New Brunswick appeal court rules Indigenous group can’t seek Aboriginal title over private land - The Globe and Mail - "New Brunswick’s Court of Appeal has ruled that an Indigenous group cannot seek a declaration of Aboriginal title over private property, saying the harm to private property rights would undermine Canada’s efforts at reconciliation with First Nations. The decision Thursday overturns a lower-court ruling that would have allowed the Wolastoqey Nation to lay claim to privately owned industrial lands as part of their broader Aboriginal title case. It is in strong contrast with a recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling that has cast private property rights into question. “In my view, a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately-owned lands, which, by its very nature, gives the Aboriginal beneficiary exclusive possession, occupation and use, would sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians,” Justice Ernest Drapeau wrote... Large private-sector firms including J.D. Irving Ltd., Acadian Timber GP Inc. and H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd. led the appeal after being put on notice that the nation may want privately owned industrial lands returned. The courts can make a finding that Aboriginal title exists on private lands, Justice Drapeau clarified, but that does not carry the full weight of a declaration of title. A finding is not enforceable, while a declaration is a court order that can be enforced – and appealed. The ruling leans heavily toward compensation rather than the threat of expropriation to settle land claims that touch on private lands... David Rosenberg, the lawyer for the Cowichan, said the two courts have reached a “fundamental difference of opinion.” The result, he noted, is that a declaration of Aboriginal title can be granted over private land in B.C., but not so in New Brunswick... it’s likely both cases will end up, eventually, before the Supreme Court of Canada."
Cowichan decision fails the constitutional stress test - "The Cowichan decision represents one of the most consequential shifts in Canadian property law in decades. By ruling that Aboriginal title can “co-exist” with fee simple title on privately owned lands and is a “senior interest” in the land, the decision unsettles the legal foundation on which millions of Canadians rely when they buy and own a home. It also creates significant uncertainty for businesses, investors and lenders who rely on the security and certainty of the land title system. Since a stable and secure property rights system is central to the healthy functioning of an economy, the Cowichan decision has the potential to cause significant upheaval to British Columbia’s economic landscape with ripple effects being felt throughout Canada and even beyond the Canadian border. Existing Aboriginal rights are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. They are profound, but they are not unbounded. Much of the current commentary on the Cowichan decision is focused on whether the decision is consistent with Section 35 and Canadian Aboriginal rights jurisprudence, as well as procedural fairness. These questions reveal serious legal issues and problems that will ultimately be resolved by the courts. There is a higher‑order constitutional concern that has not received attention but warrants serious discussion. The Cowichan decision must be assessed against the Constitution’s foundational principles—rule of law, legal certainty, proportionality and long‑term institutional stability. These principles are not abstract aspirations. They represent the underlying bedrock and architecture of the Constitution... The rule of law is explicitly recognized in the preamble to the Constitution and is a key part of its foundation. Canadians must be able to trust that the law is stable, predictable and provides an orderly system in which to conduct their affairs. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, “‘[t]he “rule of law” is a highly textured expression, importing many things which are beyond the need of these reasons to explore but conveying, for example, a sense of orderliness, of subjection to known legal rules and of executive accountability to legal authority.’ At its most basic level, the rule of law vouchsafes to the citizens and residents of the country a stable, predictable and ordered society in which to conduct their affairs.” The Cowichan decision introduces the opposite: unpredictability, erosion of trust and disorder. If private property owners cannot have full certainty that their land title is secure, the entire economic system becomes vulnerable. Homeowners may face difficulty selling their primary asset. Businesses and investors may reduce or halt real estate purchases due to the inability to assess ownership risks. Lenders may be forced to become more cautious in financing real estate as their collateral becomes less certain. All of this could adversely impact property values and the uncertainty could spill over into the broader economy with serious repercussions. Sadly, we only need to look at news reports regarding property owners in Richmond—the epicentre of the Cowichan decision—to see the beginnings of what happens when stability and order are disturbed. Proportionality is a bridge between competing constitutional values. The potential harm of recognizing Aboriginal title on existing privately owned land is enormous. It upends the reliability of the land title system, destabilizes commercial and residential property markets, erodes property values, undermines investor confidence, impairs the provincial capacity to govern land and resource development, exposes governments to cascading litigation and weakens public support for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The benefits of recognizing Aboriginal title on privately owned lands are unclear since Crown lands remain available for recognition of Aboriginal title claims where appropriate. Constitutional principles do not permit a remedy that does exponentially more harm than good. A country’s economic stability is built on the belief that foundational rules won’t change overnight. Homeowners, businesses, investors, lenders and Indigenous groups can’t effectively operate in a system where private property rights are uncertain and unstable. A functioning society requires that people who invest in a home or a property can trust that the governing rules of ownership will remain stable and not be allowed to shift beneath them."
Opinion: Cowichan decision fails the constitutional stress test : r/ilovebc - "It's notable that the first author is a partner at a mid-size law firm. It wasn't so long ago that writing an op-ed like this critical of ever-expanding indigenous legal principles was absolute anathema for a Canadian law firm partner (Cassels being the only real exception), with the firm worried about being vocal about this kind of thing driving away government work and indigenous work. The Overton window may finally be shifting."
The B.C. NDP's pattern of secrecy, coverup and denial on Indigenous relations | Vancouver Sun - "Premier David Eby is claiming the moral high ground in seeking reconciliation with Indigenous nations, yet the commitment is undermined by a pattern of secrecy, coverup and denial. Two years ago, the B.C. New Democrats launched a makeover of the Land Act, geared to “shared decision-making” with Indigenous nations on public lands and aiming to produce amendments for the spring 2024 session of the legislature. The process was supposed to include “public engagement”. But the government neglected to tell the public. There was no news release, no ministerial statement of purpose. Worse, when the media reported the secretive exercise, the government downplayed it as “a fairly minor and modest step” and “much ado about nothing.” The premier only put the process on hold after a growing backlash from the business community, other stakeholders, and the public itself. He later admitted the secrecy was a mistake, not to be repeated. Yet it was. That summer, two NDP ministers reached an accord with the shíshálh First Nation (Sechelt), providing $104 million over five years, six square kilometres of land on the Sunshine Coast, and other significant commitments. The deal was signed on Aug. 16, five weeks before the legislature was dissolved for the 2024 election. The terms were kept secret until well after the NDP’s narrow re-election. When the deal was made public in January of this year, it proved a major embarrassment for Randene Neill, the newly elected NDP MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. “I was not aware of this agreement when I was a candidate,” she told her constituents. She only learned the terms after the premier appointed her the new minister for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship with responsibility for implementing the shíshálh agreement. Once again, the New Democrats made commitments to “do better in future”. This past summer, local government representatives were invited to “an engagement opportunity” on changes to the Heritage Conservation Act. Those who attended were confronted with the product of two years of confidential consultations by a working group of provincial public servants and Indigenous leaders. The working group had identified 57 provisions needing change, and reached consensus on 53 of them. Many changes would broaden grounds for heritage conservation and make it harder to approve developments. Local government leaders saw a fait accompli. “They don’t want local government input,” protested Union of B.C. Municipalities president Trish Mandewo. Forests Minister Ravi Parmar, with responsibility for heritage conservation, all but called Mandewo a liar. The premier intervened to provide additional weeks of consultation and assured local governments that their views would be considered. So far, there has been no indication that the government is backing off plans to broaden heritage designations to include “intangible” cultural values and other considerations. While the heritage controversy played out, the New Democrats faced mounting concerns about the Aug. 7 B.C. Supreme Court decision that awarded the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title over public and private land in Richmond. The premier promised the government would appeal the decision and defend property rights. He complained that Justice Barbara Young had rejected the province’s call for private property owners to be notified in advance of the implications of the complex proceeding. His righteous stance was somewhat undermined when it came out that the court had advised the province that it could notify the private landowners if it thought that necessary. The province did not accept the invitation to do so. Then, on Sept. 5, the province intervened in a B.C. Supreme Court proceeding brought by the Haida Nation. The nation sought constitutional entrenchment of the 2024 agreement and legislation where the Eby government recognized Aboriginal title for the Haida over all of Haida Gwaii. The Haida wanted to make sure that the recognition could not be undone by a change of government. B.C.’s lawyer agreed: “If the legislature makes a law, it can unmake the law.” The judge granted the application to “constitutionalize” the Haida Aboriginal title. The Haida went public with the win after the fact. But neither they nor the government disclosed what was said in court. I only learned about the secret deal to head off a possible change of government when someone provided me with a transcript. I later asked Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert why he hadn’t disclosed the government’s intervention beforehand. He said he couldn’t have done so because he wasn’t told about the court appearance himself... if they are telling the truth. This government’s agenda on Indigenous relations is so secretive, those in charge don’t even tell their own people what they are doing and why. Through 40 years of covering B.C. governments, I have argued that one should not presume a conspiracy where mere incompetence would explain what happens. But given the Eby government’s pattern of secrecy, coverup and denial on Indigenous relations, I suspect there is a hidden agenda to keep the public in the dark as much as possible, and for as long as possible."
UNDRIP is strangling Canada's economy - "Among the 46 articles of UNDRIP, certain ones are proving to have more immediate impacts than others. Article 26, for example, states that, “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use.” That is to say, if an Indigenous group claims a territory, they own it and all its resources... you now have a situation where private land owners on Haida Gwaii appear to own their land at the pleasure of the Haida, not by indefeasible title under the Land Title Act. Another UNDRIP principle that is causing extreme confusion is Article 32.2, which states that, “States shall consult and co-operate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources.” This “free and informed consent” requirement goes much further than the Supreme Court’s “duty to consult” doctrine. It is impossible to see the confusion emanating from nearly everything the government does these days on large projects of national or economic importance and not recognize how UNDRIP is slowly sinking Canada’s economy as politicians speak of the necessity to get First Nations’ consent. The Assembly of First Nations recently passed a resolution rejecting changes to the oil tanker ban as outlined in the MOU between Alberta and the federal government. B.C. Premier David Eby has also said that lifting the ban would endanger billions of dollars worth of projects that require the consent of First Nations in the area. This is quite clearly UNDRIP once again raising its veto head, which the B.C. NDP are happy to uphold. A recent poll found that a majority of British Columbians are in favour of a pipeline to the coast. Yet UNDRIP, an aspirational document never intended to be law for Canada, is throttling the ability of Canada’s economy to expand. This can only hurt reconciliation, along with all the hard-working Canadians who are staring down a dismal fiscal outlook. It’s time for Canada to ditch UNDIRP and return to Sec. 35 of our own Constitution as the blueprint for reconciliation and economic prosperity."
B.C. government looks to offer loan guarantees to property owners in Cowichan Aboriginal title area
Cowichan ruling is scaring away investors. Don't let anyone say otherwise - "That is as close as you are likely to hear of a business saying out-loud that B.C. has become uninvestible and the letter should send chills down the spin of every British Columbia business and citizen. Notably, the Versante property in question was not on land where Cowichan Aboriginal title has been declared. The prospect of the ruling’s precedence setting for land elsewhere in the province was enough for the buyer to yank their offer. There should be little doubt that this is quietly happening with many other deals, even if there are no public announcements about it. In a speech on Dec. 10 to the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Premier David Eby attempted to position himself as the champion of private land rights in the province, saying he would “go to the wall” to protect private property rights. Perhaps. But going to the wall means trying everything in your power to achieve your goal; something Eby has only so far been willing to do in order to create confusion, distrust and chaos in this area. Eby and the NDP relentlessly change their story. First private property wouldn’t be affected. Then the courts were wrong. And now the situation is so bad that the government will need to step in to backstop loans on affected properties. British Columbians should give Eby absolutely zero benefit of the doubt when wondering if he will protect the public interest over his activist ambitions. His record is clear: he won’t and the solutions proposed are hasty bandaids on a massive self-inflicted wound. For B.C.’s economy, worse seems almost certainly on the way. There may be new press releases as businesses simply start “quiet quitting” B.C. without any fanfare, but rather march their investment dollars to provinces and countries where property rights and the investment climate can be relied on. This won’t just be real estate deals either, but also investments in mines, pipelines, factories and any other type of physical infrastructure. Since August, anyone deeply concerned with the business uncertainty created by the NDP government’s refusal to defend the public interest has been told not to overreact or be alarmist. It’s now becoming clear in British Columbia that we need to be louder than ever. Time to break the glass."
Adam Pankratz: Cowichan ruling is scaring away investors. Don't let anyone say otherwise : r/canada - "Step 1: It’s not really happening (Cowichan says it won't go after private property owners)
Step 2: Yeah, it’s happening, but it’s not a big deal (BC government offers compensation funds to those affected)
Step 3: It’s a good thing, actually (you are currently here)
Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem (about to be here)"
Ellis Ross on X - "NDP/Liberals & Green party. Transfer your property/properties to me for your land acknowledgement. I’ll show you my status card. It will be a great way to show you mean what you say and say what you mean."
Parent suspended for objecting to land acknowledgement; legal warning sent to Ontario school board - "A legal warning letter has been issued to the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board after it suspended an elected school council member for voicing a respectful objection to land acknowledgements. Catherine Kronas, a parent of a student at Ancaster High Secondary School, was re-elected to the school council in October 2024. At a council meeting on April 9, Kronas requested that her dissenting view on land acknowledgements be included in the meeting minutes. The meeting continued without disruption. However, on May 22, the board informed Kronas that her involvement was being “paused,” citing allegations that she caused harm and breached a Code of Conduct Policy. She was barred from attending the next meeting... The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is now representing Kronas. Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said her remarks “were a reasonable and measured expression of a viewpoint held by many Canadians.” “The board’s decision to suspend her from the council, which she has a right to sit on as an elected parent member, is an act of censorship that offends the right to freedom of expression,” Kheir stated."
Parent suspended for objecting to land acknowledgement; legal warning sent to Ontario school board : r/CanadianConservative - "With today's announcement on defense spending, I gotta wonder how they expect young people to join the army for a country that tells them the land isn't even theirs to defend, on top of failing to provide them opportunities for starting a family or owning a home."
Modern blasphemy laws strike again
Thread by @realfinkledusty on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "This legal challenge is wild. The school board is refusing to engage in discussion about the concerns some parents have about land acknowledgements. And so, one parent decided to file a charter rights challenge on the basis that land acknowledgements are racist and imposing them violate his right to freedom of conscience.
After objecting to reciting land acknowledgments at the start of his school council meetings, he was referred to the principal... this is what she said: “conversations or actions that question the validity of equity-focused initiatives – including those designed to support historically and currently marginalized groups – risk undermining the dignity of members of our community. The WRDSB’s commitment to equity and human rights means that certain topics, particularly those that diminish or delegitimize the experiences of equity-deserving groups must be approached with care and in alignment with the Ontario Human Rights Code” No discussion allowed, according to the WRDSB.
The legal challenge alleges that "mandatory land acknowledgements infringe the right to freedom of conscience by violating the board’s duty of neutrality with respect to matters of conscience." According to the JCCF. Geoff Horseman (the applicant) "has a deeply and conscientiously held belief in human dignity and the equality of all people, regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex, or nationality. The Applicant finds the reading of land acknowledgements to be racially discriminatory and contrary to the equal human dignity of all." Whatever happens, this legal challenge will expose whether or not parents who disagree with ideological trends have a voice in Ontario's education system or not. Things will undoubtedly get spicy."
Bruce McGonigal on X - "🇨🇦💰🦅🏘️ : The impacts of Fee Simple title being replaced with Aboriginal title, is starting to look much clearer for current home owners living in communities, facing a land title claim.
Unlimited taxation authority from First Nations on any product, at any rate, in any newly recognized Aboriginal title community. Annual payments from non First Nation governments to First Nations, to run their own governments & community services. No Federal or Provincial authority to monitor how First Nations governments tax people on Aboriginal title land, nor how the money is spent. Veto power over all major projects. Chief R. Donald Maracle admits First Nations can't even properly run their own communities. Yet he wants to take over authority of communities across the newly legally defined Aboriginal title territories. These are just some of the highlights current Fee Simple property owners can face if Chief R. Donald Maracle of the Bay of Quinte Mohawk council, has his way. Imagine trying to navigate all the different First Nation governments that will want their own frameworks, compensation, tax rates and the ability to decide any major project, in Aboriginal title territories. Across multiple Provinces & Territories. Replacing Fee Simple title with Aboriginal title will end Canadian democracy, as we know it & throw our nation into extreme chaos."
Bruce McGonigal on X - "Only in Canada would anyone come up with the idea of handing over most of Canada & our communities to people who admit they can't run their own communities. Canadians have invested hundreds of billions of $$ into First Nations communities, over generations. Often with no oversight. Many of these communities are run by people so corrupt, they leave their communities in squalor, simply so those in power can ask for even more cash. It has become a cash cow to enforce poverty."
Caroline Elliott on X - "“Younger Canadians aged 18-24 are far more likely to think the country belongs to Indigenous peoples, at 58%, compared with Canadians aged 65+, at 24%.” This is the direct product of an education system that has been relentlessly driving this narrative, unchallenged, for well over a decade. In other words, more than double the number of younger Canadians than older Canadians think ‘true’ ownership of our country is (or should be) based on ethnic lines. We won’t fix our country until we fix education. And we have to, because history has shown this kind of mentality doesn’t lead anywhere good."
If you think you'll never own property anyway...
1 in 3 Canadians say country belongs to Indigenous people: poll - "Veldon Coburn, associate professor and faculty chair of the Indigenous Relations Initiative at McGill University, said the survey confirms regional and ideological divisions consistent with past research. “Quite apart from the reality of Indigenous prior occupation and the history of European colonialism, there are some regions, such as the Prairies and Quebec, which are marked by considerable similarities in their disproportionate denial of these facts,” said Coburn. “The prevailing political sentiments in those parts of the country are generally unfavourable to Indigenous people, something that goes hand-in-hand with Western alienation and Quebec separatism movements.” “In these places, the non-Indigenous population has been rigidly hostile to Indigenous territorial title and rights.” Coburn said that more broadly, it seems that antagonism toward Indigenous people is being “dislodged” by higher levels of education in younger generations and newcomers." “All told, it is the younger generation and newcomers that are inheriting a relationship with the First Nations of these lands and the survey indicates that they desire justice and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples,” Coburn said."
If you disagree in a racial caste system, you deny facts and are uneducated. Reconciliation and justice means you accept that you're a second class citizenc-
Federal court rules Canada legally obliged to provide housing to First Nation communities : r/canada - "The whole situation is ridiculous. “We’re independent nations, not part of Canada.” Also, “The Canadian government needs to build housing, give us welfare and provide for us.” “We are caretakers of the land and oppose this project.” Also, “If we receive large bribes and a cut of the profits we’ll approve this project.” Everyone is tired of it."
"Native fatigue is gonna get worse because the average Canadian is struggling."
"Fewer and fewer Canadians are even of European descent, and people new to Canada are not going to have any guilt or sympathy for Indigenous communities"
This WILL be coming to BC. How much do we need to keep spending on top of existing billions? : r/ilovebc - "I work and live in these communities. I have met many people who have been taught by the system that they are owed all of this as their birth right. I've worked with families that were upset their house wasn't a priority for renovations when they accidentally set their living room on fire with fireworks that they were playing with in the house."
First Nation bans premier, ministers over cannabis crackdown, calls them ‘undesirables’ : r/notthebeaverton - "Keep in mind the argument by the Nation is that they should be able to operate cannabis stores illegally, while selling black market cannabis that isn’t tested or taxed. The cannabis has to come from somewhere so that means either: illegal grow ops (illegal drug operations have a great track record of being environmental responsible /s) or buying from criminal organizations."
Martin Pelletier on X - "I did not know that we are the ONLY country to have implemented it into our legal system. UNDRIP is a non-binding international instrument, but a powerful moral and policy guide. Only Canada has fully codified it in national law (Bill C‑15), with provinces like BC moving further. Other countries recognize it, but few have translated it into binding domestic legislation, especially regarding Indigenous governance and land rights."
