1625 replies to this topic

[dasmo]

You are believing that n a political red herring that will do nothing if achieved. It will not address this issue whatsoever.

[Mike K.]

It probably needs to be withdrawn and re-conceptualized with guide rails that weren’t implemented initially.

[dasmo]

It has nothing to do with private property rights though. So reconceptualizing it to include that might make it worse. Especially considering that supreme court decision. It is a total red herring and they are manufacturing the connection to property rights. 

There is nothing in DRIPA that defines Aboriginal title, grants title to specific lands, extinguishes title, or override existing land ownership systems.

The only connection is it's connection to UNDRIP itself which contains articles about Indigenous lands and territories. Section 3 of DRIPA says B.C. should align laws with the Declaration. 

 

So again, problematic to start to define that into the law. Because odds are it will then align with UNDRIP, the constitution and precedent. 

 

Better to address OUR private property rights as it's own issue. Providing protection from ALL infringement including government. And yes, there are cases where there are public needs. But that bar should be higher. More democratic, and more fair compensation. So governments like central Saanich can't just take someone's property because they WANT their new headquarters there. or if they do, They should have to prove it is necessary. 

[Mike K.]

They did prove it’s necessary. You may not like their proof but it met the bar. I get nobody’s ever happy when it impacts them, but our society functions because of eminent domain or the potential of using it.

99.9% of landowners do not have to concern themselves with eminent domain, ever. But potentially 100% of property owners may be impacted by DRIPA in some way, so it’s important that we get it right and not leave gaping holes that can lead to bigger problems later on.

And we can pull on this thread even further. Do you own the mineral rights under your property?

[max.bravo]

Yeah, words have meanings, especially when they are enshrined in law.

If you tell me the land I own title to, also has aboriginal title, that means something.

The natives have said they won’t be coming after individuals’ property rights - but that doesn’t mean they can’t.

I can’t believe this isn’t a worldwide scandal. It’s the biggest assault on property rights ever perpetrated - and it was done by our own government against ourselves. It’s so incredibly dumb.

[dasmo]

DRIPA doesn't change anything with regards to our property rights. That supreme court ruling did however.  They can create a huge red herring over it and try and make it an election issue to get in. But it changes nothing in the end. Well... It may mean more NDP. UNDRIP will still exist. Our history will still exist. The legal precedent will still exist. Their claims will still exist. Our constitution will still exist. 

 

Maybe you can explain the sections that specifically threaten private property? 

[dasmo]

Yeah, words have meanings, especially when they are enshrined in law.

If you tell me the land I own title to, also has aboriginal title, that means something.

The natives have said they won’t be coming after individuals’ property rights - but that doesn’t mean they can’t.

I can’t believe this isn’t a worldwide scandal. It’s the biggest assault on property rights ever perpetrated - and it was done by our own government against ourselves. It’s so incredibly dumb.

There is nothing in DRIPA about aboriginal tile..... this is what I am trying to get across. If that is your concern then repealing DRIPA does nothing for you. 

[Mike K.]

DRIPA doesn't change anything with regards to our property rights.

Oh my.

You should do more research on this file. DRIPA is evolving into a major, historic impact on property rights, and that’s why Eby called for DRIPA to be a confidence vote, then called a DRIPA pause, before realizing his future is heavily uncertain regardless of how he stands on the issue so he walked away his earlier positions.

[dasmo]

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.

Actually you are conflating the two. I am trying to show you that they are not the same thing. The Cowichan Ruling has had an impact on private property rights. DRIPA has not. except for it's reference to UNDRIP which mentions land rights. But DRIPA does not. Repealing DRIPA  doesn't change that we have enshrined UNDRIP into federal law. 

 

We need to focus on strengthening OUR rights not trying to weaken theirs. 

[dasmo]

Oh my.

You should do more research on this file. DRIPA is evolving into a major, historic impact on property rights, and that’s why Eby called for DRIPA to be a confidence vote, then called a DRIPA pause, before realizing his future is heavily uncertain regardless of how he stands on the issue so he walked away his earlier positions.

Oh my.

You haven't even read it. Nor do you understand the theatrics of politics it seams. 

 

Point out where aboriginal tile is mentioned in DRIPA. 

[max.bravo]

Right, DRIPA is our policy framework that says everything we do will align with UNDRIP. Without guardrails or safeguards (!!!)

UNDRIP is an activist document, that says aboriginals must retain ownership and control of ancestral lands. Without any further qualifications.

The courts have just upheld what our new law (DRIPA) says we do (align with UNDRIP) .
What a mess the NDP have got us into.

So yeah dasmo, DRIPA doesn’t specifically say anything about land titles. But to claim it has nothing to do with title means you’re drinking Eby’s kool aid.

[dasmo]

No you guys are. 

[dasmo]

This court ruling has a true and legal effect. Legislation is not even law until proven through the courts. this is why we have legalized weed now..... It was challenged eventually and struck down. 

 

This is just one part of that ruling that has an effect and DRIPA is meaningless to it. 

 

• 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).

[dasmo]

That is real law now. A supreme court decision is precedence.

 

 

You guys can play along with the theater.... It will get very exciting with the protests and all the media and it will all be meaningless. 

[dasmo]

Delgamuukw v British Columbia
Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia

Cowichan Tribes v. Canada 

 

Have created private property / aboriginal title issues here. Not DRIPA. 

 

The first two predate UNDRIP. 

 

This was enshrined into our constitution in 1982.....  

 

Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights
Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.)
(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

Land claims agreements
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Aboriginal and treaty rights are guaranteed equally to both sexes
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

[dasmo]

If a government cared about establishing our property rights in relation to this they would take a case to the Supreme Court to define those rights. The Cowichan ruling basically says that is what’s needed to define that because that ruling doesn’t. That would establish real law. But whatever. Enjoy the show.

[Mike K.]

Actually you are conflating the two. I am trying to show you that they are not the same thing. The Cowichan Ruling has had an impact on private property rights. DRIPA has not. except for it's reference to UNDRIP which mentions land rights. But DRIPA does not. Repealing DRIPA doesn't change that we have enshrined UNDRIP into federal law.

We need to focus on strengthening OUR rights not trying to weaken theirs.

I never said they are the same thing.

I don’t think anyone is saying Cowichan = DRIPA, but you keep repeating Cowichan /= DRIPA.

If you don’t know the details yourself, and I don’t think you do, maybe it’s best not to muddy the waters. Or broaden your horizons and seek input from legal experts who do believe DRIPA is a threat to property rights.

[dasmo]

I never said they are the same thing.

I don’t think anyone is saying Cowichan = DRIPA, but you keep repeating Cowichan /= DRIPA.

If you don’t know the details yourself, and I don’t think you do, maybe it’s best not to muddy the waters. Or broaden your horizons and seek input from legal experts who do believe DRIPA is a threat to property rights.

I am saying the opposite. You guys are talking about aboriginal title and land rights which has to do with our constitution and supreme court precedent and little to do with DRIPA.  The threat to property rights exists 100% with or without DRIPA. 

Edited by dasmo, 06 May 2026 - 04:23 PM.

[LJ]

And what about the American tribes that are laying claim to some of BC's land?

[Mike K.]

Another association to DRIPA, because now our laws must align with land claims.