I will start by saying I’m no expert in Indigenous affairs or law, but I know it’s especially messy in BC due to the multitude of co-habitating tribes that have lived in the area before, during and after the colonial period.
I get the sense the author is using the findings and jumping to worst case scenario conclusions. Landholders automatically lose all rights and owners interest because Crown title is subordinate and defective, gg no re (despite citing a settled/negotiated case where Crown land was given over and fee-simple landowners retained their interest). And BC’s legal losses come out of Canada’s budget so our tax money goes to First Nations, and so therefore you’re supposed to get angry about it according to the author.
But I don’t think most reasonable people in Canada nor the Indigenous see it as the necessary conclusion. Things are in limbo because there’s still a lot to be worked out and negotiated.
Something that is on my mind for this case, is that the Cowichan are not the only First Nation claiming historic ownership/usage rights over that area (the Semiahmoo, Tsawwassen of White Rock and Delta or the Musqueam of Vancouver as a few examples). If that area of Richmond is awarded by BC/Canada’s courts exclusively to the Cowichan, then other First Nations have their rights and claims effectively abridged as well. Perhaps the author thinks that is irrelevant since all those will be worked out however will fully supersede the current resident rights. I’d disagree, ultimately I expect a conclusion that not everyone is happy about, but at least everyone’s modern and historical injuries are considered and recompensed at least partially. I think most Canadians recognize that as a nation we did generational harm to the Indigenous people whose historic lands we live on, but the exact way to recognize, repay and move forward is still far from decided. The author is, in my opinion, getting ahead of themselves assuming the conclusions.
Honestly I think First Nations need to create some sort of overarching council or administration where rights to land or anything else just gets given to “First Nations” and not any specific Nation or Band. Then let them sort out amongst themselves who gets what, where and when.
Agreed. There’s a whole lot of ‘ifs’ in it and I’m not sure why. I mean is this supposed to be a scare piece to get BCers up in arms over the unlikely possibility that First Nation communities will kick every non-Indigenous person off the land?? Why in the hell would they do that?? Like really???
First Nation communities aren’t the boogie man here. Mining and oil operations are. And if anything does happen I would bet my last dollar that those communities would be fighting against the rich assholes who wanna poison the water, rape the land and/or sell our potable water sources.
This is nothing more than a hit piece.
Again with the Nobel savage trope. Indigenous don’t care more about the environment then anyone else. They are just humans and their are all kinds.
*affect
don’t blame me, I went to public school.
not blaming you but now you know. affect is the verb meaning “to influence or alter,” effect is the noun meaning “the result of a cause.”
all I heard was “lots of words to make it clearer that you don’t know the difference”
wdym?
right:
- the news affected me.
- What effect will the new curriculum have on the kids?
wrong:
- the news effected me
- what affect will the new curriculum have on the kids?
English is fucked as a language. Honestly there’s no reason we need two different words for that with such similar meanings and pronunciation.
Basically every language has situations like this. "plus” in French comes to mind. I think the worst one in English is particularly bad though – “can” and “can’t” pronounced nearly identically in my dialect.
Except when affect is a noun, when referring to someone’s countenance (“she was beyond exhausted, with a flat affect”).
And when effect is a verb, to bring about: “he effected great change in society with his government policies.”
Yep! That’s why I specified the meaning.
It won’t effect me since I don’t live in Canada, but I will say, I sure wish the author wouldn’t have used an image as text.
?
I had to download this and try to zoom in and out to make sense of it instead of someone just copy pasting a proper text table
Ah, I see. Yeah that’s a pain. I was using reader mode so missed that image altogether.
This quote:
Now, the Cowichan Tribes have publicly stated that private owners cannot sell their properties without Cowichan consent,[15] and lenders are refusing to renew mortgages because the collateral is now legally defective.
With this foot note:
[15] https://www.conservative.ca/canada-must-defend-property-rights/
“The lead lawyer for the Cowichan Tribes has already stated that private land sales would need the consent of the Cowichan before they could go ahead.
I could only find this in writing.
Vancouver Sun article
He meant if owners of those lands attempted to sell to anyone else. The transaction would need the consent of the Cowichan before it could go ahead, Rosenberg told CKNW host Jas Johal recently.
“I fully anticipate that the seller or vendor will get what they are bargaining for, and the purchaser would also get what they are bargaining for,” said Rosenberg.
“But it would be with the consent of the Cowichan Nation and it would be with some accommodation from the Crown (government) to the Cowichan Nation.”
That is a big change already. No wonder Sharma has been expediting work on the appeal.
I then found this clip for the interview and I’m going have to say getting information from the Conservative.ca is already questionable but the way the author framed it is even worse.
Here’s the clip for people who want to hear the entire context of it.
2m21s length.
https://xcancel.com/search?f=tweets&q=1955051040942002473&since=&until=&near=
There is a big difference between Title and Fee in Canadian property law. And most of us hold the fee to our property, not the title.
So even the headline of this article starts off badly.
Sorry. I only rent so I don’t have personal experience in this country. When I was a kid I was taught fee is a sum of money you pay for something while title is a piece of paper that proves you own something. But cultural and language differences and national laws/politics I guess all effect that.
Understandable. Real estate and law can be obscure topics.
To be fair that’s OP’s title. The title of the article is simply Cowichan.
