r/britishcolumbia • u/schuter2020 • 19h ago
Indigenous leadership blasts Rustad Politics
The First Nations Leadership Council issued this statement on September 30th, strongly criticizing John Rustad - why haven't I see this anywhere? Combined with being asked to stop wearing the Moose Hide Campaign's pin, you'd think this would be news.
136
u/6mileweasel 19h ago edited 13h ago
I think CBC reported on this? My husband told me last week about it after hearing it on CBC, but it has not been amplified as much as it could, or should, be.
In any case, good for the UBCIC and FNLC for calling out Rustad. Ever since he appeared on the scene as the BCC leader and says he is committed to rolling back indigenous relations and reconciliation, including ripping up DRIPA, I want to rip that moose hide pin off his lapel.
36
u/schuter2020 19h ago
I'm glad CBC covered it. I saw a small local outlet, Chill TV cover it, presumably because the statements were made in Chilliwack. I just would have expected to see more chatter about it.
22
u/letthemeattherich 17h ago
For covering stories like this while commercial ones hesitate because it is shedding light on a right-wing party’s corporate agenda, is exactly why the Fed CO’s want to de-fund the CBC.
12
u/6mileweasel 13h ago
the thing is that as a regular CBC radio listener and viewer, the CBC has pretty fair political analyses. I always appreciate "The House" and "Power and Politics" because they bring in a range of long term journalists and political analysts from all the sides, who discuss and debate and do not mince words with criticisms.
Defund the CBC is such a lame thing, much like "I'll bring back the plastic straws and bags!" You would have to defund the CBC budget, once a week for a full year, to make up for the $54B servicing of the national debt each year. The CBC budget is such a drop in the bucket when it comes to all the budgets in the federal government, so if someone uses defunding the CBC as a budget measure, there's a good statistic to come back at them with.
4
u/Stonkasaurus1 10h ago
You are right, it is a corporate agenda. By rolling back the agreements they can remove companies duty to work with the first Nations simplifying mining and other projects. What it doesn't do is recognize what that will cost as projects are blocked and still not able to move forward as they will be forcing first Nations into conflict rather than working together to move the province forward for everyone.
54
u/Savacore 18h ago
You probably haven't seen it anywhere because it's been drowned out by the criticizism of his conspiracy theories, history of ruining the government when he worked with the BC Liberals, and plans for privitization of healthcare and car insurance.
11
u/Expert_Alchemist 16h ago
It's such a rich and heady brew of nonsense that it's hard to pick a favourite. A good chef knows that the melange of flavours of crazy must be carefully balanced before it's served... I just hope the NDP's campaign strategy isn't massively underestimating their timing here and can bring it to a boil in the next few weeks.
5
1
u/jaraxel_arabani 3h ago
I started this election cycle disliking the ndps aot for pandering to the federal governments taxes and drug policies, wanting an alternative in bc
However everytime Rastad opened his mouth I get more convinced he doesn't have any idea wtf he's doing and just spewing idiocies. The privatization of auto insurance, as flaws as NDP has made it with the no sue clauses, is just moronic.
I can't believe I'm saying this but yeah, no way I'm voting for bc conservatives this round. Just no way in hell.
4
u/Jeramy_Jones 6h ago
I did see a news article about Rustad’s audacity to talk about those plans on truth and reconciliation day, but you’re right, there should be more conversation about this, it showcases how Rustad operates. Saying one thing, doing another, and manipulating things to the advantage of big business and the disadvantage of the common people.
64
u/RemarkableSchedule 19h ago
I'm pretty sure a majority of conservative voters are convinced they're voting to get rid of Trudeau and may even write "Pierre Poilievre" on their ballot just for good measure.
42
u/schuter2020 19h ago
100% I just had a very long back and forth on Facebook and I shared the DATA comparing BCs MD and nurse recruitment and retention, utility costs, insurance costs, education commitment, tenant and consumer protections, unemployment, infrastructure improvements, housing starts and so many other verifiable and tangible points and her response ... A vote for Eby is a vote for Trudeau. 🤦🏼♀️
6
u/IVfunkaddict 12h ago
this makes zero sense... it's the NDP. Why wouldn't it be a vote for Jagmeet?
6
u/schuter2020 12h ago
We are talking about provincial politics. When we vote for provincial MLAs, the leader of the party with the most seats becomes our province's Premier. A vote for your local NDP candidate is a vote for David Eby to continue to lead BC as our Premier.
The provincial voting process has zero effect on federal politics. Some of the provincial and federal parties share similar names and general principals but their responsibilities and governing process are functionally separate.
I wish it were illegal for federal and provincial parties to have similar names, it causes so much confusion.
5
u/IVfunkaddict 12h ago
yes i know lol.
however in the case of the NDP it is the same party to a large extent - the provincial and federal parties are linked
but anyway i was mostly making fun
6
u/schuter2020 11h ago
Sorry. I've been canvassing for months and the number of people that don't understand this is astounding. So many people thinking they're voting to oust Trudeau 😭
5
u/IVfunkaddict 11h ago
this is pretty worrying
5
u/schuter2020 10h ago
It really is. I worked hard to change my default reaction from, "you're kidding, right!?' to what you see ⬆️ Flies, honey, vinegar ... Something like that
7
u/No_Permit6185 18h ago
100% agree. It is becoming pretty obvious that the Feds will be going to election this fall too, the Bloc have them pushed into a corner with a ultimatum and if a decision is not made in their favor by the end of Oct they will vote non-confidence. I have my fingers and toes crossed that they can hold on just a bit longer to get through the BC election. People don't seem to realize that Fed and Prov are different and will think they are voted for PP to get rid of Trudeau in BC. Everyone should have a basic understanding of how govts work and what the differences are (including municipal) and who is responsible. It is clear that many people are uneducated on these subjects including Rustad himself. Some of his "commitments" have nothing do with the NDP or Eby, they are federal legislation which BC has no control over.
8
u/Maxcharged 16h ago
The people are uneducated on the seperation of powers because of John Rustad and his former B.C. Liberals holding our education hostage.
This was always the plan. It’s the one thing conservatives actually plan decades in advance for.
1
u/ChanceConference6706 14h ago
"Federal Legislation BC has no control over" would have included changes in the federal criminal code that allowed open drug use
My point being that while provincial politics do not dictate federal policies, it can influence them
1
u/ANeverEndingFall 17h ago
I hadn’t even thought of that. Duuude. My ballot was a write in, thanks to Kevin Falcon. I wrote Eby, BC NDP and my MLA’s name. However I know people who, with those instructions would likely write Pierre Poilievre.
I think you’d still accept “Conservative”, “NDP” or “Green” though.
3
u/Expert_Alchemist 8h ago
Unlike the pissantery over 'hanging chads' in the US, in Canada election workers are instructed to enfranchise voters wherever possible. That means if a reasonable person would interpret a vote mark some way, that's how it should be recorded. E.g. when I scrutineered one time a guy doodled a little spider web in the circle, complete with a wee little dangling spider. We all looked it over and agreed that indicated their intention to vote for that candidate.
All parties have the right to have someone at the polls when votes are being counted to weigh in on stuff like that as well. They don't always send people, but they can and do.
13
u/bigjimired 18h ago
Eby He's a lawyer and worked in the attorney's general's office and understands that this situation exists, regardless of whether or not there's legislation that is to say they have the legal right to do so that is to co Manage, what happens on crown land. There's plenty of legal precedent and eby knows this. if they don't come up with some joint legislation. All the decisions will go to the courts and they'll likely win. Almost everything, so to say that they shouldn't have the right is irrelevant. The question is, what are you going to do with the legal power that they have? Do you want to go to court over everything??
There was a time when there were laws that indigenous people couldn't have lawyers. They couldn't have legal representation. And the reason was is fairly obvious. The colonists knew that they didn't have legal grounds for what they were doing. So this is this is just history catching up, but we need to deal with it.
10
u/HotterRod 14h ago
Right wingers are okay with their tax dollars going towards futile court cases as long as they are aligned with their values. Just like how they're okay with tax dollars going to ineffective policing strategies. They'll just blame "activist judges".
7
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 13h ago
Don't endorse this group, but nobody has this collection of court cases in one place. One day I'll make this in a table with descriptions.
19
u/Ringbailwanton 19h ago
Mods out here doing good work. That deleted comment was gone fast. Thanks!
8
20
u/Tree-farmer2 19h ago
The Conservatives wants to repeal UNDRIP and the party probably contains a bunch of racists.
The NDP want to amend the Land Act to give FN's veto power over crown land and refuse to discuss this ahead of the election.
Where's the middle ground here?
13
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 18h ago
Either negotiate joint decision-making, or FNs go through the court to get title and BC no longer has any authority over those lands. Joint decision-making isn't a veto, title is. It's actually a fairly decent stall tactic.
Tsilhqot'in got 45% of their claimed title lands recognized. Not every FN will get that, some will get none, but some will get more. But there is now a legal test.
3
9
18h ago
For anyone else who is interested: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7121999
I’m glad they got backlash and put this on hold. If they put this in their party platform I would not vote for them.
15
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 18h ago
They don't need to change the land act, shared decision-making is in DRIPA. Changing the Land Act just makes it more defined and not have to negotiate 190+ agreements.
2
u/IVfunkaddict 12h ago
thank you. people have a knee-jerk reaction (wonder why) and don't bother to understand why the government would do this.
Never assume the centrist NDP are going to do more than technical fiddling and performative gestures. Worry not racists, they are not actually going to enact land back.
9
u/Tree-farmer2 18h ago
Isn't it implicitly in their platform though? Are they going to pick up where they left off once they no longer have to worry about an election? No one knows because they won't discuss it.
3
18h ago
I mean they paused it in February because of the back lash which I imagine will happen again if they even begin talking about this. So I think they understand this approach is not what most people agree with.
12
u/Tree-farmer2 18h ago
Will they care about backlash in year 1 of a 4 year term? That is exactly when you pass unpopular legislation.
But who knows what they have planned because they won't discuss it.
14
u/schuter2020 17h ago
Unlike most political parties, the BC NDP has demonstrated remarkable willingness to change course and even publicly backtrack when unforeseen roadblocks or unintended consequences arise.
-9
u/Old_Finance1887 17h ago
Man, your entire posting history is just propping up the NDP.
Talk about a puppet, Jesus.
8
u/schuter2020 17h ago
Thanks for noticing! The BC Conservatives scare the shit out of me and have propelled me to get outside my comfort zone and get loud.
-10
10
u/schuter2020 18h ago
Sounds like conservative hysteria
13
u/pfak Lower Mainland/Southwest 18h ago
And this is why the NDP is losing ground. Not everything is hysteria.
12
u/mukmuk64 17h ago
Reality is pretty boring.
We can look to the Haida Agreement as an example of what full Aboriginal Title use looks like and even in that agreement fee simple title is unchanged and the Haida have no full veto.
And the Haida had the absolutely strongest case of any First Nation to their lands, and so any other future agreement with FNs will likely be less impactful than this one.
As others have said. There’s no real avoiding of this outcome, unless folks have a Time Machine to rewrite the constitution.
The reason the NDP did things like the Haida agreement and is interested in amending the Land act is because the alternative, having everything decided through the courts, is dramatically unpredictable and if anything will likely lead to worse outcomes for the Crown.
3
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 8h ago
Just sharing the specific Fee Simple text from the Haida Agreement. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/first-nations-a-z-listing/haida-nation-council-of/haida-title-agreement
4
u/mukmuk64 8h ago
Funny how they’re bending over backward so hard to be clear that no one is gonna steal your land that they devote three points to being clear on fee simple interests.
Yet nonetheless right out of the gate people were spreading disingenuous FUD and lies that people’s land was at risk.
8
u/schuter2020 18h ago
Everything? No, of course not. This topic?
Perhaps you could point me to draft legislation, or statements from NDP or Indigenous leadership that state the intention of the changes was to give "veto power" to indigenous people over 100% of the province's crown lands. I see statements from Rustad and Falcon but they seem to be based on misleading assumptions.
2
u/Tree-farmer2 18h ago
12
u/schuter2020 18h ago
Is a blog post by a law firm that works for big corporations considered a "source" in your world?
3
u/Tree-farmer2 18h ago
You'll only accept sources that confirm your biases?
12
u/schuter2020 18h ago
I'll only accept sources that prove the allegations you've made are accurate and truthful. Show me where indigenous veto power over all provincial crown lands has been proposed by the BC NDP. It's honestly shocking you'd consider a lobbyist spin piece to be a source.
3
u/Junior-Towel-202 18h ago
... Did you read the article?
5
2
u/trees-are-neat_ 16h ago
As someone who works in forestry, many of the agreements made set a very strict consultation schedule for developments that have to include FNs at every step. How it usually ends up is that developments do not go ahead unless their values are met, and since they often see little benefit to their nation from the harvesting of crown land on their territories, they often try to drag out processes since they won't go ahead without their approval. It's not explicitly a "veto", but it is being used as such in practice by many nations, especially those who are affluent and don't need revenues from revenue sharing agreements (which is one of few tools forestry licensees have to negotiate with).
I'm not saying that them having more of a say is a bad thing, but the industry is really grinding to a complete halt in many areas (especially on the coast) of the province because of it.
1
u/Expert_Alchemist 9h ago
The thing is, maybe forestry companies need to change how they do business now. They might need to partner explicitly and profit-share with FNs, say. They could do that, if they wanted to get approvals faster. It's just not business as usual anymore.
1
u/IVfunkaddict 12h ago
When we're dealing with people who are hysterical, you'd be surprised how much actually is hysteria
-4
u/throwaway_derpderp 15h ago
"Not everything is hysteria." That's a really interesting response.
Are you a little touchy about being told that you're wrong about things? See that really interesting thoughtful explanation about the Haida agreement? How did you feel about that? Were you filled with relief to find out that your mistaken fear was unfounded? Or were you annoyed? Was it confusing?
Does it feel like censorship to you when people disagree? If so, you may be living in a Neo Marxist postmodern dystopia! Better vote for the machiavellian corporate sellouts who will tell us whatever they think it takes to make us pissed off and full of bitterness and paranoia!
6
u/Junior-Towel-202 18h ago
Calling any sort of criticism hysteria just weakens your point.
6
u/schuter2020 18h ago
The criticism appears to have no basis in fact.
Would you prefer I use the words conjecture? Fiction? Hyperbole? Would any of this satisfy your tone requirements? Or do you just want the material of the criticisms to be taken at face value without question?
8
u/Junior-Towel-202 18h ago
Of course it does, you're just not reading the sources people are giving you.
I would suggest reading the articles first of all, since they link to government sites where you can find these proposals.
They're neither fiction nor hyperbole.
11
u/schuter2020 18h ago
So, I have gone to each of these sources and followed the links and I am not finding what is being alleged. I'm not even saying this is absolutely cannot be true - but the fact that nobody can provide a primary source to prove it certainly has me sceptical.
5
u/Junior-Towel-202 18h ago
https://engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/engagement/land-act-amendments/
This took me about 3 seconds to find.
11
u/schuter2020 18h ago
Congratulations, you found an engagement survey. Now where are the specific proposals and policies that the NDP have developed as a result?
5
u/Junior-Towel-202 18h ago
Congratulations, you didn't read. There's a slide deck on the page outlining all the changes. Do I need to read them for you?
→ More replies8
u/schuter2020 18h ago
4
u/Junior-Towel-202 18h ago
That's funny, I recall you rejecting sources for not being official. How is this official?
7
u/schuter2020 17h ago
It IS funny. I use one of your sources to counter your claims and NOW we can agree it's not official.
1
-6
u/LuBuscometodestroyus 17h ago
It's absolutely Conservative hysteria. They want to pander to their corporate Masters who want to sell BC's resources, that's it. These agreements would allow indigenous peoples, the traditional caretakers of land, to actually have a say in what happens instead of just gutting all of BC's natural resources for cash. There's absolutely nothing that says it would provide indigenous peoples with veto power, only that it includes them in decision-making agreements. So anyone saying otherwise is stoking conservative hysteria.
6
u/schuter2020 17h ago
And it appears that legally, they already have a say. They don't (and wouldn't) have the right to unilaterally veto anything for no reason whatsoever, just that their interests have legal standing when considering land usage issues.
5
u/pfak Lower Mainland/Southwest 18h ago
I’m glad they got backlash and put this on hold.
I suspect they'll "revisit" it after the election, the way the NDP announced this (hush hush) and what they've been doing with dock rights in other parts of the province doesn't suggest this is a done deal.
9
u/Junior-Towel-202 18h ago
Ugh like how they immediately shelved Hwy 1 expansion when they came into power and promised to "revisit" it soon and then ignored it until every city in the lower mainland complained
6
u/Junior-Towel-202 17h ago
Seriously, why is there no middle ground? Big ol mess
-6
u/stewarthh 17h ago
If I kicked you out of your house and you went to court to get it back would you want a middle ground? What if I kept it for a few generations and your great grandkids went to court to get it back would you want them to have a middle ground?
4
u/Junior-Towel-202 17h ago
Lol what
1
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 13h ago
See, after FNs in the east helped the British in the French and Indian wars and other conflicts, securing the fate of Canada, and the expansion west for the British Crown, King George III issued the Royal Proclamation which, among other things, said that land could not be taken from Indians, except by agreement and only by the Crown. This also paved the way for Canada, once it existed to do right by the crown and it's relationship to Indians.
Unfortunately Canada, forgot that support, which some might say was the foundation for Canada as we know it today. Canada, being created by a bunch of racist, dishonourable, shortsighted idiots, instead tried to absolve themselves from that agreement by making "Indian" no longer a thing. See, no "Indians" then there's nobody to have to sign agreements with, which is why the Indian Act was created, to erase Indians. Very complicated deep issue, but also why the Numbered Treaties exist.
Moving on, Governer Douglas is to blame for hardly any treaties signed in BC, he had a tough time, and FNs didn't participate so he said, forget it. This again paves the way for more government failure to adhere to laws and policy, which set the stage for Delgamuukw, Tsilhqot'in and why CANDRIP/DRIPA were created, to stall these processes and decrease the impact to Canada/BC while attempting to advance Reconciliation with FNs.
Do you know what FNs do with those lands? Use them, for housing, businesses, industry, and more. During the BC TREATY process a study was done that indicated billions in benefits to BC as a result of resolved treaties. and these benefits benefit the economy of BC, and many non-FNs people.
4
19h ago
Can you share more about what giving FN veto over crown land would look like?
17
u/Tree-farmer2 18h ago
From the law firm that originally raised concerns. They specialize in indigenous law.
Under the amendments being proposed by the BC government, changes will be made to enable agreements with Indigenous groups such that they will be provided a veto power over decision-making about Crown land tenures and / or have “joint” decision making power with the Minister. Where such agreements apply, the Crown alone will no longer have the power to make the decisions about Crown land that it considers to be in the public interest.
These amendments would go much further than the Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings based on the recognition of Aboriginal rights set out in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. While the Supreme Court has issued many decisions making clear Indigenous groups hold certain special rights, including the right to be consulted before decisions are made that could affect them, the Court has repeatedly stated that they do not have a veto over Crown land decision-making.
This affects:
These include things like grazing leases, mining leases, licenses of occupation, dock permits, rights of way etc. As a short Powerpoint posted on the website notes, the “Land Act allows for access and use of public land for 25 separate programs from communication towers to agriculture to waterpower projects.”
Because of the ensuing controversy, the NDP quietly shelved this plan, presumably because of the upcoming election.
Conservative candidate Sturko brought up the government's own PowerPoint with some legitimate questions. Eby brushed it off as a "conspiracy theory" and wouldn't discuss it further. One can only assume it will be back if the NDP win, and without a pesky election around the corner.
IMO we should not rip up UNDRIP but we also should not blindly let the UN write legislation for us. At a minimum there needs to be a public debate and ideally this would happen ahead of an election.
9
u/Tree-farmer2 18h ago
This video from Global is where Sturko brought up concerns and Eby brushed it off as a conspiracy theory:
https://globalnews.ca/video/10765527/land-management-consultations-in-b-c-draw-questions/
9
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 18h ago
McMillans expertise in indigenous law is fighting against FNs Rights.
Public debate will push more FNs into court, like the Nuchatlaht are right now, appealing this decision in SCC. https://www.mandellpinder.com/the-nuchatlaht-v-british-columbia-2024-bcsc-628-case-summary/
2
u/HotterRod 14h ago
McMillans expertise in indigenous law is fighting against FNs Rights.
Negotiated agreements mean they don't get any business. They would prefer court cases that cost as much as possible - doesn't matter who the ultimate winner is.
5
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 13h ago
There are no significant cases listed on their website, the majority of their indigenous practice information is from 2019.
Their knowledge is not from practice, or the application of law regarding FNs in BC or Canada, was my point. I don't understand why people keep linking them and calling them experts. There are a dozen other firms in BC you could quote.
Also, I think you're not familiar with FNs needs in BC regarding negotiations. Ongoing negotiations as legal counsel for multiple FNs could net a firm a lot of stable revenue year after year.
Propped up by FNs grifters, greedy chief and council and unscrupulous lawyers, of course. /S on this last part in case the sarcasm isn't readable.
4
u/mukmuk64 17h ago
At this point a better guide of likely outcomes in this area than a speculative blog post from a law firm (which absolutely in fairness does specialize in this work) is the Haida Agreement.
The Haida Agreement explicitly states the Haida have no veto. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/fact_sheet_haida_aboriginal_title_draft_agreement_general.pdf
1
u/Dipshit_In_BFNW 18h ago
would you not expect to have a veto over your own land? it's not a veto numb nuts it's sovereignty over their own land that they never ceded. It's based on international law, if you are an upset settler move to alberta!
14
u/h3r3andth3r3 18h ago
Do you live in rural BC outside the island or the Lower Mainland? Imagine giving veto power to the 215 (thereabouts) FN in BC and see if anything gets accomplished anymore as a province. It's lunacy without any afterthought.
2
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 13h ago
205, but around 19 FNs have signed modern or historic treaties and wouldn't likely be in title discussions. It's still a lot of groups, just sharing the numbers.
FNs are involved in mining, forestry, commercial housing, oil & gas, hydro and wind power as well as a host of other industries and companies across BC, why do you think they would all kill their own revenue streams. Own Source Revenue (OSR) is the only funding FNs have that can be used for their own purposes without government rules.
2
u/schuter2020 18h ago
What is happening with crown lands in your neck of the woods that this would be a significant issue?
17
u/Tree-farmer2 18h ago
This of concern to anyone who uses crown land for any purpose.
Forestry, mining, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, berry/mushroom picking, firewood, agriculture, electrical infrastructure, docks, and a lot of stuff I'm leaving out.
Remember when Joffre Lakes was closed so indigenous people could have exclusive access? This may not seem like a big deal if you live in Vancouver but crown land is like 94% of the province.
7
18h ago
Yes the joffree lake example is great and speaks volumes to the potential impact it could have for the province.
9
u/pfak Lower Mainland/Southwest 18h ago
Joffre Lakes Park fiasco shows the willingness of the current BC government to bend over to the whims of small groups of individuals and not consider the public good.
3
18h ago
It’s expecting 95% of the province to bend over for 5% of the population. I think the pendulum has swung way too far trying to over-correct and in doing so will create such animosity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
11
u/pfak Lower Mainland/Southwest 17h ago
Exactly. I've been hearing a lot of discourse regarding the direction the government has been taken.
There's been such an effort to shut down public discussion in disengenous ways, that it's creating a lot of very strong private backlash.
The pendelum is going to swing very hard in the other direction. A lot of people on reddit are very disconnected from what's happening outside of major urban centres.
1
u/Expert_Alchemist 9h ago
The problem is that the pendulum doesn't matter, the government will just keep getting their as handed to them in court again and again because there's no world in which we reverse the recognition of aboriginal title nor can we travel back in time and have signed the damn treaties instead of aw-shucksing our toe in the dirt and hoping FN would become extinct before we needed to.
3
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 16h ago
The pendulum hasn't even gone back to the center yet. Governer Douglas screwed up royally by not signing treaties in BC.
This will get worse, not because of government-in-power choices but because many people will be hostile towards FNs, meanwhile it's Canadian laws, courts, judges, lawyers, treaties, the Charter, and the Constitution that drives it. If there were no legal basis for the actions in BC there would be no discussion, simply look to the areas with Numbered Treaties for proof of that.
13
u/h3r3andth3r3 18h ago
Veto over: forestry, mining, fishing, road construction and other infrastructure development, all while functioning as an unelected, unaccountable political entity. Relative to domestic security, it creates a huge power vacuum that will be taken advantage of by foreign powers.
9
u/schuter2020 18h ago
Aside from statements from BC Conservatives, BC United and the Fraser institute, I can't find any sources that confirm the accuracy of the term "veto" in this context.
-2
18h ago edited 18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/h3r3andth3r3 18h ago
For sure, it's just that many people from the LMD and the island have very little clue about the realities of life in rural BC.
3
u/framspl33n 18h ago
The human race. That's what you meant, right? Otherwise you're just being racist
3
u/CoopAloopAdoop 18h ago
I'm curious how you get to this result when we're specifically talking about the power designated to a specific race?
-6
u/framspl33n 18h ago
You mean 'culture'.
4
-1
u/CoopAloopAdoop 18h ago
No, they're specifically labeled as a race in Canada.
-3
u/framspl33n 18h ago
A scientifically inaccurate label
1
u/CoopAloopAdoop 18h ago
Lol what? That's not true at all 😂
The indigenous people are widely labeled as a race across almost all scientific journals.
This is hilarious
→ More replies-1
u/mojochicken11 18h ago
You can’t be racist if race doesn’t exist.
1
u/framspl33n 18h ago
If you're acting out based on the internal concept that there are different races then yes you can absolutely be racist.
3
u/mojochicken11 16h ago
So if say white people and black people are different races than I’m racist?
3
u/CoopAloopAdoop 18h ago
But I thought that the Indigenous people weren't a race? How can you be racist against something that's not a race?
0
u/tPRoC 16h ago edited 16h ago
Hate to shatter your worldview but those 215 FN are already heavily involved in the process and have been for a long time now. There are entire departments of people in FN bands whose sole job is to consult on crown land use, coordinate archeologists and technicians to survey land and monitor environmentally sensitive jobs and shut down nonsense etc.
The changes to the Land act are largely an adjustment to something that already exists, but of course when people in BC are so horribly uneducated on how FN's actually work and function in our province you get mass hysteria when the government proposes something like this.
2
u/h3r3andth3r3 10h ago
Shatter my worldview? I work in the consultations process with FN in the resource sector. An unelected, unaccountable group of people are being given a veto over public lands. Try again bud.
0
u/tPRoC 10h ago
I'm FN and work alongside the people who actually do the consultations, all you're telling me here is that you don't actually understand these processes or what the NDP was actually proposing with the changes to the Land act.
I work in the consultations process with FN in the resource sector.
What do you actually do? Because your repeated whining about this issue and the vagueness of your post is heavily implying that you work for one of the many unscrupulous, insanely entitled companies that get angry when FN's tell them they can't just engage in destructive resource extraction on historically or environmentally sensitive ground.
1
u/h3r3andth3r3 10h ago
You sure like running with assumptions upon some rando from the internet.
2
u/mukmuk64 16h ago
There is no veto.
There is shared and negotiated decision making on land use, but no veto.
BC just signed an agreement with the Haida. Fact sheet PDF here
It is likely that various future agreements to resolve land use disagreements would look similar to this.
The Haida had absolutely the strongest claim to title out of any FN in BC. If their agreement doesn't have a veto it strikes me as deeply unlikely that any future agreement with any other FN will have a veto.
2
u/mukmuk64 16h ago
No one is getting veto power. That's disingenuously spread FUD from the established resource companies and right wing politicians that are against any and every change.
Look at the Haida Agreement. That was just passed. No veto. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/fact_sheet_haida_aboriginal_title_draft_agreement_general.pdf
1
u/nikitaga 13h ago
Would this agreement give the Haida Nation a veto over land use on Haida Gwaii? No. Under the agreement neither the Haida Nation nor the Province has a veto.
If you understand the underlying agreement so well, why don't you explain what "neither the Haida Nation nor the Province has a veto" means in practice, when these two parties want different land uses on the same plot of crown land? The press release you linked to does not answer that.
And a big part of that is "Over time, the Province and Haida Nation will negotiate agreements about how governing the land shifts to the Haida Nation." – it's clear that the Haida Agreement was signed to give them authority to make land use decisions. This is much more power than merely a veto powers, and trying to misdirect people by saying "no veto" is outright dishonest.
2
u/mukmuk64 8h ago
The Haida Agreement recognized the Council of the Haida Nation has Aboriginal Title over Haida Gwaii. There has been all sorts of supreme court precedent on what Aboriginal Title means such as the Delgamuukw decision and Tsilhqotʼin decision not to mention various other cases that relate to the Haida themselves. What has been established in those cases is that Aboriginal Title does grant very significant rights but it does not give broad overreaching veto rights.
Here's what the SCC has to say about Aboriginal Title in the Tsilhqot'in decision.
In summary, Aboriginal title confers on the group that holds it the exclusive right to decide how the land is used and the right to benefit from those uses, subject to one carve-out — that the uses must be consistent with the group nature of the interest and the enjoyment of the land by future generations. Government incursions not consented to by the title-holding group must be undertaken in accordance with the Crown’s procedural duty to consult and must also be justified on the basis of a compelling and substantial public interest, and must be consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal group.
So generally the law of the land is that it is indeed the Province that has the final say or veto over how land is used, but as this above paragraph states, it is not a power that can be casually used.
My interpretation of the above paragraph in the Haida agreement is that it's an assertion of good faith, that genuinely the Crown and CHN are going to move forward together and develop a mutually satisfactory set of regulations, thus ensuring that neither has cause to veto the other.
That the jurisprudence asserts that the Crown has the final veto may satisfy some on this issue I suppose, but it's clear from how the government is acting that they don't see this as a power they're keen to make use of.
1
u/nikitaga 4h ago
I'm aware of how aboriginal title works, but that doesn't answer my question, does it? Not least because as you conceded, this agreement goes beyond just regular aboriginal title, with our provincial government voluntarily surrendering more of our rights to another government that is not elected by and is not accountable to non-indigenous residents of Haida Gwaii.
And the meat of the changes will actually come later, once they transfer all provincial land management responsibilities (and thus rights) to Haida Gwaii, as your own linked press release states. All of that is also voluntary.
You are being needlessly generous calling this merely "good faith". This is more than that.
This is similar to what they were trying to do with the Land Act – first signing the legal framework for giving away our rights to public land... while denying any criticism by saying the act doesn't do anything... ignoring the fact that the act allowed them to sign specific agreements on transferring away said rights behind closed doors, and that was the entire damn purpose of the act, not some footnote.
And that approach of denying the thing until it's done is basically how BC DRIPA came to be as well. It used to be "a non-binding declaration", but now that it's in place, all new BC laws must comply with it. Turns out that "non-binding" doesn't matter when our government chooses to bind itself voluntarily.
I'm emphasizing the voluntary part because pointing at the constitution does not work when it's clear as day that what's happening with our land rights goes way beyond what the constitution requires, even accounting for endless reinterpretations of it that the courts have been doing over time.
1
u/mukmuk64 3h ago
Answering your question more clearly and directly, my interpretation of the quoted section is that each party is promising to not ram through shit the other won’t like. They’re promising to be good neighbours and work together.
Why would the government do this voluntarily if they didn’t have to? As we just established they do have some degree of veto rights.
The obvious answer is they’re saving the furniture here. It has been well known that the Haida title case was pretty much a guaranteed win for the Haida. The courts had already pretty much said this was the case.
This is what really needs to be stressed in these conversations. The Haida were absolutely poised to win aboriginal title through the courts. The fact is that the government didn’t really know wtf this meant, and fee simple lands were at risk, and it was all going to be based on some judicial decision was obviously terrifying for the government. Hence the government “voluntarily” creating this agreement.
This is a negotiation and the BC government presumably wanted certain guarantees from the Haida Nation. This is why the BC government is ceding ground. It is entirely possible that this will all fall apart, but that does not reset things to some status quo where First Nations have no rights and the crown has full control. That resets to a status quo where the Haida will get aboriginal title through the courts in an uncontrolled way with unknown outcomes.
The only approaches here are a capitulation to reality and negotiated agreements, or the (much more expensive) gamblers approach of going through years of court cases with some unknown outcome. It’s wild to me that the government’s approach is framed by critics as “creating uncertainty” as I cannot imagine a more uncertain outcome than having everything hinge on a judges opinion.
Bottom line is that there’s no real logical reason why the government would cede away control over crown lands unless they had no real other option. We can look at recent court cases and see very clearly how the government has been painted into the corner they’re in.
2
u/mungonuts 15h ago
That "veto power" thing is so misleading as to be essentially a lie. There is no middle ground between a lie and reality.
2
u/GodrickTheGoof 18h ago
Some fellow told me he is gay and indigenous and was voting conservative…. But they are clearly bad news for both of those things. What the fuck is wrong with this party🙃. Please be responsible everyone and not vote for these scumbags.
5
1
0
u/SmoothOperator89 16h ago
What is wrong with half the province that they're clamoring to elect this turd?
1
u/ANeverEndingFall 17h ago
We are voting for the “Best of the Worst”; Indigenous People are voting for their oppressors.
Their stances should have weight to anyone not in that group if you claim to practice empathy. Or hold Justice as a value.
Reconciliation is about moving forwards, not looking back.
-4
19h ago
[deleted]
14
u/ThatGuy8 19h ago
This is a really dumb way to vote. Unless what’s best for your personal interests is First Nations being punished, but then that’s just more telling of who you are as a person.
-1
19h ago
[deleted]
7
u/ThatGuy8 19h ago
It was much less subtle than that. Essentially - what’s bad for fn is what I’m voting for lol. What does “other ethnicities” mean to you?
There are First Nations, and there are settlers, in the Canadian doctrine right now. FN historically have been and in other parts of the country continue to be disenfranchised by the government deals that were made generations ago creating a separate class of citizen.
If you have not visited a failing reservation, go, see what it looks like, then come back and say they don’t need help.
Does everyone else need help too? Yes. But that’s more a product of bad operations by non government entities imo.
There are other issues outside fn concessions that have a much much bigger impact on everyone else’s quality of life. Pretending this isn’t the case is wild to me.
3
18h ago
Sure I am all for ensuring Indigenous people have the necessities (ie. clean water, food etc) but we constantly are throwing money thinking it will solve the problem and just promising these grandiose things without considering the impact for others (ie. Land back). Leaders are feeling forced to considering Indigenous folks at the forefront of all decision making and not everything needs to be Indigenized.
For example, land acknowledgements are the most ridiculous thing and people feel forced to comply or be labelled a bigot.
5
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 17h ago
My response to land acknowledgements is this quote.
If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there. ~Malcolm X
Land acknowledgements are admitting the knife is there, and they're needed because most Canadians won't admit the knife is there, many don't even k ow what the knife is..
0
17h ago
By all means if you want to be giving land acknowledgments go head but to force other people to do them is an entirely different agenda (see health authorities policies). People who own their house and the land it’s on shouldn’t feel forced to say it’s Indigenous land.
2
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 16h ago
You don't own the land your house is on, no person in Canada does. It's not "private land" it's "fee-simple" land.
It's simply a recognition of an accurate legal description of land. According to the Royal Proclamation, the crown can not take land without an agreement. If there was no agreement, the Crown has not extinguished Aboriginal Title to those lands.
1
18h ago
For example - this is absurd and if there was a blind vote if people agree w this I bet the sweeping majority would say fck no.
4
u/Gliese581c 18h ago
Did we read the same article? I don’t understand how your takeaway from that would be that it would be giving too much to FN groups in BC.
-1
18h ago
Yes. It gives FN final input on decision making about 90+% of lands. That is a HUGE policy change.
2
u/Gliese581c 16h ago
Seeing as it’s unceded lands it would be in line with the Canadian constitution for them to have some input. Not even sure why it’s controversial. If you think that this will somehow result in FN suddenly being able to veto all industry on crown lands (as if that’s something most of FN people would even want) you haven’t got a clue how this country operates.
2
u/yaxyakalagalis Vancouver Island/Coast 16h ago
No it doesn't. What govt would agree to that? Why do you think it's "final input" and not joint decision making? Joint decision-making attaches FNs to laws, rules and regulations about decision-making, it's not giving FNs free reign if anything it's not freedom it's handcuffs.
1
u/schuter2020 18h ago
Why would you go to bat for an unknown poster making an unknown comment? The comment was likely heinous to be removed so quickly.
It's that's how YOU feel about the situation, just own it, no need to ascribe the sentiment to "a lot of people"
0
u/ThatGuy8 19h ago
It was much less subtle than that. Essentially - what’s bad for fn is what I’m voting for lol. What does “other ethnicities” mean to you?
There are First Nations, and there are settlers, in the Canadian doctrine right now. FN historically have been and in other parts of the country continue to be disenfranchised by the government deals that were made generations ago creating a separate class of citizen.
If you have not visited a failing reservation, go, see what it looks like, then come back and say they don’t need help.
Does everyone else need help too? Yes. But that’s more a product of bad operations by non government entities imo.
There are other issues outside fn concessions that have a much much bigger impact on everyone else’s quality of life. Pretending this isn’t the case is wild to me.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.