B.C.’s Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth recently penned a message to all British Columbians which essentially goes as follows: if only you unwashed masses were smart enough to see what he and his enlightened NDP really were up to, you’d understand just how right they are and how wrong you are
to be worried about reconciliation, property rights and the economic future of the province.
Referring to the recent Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision—which ruled fee simple private property title was “defective and invalid” in part of the area where Aboriginal title had been declared—Ravi Kahlon wrote in the Vancouver Sun that the decision had “created confusion about what reconciliation means in practice.”
British Columbians, at least in the eyes of Minister Kahlon just don’t understand that they have nothing to worry about and it’s really all the court’s fault.
Kahlon is clearly echoing his boss, Premier David Eby, who accused the courts of “overreach” rather than owning up to his government’s failure to defend the public interest in Richmond as vigorously as it could have.
Dismissing the valid concerns of voters as “confusion” about the ruling not only disrespects the citizens Kahlon and his colleagues are supposed to serve, it misrepresents the reality of Cowichan’s landmark decision, and ignores the stark economic consequences already underway in B.C.
DRIPA gives First Nations veto power
In his OpEd, Minister Kahlon went further, confirming what critics of the NDP’s reconciliation agenda have been saying and his government has repeatedly denied: that DRIPA gives First Nations veto power.
Aboriginal title is indeed recognized in Section 35 of the constitution, but nowhere in the constitution or in previous court rulings has First Nation’s consent been required to proceed with projects on Crown land or claimed territory. The Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia ruling in 2014 made this explicitly clear.
“Consent,” i.e. a veto, is fast becoming de facto government policy when it comes to land use management and resource development. DRIPA’s so-called section 7 consent-based decision-making agreements are not required by any law. In the context of Crown land or legally unproven claimed territory, the BC NDP government has voluntarily imposed a consent standard as laid out in UNDRIP and is in no way a constitutional or Canadian imperative.
Read the full article at Northern Beat: Dismissing private property worries as ‘confusion’ misrepresents reality