Canadian media ate up false news that Aboriginal title was no threat | National Post - "the Canadian Press told readers far and wide that private property was safe from Aboriginal title thanks to that day’s decision by the Supreme Court. It wasn’t true at all, but the national wire service hasn’t even bothered to issue a correction, let alone a retraction. What actually happened was this: the Supreme Court declined Thursday morning to hear an appeal from New Brunswick’s highest court about whether the indigenous Wolastoqey Nation, in its quest to claim half of the province, can go after private property in addition to Crown land. The Brunswickian judges had answered that question with “Kind of”: Aboriginal title can be found to exist on private property, for which the Crown will be liable (not the private owners); Aboriginal title can’t, however, be declared on private property, which would involve handing over ownership rights to the Indigenous people. This two-pronged system isn’t found elsewhere, including notably B.C., but this is how it will work in New Brunswick until the province’s appeal court, or the Supreme Court, decides otherwise. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case is not a ruling and has no legal bearing on the rest of the country, but you wouldn’t have gotten that from the ensuing Canadian Press report. The initial headline that circulated widely was this: “Aboriginal title can’t apply to private land, High Court rules.” This was wrong in two ways: the Supreme Court didn’t rule anything, and the decision for which appeal was sought found that Aboriginal title could apply to private land. The Canadian Press went on to open the story with the following line: “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.” Again, this was riddled with errors: the Supreme Court didn’t uphold anything (for it to do that, it would have had to hear the case). Nor did the court say whether Aboriginal title can be declared over private land — that remains the rule in New Brunswick only. The reporters added to the false impression by uncritically repeating an assertion by the federal government that the top court’s refusal to hear the appeal would impact a case in B.C... There was much applause for the Supreme Court for protecting people’s homes — which it didn’t do — and much gloating from those who insist that Aboriginal title poses no threat to property rights. This of course is not true: B.C. is still bound by the B.C. Supreme Court’s Cowichan Tribes decision from August, which paradoxically ruled that Indigenous groups and private owners can both somehow have exclusive ownership rights over the same piece of land, in part because some colonial officers a century ago didn’t consult the Indigenous locals to the modern judge’s standards. And so, the matter remains unresolved. The University of Saskatchewan’s resident Aboriginal law expert, Dwight Newman, gave his assessment on Friday: “The outcome in the Wolastoqey case (out of New Brunswick), then, is moderately positive for those hoping to see a change in the Cowichan result. But only moderately so. British Columbia’s courts could yet go a different path than the New Brunswick court did, and then the Supreme Court of Canada may have to look at everything again.” Plus, if the Supreme Court one day went with the milder version of Aboriginal title that New Brunswick judges have developed, but even this would be a disaster because of the sheer cost it would impose on government. If you think government’s finances are bad now, just wait until a court slaps down a $100 billion bill for “stolen” land. A map showing the Wolastoqey Nation’s title claim in New Brunswick... the Canadian Press didn’t acknowledge any of this. Later on Thursday, it quietly issued a new version of the story with no indication that a false report had ever been made. That would be fine if it were a minor typo, but not for a substantive problem that has been widely passed off as true... Both of the journalists responsible for this misreport know better. In February, co-author Nono Shen interviewed “misinformation experts” for a story about the unfortunate tendency for incorrect information to spread online in developing situations, a theme she’s covered multipletimes, ashas co-author Wolfgang Depner. But it’s not all up to them: the Canadian Press should have stepped in and corrected the public record. That’s what its policies call for, anyway. Ultimately, this means more ammo in the sling for those who continue to insist that the growing threat that is Aboriginal title isn’t a problem, for they can now point to an incorrect news story to show that your concerns over private property are paranoid and irrational. It’s a small political gain for the feds and provinces like B.C., who have been recognizing title claims without knowing the consequences, and preventing their lawyers from fully defending the public interest when Indigenous claims go to court. The public is catching on, but some current-event confusion can slow that down."
The Less Certain Future of Private Land in British Columbia
FULL TRUTH: Are Land Claims a Threat to Property Rights in Canada? Top Aboriginal Lawyer Interview - YouTube - "Lawyer Tom Isaac, chair of Castles’ National Aboriginal Law Group and a former BC chief treaty negotiator... warns the Cowichan decision creates real uncertainty for private landowners by undermining indefeasible title, with potentially catastrophic economic consequences."
Cowichan decision raises questions around fee simple titles | Insights | MLT Aikins
Weird. Left wingers tell us that Cowichan does not endanger private land ownership at all and anyone who suggests otherwise is spreading misinformation
How B.C.'s reconciliation law, DRIPA, is a major threat to democracy | National Post - "There is a growing political and constitutional crisis in British Columbia sparked by the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). The growing controversy around DRIPA and its impacts has become a major political severe headache for Premier David Eby, whose plan to suspend the law fell apart amid threats of blockade and lawsuits from Indigenous leaders. In this interview with NP’s Rob Breakenridge, Without Diminishment co-founder and National Post contributor Geoff Russ makes the case that DRIPA has evolved into a “quasi-constitutional veto” and “legal stranglehold” that threatens democratic governance, social cohesion, resource development, and even the names of B.C. municipalities. Russ warns that the rest of Canada should be paying attention, and that B.C.’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale."
Time to end the BC NDP's ideological nightmare and repeal DRIPA - "With all the debate in and out of the courts about whether a United Nations declaration should dictate our reconciliation efforts, Canadians might be forgiven for forgetting – or not knowing – our country already has an able process to resolve Crown/Aboriginal relations. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is the provision in our highest law that recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. Despite this, in 2019 an activist NDP government introduced a different and completely unworkable “reconciliation framework” throughout British Columbia. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) first found purchase in Canada as an uncalled-for recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which stipulated that the declaration form the basis for reconciliation in Canada, despite this country already having a constitutional framework in place for that very purpose. In 2019, the B.C. government, under the late Premier John Horgan, passed legislation that brought UNDRIP into British Columbia law. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2019 directed each and every law in the province must conform to the ill-defined human rights concepts set out in UNDRIP. Some UNDRIP provisions are not only vague, they stand in direct conflict with section 35 of the constitution. For instance, Article 26 directs complete Indigenous ownership of any claimed territory with no requirement to prove “exclusive occupation” of those lands as is required by section 35. Using Article 26, the Eby government assumes every square inch of British Columbia’s land base is “stolen” land – what the Premier calls the “original colonial mistake” that he is intent on correcting. Again these assertions are in direct conflict with Canadian constitutional law. Proven Aboriginal title may ultimately cover around six per cent, but certainly not 100 per cent of the B.C. land base. And Article 32(2) of UNDRIP stipulates Indigenous consent must be obtained before any government decision can impact that so-called territorial ownership interest. Section 35 of the constitution says no such thing. Most legal experts know that its practical effect is to create a veto power for Aboriginal communities over government actions. No one has any idea what that provision means exactly. Is it a veto over Crown decision-making or not? The Supreme Court of Canada already realized that requiring Aboriginal consent or agreement before governments could govern in the public interest would put a giant stick in the spokes of reconciliation. The Eby government is apparently fine with that outcome. The BC NDP said DRIPA would not confer a veto when it introduced the legislation in 2019, but the B.C. government under David Eby has since signed agreements with First Nations in the name of reconciliation that do exactly that. It is ridiculous to think that the B.C. government can effectively run the province in the midst of these uncertainties. Which is why, perhaps, a growing chorus of people are saying the province is not being run effectively. DRIPA is currently enjoying a moment of infamy as the driver of radical provincial reconciliation policy and a major factor in several precedent-setting court decisions. Meanwhile citizens, Indigenous law experts, First Nations, industries, politicians, potential investors, and media outlets struggle to make sense of the law’s intention and the societal upheaval it is creating. The stated intention of the legislature at the time DRIPA was passed by MLAs of all parties was for legislators, not the courts, to reconcile all B.C. laws with the articles of UNDRIP. That expectation was blown out of the water by the Dec. 5 BC Court of Appeal decision in the Gitxaala case. For the second time in four months, a B.C. court referenced the principles of DRIPA in its ruling. In the Gitxaala v. British Columbia decision, two of three judges overturned an earlier court decision and decreed DRIPA was in fact “justiciable” as in, a law that can be used in a trial and upheld in court, and that all the province’s laws must immediately conform to UNDRIP. With that judgment, the DRIPA nightmare became a full-blown constitutional crisis... Four months after the BC Supreme Court’s Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision recognized Aboriginal title on fee simple land and ruled Land Title Act protections for those private land titles don’t apply, the province has yet to fulfill its commitment to file so much as a petition for a stay of proceedings. In fact, the only legal action the Eby government has taken of late – and it took it swiftly following the Cowichan ruling – was to support a declaration of Haida Nation Aboriginal title in the BC Supreme Court, including over the private lands on Haida Gwaii. The government did this with the full knowledge that a declaration of Haida Aboriginal title would – thanks to provisions in the Cowichan ruling – ensure the Land Title Act protections would not apply to private property within Haida territory. Which can only mean the B.C. government intentionally created the same private property rights nightmare on Haida Gwaii that was, and is, being faced by private property owners in Richmond. There is no world in which this can be called governing in the public interest. In the case of the Gitxaala ruling, the Premier blames the court, claiming the judges over-reached. He said DRIPA was never intended to strike down B.C. laws or be wielded like a law in court against the government. It is up to legislators to determine B.C. laws, not the courts, Eby said following the decision... But Eby confused matters when he described the Interpretation Act provision as having “the requirement that provincial laws and regulations be read so as to be consistent with the UN declaration.” In an additional bout of mixed messaging, he also said this: “But where a decision-maker is faced with two possible interpretations of the public interest in making a decision, the Interpretation Act, in this circumstance, would, we intend, instruct the decision-maker to prefer the interpretation of public interest that is consistent with the principles of the DRIPA legislation.” Now Eby has the temerity to accuse the court of being confused about his government’s intentions for DRIPA. This week, he committed his government to assisting the courts “in understanding this is work for British Columbians to do, not the courts.” All of which drew a rebuke from the BC Trial Lawyers Association, which said the Premier’s comments “reflect a troubling national trend in which politicians use the courts as punching bags to score political points.” If the BC NDP government did not intend for DRIPA to direct B.C. laws to literally conform to UNDRIP, here’s the Premier’s chance to prove it. But the remedy will require more than a few simple tweaks to DRIPA. Leaning into government’s original intentions, Premier Eby might recall what then Indigenous Relations minister Scott Fraser told MLAs during a 2019 debate on DRIPA. Fraser said it was the intention of government to interpret UNDRIP in a manner consistent with section 35 in the constitution. This never happened. Fraser also assured legislators the law would not to create new rights for Indigenous peoples or strike down any existing B.C. laws. The legislation passed unanimously, with the Opposition BC Liberals trusting the government’s stated intentions. Given the BC NDP’s actions in the name of “reconciliation,” particularly under Eby’s watch in the past three years, Fraser’s aspirations were a stunningly incorrect representation of what actually unfolded in the name of UNDRIP and DRIPA. Most certainly, the current B.C. government has not interpreted UNDRIP in a manner consistent with section 35 and has left a trail of new rights and unprecedented decision-making agreements in its wake, completely over-stepping the careful framework built by decades of constitutional law. DRIPA was flawed from the outset and the Premier, who was attorney general at the time, should have known it... sections1(4), 2(a),2(b), 3, 6, and 7 of DRIPA remain both legally problematic and entirely undemocratic. Yet the province continues to celebrate “reconciliation” agreements signed under these provisions... Unfortunately, the federal Liberal government under Justin Trudeau enacted its own UNDRIP legislation in 2021, also with the unanimous, and perhaps similarly naive, support of all political parties. Regardless, Prime Minister Mark Carney is about to find out how equally ridiculous that adoption was when his government’s commitments to Indigenous consent under UNDRIP collide with the ‘elbows up’ push to advance major resource projects in the public interest. Only a complete repeal of this enormous ideological mistake will properly rectify the mess the province now finds itself in. Then federal representatives will have to follow suit in the Canadian parliament to correct their own egregious mistake."
B.C.'s DRIPA law is irredeemable and must be scrapped | National Post - "DRIPA, which was passed by the government of former B.C. premier John Horgan in 2019, cannot provide a viable framework for reconciliation in British Columbia, because the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is not a viable framework for reconciliation in an advanced western democracy such as Canada, which already recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights in its Constitution... Sec. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this as the proper vehicle for reconciliation in Canada. While Sec. 35 has been criticized, it at least provides a balanced approach to reconciling the pre-existence of Indigenous societies with the imposition of sovereignty by the Crown. UNDRIP is inconsistent with Sec. 35 and is contrary to what the Supreme Court has determined to be the constitutional obligations of governments and the rights they are supposed to protect. Governments simply cannot accept UNDRIP as an alternative pathway to reconciliation in the Canadian context. Apparently the B.C. government’s view was that it never intended DRIPA to be legally enforceable by the courts, or to cause UNDRIP itself to be the law of the land. Yet in December 2025, the B.C. Court of Appeal disagreed with that interpretation of both DRIPA and Sec. 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, which states that, “Every Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration.” The court determined that, “Properly interpreted, the Declaration Act incorporates UNDRIP into the positive law of British Columbia with immediate legal effect.” This has created enormous levels of legal uncertainty in the province and opened the door for First Nations to litigate, and potentially upend, any provincial laws if they so choose. Even American First Nations have cited DRIPA and UNDRIP in legal challenges to provincial government decisions, including the government’s approval of the Eskey Creek mine in northern B.C. Recently, the Business Council of British Columbia surveyed its members and found that 98 per cent of them are “very concerned” about DRIPA “applying to all laws in the province. The same share of respondents also said that they do not believe DRIPA is living up to its original promise of creating greater investment certainty in B.C.” This is a far cry from how the province’s NDP government pitched DRIPA in 2019, when it claimed in a press release that the “legislation aims to create further certainty for investment and reaffirms B.C. as a world-class destination providing opportunities for business.” Once hailed by the B.C. NDP as a sort of holy grail of reconciliation, blindly following the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, DRIPA is now clearly causing havoc throughout the province, as the business community is now bluntly stating. Far from being a framework for advancing reconciliation in a “respectful and meaningful way,” there are now existential reasons to insist upon the full and outright repeal of DRIPA, to ensure that UNDRIP ceases to have any application at all in British Columbia."
DRIPA creates certainty - that indigenous issues will sink your investments
Clearly, Geoffrey S. Moyse, "a retired senior lawyer who served as legal counsel to the Province of British Columbia, advising six successive governments on Aboriginal law over more than 30 years" is ignorant and doesn't know what he's talking about and hates indigenous people
Meme - "THIS LEGISLATED EXTINCTION IS A FORM OF GENOCIDE." - SENATOR BRIAN FRANCIS. Lnu/Mi'kmaq - Prince Edward Island"
On not being able to pass on Indian status to all descendents. Everything a left winger hates is "genocide". The irony is that the more "indigenous" people there are, the sooner the gravy train will stop, because it will bring forward the point at which it will become unsustainable due to too many taxpayers having to pay off "indigenous" peoples
In Canadian first, Yukon to get Indigenous-only parking spots | National Post - "As part of their stated commitment to “decolonization & Indigenization” in health care, the Yukon is debuting Indigenous-only parking spaces at all its three hospitals. In a social media post last week, Yukon Hospitals announced that the territory’s hospitals would henceforth feature reserved parking spots marked “Respectfully Reserved for Elders.” Reserved exclusively for “First Nation, Inuit, and Métis Elders,” the spaces are marked with signs featuring commissioned art from two Yukon-based Indigenous artists; one prepared a stylized image of two elders, while another prepared the accompanying text reading “respectfully reserved for elders.”... Yukon Hospitals, like many Canadian government and health-care authorities, has publicly embraced the notion that its facilities are shot through with “systemic racism” that can only be alleviated via differential treatment for marginalized groups... That same plan has the hospital authority pledging to make “Yukon First Nations ways of knowing, doing and being part of everything we do.”... the territory, like B.C., has a policy of asking patients their Indigenous status in order to access culturally specific services such as access to traditional food or “traditional medicine.”... The threshold of Indigenous-only parking spots is a new one. Not just in the Yukon, but in Canada generally. In fact, the Indigenous-only spots appear to be Canada’s only instances of public parking spots being set aside based on the immutable characteristics of the driver. The closest analogue would be instances in both Germany and South Korea where public parking spots were set aside exclusively for women. Germany has been installing women-only parking spots since the 1990s, following a wave of violent sexual assaults taking place in parking garages. The spots, labelled “reserviert fuer frauen,” are typically in well-lit areas located close to building entrances. No such “she-spots” or “Frauenparkplatz” are known to exist in Canada, although there are spots for expectant mothers, or parents with young children. The Yukon parking spaces do fit within a larger trend of Indigenous Canadians being given priority access to public spaces in the service of reconciliation. One of the more controversial of which was the B.C. government agreeing last year to begin closing select provincial parks to non-Indigenous users."
Alexander Zoltan on X - "Probably the most shocking story I've ever written. The Cole's notes: a $12 billion Trudeau-era department dedicated to "nation-to-nation" communication & negotiation between Ottawa and First Nations has allocated $0 to tracking communication between Ottawa and BC First Nations."
IntegrityTO on X - "TTC wants to “decolonize wayfinding” You don’t have a serious transit system because you don’t have a serious TTC Board."
Jonathan Kay on X - "This whole racist TTC plan seems to involve putting little animal symbols on things, because apparently they think indigenous people are all four-year olds who don’t understand how words and street signs work, and so they need to look at little pictures"
Meme - "oh look, yet another colonial Christian nationalist white woman trying to tell indigenous people how it should be. 3825you"
"excuse me bigot?!? Thats anti-Indigenous racism or colourism you're spouting at me because I'm white presenting. Nice job. *showing certificate from Metis Nation of Alberta*"
Christina Victoria | Facebook - "The hypocrisy in these conversations is exhausting. People say you’re only allowed to speak on Indigenous issues if you’re Indigenous. But if you’re white-presenting, suddenly you’re “not Indigenous enough” to have a voice. And if you are openly Indigenous but hold an opinion they disagree with, then you’re called a traitor, a colonizer, or accused of “hurting your own people.” So which is it? Because it starts looking less like “listening to Indigenous voices” and more like only allowing Indigenous voices that repeat the approved opinion. Everyone else gets silenced. At the same time, many of these same people call things like the Alberta separation petition “authoritarian” or “anti-democratic,” while openly trying to shut down discussion, shame dissent, and block democratic processes they personally dislike. You cannot claim to defend democracy, Canadian values, the Charter, rights, freedoms, and open dialogue while also deciding certain people are not allowed to speak, question, disagree, or participate because of their appearance, beliefs, or political opinion. That is not reconciliation. That is ideological gatekeeping. And calling a white-presenting Indigenous person a “colonizer” because they don’t fit your stereotype of what Indigenous people should look like is still racism. Anti-Indigenous racism doesn’t disappear just because it’s wrapped in progressive language. Indigenous people are not required to prove their identity through skin tone for your comfort. And for the record: consultation is not the same thing as unilateral veto power. The duty to consult is meant to ensure communication, negotiation, and consideration of impacts — not to mean that one group alone has the absolute final say over every decision affecting millions of other Albertans as well. In a democracy, difficult issues are supposed to involve discussion, disagreement, compromise, and participation from everyone affected — not the silencing of people who hold the “wrong” opinion. You cannot preach democracy while demanding ideological obedience, and you cannot claim to support Indigenous voices while silencing Indigenous people who refuse to repeat your script."
Meme - *Parody of Every Child Matters poster* "Dig up or shut up"
Orillia mayor, council at odds over what to do with Champlain statue | National Post - "A small Ontario city has removed its monument to Samuel de Champlain, again, as city council rebelled against the mayor’s unilateral decision to return it to its waterfront plinth. The monument to the French explorer was taken from Couchiching Beach Park on June 10 and stored away in a municipal yard after Orillia City Council voted 6-3 last month to take it down as part of continuing fallout from the Kamloops residential school “graves” controversy. It was originally erected in 1925 but removed by Parks Canada in 2017 for restoration amid reconciliation discussions. Mayor Don McIsaac then briefly returned it to its plinth last month. “The vast majority of Orillians want the monument returned. They’ve done surveys. They’ve done all sorts of reach outs and people want it returned”... The back-and-forth removals came amid discussions and dissent from local First Nations leaders, who would not grant interviews on the latest development... Following the monument’s return, controversy erupted once again. An Indigenous woman was arrested on May 21 for spray painting “Rama said no” on the monument’s steps. The debate about Champlain and reconciliation was rekindled. On May 29, the city council successfully voted to remove the statue. It was tarped and fenced off for protection. But just over a week later, someone spray-painted the monument again. On June 8, the statue was tarped again and two days later, it was removed."
Co-op Tory 🍁 on X - "Attacking Champlain in the name of “reconciliation” makes no sense. He built Quebec on a basis of conciliatory relationships with indigenous people. Champlain had genuine respect for indigenous people and approached their cultures and language with curiosity and admiration."
Left wingers just hate white people
It's only oligarchy to go against what most people want if it threatens the left wing agenda
