Who Controls BC’s Crown Lands? How the Province Is Quietly Surrendering Control of Public Lands

[SpringVelocity]

That is a great video. Explains the issue well.

 

[part time]

You are 100% correct. I just read today that a major Saskatchewan Potash company decided to invest in a port in Washington state due to the current environment in BC. That's a 9 Billion dollar project that wont be spent in BC. Ebby was furious about it.

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]

 

[PEETZcanada]

 

[IronNoggin]

 

[Islandgirl]

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?

 

[IronNoggin]

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...

www.westernstandard.news

 

[IronNoggin]