Worried he should be. There are unintended consequences. Do the province and municipalities have to repay taxes collected to folks who's land titles for homes and businesses may be forfeit?
Do the First Nations who claimed the land get the bill for infrastructure and improvements on the property in question? The Province has a contract with existing land title holders in the now questionable provincial land title registry. Will the province compensate for the loss of land they said was legally registered to people? Or will the judge who made the decision be held liable for the costs of loss of legal land title.
This ruling creates a Constitutional Crisis in the area of property rights. Legal possession and use of property, government registered title, and paying taxes on property for over one hundred years does not guarantee property rights in Canada now.
So, all the land in BC will belong to the indians. Does that mean no one will be paying taxes? If so, where does the money come from to pay the indians? Anyone thought about that?
I think the intent is for property owners to pay taxes directly to the Indians instead of the government. But in reality I don't think the natives really expect to win this one, just to further elevate Whitey's sense of guilt for imagined sins and thus extract more $.
A day late and a dollar short David Eby. Now you become concerned about private property concerns, but when you were the Attorney General of BC (before your elevation to Premier) you had the chance to fight the fight for landowners but neglected to finish the job properly. It would be great to hear exactliy what you are now doing for the citizen landowners of BC to solve this.
I just asked AI what it thought of the impact on another province, Nova Scotia, where citizens are regularly treated to land acknowledgments and a reminder that NS is on "unceded land." It said:
Yes, the recent BC decision on Aboriginal title could have implications for Nova Scotia by establishing that government-issued land titles might not be "sacrosanct" and could be challenged by Aboriginal claims, potentially affecting private property ownership in areas with an established Aboriginal title. While the specific details of how this will affect Nova Scotia are still unclear, it establishes a legal precedent that could have national ramifications, including within Nova Scotia, which is Mi'kma'ki.
Potential impacts on Nova Scotia
Precedent for challenging land titles: The BC court ruling is significant because it's the first time Aboriginal title has been established in an urban area of Canada. This could set a precedent that allows for similar challenges to land titles elsewhere, including in Nova Scotia.
Uncertainty for private landowners: Property owners in Nova Scotia might face a new level of uncertainty about their ownership if they are on land where Aboriginal title has been or will be claimed.
Impact on future treaty negotiations: The decision is likely to have an impact on treaty negotiations in Nova Scotia and across Canada, as it introduces a new legal framework for resolving land claims.
Government response: The BC and Federal governments did not defend private property rights in the BC case, which has raised concerns about the potential for the ruling to have significant legal consequences for other land claims. How Nova Scotia's provincial and federal governments respond to this precedent will be a key factor in determining its impact.
Important considerations
The decision is specific to British Columbia: The ruling is based on the specific history and context of the Cowichan Tribes and their historical use of the land in British Columbia.
Legal and political landscape: The full impact of the decision will depend on how courts in other provinces, and the governments involved, interpret and respond to the ruling in the future.
Negotiations and treaties: The BC decision is likely to fuel further discussions and negotiations between Indigenous groups and the government, including in Nova Scotia, which is within the territory of the Mi'kmaq.
Specific treaties in Nova Scotia: It is important to remember that Nova Scotia already has a history of treaties, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760–61. The BC decision may add a new layer to the ongoing interpretation of these treaties and the relationship between the Mi'kmaq and the Crown.
I think we need to begin asking those that recite LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS before meetings if THEY THEMSELVES have GIVEN BACK the land they have purchased. If not, then WHY NOT?
Whoops!!!!
Didn't think this one through Eby??
What a surprise.
Virtue signalling has its costs don't ya know.
Worried he should be. There are unintended consequences. Do the province and municipalities have to repay taxes collected to folks who's land titles for homes and businesses may be forfeit?
Do the First Nations who claimed the land get the bill for infrastructure and improvements on the property in question? The Province has a contract with existing land title holders in the now questionable provincial land title registry. Will the province compensate for the loss of land they said was legally registered to people? Or will the judge who made the decision be held liable for the costs of loss of legal land title.
This ruling creates a Constitutional Crisis in the area of property rights. Legal possession and use of property, government registered title, and paying taxes on property for over one hundred years does not guarantee property rights in Canada now.
So, all the land in BC will belong to the indians. Does that mean no one will be paying taxes? If so, where does the money come from to pay the indians? Anyone thought about that?
I think the intent is for property owners to pay taxes directly to the Indians instead of the government. But in reality I don't think the natives really expect to win this one, just to further elevate Whitey's sense of guilt for imagined sins and thus extract more $.
A day late and a dollar short David Eby. Now you become concerned about private property concerns, but when you were the Attorney General of BC (before your elevation to Premier) you had the chance to fight the fight for landowners but neglected to finish the job properly. It would be great to hear exactliy what you are now doing for the citizen landowners of BC to solve this.
I just asked AI what it thought of the impact on another province, Nova Scotia, where citizens are regularly treated to land acknowledgments and a reminder that NS is on "unceded land." It said:
Yes, the recent BC decision on Aboriginal title could have implications for Nova Scotia by establishing that government-issued land titles might not be "sacrosanct" and could be challenged by Aboriginal claims, potentially affecting private property ownership in areas with an established Aboriginal title. While the specific details of how this will affect Nova Scotia are still unclear, it establishes a legal precedent that could have national ramifications, including within Nova Scotia, which is Mi'kma'ki.
Potential impacts on Nova Scotia
Precedent for challenging land titles: The BC court ruling is significant because it's the first time Aboriginal title has been established in an urban area of Canada. This could set a precedent that allows for similar challenges to land titles elsewhere, including in Nova Scotia.
Uncertainty for private landowners: Property owners in Nova Scotia might face a new level of uncertainty about their ownership if they are on land where Aboriginal title has been or will be claimed.
Impact on future treaty negotiations: The decision is likely to have an impact on treaty negotiations in Nova Scotia and across Canada, as it introduces a new legal framework for resolving land claims.
Government response: The BC and Federal governments did not defend private property rights in the BC case, which has raised concerns about the potential for the ruling to have significant legal consequences for other land claims. How Nova Scotia's provincial and federal governments respond to this precedent will be a key factor in determining its impact.
Important considerations
The decision is specific to British Columbia: The ruling is based on the specific history and context of the Cowichan Tribes and their historical use of the land in British Columbia.
Legal and political landscape: The full impact of the decision will depend on how courts in other provinces, and the governments involved, interpret and respond to the ruling in the future.
Negotiations and treaties: The BC decision is likely to fuel further discussions and negotiations between Indigenous groups and the government, including in Nova Scotia, which is within the territory of the Mi'kmaq.
Specific treaties in Nova Scotia: It is important to remember that Nova Scotia already has a history of treaties, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760–61. The BC decision may add a new layer to the ongoing interpretation of these treaties and the relationship between the Mi'kmaq and the Crown.
I think we need to begin asking those that recite LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS before meetings if THEY THEMSELVES have GIVEN BACK the land they have purchased. If not, then WHY NOT?
I think the SCC has to ban land acknowledgements as fomenting systemic racism and divisions between Canadians pursuing equality for all.
If this holds sounds to me like the crown has many many lawsuits of fraud coming their way.
Excuse my language, but, no shit sherlock!