1625 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Great! That makes a lot of sense.

[Victoria Watcher]

A new poll shows the BC Conservative Party pulling into a sizable lead over the NDP government, as public concern continues to rise over Indigenous reconciliation and private property rights.

The new numbers from the Angus Reid Institute show Premier David Eby in freefall on his popularity, having declined 20 percentage points within one year to sit at 33 per cent approval.

 

https://cheknews.ca/...ncerns-1322873/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 May 2026 - 12:52 AM.

[Mike K.]

Quick, check to see who is his economic advisor!

[dasmo]

Private property rights has nothing to do with the indigenous. They aren’t the ones creating this issue. The government is.

This is the problem with private property rights.

In Canada, “expropriation” is the legal power of governments to take private land for a public purpose, usually with compensation. In British Columbia, this power exists at multiple levels of government because of the Canadian Constitution and laws passed by Parliament and the B.C. Legislature.

But the conservatives aren’t campaigning on that. They will campaign on getting rid of DRIPA which will do nothing to solve that problem. The reason DRIPA is a problem is because we don’t have private property rights protection against our government.

Park Place Seniors Living’s land wasn’t taken by the indigenous. It was taken by the Central Saanich government.

Municipalities in B.C. can do this because the Province of British Columbia grants them authority under laws like the Expropriation Act, Local Government Act, and Community Charter. Legally, governments at different levels can expropriate private land when it is “considered necessary for a public purpose.” Note that there is no community input on what is considered necessary.

They very well might use DRIPA as a tool to destabilize land rights but even then, the problem is that they, the government, can do this in the first place. The drive should be to enshrine private property rights into the constitution and to define what “aboriginal title” means legally and from a private property perspective. Repealing DRIPA does nothing to resolve land based issues here. It will only distract for a moment. Land will still be in dispute because treaties were mostly not made, were dishonoured, or made under dubious circumstances. That doesn’t change. So strengthen private property rights so they can fight to resolve those disputes, with the government and crown land, if they can ever be resolved, and we can live in peace after shovelling all our hard earned cash into our little postage stamp of land.

What will happen is repealing DRIPA will become symbolic and just create a big hoopla without solving anything. It probably won’t even be repealed because that’s what the conservatives will campaign on. And do you think that this will be the one campaign promise that comes true?

[Mike K.]

Land expropriation is a universally-held right governments in Western societies have, so that a private land owner cannot get in the way of projects for the public good.

 

Without it, society could not function.

 

DRIPA has put in question the legal status of privately held land. Eminent domain is not the same thing, and it is not a mechanism for, say, creating uncertainty for all landowners city-wide, as the DRIPA situation has done.

[dasmo]

No one in Central Saanich needed a new hall on that site. Society would have gone on just find without them taking that land….
Getting rid of DRIPA doesn’t change much. It won’t reverse that Supreme Court decision for instance. It also won’t prevent more of that happening.

[Mike K.]

Kerri-Lynne Findlay won the most recent Conservative debate, Rebel News has opined. They gave a very good analysis here: https://youtu.be/lii...dkR83qXuKGS_wNa

Caroline Elliot is starting to slip, I think.

[dasmo]

The irony is that it is giving more property rights to the indigenous. What should be done is just making us all indigenous. I feel I am from this land. That is how I identify. As it stands indigenous is also ill defined which is why you have fighting between bands over land territory rulings. Especially since they didn’t have the land ownership system we have so it was never so defined. The articles that relate to land rights should apply to all citizens. But Mike doesn’t think so. Government should have the supreme land right….

From DRIPA
• Article 25
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their spiritual relationship with traditionally owned or occupied lands and waters.
• Article 26
Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop, and control lands, territories, and resources they traditionally owned, occupied, or used. 
• Article 27
Governments must establish fair processes to recognize and adjudicate Indigenous land rights and claims.
• Article 28
Indigenous peoples have the right to redress or compensation for lands and resources taken without consent.
• Article 29
Indigenous peoples have rights relating to environmental protection and conservation of their lands and territories.
• Article 32
Governments must consult and cooperate in good faith to obtain free, prior, and informed consent before approving projects affecting Indigenous lands or resources. 
• Article 37
Indigenous peoples have the right to recognition and enforcement of treaties and agreements.

[dasmo]

Kerri-Lynne Findlay won the most recent Conservative debate, Rebel News has opined. They gave a very good analysis here: https://youtu.be/lii...dkR83qXuKGS_wNa

Caroline Elliot is starting to slip, I think.

The irony here is to implement her 8 lane highway here she would have to take peoples private land….

[lanforod]

Kerri-Lynne Findlay won the most recent Conservative debate, Rebel News has opined. They gave a very good analysis here: https://youtu.be/lii...dkR83qXuKGS_wNa

Caroline Elliot is starting to slip, I think.

 

My understanding is the Conservatives would win an election today, even without having a leader. 

 

tldr; no one likes Eby

[Mike K.]

The irony here is to implement her 8 lane highway here she would have to take peoples private land….

Show us which parcels, if you think that’s the case.

And even so, so be it. Private land was acquired or given for the roads you drive down every day. Many real-estate developments dedicate a portion of their land to public rights of way as a condition of approvals.

[Mike K.]

The irony is that it is giving more property rights to the indigenous. What should be done is just making us all indigenous. I feel I am from this land. That is how I identify. As it stands indigenous is also ill defined which is why you have fighting between bands over land territory rulings. Especially since they didn’t have the land ownership system we have so it was never so defined. The articles that relate to land rights should apply to all citizens. But Mike doesn’t think so. Government should have the supreme land right….

I didn’t tell you what I thought, I just presented facts.

[dasmo]

No one in Central Saanich needed a new hall on that site. Society would have gone on just find without them taking that land….
Getting rid of DRIPA doesn’t change much. It won’t reverse that Supreme Court decision for instance. It also won’t prevent more of that happening.

This is fact.

[Mike K.]

No, it’s not a fact. That’s your opinion.

[dasmo]

That is your opinion

[dasmo]

DRIPA was not the reason for the Cowichan ruling. Repealing DRIPA will not change that ruling or future ones. That is fact.

[dasmo]

The ruling was based on our constitution, other court cases, the Interpretations ACT. UNDRIP was mentioned and last DRIPA but not as foundations for the ruling. Repealing DRIPA might actually galvanize more land based battles.

[dasmo]

DRIPA is not even mentioned in the ruling summary

https://www.canlii.o...25bcsc1490.html

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

[1] The plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the descendants of the historic Cowichan Nation, brought this action seeking a declaration of Aboriginal title to their traditional village of Tl'uqtinus on the south arm of the Fraser River, and to its surrounding lands and submerged lands. They also seek a declaration of an Aboriginal right to fish the south arm of the Fraser River for food.

[2] The Claim Area, which the plaintiffs call the Lands of Tl'uqtinus, is located on what is now the south shore of Lulu Island, across from Tilbury Island, in Richmond, British Columbia. Today, land in the Claim Area is owned by the federal Crown, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (“VFPA”), the City of Richmond (“Richmond”), and private third parties. It covers approximately 1,846 acres of land, as well as certain surrounding lands held by Canada or Richmond. See the map attached to the reasons for judgment as Schedule “B”, depicting the Federal Tl'uqtinus Lands and the Richmond Tl'uqtinus Lands.

[3] Six defendants opposed the plaintiffs’ claim: Canada, British Columbia, Richmond, the VFPA, Tsawwassen First Nation, and the Musqueam Indian Band.

[4] The trial commenced in September 2019. There were a total of 513 trial days. The Court heard oral history evidence and considered a substantial volume of historical documents and ethnographic evidence. Expert evidence was tendered in fields including archaeology, socio-cultural anthropology, history, ethnohistory, ethnogeography, ethnobotany, ethnoecology, genealogy, historical geography, cartography, cartology and transportation economics.

[5] The plaintiffs have established Aboriginal title to a portion of the Claim Area, including a strip of submerged lands, referred to in the reasons for judgment as the “Cowichan Title Lands”. They have also established a right to fish the south arm of the Fraser River for food.

[6] This case raised complex, and in many instances, novel issues. The following is an overview of the Court’s central findings:

• The Cowichan (Quw’utsun mustimuhw) were an Indigenous people comprised of 11 local groups prior to and at the time of European contact in the early 1790s, and at the time the British Crown asserted sovereignty in British Columbia at 1846 and after (at paras. 463, 498). The members of the Cowichan Tribes, Stz’uminus First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, Halalt First Nation, and Lyackson First Nation are the descendants of the historic Cowichan people and the 11 local groups. As the modern-day successor groups to the Cowichan as an Indigenous people, the four plaintiff bands and the Lyackson are the proper rights holder for Aboriginal rights and title in this case (at paras. 523, 1654).

• Historically, the Cowichan occupied several winter villages on the east coast of Vancouver Island from what is now Cowichan Bay to the south to as far north as Chemainus. They also had winter villages on the southern Gulf Islands, including Kuper (Penelakut) Island, Thetis Island, Valdes Island, and Willy (Halalt) Island.

• The Cowichan relied on fishing, gathering, and hunting for their food and travelled to various regions to exploit resources. Their seasonal round began in the spring on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands harvesting fish, shellfish and camas, plus some sea mammals, birds, and game.

• Every summer, the Cowichan travelled en masse to their permanent post and beam village at the Lands of Tl’uqtinus on the south arm of the Fraser River, where they lived and fished — primarily for salmon — and harvested resources together.

• The plaintiffs have established Cowichan Aboriginal title to a portion of the Claim Area, the Cowichan Title Lands. Prior to, at, and after 1846, the Cowichan sufficiently and exclusively occupied their permanent village, its surrounding lands, and the strip of submerged lands in front of the village at Tl'uqtinus (at paras. 1241–1246, 1535–1538, 1573– 1578, 1649–1653).

• In 1853, Governor James Douglas told the Cowichan that the Queen had given him a special charge to treat them with justice and humanity, so long as they remained at peace with the settlements. This was a solemn promise that engaged the honour of the Crown, which is a constitutional principle that requires the Crown to act honourably in its dealings with Indigenous peoples (at paras. 1722, 1726–1727, 1730).

• In 1859 and 1860, Douglas appropriated — essentially, meaning removed or set apart — Indian settlements from the Crown’s land disposition processes (which included sale and pre-emption). These settlements were set aside for the purpose of eventual Indian reserve creation (at para. 1838).

• At that time, the Cowichan continued to occupy their village at Tl'uqtinus and its surrounding lands. It was an “Indian settlement” as colonial officials understood that term. Nonetheless, the Cowichan’s settlement at Tl’uqtinus was never established as an Indian reserve for the Cowichan. Instead, the Lands of Tl’uqtinus were sold to settlers without the Cowichan’s knowledge (at paras. 1817–1818).

• Between 1871–1914, Crown grants of fee simple interest were issued over the whole of the Claim Area, including the Cowichan Title Lands. The first purchase of Cowichan Title Lands was made by Richard Moody who was the first Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works for the Colony of British Columbia and was tasked with ensuring that Indian reserves were created at sites of Indian settlements. Because occupied Indian settlements were appropriated, and could not be sold, most of the Crown grants in the Cowichan Title Lands were made without statutory authority (at paras. 2033, 2045, 2056, 2069, 2070).

• British Columbia was admitted into Canada on July 20, 1871 under the BC Terms of Union. The effect of Article 13 of the BC Terms of Union was to extend appropriation of Indian settlement lands post‑Confederation, limiting the Province’s ability to sell the land without first dealing with the Cowichan’s interest. As a result, the post-Confederation Crown grants in the Cowichan Title Lands were made without constitutional authority because they were made under legislation that was constitutionally limited by Article 13 (at paras. 2080–2081).

• The Crown grants of fee simple interest deprived the Cowichan of their village lands, severely impeded their ability to fish the south arm of the Fraser River, and are an unjustified infringement of their Aboriginal title. Subsequent dispositions of the Cowichan’s land, including BC’s vesting of Richmond with fee simple interests and the soil and freehold of highways, are also unjustified infringements. Additionally, some of Canada and the VFPA’s activities on the Cowichan Title Lands unjustifiably infringe the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title (at paras. 2670, 2852).

• The Province has no jurisdiction to extinguish Aboriginal title. The Crown grants of fee simple interest did not displace or extinguish the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title (at paras. 2188–2190).

• Aboriginal title lies beyond the land title system in British Columbia. Sections 23 and 25 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250 do not apply to Aboriginal title. Accordingly, Richmond’s reliance on ss. 23 and 25 as a statutory defence is not made out. Richmond’s fee simple interests in the Cowichan Title Lands are not conclusive evidence that Richmond is indefeasibly entitled to that land as against the Cowichan as Aboriginal title holders (at paras. 2258–2262).

• BC and Richmond advanced limitations defences, as well as equitable defences of bona fide purchaser for value without notice and laches. The plaintiffs’ invocation of estoppel to the defences is not made out (at paras. 2881, 2890). Nevertheless, the plaintiffs’ claims are not time‑barred by limitations statutes (at paras. 2902–2905), and the equitable defences are not made out (at paras. 3150–3151).

• The plaintiffs have established a right to fish for food on the south arm of the Fraser River. Prior to, at, and after European contact in the early 1790s, the Cowichan fished the south arm of the Fraser River for food. This practice was integral to their distinctive culture, and continues to be so today (at paras. 3505, 3509–3511). The Cowichan’s historical fishing practice was not dependent on permission from the Musqueam or any other Indigenous group (at para. 3471).

[7] Accordingly, the Court makes six declarations, which are summarized below:

• The Cowichan have Aboriginal title to the Cowichan Title Lands within the meaning of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982;

• The Crown grants of fee simple interest in the Cowichan Title Lands, and the Crown vesting of the soil and freehold interest in certain highway lands in the Cowichan Title Lands, unjustifiably infringe the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title;

• Except for Canada’s fee simple titles and interests in certain lands (the “Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Lands”), Canada and Richmond’s fee simple titles and interests in the Cowichan Title Lands are defective and invalid;

• With respect to the Cowichan Title Lands, Canada owes a duty to the Cowichan to negotiate in good faith reconciliation of Canada’s fee simple interests in the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Lands with Cowichan Aboriginal title, in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown;

• With respect to the Cowichan Title Lands, BC owes a duty to the Cowichan to negotiate in good faith reconciliation of the Crown granted fee simple interests held by third parties and the Crown vesting of the soil and freehold interest to Richmond with Cowichan Aboriginal title, in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown; and

• The Cowichan have an Aboriginal right to fish the south arm of the Fraser River for food within the meaning of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[8] See para. 3724 of these reasons for the declarations of this Court. See also the map attached to these reasons as Schedule “A”, which is provided as a visual aid, where the black line depicts the boundary of the Cowichan Title Lands.

[Mike K.]

You’re conflating too many things at once, and jumbling together DRIPA, the Cowichan decision and eminent domain, then telling us we can’t unwind that yarn because they’re not related? If they’re not connected then they’re not connected and can be handled separately, right?

Repealing DRIPA and the Cowichan case being unrelated to DRIPA are not tangentially connected so to invalidate the repealing of DRIPA as a pointless exercise. There are pros and cons to either route. But we’re here now, and have to deal with what we’ve been dealt.

[dasmo]

That is fact