2029 replies to this topic

[dasmo]

I thought the Indian act is what legally defines Indians, Bands, Reserves, and therefore what makes treaties possible. No?

No Indian act, no special status for certain ethnicities, and no special treaties.

In the end it is the court decisions that matter. Fundamentally we are a common law structure. Contracts matter. So abolish that act doesn't abolish the legal entities of the bands necessarily. The contracts they hold would be supported by case law and the constitution.  “band” is a legal entity created or recognized by federal law via that Act but that has been recognized through other means. Common Law is fundamental in this regard. What would probably happen is those "legal entities" would simply incorporate like other governments so they still existed as a legal entity without the ACT.  

 

Removing the Act could be good for them too as it removes the Crown as their manager. But IMO it wouldn't change the situation we are in regards to land rights and associated negotiations. 

[max.bravo]

I see. Well maybe it’s a good first step to untangle this mess we’re in.

[dasmo]

Rez Rules by Chief Clarence Louie’s of the Osoyoos Indian Band is an interesting read.  In there he points out the irony that the Reserves and the Act arealso what preserved their culture and identities in the end. Not an easy mess to untangle but it should be done in fairness, good faith and in the wide open with all the stakeholders involved. Otherwise it is just the same BS that got us here in the first place. Ignoring the people living here and making back room deals at their expense. 

Edited by dasmo, 27 May 2026 - 11:46 AM.

[dasmo]

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a ruling that Aboriginal title cannot be declared over private land, in a decision the federal government says will have an impact on the Cowichan Tribes case in British Columbia.

The refusal by Canada’s High Court to hear a First Nation’s appeal against the decision in New Brunswick is in contrast to the landmark Cowichan ruling by B.C.’s Supreme Court that has cast doubt on the primacy of private property rights.

The Crown-Indigenous Relations Department says the ruling will inform arguments in other cases, including Cowichan, adding that “private property rights are fundamental.”

https://www.msn.com/...des/ar-AA24ie5N

[max.bravo]

That’s huge

[dasmo]

It actually matters....  I haven't looked at the ruling myself yet but I will. I don't trust the news for anything but alerting my attention to something. 

[dasmo]

For instance, it’s not actually in contrast to the Cowichan ruling as the judge says in it that the courts would still need to rule on that specific issue. So the journalist probably didn’t read that ruling at all and is just going by whatever is in the news.

[Mike K.]

It actually matters.... I haven't looked at the ruling myself yet but I will. I don't trust the news for anything but alerting my attention to something.

Ah, very good. Thanks for that.

[dasmo]

Did a bit of research with the robot to help. It’s not a Supreme Court ruling. So not as it sounds exactly. Supreme Court just didn’t accept the appeal as a case. So….

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision remains binding in New Brunswick. 
• The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal is not an endorsement of the lower court’s reasoning. 
• A refusal of leave does not create a national precedent on the issue. 
• The Supreme Court could still decide the same question in a future case, including a possible appeal arising from the Cowichan litigation in British Columbia


Semi nothing burger from where we were already at.

[Mike K.]

I suppose, the question could also be tweaked slightly to get a different reaction from the court.