SpringVelocity
Crew Member
That is a great video. Explains the issue well.
Who Controls BC’s Crown Lands? How the Province Is Quietly Surrendering Control of Public Lands
- Thread starter Derby
- Start date
That is a great video. Explains the issue well.
The potash company is shipping product through the US as there is no capacity to do so in vancouver .. which is dishearting but has nothing to do with first nations
And lets not get bent out of shape. While FN may want the land they had occupied, that's why they have lawyers who make mega $$ to argue about this in court . No doubt this will be settled with mega $$ & land being offered
PEETZcanada
Well-Known Member
PEETZcanada
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Islandgirl
Well-Known Member
The consservatives asked EBY to recall the legislature BEFORE Christmas to pull DRIPA off the table.. But Oh no, Eby wants to wait until February 2026 to deal with this and just ' amend DRIPA'
So wrong in so many ways. No industry/ individual will invest and money in this province with land titles and private ownership of things you worked hard for under question.
No industry equals no jobs equals no tax base. Will the last one out of BC please turn off the lights?
So wrong in so many ways. No industry/ individual will invest and money in this province with land titles and private ownership of things you worked hard for under question.
No industry equals no jobs equals no tax base. Will the last one out of BC please turn off the lights?
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Judges are rewriting the law and BC is paying the price
By elevating UNDRIP to a universal ‘interpretive lens,’ the Court of Appeal has blurred the separation of powers, jeopardized investment, and replaced democratic accountability with judicial policymaking.British Columbia has entered a dangerous period of constitutional confusion. The recent Court of Appeal ruling on the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) has taken an aspirational statute and converted it into a sweeping legal instrument that reshapes the interpretation of every provincial law. This is not what the legislature intended, and it is not how responsible democracies function.
The court declared that UNDRIP now serves as the “interpretive lens” for all BC statutes. That interpretation means that any law, any regulation, any program, and any administrative decision may now be challenged for inconsistency with a broad and undefined international declaration. The implications are as wide as they are unpredictable. Businesses cannot plan. Communities cannot rely on established permitting systems. Even the basic understanding of Crown authority over land and resources is suddenly in question.
The court did not merely clarify legislation. It rewrote it. And by doing so, it weakened the central principle that has guided parliamentary democracies for centuries. Legislatures make the law. Courts interpret the words on the page. They do not invent new obligations that elected representatives never enacted. When courts move beyond interpretation and enter the realm of policymaking, citizens lose the ability to hold their governments accountable. Elections cannot correct judicial invention.
This ruling also distorts the meaning of reconciliation. It is claimed that First Nations seek respect, consultation, partnership, and the opportunity to participate fully in the economic life of the country. But responsible consultation is not the same thing as consent. And it is certainly not the same thing as veto power.
UNDRIP was adopted by Canada as an expression of intent, not as binding domestic law. It contains principles that must be engaged with care, precision, and realism. It calls for consultation aimed at cooperation, not coercion. It was never meant to override provincial legislation, upend regulatory frameworks, or create a parallel constitutional order. Yet that is exactly what the Court of Appeal has invited.
The result is the worst possible outcome for everyone involved. First Nations will now be drawn into endless litigation rather than productive negotiation. Projects that could offer employment and partnership opportunities will stall under legal uncertainty. Provincial ministries will struggle to implement programs when every decision becomes a potential court challenge. Investors will simply go elsewhere. And British Columbians will pay the price through reduced growth, lost opportunity, and weakened public services.
There is a way forward, but it requires political leadership. The legislature must reaffirm what DRIPA actually is and what it is not. It must state clearly that provincial laws remain in force unless explicitly amended by elected representatives. It must confirm that UNDRIP is a guide, not a binding instrument. It must restore the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation that have anchored the rule of law in this country for generations.
National leadership is also required. Other provinces will face similar pressures. A coordinated federal-provincial framework is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency across the country. That framework should affirm consultation, protect provincial jurisdiction, and preserve the authority of legislatures. Canada cannot allow international declarations to become domestic law by judicial inference.
Democracy relies on honest engagement, clear rules, and respect for the constitutional roles of each institution. British Columbia now has an obligation to correct the course.
No province can prosper when uncertainty becomes its governing principle.
BRULOTTE: Judges are rewriting the law and BC is paying the price
British Columbia has entered a dangerous period of constitutional confusion. The recent Court of Appeal ruling on the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) has taken an aspirational statute and converted it into a sweeping legal instrument that reshapes the...
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
B.C. government signs major land use plan with First Nation on Vancouver Island
The provincial government led by the BC NDP has announced what it deems to be an important step toward protecting the environment, supporting Indigenous reconciliation, and providing stability for forestry jobs in northern Vancouver Island. But the Conservative Party of B.C. argues this same decision shows the BC NDP is quietly changing how public land is controlled, without enough public debate.Last week, the provincial government signed four ministerial orders to move forward with the Gwa’ni Land Use Planning Project, a joint plan developed with the Namgis First Nation.
The plan affects more than 166,000 hectares (1,660 sq. km.) of Crown land in the Nimpkish Valley near Alert Bay and Port McNeill — a land area more than 11 times the size of the City of Vancouver or roughly five per cent of Vancouver Island.
The B.C. Conservatives have issued a sharp criticism, accusing the government of “land governance by stealth” at a time when Premier David Eby has already admitted problems with how Indigenous rights laws are being applied.
“For improved stewardship of resources in our territory”
According to the provincial government, the Gwa’ni project is about setting clear rules for how land, rivers, forests, and watersheds in the Nimpkish Valley can be used in the future.
The area includes old-growth forests, wildlife habitat, and all five species of Pacific wild salmon. The plan is meant to decide which areas should be protected, where forestry can happen, and how cultural, environmental, and economic values can be balanced.
The provincial government notes the project has been worked on since 2021, with input from First Nations, forestry companies, local governments, tourism operators, and the public.
“It’s important to have long-lasting, forward-looking plans to manage the environment and natural resources in a way that benefits everyone — and that’s exactly what we’re doing in the Nimpkish Valley,” said Randene Neill, B.C. Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, in a statement.
“This planning project is a wonderful example of how, when we all work together transparently and openly to determine our values for the future of our province, we create certainty and predictability for everyone who lives in this beautiful area.”
The Namgis First Nation asserts the plan is about protecting its territory while also allowing for a sustainable forest industry.
“The ‘Na̱mg̱is First Nation is pleased to see the first steps taken to implement the joint Gwa’ni Land Use Planning Project recommendations,” said elected chief Victor Isaac. “The changes to the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan are the foundation for improved stewardship of resources in our territory, respect for our forest and cultural values, and will contribute to the predictability needed for a sustainable forest sector on our region.”
The provincial government also notes the plan supports forestry operations under Tree Farm Licence 37, including a joint decision-making agreement signed in December 2025. That agreement allows the Province and the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation to jointly approve forestry plans in parts of the territory.
Forestry company Western Forest Products welcomed the move.
“Advancing the Gwa’ni Land Use Planning Project sets a strong foundation for sustainable land use on the north Island,” said Steven Hofer, president and CEO of Vancouver-based Western Forest Products.
“Western’s work in the region is strengthened by our collaboration with ‘Na̱mg̱is First Nation and their forward-thinking approach demonstrated through this land-use planning process.”
B.C. government signs major land use plan with First Nation on Vancouver Island | Urbanized
B.C. government has approved a major land-use plan with the Namgis First Nation on Vancouver Island, prompting debate over reconciliation.
dailyhive.com
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
BC residents file class action lawsuit claiming province, feds misled property owners during Cowichan title case
Plaintiffs accused officials of "failing to disclose known material risks affecting the reliability and market value of land ownership."A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the governments of BC and Canada over their handling of the Cowichan title case.
Plaintiffs argued on behalf of their fellow citizens that the defendants misled property owners by "failing to disclose known material risks affecting the reliability and market value of land ownership."
The suit was brought by Burnaby-based hazardous material removal company owner Jasjeet Grewal and "John Doe," a Richmond man who owns property in the area impacted by the Cowichan Decision.
The "class" in this case consists of everyone who bought property in BC before the ruling was handed down on August 7, 2025 under the impression the province's Torrens land system was "sacrosanct" and "who then subsequently took steps to refinance, sell or rely on equity in said real property and incurred economic setbacks and real, equitable or other loss, both financial and mental, attributable to an inability to rely on the Torrens land system as the valid legal framework and backstop for real property holdings" in BC.
Those living elsewhere in Canada may also be added to the suit for similar reasons.
The suit claimed the governments in question "knowingly made or maintained false or misleading representations regarding the security of registered title and the foreseeable risks to land ownership in British Columbia," and "knew or were reckless as to the unlaywfulness of their conduct and the likelihood that it would cause harm to property owners."
It was argued that the defendants "owed a duty of care to property owners and purchasers to take reasonable care that representation made in official registries, public statements and government publications regarding land title security were accurate and complete," and that property owners "reasonably relied on the Defendants' representations to their detriment, suffering financial losses and loss of peace of mind."
Plaintiffs also claimed the governments' conduct amounted to "the tort of deceit, unjust enrichment through the collection of taxes and fees based on misrepresented property security, and a violation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
They are seeking "general damages for loss of property value and mental distress" and "special damages for loss of investment financing or sale opportunities," as well as restitution or disgorgement of taxes and fees "collected under misrepresented conditions" and punitive damages.
Also sought are admissions that the defendants were in the wrong, and "a declaration requiring full disclosure of known risks affecting registered property in British Columbia."
The BC government has been widely criticized for failing to notify impacted residents that their properties had been involved in the Cowichan case. In the weeks since, Premier David Eby and his team have been working with property owners to gather evidence as they prepare to seek a stay of the decision.
Officials acknowledged that it is "a time of uncertainty for people within the claim area and that many people have a lot of questions."
BC residents file class action lawsuit claiming province, feds misled property owners during Cowichan title case
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the governments of British Columbia and Canada over their handling of the Cowichan title case.
Similar threads
