What are Liberals doing to protect private property rights in Canada after the Cowichan court decision?

[blackbird]

I have not heard a peep out of the Liberal federal government since the Cowichan decision giving ownership of a large area of the city of Richmond to the Cowichan band on Vancouver Island.  Private property ownership is a basic human right.  When are the Liberals going to take action to protect it?  It should have been enshrined in the Charter of Rights in 1982 but wasn't.  It is time to bring in laws and change the Constitution to protect the right to own private property in Canada without it being threatened by FN land claims.  Only one person can own private property, not two entities such as a FN band as well as a the citizens who paid for it and live on it.

Poilievre says Ottawa must protect private property in wake of Cowichan Tribes ruling

 

Edited April 10 by blackbird

[Nationalist]

There is no private property or property ownership in Canastan. The concept is a joke here.

[Queenmandy85]

What is referred to in Canada as "private property" is actually a freehold lease. The question posed by Blackbird does not address the rights of the First Nations. 

[LinkSoul60]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

I have not heard a peep out of the Liberal federal government since the Cowichan decision

The federal government appealed the courts decision last September.  You don't comment and keep active dialogue going with the public while there is a legal process playing out.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The federal government appealed the courts decision last September.  You don't comment and keep active dialogue going with the public while there is a legal process playing out.

A court case cannot stop government from governing and creating new laws and taking action to change the Constitution.  

They might not talk about that specific case, but they can certainly change the laws and Constitution on the ownership of private property.

 

[LinkSoul60]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

A court case cannot stop government from governing and creating new laws and taking action to change the Constitution.  

They might not talk about that specific case, but they can certainly change the laws and Constitution on the ownership of private property.

 

You don't change or create new laws when you're appealing a court decision that would affect those laws in question, and are being litgated.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You don't change or create new laws when you're appealing a court decision that would affect those laws in question, and are being litgated.

Government certainly can and does.  You don't understand how the government works.

They can't comment on a particular court case, but government can continue to function and pass laws.  That is really stupid not to know that.

[LinkSoul60]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Government certainly can and does.  You don't understand how the government works.

They can't comment on a particular court case, but government can continue to function and pass laws.  That is really stupid not to know that.

I think it's beyond stupid to start playing with or amending laws that you are appealing in the courts.  You don't understand how jurisprudence works.  

[blackbird]

24 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I think it's beyond stupid to start playing with or amending laws that you are appealing in the courts.  You don't understand how jurisprudence works.  

You're not making any sense and don't understand how government works.  If government could not pass laws because of somebody taking something to court, you would have no government.  It would cease to function.   Anybody can take something to court anytime.  That doesn't stop government from governing.  Of course government can continue to pass laws when court cases are going on.  This is really elementary stuff.

[LinkSoul60]

Just now, blackbird said:

You're not making any sense and don't understand how government works.  If government could not pass laws because of somebody taking something to court, you would have no government.  It would cease to function.   Anybody can take something to court anytime.  That doesn't stop government from governing.  Of course government can continue to pass laws when court cases are going on.  This is really elementary stuff.

Of course the government doesn't stop governing.  You cannot though go start amending and/or changing laws that you're challenging a court decision on.  Common sense says that is unethical.  Why does that not make sense to you?  I'm sure the government is going to have lots to say when the time is right and it doesn't interfere with their legal arguements.

[blackbird]

An appeal court just gave FNs ownership of a huge island called Nootka Island on the west coast of Vancouver Island depriving the citizens of Canada this large area of crown land and a provincial park.  

Edited April 11 by blackbird

[Queenmandy85]

56 minutes ago, blackbird said:

An appeal court just gave FNs ownership of a huge island called Nootka Island on the west coast of Vancouver Island depriving the citizens of Canada this large area of crown land and a provincial park.  

Perhaps the court is just re-affirming the First Nation's ownership of the land.

B.C. did not negotiate the purchace of the land. Did the First Nations concent to the transfer of title of the Richmond area and Nootka Island to the Crown? You haven't addressed the rights of the First Nations.

Edited April 11 by Queenmandy85

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Perhaps the court is just re-affirming the First Nation's ownership of the land.

B.C. did not negotiate the purchace of the land. Did the First Nations concent to the transfer of title of the Richmond area and Nootka Island to the Crown? You haven't addressed the rights of the First Nations.

What you're saying must be some kind of joke.   The whole of B.C. and maybe Canada is claimed by various FNs.  If you think all the land of B.C. belongs to FN because B.C. did not negotiate it, you better go back to where your ancestors came from.  You and most of the 40 million people in Canada must be living here illegally according to you.

[Queenmandy85]

47 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What you're saying must be some kind of joke.   The whole of B.C. and maybe Canada is claimed by various FNs.  If you think all the land of B.C. belongs to FN because B.C. did not negotiate it, you better go back to where your ancestors came from.  You and most of the 40 million people in Canada must be living here illegally according to you.

That pretty much sums it up. So, how would you propose settling the issue in a way that recognizes the rights of First Nations and the rest of the population? If you have a fair solution to this, I would love to hear it. 

 

[herbie]

No matter how many times the Natives tell you they aren't after your private property, you're not going to listen.
You're going to continue to spread the lie that that they are and that is that, so there's simply no point to discuss. Continue to circle jerk with others of a similar mindset..

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That pretty much sums it up. So, how would you propose settling the issue in a way that recognizes the rights of First Nations and the rest of the population? If you have a fair solution to this, I would love to hear it. 

 

So called FNs have no special rights above anybody else.  The idea they do is a pure invention by activists and people like yourself on the liberal left who fell for it.  It is an ideology believed by many Communist leaning progressives.

The world was settled by people migrating from somewhere else.  The idea that settlers who arrived later should pay compensation is not a universal idea and has never been an established belief.

This is how England was settled.  Nobody paid compensation to previous occupants.  

quote

The settlement of England can be traced back to several groups:

Celtic Tribes: Before the Romans, England was inhabited by Celtic tribes, including the Iceni, Brigantes, and Trinovantes. AngloSaxons: After the Roman withdrawal, Germanic tribes, including Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, began settling in England around the 5th century. 

Normans: The Norman Conquest in 1066 brought Norman settlers from France, who significantly influenced the English language and culture. 

Vikings: In the late 700s, Viking raiders from Denmark and Norway settled in parts of England, particularly in the north and east, known as the Danelaw. 

These groups collectively shaped the historical landscape of England, leading to the formation of the modern English identity.

2 Sources  unquote

Canadians have paid aboriginals billions of dollars in various ways.  Canada has built homes for them, provided water systems, health care, education, and various other things.  

The idea that we owe them fortunes for huge parts of the province that they never really occupied is nuts.  They lived in little settlements in various locations and sometimes travelled from there to other areas to hunt and fish, and sometimes to conduct war against other tribes and take slaves.  We do not owe them a cent for the vast unoccupied areas that they now claim as their "traditional territory".  There is no proof that they even occupied much of these vast areas.  Much of it is far from the villages where their ancestors actually lived.  It is nothing more than a money or land grab.   They know Canada has a weak justice system and political system that is open to being exploited.  They have many university-trained professional activists who have been trained how to milk the system.  They have trained legal experts who know how to work the system and that is what is happening now.  

Edited April 11 by blackbird

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

You and most of the 40 million people in Canada must be living here illegally according to you.

No, the terms of our being here  just need to be properly codified is all.

Britain told it's Governors of Canada's provinces to do this but they didn't so here we are grappling with it now.

Remember what your religion says about render under Caesar yadda yadda? This is just another one of those times when plebes like you are expected to just...submit and suck it up.

[Queenmandy85]

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

The idea that we owe them fortunes for huge parts of the province that they never really occupied is nuts.

That is what the court must decide. This is not the age of Alfred. This is the 21st century where we settle issues in court.  In Canada, we sublit our grievances to Court and we accept their decision. Yes, the First Nation has availed themselves of top legal advocates. That is their right. So does the Crown and the other parties involved. 

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

On 4/10/2026 at 5:43 AM, blackbird said:

I have not heard a peep out of the Liberal federal government since the Cowichan decision giving ownership of a large area of the city of Richmond to the Cowichan band on Vancouver Island.  Private property ownership is a basic human right.  When are the Liberals going to take action to protect it?  It should have been enshrined in the Charter of Rights in 1982 but wasn't.  It is time to bring in laws and change the Constitution to protect the right to own private property in Canada without it being threatened by FN land claims.  Only one person can own private property, not two entities such as a FN band as well as a the citizens who paid for it and live on it.

Poilievre says Ottawa must protect private property in wake of Cowichan Tribes ruling

 

This is entirely the result of two NDP moves:

1. The federal NDP didn’t support having the protection of property be in our Constitution (unlike in the US).

2. The BC NDP government signed on to UNDRIP (UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People), which the BC top court now references as an excuse to hand over land to natives, stripping title from property owners.

These moves may end up being the undoing of Canada, because working people who buy a home and struggle to pay the bills may not like having their property taken away. Go figure.  

Edited April 12 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is what the court must decide. This is not the age of Alfred. This is the 21st century where we settle issues in court.  In Canada, we sublit our grievances to Court and we accept their decision. Yes, the First Nation has availed themselves of top legal advocates. That is their right. So does the Crown and the other parties involved. 

 

 

Except that the courts are full of government appointees and the laws/policies that they claim to uphold are hugely problematic, especially in BC

[eyeball]

I'm pretty sure our universal human rights are considered superior because they're inherent to our human dignity rather than granted by a national or provincial law. If push ever comes to shove that's what I'd base my case on.

I'm indigenous to Earth with universal human rights, I'm in the same place I've always been and everyone will just have to deal with it. But no one will be kicking me out of my house.

 

[John Johnston]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm pretty sure our universal human rights are considered superior because they're inherent to our human dignity rather than granted by a national or provincial law. If push ever comes to shove that's what I'd base my case on.

I'm indigenous to Earth with universal human rights, I'm in the same place I've always been and everyone will just have to deal with it. But no one will be kicking me out of my house.

 

That is until the Vogans blowup Earth to put in an Offramp. 

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm pretty sure our universal human rights are considered superior because they're inherent to our human dignity rather than granted by a national or provincial law. If push ever comes to shove that's what I'd base my case on.

I'm indigenous to Earth with universal human rights, I'm in the same place I've always been and everyone will just have to deal with it. But no one will be kicking me out of my house.

 

My people were in your area to buy smokes around 10 years ago.  We’re claiming your property. Buddy’s already got the flaming garbage can on your front lawn.  S’all good bro, you can live in the attic.  Slavery was an important part of my people’s culture, so your kiddos can make meals for my family and friends.  Don’t worry, you can buy the groceries through me.  No GST.  This is a joke but you get the point: What is the statute of limitation on land claims? What is title to property worth if the land on which you own a home can be turned over to people?

Edited April 12 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

What is title to property worth if the land on which you own a home can be turned over to people?

Around $950k according my last BC assessment and the government can take it away anytime it wants.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

My people were in your area to buy smokes around 10 years ago.  We’re claiming your property.

Bully for you claim away.

BTW have the Cowichan told anyone to get out or go back to where they came from yet?