00:05:57.14026% are not very concerned, while 31% are not concerned at all.
00:06:02.360The ruling in Cowichin Tribes v. Canada, issued by BC Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young in
00:06:09.460August, recognised the tribe's title over about 7.5 square kilometres in southeast Richmond,
00:06:16.700BC, including areas with private holdings.
00:06:19.620While the decision clarified that Indigenous title and private ownership can overlap without
00:06:25.340automatic extinguishments, it has nonetheless sparked fears of uncertainty in property transactions
00:06:31.280and values. It remains unclear how the decision will affect homeowners in the affected area.
00:06:36.680Reports from both individual property owners and at least one business in the area indicate
00:06:42.180the case's already derailed real estate deals, prompting a proposed class action lawsuit
00:06:48.820accusing governments of misleading landowners. Poll breakdowns show regional variations.
00:06:56.960Concern was highest in the interior region of the province, where 36% reported being very concerned,
00:07:04.360compared to 31% in Greater Vancouver and 22% on Vancouver Island.
00:07:10.000So, Cosmin, it does seem that many people in BC are very concerned about land title.
00:07:14.560Were there any other notable revelations from this poll?
00:07:18.320And how could polling like this affect future elections in BC?
00:07:21.960Yeah, Melanie, there were a couple of really interesting nuggets in this poll that go
00:07:27.280just beyond the headline number of a majority. So first, there's demographic splits. And these
00:07:36.420show that concern over private property rights wasn't just limited to rural who tend to lean more
00:07:44.160conservative. It wasn't just limited to those voters. It actually showed up across income levels,
00:07:50.340across regions, across regions, and even among NDP supporters. Like, they're close to half of the
00:07:57.080NDP supporters being concerned or very concerned that their private property is at risk. As for BC
00:08:05.660conservatives, it was almost half of them saying they were very conserved, and they were well above
00:08:11.920the 50% mark overall. So which isn't surprising at all. But what really jumps out is that 45% of NDP
00:08:21.320voters also reported being at least moderately concerned about this. So it's clearly not a fringe
00:08:29.200sentiment. It's bipartisan issue. If there's an election coming up, which some people seem to suspect
00:08:36.080that this is going to be a major component, and it's going to be on a lot of people's minds.
00:08:42.780But then you also have some regional differences. So people, as you mentioned, in the interior were the
00:08:48.080most anxious. And I think it's because they are generally leaning more conservative. But also a lot
00:08:54.120of this, a lot of these claims do tend to be in the interior as well. But even in Metro Vancouver,
00:09:01.980where you usually see more NDP voters, more progressive views expressed, concern was still
00:09:08.560above 30%. So it's not just an isolated reaction to one court case, it's something broader. And it's
00:09:16.700starting to shape how I think British Columbians think about land rights, what they've taken for
00:09:23.280granted with regard to their private property, and housing stability and the role the government
00:09:29.440has played in potentially jeopardizing that. With regard to whether this could affect a future
00:09:36.640election in BC, I think it's an absolutely yes, and maybe more than people currently realize.
00:09:45.360Property rights are one of those sleeper issues that can move a lot of voters at once, especially
00:09:53.040homeowners and people who feel like the system isn't giving them certainty.
00:09:58.120But not only homeowners, because there's a lot of people who aren't in the market yet who don't
00:10:03.920have a house who haven't bought land, etc. And maybe they grew up in British Columbia, maybe they were
00:10:10.520born here, maybe they, you know, move their family here hoping to buy a property. And now all of that is
00:10:17.320up in the air. And they probably feel like they have to abandon the province if there's so much
00:10:24.400uncertainty. And it extends to the business community as well, right? Not only real estate,
00:10:30.520which is a huge issue, but it affects banking, it affects businesses, leases, etc. So if the BC
00:10:38.980Conservatives decide to make this a ballot question, which I think they definitely will, the poll suggests
00:10:47.120they've got a real opening to capture quite a significant amount of the vote. If the NDP continues
00:10:55.700to drop the ball on this. Health Canada finally admitted that yes, Canadian tax dollars are being
00:11:05.500used to fund drug paraphernalia, like crack pipes, directly contradicting testimony given to a health
00:11:13.440committee just weeks earlier. During a House of Commons health committee meeting, Kendall Weber,
00:11:19.800the Department of Health's assistant deputy of Controlled Substances and Cannabis branch, admitted
00:11:26.320the federal government provides funding used to purchase crack pipes, needles and drugs.
00:11:32.080Conservative health critic Dan Mazier opened the committee meeting by asking Weber if she still
00:11:38.160stands by her testimony that Health Canada funds the purchase of crack pipes.
00:11:43.440During an October 2nd committee, Weber said Health Canada merely approved exemptions for drug use
00:11:49.800to locations that supply syringes and pipes. Weber said she quote, really appreciated the opportunity
00:11:57.600to clarify how the federal funds are used. On October 2nd, you testified at this committee that no funding
00:12:04.800from Health Canada was being used to purchase crack pipes. Do you still stand by this answer today?
00:12:10.000Is that good? Can you hear me? Great. I really appreciate the opportunity to clarify the funding that goes from Health Canada to harm reduction projects.
00:12:22.240So while Health Canada does not directly purchase harm reduction supplies, Health Canada does provide funding to community organizations that do invest in prevention, harm reduction and treatment projects.
00:12:35.000And that funding can be used for harm reduction supplies and that funding can be used for harm reduction supplies to minimize the transmission.
00:12:41.360Sorry, Ms. Weber. Yeah, it was a pretty direct question. I said, does Health Canada, is any of the funding from Health Canada being used to purchase crack pipes?
00:12:50.000It was just a yes or no answer. I appreciate the question. Yes, we do provide funding to community organizations for harm reduction tools, including pipes. Yes.
00:12:57.000When Mazier asked if Health Canada funding has been used to purchase illicit drugs, Weber noted that for, quote, a period of time, Health Canada provided funding to three drug use sites for, quote, prescribed alternatives to drugs, but that in general drugs were funded by provincial or territorial governments.
00:13:19.000Weber also noted that Health Canada doesn't require a licensed doctor or nurse practitioner to be present at drug use sites.
00:13:28.000She said practitioners may be on site, quote, at different times and different shifts, but she would have to get back to the conservatives with a written answer to answer with certainty.
00:13:39.420This nonsense about safe supply has really ruled the prevailing view from the liberal government for, you know, the past few years, almost a decade, I would say.
00:13:51.140What are some of the arguments that critics are making and have been making about these drug consumption sites?
00:13:58.700Well, it looks like health critics of these drug consumption sites like Dan Mazier point to a few major issues here, Cosmin, and you hear them clearly in this committee exchange.
00:14:09.700So the first concern is honesty, obviously, and for weeks, Health Canada insisted that it wasn't funding crack pipes at all, and then suddenly admitted that the money does in fact go to these organizations that purchase the crack pipes, syringes, etc., even tinfoil for smoking fentanyl and meth.
00:14:28.960They say that if the federal government isn't transparent about something as basic as where the funding goes, then there's not really much trust left in the program.
00:14:38.860Another argument you hear a lot is that taxpayers are being forced to fund tools that actively enable addiction.
00:14:45.820And so for many Canadians, buying drug paraphernalia isn't harm reduction.
00:14:50.000It's really the government subsidizing the very behavior that people are trying to escape.
00:14:54.380And when Health Canada acknowledges that it doesn't require either a doctor or a nurse practitioner to be present at these sites, critics are arguing that the medical side of the system has completely fallen away.
00:15:07.920So you end up with a drug use facility, essentially, not really a pathway to recovery.
00:15:13.140There's also a frustration that funding is heavily weighted towards harm reduction tools, but far less towards the actual treatment.
00:15:20.180Conservative MP Burton Bailey pushed that very point, that millions are going into pipes and supplies, while far fewer dollars go towards recovery programs that could help these people get off the substances.
00:15:32.300And for certain individuals on the street with substance abuse problems, possibly off the street as well.
00:15:37.260And finally, once taxpayer dollars go into supplying paraphernalia, the government loses the moral authority, really, if you think about it, to talk about prevention.
00:15:45.060It turns into a system where Ottawa is effectively normalizing addiction instead of helping people out of it.
00:15:51.400Now, for a lot of Canadians, that really is the core objection here.
00:15:55.060They don't really want their money purchasing the hardware for drug use, while overdoses continue to rise and treatment access remains scarce.