many/most cannot be realistically classified as nations: they were extended family groups and independent separate villages
British Columbia NDP Majority Government 2024-(no later than) 2029
- Thread starter RangerRay
- Start date
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,413
- Points
- 1,260
I would argue by and large our judiciary are no longer capable of separating their own personal politics, and personal sense of superiority from their role in the judiciary. Its just another step in the greater break down of our society.
- Reaction score
- 21,599
- Points
- 1,010
I don’t pretend to fully understand the family group/village/nationhood relationship on the west coast.
Nor do I fully understand the role of slave raiding, which the Royal Navy stamped out, finally, in the 1860s. Much to the applause of the lower mainland tribes. I don’t think the Haidas have ever forgiven or forgotten that…
- Reaction score
- 21,599
- Points
- 1,010
It seems to me that the Judge in this case has upset all parties, including the Cowichans, who have suddenly discovered that “winning” doesn’t mean what they thought it means and are now back pedalling furiously.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,658
- Points
- 1,040
Not only that, but which group is awarded recognition for any particular piece of land across the continent? Different tribes warred for generations and control of the lands swapped hands many times over.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,662
- Points
- 1,040
Long-term permanent settlements or not, expeditionary behaviours are common enough among all peoples. I can't recall the exact terms-of-art, but a bit of guidance I read a while back indicated that mere occasional use of land had to be considered for title. Undoubtedly various communities occasionally "used" the same lands (eg. fishing, hunting trips) on which none of them were permanently settled for any appreciable length of time, which is why so many of the claims are overlapping nonsense. The fact that mainlanders are having to oppose islanders over ownership of a bit of mainland turf at a point where the straits are rather wide is at one level deeply amusing.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,858
- Points
- 1,160
This will take decades to figure out, of course ....
There are 86 lawyers listed on the first page of the reasons for judgment in the B.C. Supreme Court decision on the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal title case.
So right off the bat, you know that the monumental decision on the 11-year-old case is not the end of the matter.
The Cowichan were represented by 25 lawyers. The federal government used 17, the Musqueam Band had 14, B.C. supplied 11, Vancouver Port Authority had eight, Richmond had seven, and the Tsawwassen First Nation had four.
The first response of all seven parties involved in the case was to appeal. So the conclusion isn’t really a conclusion at all.
It’s going to take years before the issues raised in the decision are even addressed, let alone resolved. Time will turn out to be a big factor shaping the outcome.
It could be a window to do what every major Aboriginal title decision for years has urged: Negotiate some 21st-century arrangements to resolve these issues finally and completely, outside the courts.
But the downside is a long period of uncertainty over whether governments have control over Crown lands claimed by First Nations, and the implications for private-property owners.
Les Leyne: Cowichan land-title litigation has years to run
With 86 lawyers involved, you know that the monumental August decision on the 11-year-old case is not the end of the matter.There are 86 lawyers listed on the first page of the reasons for judgment in the B.C. Supreme Court decision on the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal title case.
So right off the bat, you know that the monumental decision on the 11-year-old case is not the end of the matter.
The Cowichan were represented by 25 lawyers. The federal government used 17, the Musqueam Band had 14, B.C. supplied 11, Vancouver Port Authority had eight, Richmond had seven, and the Tsawwassen First Nation had four.
The first response of all seven parties involved in the case was to appeal. So the conclusion isn’t really a conclusion at all.
It’s going to take years before the issues raised in the decision are even addressed, let alone resolved. Time will turn out to be a big factor shaping the outcome.
It could be a window to do what every major Aboriginal title decision for years has urged: Negotiate some 21st-century arrangements to resolve these issues finally and completely, outside the courts.
But the downside is a long period of uncertainty over whether governments have control over Crown lands claimed by First Nations, and the implications for private-property owners.
- Reaction score
- 4,241
- Points
- 1,160
What if the Romans or Phillistines discovered North America. Would we even know about FN after that? Doubtful.
- Reaction score
- 11,465
- Points
- 1,160
Ask the Thule and Cape Dorsets about harmony...
Dorset culture - Wikipedia
Or the Dene Navajo and the Anasazi Pueblo
What Does “Anasazi” Mean, and Why Is It Controversial? | Indian Pueblo Cultural Center
We were recently updating a page on our website and were surprised when we came across some text using the outdated term “Anasazi.” We recognized the need to change the […]
indianpueblo.org
- Reaction score
- 4,241
- Points
- 1,160
Well I’ve red that ruling at least a dozen times. It absolutely voids and erases the land title system- the very foundation of private property - anyplace in BC where there is a land claim found to subsist.The Cowichan leadership know this and are working hard to clarify a few things - they agree that the Judge screwed up too ...
Cowichan Tribes issues statement to clear up ‘misinformation’ surrounding its Aboriginal title case
Cowichan Tribes leadership is firing back at Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, Premier David Eby, and other politicians who have recently made public statements about the Cowichan Nation’s Aboriginal title case.
They call the statements about the effect of the B.C. Supreme Court’s judgement on individual private property owners misleading and “deliberately inflammatory.”
“To be clear,” the statement says, “the Cowichan Nation’s court case regarding their settlement lands at Tl’uqtinus in Richmond has not and does not challenge the effectiveness or validity of any title held by individual private landowners. The ruling does not erase private property.”
Cowichan Tribes issues statement to clear up ‘misinformation’
They call the statements about the B.C. Supreme Court’s judgement on individual private property owners “deliberately inflammatory.”www.aptnnews.ca
Here’s an authoritative link from one of the most reputable law firms in Canada:
Aboriginal Title Supersedes Fee Simple: Landmark Ruling in Cowichan Tribes v Canada Creates Significant Uncertainty for Private Landowners in BC
Introduction On August 7, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) released its much-anticipated decision in Cowichan Tribes v Canada (Attorney
cassels.com
FN in BC and their lawyers are desperate to have the general population think this ruling is just great and that they have no ill or serious delays intentions.
In fact the opposite is true. Lawyers and senior FN officials are already on record as stating that they intend to take title and will have an interest (financial interest) in all land transactions with full veto rights. They will not back off of that position. David Eby has guaranteed them that they do not have to back off.
So it’s a mystery just how he intends to reconcile this issue.
I want to be very clear to everybody about something here: no individual private citizen in this country owes any duty of reconciliation to First Nations to the extent it limits your expectations and aspirations of living your life to the fullest potential in a home that you own and on property that you own in a fee simple system. Anybody who tells you that you do owe any such duty is full on bonkers.
However, recognizing and taking advantage of the fact that the Canadian Constitution and the Charter protect no private property rights and only protect Aboriginal land rights, the Eby government has pushed forward with a weird formula of Indigenous Marxism, complete with re-education, social programming, financial disincentives, fines, penalties, ostracization, ABC ideological capture, and legislative measures to dismantle colonialism ( what Stephen Harper has described as aggravated nihilism) with respect to Indigenous rights and reconciliation and is shoving that onto a very unwilling population. He’s done this by way of limiting Crown representation to disfavour public interest in land titles, and to not oppose First Nations territorial assertions. He then put in place a process of secret negotiations and secret agreements to transfer ownership of large chunks of Crown Land and private property to FN with undefined and undisclosed remedies to compensate private property owners. Some of this has striking parallels to the land reforms and citizen duties under taken by Pham Van Dong, which are in turn the partial inspiration of UNDRIP.
It’s an ugly situation.
- Reaction score
- 4,241
- Points
- 1,160
It would have been more Spanish and Inca or Aztec. Game over for them.Ask the Thule and Cape Dorsets about harmony...
Dorset culture - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Or the Dene Navajo and the Anasazi Pueblo
What Does “Anasazi” Mean, and Why Is It Controversial? | Indian Pueblo Cultural Center
We were recently updating a page on our website and were surprised when we came across some text using the outdated term “Anasazi.” We recognized the need to change the […]
- Reaction score
- 11,465
- Points
- 1,160
An Avalanche of Money: The Federal Government’s Policies Toward First Nations
32,000,000,000 CAD per year
2,000,000 First Nations, Inuit and Metis
16,000 per person
80,000 per household of 5
8,000,000 per community of 500
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 20,402
- Points
- 1,260
So I recall Stephen Harper's legislation that demanded to have an accounting of where the money went. It was decried by Indigenous leaders and white do gooders as "racist" and mean.An Avalanche of Money: The Federal Government’s Policies Toward First Nations
www.fraserinstitute.org
32,000,000,000 CAD per year
2,000,000 First Nations, Inuit and Metis
16,000 per person
80,000 per household of 5
8,000,000 per community of 500
Trudeau repealed it.
SO where did all the money go????
- Reaction score
- 11,465
- Points
- 1,160
And Harper was only looking at 11,000,000,000
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,662
- Points
- 1,040
If the federal government is spending about $10,500 or so per capita on Canadians as a whole but about $17,500 (rough calculations) on indigenous citizens, change in spending patterns is overdue.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,858
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 11,465
- Points
- 1,160
Well I’ve red that ruling at least a dozen times. It absolutely voids and erases the land title system- the very foundation of private property - anyplace in BC where there is a land claim found to subsist.
Here’s an authoritative link from one of the most reputable law firms in Canada:
Aboriginal Title Supersedes Fee Simple: Landmark Ruling in Cowichan Tribes v Canada Creates Significant Uncertainty for Private Landowners in BC
Introduction On August 7, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) released its much-anticipated decision in Cowichan Tribes v Canada (Attorney
FN in BC and their lawyers are desperate to have the general population think this ruling is just great and that they have no ill or serious delays intentions.
In fact the opposite is true. Lawyers and senior FN officials are already on record as stating that they intend to take title and will have an interest (financial interest) in all land transactions with full veto rights. They will not back off of that position. David Eby has guaranteed them that they do not have to back off.
So it’s a mystery just how he intends to reconcile this issue.
I want to be very clear to everybody about something here: no individual private citizen in this country owes any duty of reconciliation to First Nations to the extent it limits your expectations and aspirations of living your life to the fullest potential in a home that you own and on property that you own in a fee simple system. Anybody who tells you that you do owe any such duty is full on bonkers.
However, recognizing and taking advantage of the fact that the Canadian Constitution and the Charter protect no private property rights and only protect Aboriginal land rights, the Eby government has pushed forward with a weird formula of Indigenous Marxism, complete with re-education, social programming, financial disincentives, fines, penalties, ostracization, ABC ideological capture, and legislative measures to dismantle colonialism ( what Stephen Harper has described as aggravated nihilism) with respect to Indigenous rights and reconciliation and is shoving that onto a very unwilling population. He’s done this by way of limiting Crown representation to disfavour public interest in land titles, and to not oppose First Nations territorial assertions. He then put in place a process of secret negotiations and secret agreements to transfer ownership of large chunks of Crown Land and private property to FN with undefined and undisclosed remedies to compensate private property owners. Some of this has striking parallels to the land reforms and citizen duties under taken by Pham Van Dong, which are in turn the partial inspiration of UNDRIP.
It’s an ugly situation.
The ruling essentially places the non-aboriginal landholders in BC at sufferance.
What Is Tenancy at Sufferance?
Tenancy at sufferance is a type of tenancy where a tenant continues to occupy a property after their lease term has expired, without a new agreement in place. In this scenario, the landlord has the right to collect rent payments for the time the tenant overstays, but the tenant does not have permission to stay on the property. This situation continues until the landlord either evicts the tenant or extends the lease.1Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. "Tenancy at Sufferance."
This can continue until the landlord is able to obtain an eviction order, or decides to extend the lease. This can be contrasted with tenancy at will, where a tenant occupies the property with the consent of the owner but without necessarily a written contract or lease.2
Every property is now encumbered.
Or so it seems to me.
The Cowichan may not be seeking eviction or a lease payment but they could if they wanted to.
- Reaction score
- 4,241
- Points
- 1,160
Would you buy property in BC right now? Would you start a business? Would you move your business because your employees are leaving?
Would you sell your house in Ottawa, Halifax or Edmonton to take a posting in Comox, Pat Bay, or Esquimalt if the only housing available is private purchase?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,858
- Points
- 1,160
Welcome to the thin edge of the economic aftershock ....
Calls for B.C. and federal financial relief for Richmond property owners impacted by Aboriginal title ruling
Some sources wishing anonymity also told Daily Hive Urbanized that some businesses — which were not named — are going as far as planning their relocation from the area. There is a real concern that new investments in the area will not only be put on hold from the chilling effect, but numerous existing businesses will also move out.
In an interview with Daily Hive Urbanized, Richmond city councillor Alexa Loo shed more light, sharing that one company with major operations in the area had a $100-million shovel project completely derailed after a major bank withdrew its loan solely because of the property’s legal uncertainty arising from the August 2025 ruling. She said the project would have created hundreds of jobs.
Calls for government relief for Richmond property owners over Aboriginal title ruling | Urbanized
There are calls for B.C. and federal governments to provide a financial backstop for Richmond properties under the Aboriginal title ruling.
dailyhive.com
- Reaction score
- 8,683
- Points
- 1,140
You'd be pretty dumb to throw more money into an environment that is hostile to you.Welcome to the thin edge of the economic aftershock ....
Calls for B.C. and federal financial relief for Richmond property owners impacted by Aboriginal title ruling
Some sources wishing anonymity also told Daily Hive Urbanized that some businesses — which were not named — are going as far as planning their relocation from the area. There is a real concern that new investments in the area will not only be put on hold from the chilling effect, but numerous existing businesses will also move out.
In an interview with Daily Hive Urbanized, Richmond city councillor Alexa Loo shed more light, sharing that one company with major operations in the area had a $100-million shovel project completely derailed after a major bank withdrew its loan solely because of the property’s legal uncertainty arising from the August 2025 ruling. She said the project would have created hundreds of jobs.
Calls for government relief for Richmond property owners over Aboriginal title ruling | Urbanized
There are calls for B.C. and federal governments to provide a financial backstop for Richmond properties under the Aboriginal title ruling.
If BC was like Manitoba, property values would have already plummeted. The climate it the only thing keeping this from becoming a full blown catastrophe.
Similar threads
