British Columbia NDP Majority Government 2024-(no later than) 2029

[Cloud Cover]

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

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

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.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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 […]

indianpueblo.org

It would have been more Spanish and Inca or Aztec. Game over for them.

 

[Kirkhill]

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

 

[OldSolduer]

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

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.
Trudeau repealed it.

SO where did all the money go????

 

[Kirkhill]

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.
Trudeau repealed it.

SO where did all the money go????

And Harper was only looking at 11,000,000,000

 

[Brad Sallows]

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]

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.
Trudeau repealed it.

SO where did all the money go????

 

[Kirkhill]

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

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.

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.1

Cornell 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.