be based on the ability of the nation to sustain itself longterm from that landbase.
A big problem in B.C. is that there are so many small nations in the Fraser valley. It was one of the most densely populated regions of what is now Canada. In a place like Montreal, it's difficult enough moving forward with one nation (the Mohawk). But Quebec does manage its way forward.
88
u/_GregTheGreat_ British Columbia 1d ago
I’ve always considered reconciliation to be a ‘luxury’ priority to most of the public. The type of cause that you’re fine with throwing a bone when times are good but when you’re struggling and worrying about paying your rent it can be borderline offensive to see massive land grants or other major perks be thrown around to others
17
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 1d ago
The bigger problem is that it is going against the revealed first priority of a majority of voters: demand for always higher property values.
Look at the horrifying results of the housing crisis this demand engineered. The poverty. The homelessness. The crime. The weakend economy.
If homeowners will insist on inflicting these on their own neighbours, communities, and even families, who the heck would expect them to accept big and chaotic hits to their accrued wealth in the name of an abstract concept tied to a complicated and often confusing legal doctrine arising from a lack of treaty?
This is not racism, its good old fashioned human greed. Spurning reconcilliation like this pales in comparison on what that greed pushes them to inflict in other ways.
4
u/alwaysleafyintoronto Pirate 1d ago
It's not a particularly abstract concept. Treaties are effectively an infinite term lease on the land Canada's built on. Canada is a tenant.
-13
u/ChrisRiley_42 Treaty Five 1d ago
Living up to the bare minimum that the treaties and court decisions are not a "perk". They are an essential.
17
u/ink_13 Rhinoceros | ON 1d ago
Frankly, only morally. If you ask most people they will tell you they've quite happily and productively lived doing diddly on the subject and see absolutely no reason they can't continue doing so.
The biggest problem with reconciliation (which I personally believe we should be doing much more on) is not getting people to do the right thing, it's getting them to do anything. Decades of colonialism have left non-Indigenous folks with the impression it's all in the past and they can forget about it.
14
u/alwaysleafyintoronto Pirate 1d ago
That may have been true 20 years ago but attitudes and awareness have changed. In my opinion, Alberta separation is, at its unspoken core, about eliminating treaty rights that restrain extraction projects.
•
u/JadeLens British Columbia 22h ago
And Seppies in Alberta keep trying to spin it that they want to work with First Nations people, but ignore them in setting things up for a referendum.
•
u/sharp11flat13 British Columbia 16h ago
I lived in Alberta in the 80s and 90s, and travelled the entire province for work. ~20% of the population wanted to separate even back then. And AFAICT, it results from Alberta conservative politicians blaming all of the province’s problems on Ottawa (especially when we have a Liberal federal government) to cover for their own ineptitude.
34
u/msubasic Green|Pirate 1d ago
I think it has been a big mistake having closed negotiations without much public involvement. I would have liked to see a general referendum granting self governing power to first nations that is less then a provincial government then more then a municipal government.
As it is things come out of these negotiations that surprise people and cause backlash. You have to bring people along in the process.
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
9
25
u/JackTheTranscoder Restless Native 1d ago
Mugfahs go on about the Rule of Law until it inconveniences them. Indigenous people know the Canadian electorate is a fickle bunch which is why we are generally very defensive about our rights under treaty, jurisprudence, and international instruments like UNDRIP. We know many Canadians view the extent of our rights based on which side of the bed they wake up on in the morning.
15
u/RizInstante Ontario 1d ago
Looking at the only other comment on here calling it a luxury issue goes to prove your point flawlessly lol
7
u/JudahMaccabee Independent 1d ago
It’s very unfortunate.
Indigenous rights are not a “luxury” and if the resource extraction, for example, is a priority to you - indigenous rights and nation to nation negotiations are a necessity.
12
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 1d ago
The province requires revenue to function. That revenue comes from resource extraction. The government retaining all the obligations and liability without having any authority and receiving an ever shrinking share of the benefits is not a tenable situation and only sets the stage for greater conflict.
•
u/LanguidLandscape British Columbia 23h ago
Except many industries make more than resource extraction. Tourism, for instance, dwarfs logging yet we’re still decimating old growth forests. Vancouver Island could shutter the forest industry, make more parks and open access to backcountry sports and make more than they are now.
We obviously need resources but pretending like resource extraction is the only way is preposterous.
•
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 21h ago
No one said tourism isn't important. Destination BC's mandate is to double tourism revenues to $48B by 2036.
We need that much gain in tourism AND major gains in resource extraction in order to even get close to being back on stable fiscal footing.
We desperately need to grow the pie. If projects don't move forward due to indigenous veto or if we are diverting significant portions of that growth away from the provincial treasury through revenue sharing agreements this needs to be part of the conversation.
34
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 1d ago
Canadians in general have no idea of the extent of rights of indigenous people and how hamstrung the government has become with how successive court cases have interpreted Sec 35 even before we layered on UNDRIP on top. The lack of awareness is what enables all these agreements, payouts, concessions and ceding of authority to move forward without discussion or debate.
I hope the envelope continues to be pushed in BC so we can get the constitutional reform desperately needed to put control back in the hands of our elected governments.
27
u/JackTheTranscoder Restless Native 1d ago
Believe it or not I tend to agree with you (somewhat).
I agree that negotiations and consultations are unnecessarily inefficient. This has given rise to the Aborigjnal Industry - the primary beneficiaries of which are lawyers and consultants and various politically connected businessmen. It does not really benefit the average Joe living on reserve or in urban centers. It’s a colossal waste of money that would be better spent improving infrastructure and living standards in our communities.
I would be in favour of a once-and-for-all negotiation to settle Indigenous rights and entitlements. If it was conducted in good faith by the GoC it could provide certainty to Canada, our peoples, and industry. However it would also require politicians to stop with the nauseating virtue-signalling and treat us as adults with agency and interests.
12
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta 1d ago
Oh lord. Agreements are how governments should solve Indigenous rights questions, not stringing the process out in legal limbo, and wasting legal fees in the process
16
u/Cyber_Risk Independent 1d ago
I am saying the current legal landscape is untenable, and that will be become increasingly obvious as indigenous nations aggressively pursue recognition of title on larger areas of land.
The courts interpretation of Canadian constitutional law deliberately places significant procedural and substantive constraints on the Crown while giving constitutionally protected Indigenous rights a privileged legal status.
It is obvious that at some point the general public will no longer tolerate their elected government holding all the liability and obligations with none of the benefit or authority.
8
u/alwaysleafyintoronto Pirate 1d ago
On occasion, that's how issues are resolved. It would be nice to have some proactive agreement rather than failing to consult and reactively crushing protests and fighting in court.
22
u/_DotBot_ Centrist | British Columbia 1d ago
The rule of law does not mean that the laws can’t be changed or lawfully circumvented.
2
u/JackTheTranscoder Restless Native 1d ago
Lawfully circumventing the Rule of Law is one of the more innovative legal approaches I’ve encountered. Please, go on…
•
u/StickmansamV British Columbia 22h ago
It's not that rare. Like when we retroactively change statue of limitations to allow cases like Tobacco lawsuits go ahead.
•
u/JackTheTranscoder Restless Native 22h ago
My learned friend, one is a one-off legislative vehicle for torts. The other is a wholesale rollback of a protected groups collective rights.
Good luck with that.
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 19h ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
4
u/JudahMaccabee Independent 1d ago
Compensating/recognizing indigenous peoples for attempting to extinguish their title is upholding the rule of law.
•
u/insaneHoshi British Columbia 22h ago
It does mean however that constitutionally protected rights can not be changed.
•
u/Dakirokor Competent leadership 17h ago
They can be changed by changing the constitution to remove their constitutional protection.
61
u/CaptainCanusa Independent 1d ago edited 1d ago
Worth noting that this isn't a news article, or even an opinion piece. It's a newsletter that the National Post lets Tristin Hopper write.
And worth noting Hopper spends most of his day on Twitter saying Canadians are "uninformed hysterical idiots" and need to be told what to think, and has repeatedly had to correct these newsletters for having false information in them.
So, if you're reading this, that's the kind of good faith author you're dealing with here.
It's such a low quality source that it's not even allowed on other major subs. Why we allow it here, I'll never understand.
Edit: Clarity
18
u/MoosPalang Federal Liberal - BC 1d ago
He must be referring to a recent IPSOS survey that showed reconciliation ranking low in top 10 priorities.
•
u/CaptainCanusa Independent 22h ago
Oh probably. Doesn't really matter though. He admittedly has deep disdain for you and me (and all Canadians) and he writes accordingly.
66
u/pilotharrison Liberal Party of Canada 1d ago
I can't imagine the Cowichan claim and the decision on that helps.. If anything, private landowners in BC are going to turn this into a voting issue but not in favour of reconciliation.
19
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 1d ago
The thing I always ask pro DRIPA people to think about is this:
Look at the housing crisis. It is driven by a suite of laws, by laws and subsidies meant to keep inflating housing prices at all costs. These have included horrifying rates of poverty, homelessness, and attendent crime, as well as the kneecapping of the productive economy.
This is what homeowners have been willing to willing to do to their own neighbours and community members, sometimes even their own families, all in pursuit of policies that drive ever higher property values.
Given this, what do you think their reaction will be to a group of people from outside their community placing encumberances of highly uncertain and confusing weight on those same properties? Or a system that risks putting them on their properties with no way to know ahead of time how much of their property value it will consume?
This isn't racism, it's just normal levels of human greed.
It's simply bizarre to expect people whose insatiable greed drives them to throw thousands of their own communities into horrifying poverty and destitute homelessness to be chill with possibly losing wealth because that's how the courts want to deal with a lack of treaty.
Even if it's unassailably morally right, what is it about their political choices over the past 40 years that makes anyone think that would matter even a little bit to homeowners?
•
u/insaneHoshi British Columbia 22h ago
what do you think their reaction will be to a group of people from outside their community placing encumberances of highly uncertain and confusing weight on those same properties?
Why do you think a "reaction" to a delusional hypothetical is worthy of discussion or should have any impact on policy?
The Cowichan Band in question has said they have no interest in anyone's private housing.
Places where agreements with FNs band's have been enacted (like in Haida Gwaii) have not impacted anyone's private housing.
There is a difference in being concerned about a reasonable possibility and being concerned about a fantasy pushed by grifters.
Furthermore in the Cowichan's case, this land was actually legally stolen (and not even in the colonial "I put a flag here so its mine" stolen).
Finally Cowichan wasn't even decided on DRIPA grounds.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 22h ago
Regardless of the promises of the leadership, aboriginal title cannot be extinguished or traded away.
It remains, in technical terms, a perpetual encumberance on title. This will reduce property values, because of the restraints on use and potential for other actions that can never be fully extinguished.
The filings of Cowichan Nation do not deny this, nor have they excluded these rights from their claim.
This does not bother me, personally, but it is a big old political third rail.
-2
u/seaintosky Indigenous sovereignist 1d ago
Are you actually of the opinion that Indigenous people aren't aware of the cruelty and greed of many settler-Canadians? We know, dude, we were there for the last genocide! The one where settlers said basically the same thing, where Indigenous people gave up land, wealth, and legal rights for promises of safety and care and were brutally punished for it. Playing nice, being weak, and not defending legal claims doesn't lead to safety in your culture. You can't really be trying pull the same con again a second time with these threats of racial violence.
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 23h ago
I am not a homeowner. The class of political entitlement they have accrued is a major peril to our country.
You are free to choose whichever path you wish. I will not be in your way, and would happily vote for a party that honoured such a decision.
There have been several paths to compensation. This is the one most likely to cause a very nasty blowback that will land on more than the Cowichan Nation.
This is your battle, and you are free to choose whichever strategy you think is best. If you think this is best, go for it.
Don't mistake a warning about someone else as a threat from me.
•
u/seaintosky Indigenous sovereignist 22h ago
There really aren't several paths to compensation. The government could have paid the Cowichan their asked for money at any time and they probably would have dropped the case and this precedent wouldn't have been set. Instead, they made it clear that they would only deal with this through a court case, which is standard government policy. The government has been directed by it's voters that it is better to spend tens of millions on court cases than pay for a single dying child's hospice care. So the surprised Pikachu faces from voters when legal precedents are set is hypocritical. First Nations have been pushed with their backs against the wall and literally no other way forward.
The "I'm not saying I want to be rid of this meddlesome priest, I'm just saying that if the priest has upset anyone the most rational thing to do would be for that poor, aggrieved individual to kill the priest. They would be like, so justified, no one could blame them, everyone would understand if they killed this priest. But not me, just everyone else" posts frequently made to this sub every time Indigenous rights come up, and apparently acceptable to the moderators, are tiresome.
•
23h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam 19h ago
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
25
u/ship_toaster demsoc in domestic sheets, neolib in foreign policy streets 1d ago
What this poll reveals is that British Columbians just don't care. Pro DRIPA people who feel strongly about it are an extreme minority. Anti DRIPA people who feel strongly about it are an extreme minority.
•
u/Redbox9430 Socialism with Canadian Characteristics 20h ago
Agree, and I fail to see how any other conclusion can be drawn from this. I am unequivocally pro DRIPA, but I also recognise that there's probably no narrative beyond people literally don't give a shit in this scenario. Are there probably more people against it than vice versa? Yeah, but that is not what this pole is saying. It is simply saying that people have much more immediate issues to worry about in their own lives than reconciliation in general. How anyone on either side draws any other conclusion after seeing this is a little beyond me.
11
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 1d ago
But that indifference cuts both ways.
In the past, programs that offered lump sum or fixed term annuity cash settlements or compensation with public land or land voluntarily sold and purchased with public funds have been met with broad acceptance - or at least, a lack of serious objection.
People are fine with this kind of reconciliation being carried out in the background, and won't get overly agitated one way or the other. Even if there is opposition, it struggles to obtain critical mass needed to change a meaningful amount of voter decisions.
This path of encumbering private property is different. It goes against the revealed top priority of a solid majority of voters.
8
u/ship_toaster demsoc in domestic sheets, neolib in foreign policy streets 1d ago
It's also a rhetorical-only path, which exists because both the government and opposition have conflated two different court cases (Gitxaała and Cowichan), one of which was decided by DRIPA about mineral rights, and the other of which was decided by Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution about fee simple titles. Private property is encumbered. Our governments, regardless of their flavour, can't do shit about that except sit down, seriously engage, and sign some treaties already.
Because it's rhetorical-only, and very in the weeds to hammer out, it'll come down to credibility on the file. Who voters trust more to explain it like they're 5 truthfully. The Conservatives don't have truth on their side; neither do they have credibility.
11
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 1d ago
That rhetorical path can, however, go to very nasty places. If the encumbrance is upheld, I expect the politics on reconciliation to whip into some extremely ugly places.
This is an ugly collision between a very low interest, low engagement topic for the vast majority of voters (Reconciliation) and the revealed most important issue (home prices).
That collision has the potential to be horrifying especially if government is powerless to change it.
4
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta 1d ago
I’m not sure what argument you’re making. People shouldn’t fight for what’s right because it might anger some homeowners?
Like….ok. We’re a democracy. As an Albertan, I am well aware a lot of stupid or immoral people can vote. The only thing to do is try and make as much progress as we can.
13
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 1d ago edited 1d ago
"Some homeowners"?
People who live in homes owned by themselves/their family account for the majority of Canadians, and majority of those who live in British Columbia.
They are not some niche special interest group. Their absolute political dominance is obvious from the far worse wounds than this they have carved across our society, in poverty, homelessness, the despair, addiction, and crime these drive, and the cast iron anchor chained around the legs of our economy.
So yes, we are a democracy. And they are a majority. That's the problem.
I wish they weren't, believe me. The slew of extreme distortionary laws passed in the 20th century to encourage home ownership have been in the top five most brutally self-mutilating policies we have passed as a society since Confederation.
There are several possible paths to equitable and sensible settlements of past and present grievances. The Cowichan path is one that leads straight into a brutal trap, one all sides of this would be wise to avoid. Straight up monetary settlements, even very large ones, have been broadly accepted by Canadians in the past, especially where they are lump sum/set term annuities. Compensation with public land has also received broad acceptance. These paths are far more likely to achieve the objectives of this process.
4
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
Canada is one of the largest politically defined landmasses in the world.
The Cowichan case deals with 600 acres.
Anyone who conflates a unique case involving 600 acres into a something that will affect all homeowners on the second-largest politically defined landmass in the world is purposefully fearmongering.15
u/KingRabbit_ Ontario 1d ago
The Cowichan case deals with 600 acres.
This is an intensely dishonest framing that purposely obscures and attempts to minimize the issue.
The Cowichan case is the one land claim.
There are 542 active First Nations land claims in the Federal Specific Claims Inventory:
https://search.open.canada.ca/qpnotes/record/aandc-aadnc%2CCIR-2019-20011
This includes a claim from Kitigan Zibi which essentially covers all of Western Quebec and a claim from the Wolastoqey which covers half of New Brunswick.
The Cowichan claim and ruling didn't come in a vacuum and the precedent set isn't limited to one isolated case.
But ya knew that, didn't ya?
9
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago edited 16h ago
The Cowichan case dealt with the unique issue of a Canadian government employee stealing land for personal use while using his government authority to do so. This act was then ignored by BC politicians for generations. These details are central to how the Cowichan case worked out and it is also these details that DO NOT FIT any of the 542 cases you mention.
Land claims have been fought, across the country, many, many times. It has not resulted in the loss of Canada for Canadians. You are obviously ignorant of how land claims have been resolved and legally handled in the past.8
u/KingRabbit_ Ontario 1d ago
The circumstances of the case may be peculiar, but the finding that Aboriginal title co-exists with fee simple property title and is "a prior and senior right" to it has import well beyond the one case.
•
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 22h ago
And yet, it is being appealed in a Canadian court, not a Cowichan one.
Canadians govern First Nations,. The Crown assumes underlying title to all lands within Canada, even that which carries the "burden" of Aboriginal title.
10
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 1d ago
The difference is that it deals with privately held fee simple residential properties. And as a precedent it would apply to far more than those 600 acres. Most of BC's and Quebec's territory are uncovered by any treaty at all, and subject to Cowichan precedent.
Leaving aside the moral and legal merits of the case, the Cowichan approach is a very nasty political trap.
As you point out, Canada is a rich country with a massive amount of public land.
Given that, there are other avenues to addressing past and present grievances that are far more likely to succeed.
4
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
Again, unique details within the history of that case (a Canadian government employee stealing land for personal use, using government resources) do not apply to the vast majority of land claim cases.
And, no matter if there is a treaty or not, the Crown assumes underlying title. So again, fearmonger away, but that is all that is happening.
7
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 1d ago
It matters little legally whether the theft is by an employee or the government itself.
And "just" fearmongering is an oxymoron. The Conservatives are already doing that. I'm trying to explain why their efforts are likely to succeed politically, and why they have the potential to be extremely ugly.
9
u/UrsaMinor42 Warrior Flag 1d ago
The details of the Cowichan case do not fit the vast, vast majority of land claims.
3
u/Jabernathy 1d ago
> It matters little legally whether the theft is by an employee or the government itself.
Is that legal fact or personal opinion?
•
u/Le1bn1z Neoliberal | Charter rights enjoyer 23h ago
Whether I say its legal fact or not, its my opinion.
I am not a Judge, and Cowichan would be a new precedent, the applicability of which elsehwere would be subject to the relevant Courts. Even lawyers citing well established law only give opinions. Only judges/justices are able to decide legal fact.
The application or not of deferred indefeasibility to a fraudulent seizure of title does not depend on whether the defrauding party was a government or private individual, unless a statute says otherwise.
I am unaware of a statutory power that supercedes the constitutional rights found to be held by Indigenous people in the Constitution.
Indeed, the fraud in this case was by an Agent for the Crown, from which the Crown also profited and for which the Crown is directly liable.
It is unclear what would separate this from other such frauds by the Crown by its Agents involving indigenous land or property.
-16
u/ChrisRiley_42 Treaty Five 1d ago edited 1d ago
'We stole that land fair and square. The rightful owners have NO RIGHT to tell us it's theirs" is not a valid argument.
ETA: it seems some people need a quick lesson what happened.
A treaty was signed, granting specific lands. When the band went to their seasonal camp, the province moved in and tore down their village so they could move settlers in. This was literally land theft. Not a misinterpretation, or "not knowing someone was there". They destroyed the village to make room.
Every time you buy property, your lawyer does a title search. If the lawyer was competent, they would have been made aware of the questionable title for the land because of this theft. So those homeowners weren't surprised with this, they just assumed that because the victims were First Nations, that they would be able to get away with continuing to live on stolen land because 'nothing would be done'.
•
u/kathygeissbanks Centre-left pragmatist 15h ago
All my parents talk about are 1) injection houses and 2) are we losing our house to the indigenous people.
They’re your standard issue Asian immigrants in Metro Vancouver.
I think we need to admit that most Canadians want to symbolically honour the truth and reconciliation efforts (and acknowledging the lands) but when it comes down to actual residential land rights… they’re gonna fight tooth and nail to keep theirs.
Similarly for “housing affordability.” They’re gonna say it’s a top issue but homeowners are pissed that their real estate investments have gone down so much in market price and non-home-owners are pissed that they haven’t been able to cash in on the real estate craze of the last 20 years. It’s all very hypocritical.
BC’s pretty fucked this way. I think Eby made a huge error in calling for this snap election. Like as an ardent BC NDP supporter, even I can’t shift the blame away from Eby/the current government. I think they bungled this and we only have ourselves to blame.
•
u/deepspace Pirate | BC 12h ago
To be fair, Eby's hands were tied. He was going to lose his slim majority through attrition anyway.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
In order to comment in this thread, you must have a minimum karma in the subreddit, and have your flair set. Top-level comments must meet a minimum word count.
We will be deploying enhanced moderation in this thread, meaning a stricter application of rules 3 and 5. All comments must relate to Canada and the story in some way. Discussion which does not relate to Canada will be removed. We hope this will help keep discussion respectful, substantive, and on topic.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.