The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - August 13, 2025


British Columbia property rights under threat because of politicians pandering


Episode Stats


Length

24 minutes

Words per minute

177.00854

Word count

4,413

Sentence count

231

Harmful content

Misogyny

3

sentences flagged

Hate speech

8

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

BC Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young rules in favour of the Cowichan Indian Band Council in their land dispute with the federal government. This means that the Crown no longer has any claim to Crown land. This sets a precedent that puts private property rights at stake.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Hey guys, Wyatt Claypool here. In this video, I want to give more context to and discuss the situation in the city of Richmond, British Columbia, where a BC Supreme Court Justice, Barbara Young, a Stephen Harper appointee, by the way, ruled in favor of the Cowichan Indigenous Band Council, who were asserting that they had Aboriginal land title over top of areas that the federal government, provincial government, and municipal governments owned.
00:00:29.320 But that also put private property rights at stake because, effectively, this decision says the Crown never had any right to have that land, and it is Aboriginal land, which means that even fee simple title private property, which was granted by the Crown, saying that this is zoned for fee simple title land, that that is also basically in dispute.
00:00:52.620 The case was not taking away private property rights, but it was obviously setting a precedent that your private property rights sit a little bit lower than Aboriginal land title.
00:01:03.680 And so I want to talk a little bit about the political context around this particular decision, and also talk a little bit about the video that Northern Perspectives made.
00:01:14.180 I think they're great at research, but I did think they got some aspects of this case wrong.
00:01:19.360 They've been saying that people are wrong and saying that this is basically stealing people's private property.
00:01:24.640 That is wrong if people were saying that. I don't think any court decision would actually lead to that.
00:01:30.660 But I think that they were, in correcting certain people on social media, they ended up overcorrecting and making it seem like this case does not have any implications for private property.
00:01:42.540 It absolutely does. Yes, it's not about private property, but it's about Crown land.
00:01:47.800 And if the Crown didn't have the right to have Crown land title over any of it, that means that the Crown did not have the ability to grant fee simple title to any of the land,
00:01:59.040 which means that down the road, you could end up in a situation where you have to pay a portion of your property taxes to the Cowichan Indigenous Band.
00:02:08.940 And by the way, to state it out front, this has nothing to do with the average Cowichan person.
00:02:14.580 This is the band council. It's the reconciliation industry lawyers and consultants.
00:02:20.660 This is not actually having to do anything with normal Indigenous people.
00:02:25.080 In fact, it doesn't benefit them at all.
00:02:27.300 Many are still not going to be living in very good areas.
00:02:30.420 They do not have individual property rights themselves.
00:02:33.220 And this is just basically giving a band council, a government, a bunch of collective rights over a general area of land.
00:02:41.020 Again, and it's making a lot of lawyers and consultants rich. 0.79
00:02:44.580 The political context of this is that all the people who are acting shocked over this decision were helping to engineer it from the start.
00:02:53.520 That includes Premier David Eby, that includes John Rustad, as well as the former D.C. Liberal Party, which John Rustad came from and was the Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation Minister under Christy Clark.
00:03:08.220 The man has signed over 400 agreements that look a lot like the agreements that many people have been criticizing from the NDP.
00:03:15.940 But now he acts completely divorced from the whole situation.
00:03:19.820 And like this is just a random judicial happenstance or it's just reflective of the NDP's inaction.
00:03:28.260 No, much of this is actually to do with things that John Rustad was doing a decade ago and voting for just a little over a year ago.
00:03:37.180 So I'm going to break this down in a little bit more detail from the previous time I did it.
00:03:43.360 But before I get into it, guys, I just want to remind you, if you are in the province of British Columbia, please sign the petition that we have out at the 1BC party because we actually want to defend property rights.
00:03:56.180 We actually want to challenge the reconciliation industry, DRIPA, UNDRIPA, and the current constitution in Canada that allows things like this to happen.
00:04:06.440 We can't just say that it's wrong and that we should appeal it.
00:04:09.300 We need to change laws. 0.91
00:04:10.920 We need to fight back against stuff like this so that we don't just merely try and push back some of the excesses.
00:04:17.300 We get rid of all of it because right now the situation is not good for Indigenous people or every other British Columbian. 0.96
00:04:24.040 It sucks for everyone unless you're a consultant lawyer or you're sitting on an Indigenous band council.
00:04:30.520 But anyways, let's go back to the start.
00:04:33.380 So that petition link will be in the description below as well as pinned at the top of the comments.
00:04:37.500 Sign it if you want to organize with a party that actually wants to take care of the situation.
00:04:42.800 This all basically mainly originates, although a lot of it started before 2019,
00:04:48.140 a lot of really lopsided land deals were being signed by John Rustad as the Indigenous minister back before 2019 under Christy Clark.
00:04:57.380 But it really heated up in 2019 when the BC and DP were in power.
00:05:03.380 When this law was passed, DRIPA, D-R-I-P-A, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act,
00:05:12.500 which is basically enshrining UNDRIP, which is the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
00:05:18.840 DRIPA is a slightly watered-down version.
00:05:21.600 It's not as crazy with how it tries to define Indigenous land claims.
00:05:26.960 And when I say it's not as crazy, I mean UNDRIP would basically say 100% of British Columbia is Aboriginal land title.
00:05:34.480 DRIPA is like maybe 75% of it is.
00:05:37.800 That's the only nuance here.
00:05:39.560 And this recent ruling in Richmond shows that pretty much anything can be argued to be Aboriginal land title.
00:05:44.500 But this was, if you can see here, a unanimous vote on November 28th, 2019,
00:05:52.360 the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia unanimously adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
00:05:58.660 Yes.
00:05:59.360 So this was bipartisan nonsense between the then BCNDP, BC, or the then BC Liberals, the BCNDP, and the BC Greens.
00:06:09.800 Now I want to jump ahead a little bit further, a little bit closer to today.
00:06:15.940 I'm just, we're just going back to April of 2024 now.
00:06:19.740 Here is a publication called the Tai, a publication I would not normally read.
00:06:25.940 But this is an article about the island of Haida Gwaii.
00:06:30.720 I actually said St. Catherine Islands the other day.
00:06:33.780 I meant to say Queen Charlotte Islands.
00:06:35.840 I'm not from British Columbia, so sorry if I messed up those names.
00:06:38.460 But this is an article entitled, What's Next for the Historic Haida Agreement?
00:06:44.220 This is dated the 25th of April, 2024.
00:06:48.000 And it says, BC United and Conservative parties plan tough scrutiny in the legislature.
00:06:52.720 Now that sounds like then BC United leader Kevin Falcon and BC Conservative leader John Rustad
00:06:59.860 were, you know, closely, like, scrutinizing this agreement.
00:07:03.600 This was, like, you know, a ridiculous thing for them to have done.
00:07:06.220 But Rustad quite literally praised the decision, and then he pretended to walk it back in public.
00:07:12.700 But you will notice a pattern with John Rustad.
00:07:16.860 David Eby is at least honestly crap.
00:07:19.800 John Rustad is dishonestly crap at his job.
00:07:22.840 And so in the legislature, he will praise stuff like this, and then he'll go on social media and say,
00:07:27.860 well, I don't quite agree with it, at the same time he votes in favor of it, because he did, in fact, vote for this.
00:07:33.900 And it says here,
00:07:34.760 And though his comments would be more critical a day later, Conservative leader John Rustad,
00:07:42.680 a former BC Liberal Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation,
00:07:47.040 said in the legislature that he supports title.
00:07:50.480 And this is a decision where they were giving the Queen Charlotte Islands, now named Haida Gwaii,
00:07:55.760 it was still named Haida Gwaii at this time, but they were giving all the land title, 100% of the land title to the Haida Nation.
00:08:06.140 All of it was Haida Nation, which really just means it's Haida Band Council, because let's be clear,
00:08:11.180 if you're an individual indigenous person that people on band council don't like,
00:08:15.680 they're not going to respect your property.
00:08:17.880 There was literally a property on Haida Gwaii that was bulldozed, because the people who owned it were associated with a guy who was a gang member,
00:08:27.800 you know, dealing drugs, I think he murdered somebody, bad, but you don't get to bulldoze someone's house for being related to them.
00:08:35.000 And that happened, and was given very little criticism.
00:08:38.960 But this is the quote from John Rustad at the time,
00:08:42.040 quote, this is a path that we need to do to be able to bring predictability, certainty for indigenous and non-indigenous alike,
00:08:50.220 Rustad said, adding that economic reconciliation is key,
00:08:54.120 quote, the vision of being able to provide for your children and your grandchildren,
00:08:58.640 for them to be able to have the future that you want for them,
00:09:01.440 is something I think that we all share, all peoples in this province share.
00:09:06.520 And then the article goes on to say, although he had some questions,
00:09:09.760 Rustad said the bill was an important step, and he supports it, congratulating the Haida. 1.00
00:09:14.420 He added, quote, I look forward, quite frankly, to make sure that,
00:09:18.320 assure that as this process goes forward, the interests of all people in British Columbia
00:09:22.320 are taken into consideration so that true reconciliation can be achieved.
00:09:26.860 And then he goes on to basically criticize it as an infringement of private property on X.
00:09:31.860 But I don't know why he says one thing in the legislature, and then he says the populist thing out front.
00:09:36.540 Right now, you have some BC conservative MLAs criticizing this decision.
00:09:42.260 Rightfully so.
00:09:43.520 The problem is it doesn't really jibe with all the other things that the conservatives are doing.
00:09:48.840 Here is something else that John Rustad did.
00:09:55.220 This is something I didn't even know about during the election.
00:09:57.440 This was reported on September 30th, 2024, during the election.
00:10:03.100 And it says, Rustad promises to promote economic reconciliation on Orange Shirt Day.
00:10:08.560 And then there's this very concerning part of the text of this article.
00:10:15.060 It says that John Rustad says,
00:10:16.640 The BC conservatives are committing to returning 20% of land volume in the province to First Nations.
00:10:23.280 So 20% of what the indigenous population collectively does not already own will then be given to them. 0.80
00:10:30.740 20% is quite crazy.
00:10:32.800 And again, this isn't benefiting a single individual indigenous person because these agreements,
00:10:38.180 these land transfers don't mean that you get a parcel of land as an indigenous person.
00:10:42.500 You can farm it.
00:10:43.240 You can create a logging company.
00:10:44.960 You can't do anything.
00:10:45.780 The band council doesn't want you to do it.
00:10:47.800 You're not doing it.
00:10:48.540 And they probably won't want you to do it.
00:10:50.200 Because if you become prosperous, it's harder for the band council to go to the government
00:10:54.520 and try and guilt them into giving them money if their people are actually able to go get prosperity for themselves.
00:11:01.120 So we have indigenous people being held hostage both by the government,
00:11:04.900 both by their own band councils, as well as the consultants and lawyers
00:11:08.620 who end up incentivizing the system to move onwards inside the reconciliation industry.
00:11:14.120 But what a thing to say.
00:11:15.300 He wants 20% of the land volume in the province returned to First Nations. 0.97
00:11:20.080 Well, what's wrong with the Richmond decision then?
00:11:23.040 It's been apparently proven in court that back in the day, this may have been a portion of their land.
00:11:29.360 This may have been a village some time ago.
00:11:31.640 So why shouldn't they be able to have land title in the city of Richmond over government properties
00:11:36.780 and potentially private property in the future?
00:11:39.580 Again, I'm going to get to the Northern Perspectives video later.
00:11:42.040 And they're great researchers, by the way.
00:11:43.500 I think they almost got too nuanced in this video where they were like over-reading or they were under-reading it
00:11:49.400 because they were only talking about the exact outcomes of the report or of the ruling.
00:11:53.760 But what's actually wrong in John Rustad's mind that they get to have Richmond,
00:11:58.980 that they get to potentially have the ability to tax people in Richmond because it is their land and you're occupying it?
00:12:04.420 And it says, quote, this is Rustad,
00:12:07.540 Returning land to First Nations is critical for achieving economic self-sufficiency. 1.00
00:12:11.820 While addressing legal uncertainty surrounding rights and title,
00:12:14.960 the approach will help resolve longstanding issues related to Section 35 of the Constitution,
00:12:19.920 which recognizes and affirms the existence of Indigenous and treaty rights for First Nations.
00:12:25.320 Now, the government is appealing this decision and they should appeal it in court.
00:12:29.340 At the same time, I would say they should probably, the BC NDP government, although they're probably not,
00:12:34.500 they should be using the notwithstanding clause and saying, we don't care.
00:12:37.340 You do not get to claim Aboriginal title over literal urban suburban cities.
00:12:43.240 That's insane.
00:12:44.460 And you could say that, well, Section 35 was one of those parts of the Constitution that you can't notwithstanding clause through.
00:12:50.440 There's nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that it's an Aboriginal right to be able to claim things like property in the city of Richmond,
00:12:59.060 because a long time ago it technically wasn't ceded over, and because it wasn't ceded over, it could still be there.
00:13:07.040 If it's unceded and someone, it's called squatter's rights.
00:13:10.820 Somebody's been using it, you weren't using it, and now we're not just going to roll back the clock
00:13:15.420 and say that that person who was farming in an area that they didn't know was yours,
00:13:18.600 now just has to rip all the stuff out of the ground and plow it back over and turn it into just, like, you know, hinterland.
00:13:24.380 That makes no sense.
00:13:26.440 But, so yeah, that's something that he said in that video or in that interview.
00:13:33.600 John was in favor of giving land back.
00:13:37.600 He is literally a land-backed politician, just like the land-backed activists.
00:13:41.760 He thinks one-fifth of the entire province should have Aboriginal say over everything that goes on there.
00:13:48.420 That's ridiculous.
00:13:49.300 You will never get a major project built in a lot of areas if that was true,
00:13:53.440 and the fact that John basically supports DRIPA and UNDRIP makes this almost impossible.
00:13:58.800 Now, he'll say he's against DRIPA, D-R-I-P-A, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act,
00:14:04.200 but then he'll say in the next breath, I support UNDRIP, which is the worst version.
00:14:07.840 And then his own executive director, which I showed in my previous video, Angelo Isidoro,
00:14:14.220 on a podcast with an actual lefty guy, Mo Amir, who was blown away that he said this,
00:14:19.820 he said that DRIPA is effectively now a free vote in caucus because he implied that the three people who used to be part of the party,
00:14:27.300 Dallas Brody, Tara Armstrong, and Jordan Keighley,
00:14:30.080 that they were very rude to people by thinking that they all had to agree with them,
00:14:34.200 even though they wanted people to agree with them on things the B.C. conservatives had in their platform.
00:14:40.440 That's apparently intolerant, and that, you know, but, and Angelo heavily implies that DRIPA is one of those things people should be able to disagree on
00:14:48.660 because people like Peter Milobar and Alia Warbus are in favor of it.
00:14:54.680 By the way, it's like day six or seven, and Alia Warbus has not said a single word because she's a woke person.
00:15:00.460 She is a B.C. conservative, M.L.A., from Chilliwack, Cultus Lake,
00:15:05.280 and she literally made a documentary celebrating somebody getting a medical transition,
00:15:10.280 a medical transgender transition.
00:15:12.540 That was something she made a documentary about celebrating,
00:15:15.700 which is a little odd for a conservative,
00:15:18.120 basically celebrating somebody doing irreparable damage to themselves,
00:15:22.960 but who am I to judge?
00:15:24.920 But now let's jump over to what John says about DRIPA.
00:15:28.700 Well, we're going to get rid of it, but, you know, maybe we'll still keep UNDRIP,
00:15:33.480 which is literally the worst version.
00:15:35.460 This is a six-second clip from the Breaker podcast to make my point here.
00:15:40.580 We are going to repeal DRIPA, but we will keep using UNDRIP as we move forward with economic reconciliation.
00:15:45.860 We're going to keep UNDRIP?
00:15:50.640 DRIPA is UNDRIP, effectively.
00:15:52.380 I don't know what he's even talking about here.
00:15:54.880 But again, now he's trying to celebrate,
00:15:57.240 oh, look, we got the NDP to appeal the decision.
00:16:00.100 They were going to appeal the decision anyways.
00:16:02.460 And this is weak deed.
00:16:04.040 The B.C. government should be passing a piece of legislation.
00:16:06.540 They should be using a notwithstanding clause in order to say that every single municipality, city,
00:16:13.040 you know, suburban area cannot have Aboriginal title placed over it.
00:16:17.060 If there is private property on that area, it cannot cover Aboriginal land title.
00:16:22.040 Even if you want to have a certain area that's close to a reserve be Aboriginal land title,
00:16:26.720 which maybe we can argue about,
00:16:28.400 I'd rather Indigenous people just be given private property rights like the rest of us 0.99
00:16:32.460 and be able to prosper without having to walk completely away from the territory that they live in.
00:16:37.660 You know, for an Indigenous person to own private property, 0.91
00:16:39.980 they basically have to leave their entire community and go live somewhere else in order to find it.
00:16:44.820 They can't have private property on their own territory, which is sad.
00:16:48.520 They should be able to have private property within their own lands.
00:16:51.780 It's like we want to respect the Indigenous people's connection to their lands,
00:16:55.840 but you better not try and open your own small business on the territory.
00:16:59.200 Or if people on the band council don't like you, they'll just bulldoze your building.
00:17:03.580 But again, we were, it was whispers, nothing from John.
00:17:06.900 When this happened on Haida Gwaii, he celebrated it.
00:17:09.480 And then he criticized the decision after he celebrated it.
00:17:12.220 But, you know, that's neither here nor there.
00:17:14.240 And then he kicked Dallas Brody out of the BC Conservatives
00:17:17.040 for calling out the Kamloops Indigenous,
00:17:19.920 or the Kamloops Residential School grave hoax,
00:17:23.080 which, by the way, is very relevant to all this.
00:17:25.380 How do you think people get lopsided agreements signed to them?
00:17:30.160 Well, you're not going to sign it.
00:17:31.680 It's like you are basically besmirching the memories of those children who were buried there,
00:17:37.320 even though there's no dead children under that residential school.
00:17:40.680 But the whole point is that the hoax allows you to basically enter a meeting with the upper hand.
00:17:46.380 Really, you're not going to sign an agreement the year after the Kamloops Residential School thing happened?
00:17:51.740 And Dallas Brody defending lawyers for saying that they shouldn't have to be forced to repeat that untruth
00:17:57.740 in order to get certified by the BC Law Society bar,
00:18:02.060 that that was somehow racist or whatever.
00:18:05.180 That was somehow intolerant.
00:18:07.180 And Rust had kicked her out after she went on Frances Widowson's podcast 1.00
00:18:10.240 and made fun of postmodernists for basically saying that you should have to basically just accept anything told to you
00:18:17.720 because it's somebody else's truth, in which many of these people are just making things up.
00:18:22.540 Their grandmother didn't tell them this.
00:18:23.880 Nobody told them this.
00:18:24.920 They just made it up.
00:18:26.360 And that's pretty much it.
00:18:27.520 Some people believe it in good faith, but the people who discovered it originally
00:18:30.780 are the people who should know better and have the evidence at hand to tell them that this did not happen.
00:18:36.100 But so now, after I've talked about all that, again, sign the 1BC petition.
00:18:42.140 We actually want to do everything we can to stop things like this happening,
00:18:46.000 not just saying, can we appeal?
00:18:48.060 Can we get an appeal?
00:18:49.480 Can we figure this out in like three years?
00:18:51.140 And when we lose, we'll just go silent again?
00:18:53.380 We actually want to change as much as we can to prevent this stuff.
00:18:57.020 So sign that petition, description below, top of the comments.
00:18:59.540 Now, I want to move over to the thing that Northern Perspectives had said.
00:19:04.720 And again, they do great videos.
00:19:06.320 I love Northern Perspectives content.
00:19:08.220 I thought in their video, they were a little bit overwrought in claiming that this doesn't have anything to do with private property.
00:19:16.000 I know there were some cranks on social media saying,
00:19:18.640 this is going to have an Indigenous person steal your house from you. 1.00
00:19:22.160 It's like, no, that's not what it's saying at all.
00:19:25.100 The whole point, though, is it's saying that the title must be respected.
00:19:28.300 And so a lot of, if they ever challenge private property rights, the precedent is that you would lose effectively.
00:19:34.620 That's what the judge said.
00:19:36.900 So they were mostly only reading the executive summary.
00:19:40.320 And people who went a little bit deeper were finding the quotes from the judge,
00:19:43.980 acknowledging that, yes, the case only had to do with Crown land, you know, municipal and provincial lands.
00:19:49.800 But that because the Crown granted those private property, that private property rights,
00:19:55.760 the fee simple title land, because they were the ones who created it.
00:19:59.440 Well, technically, that was illegitimate.
00:20:00.960 So Aboriginal title, in theory, if they challenged that private property, would overrule the fee simple title.
00:20:07.040 So here we have this quote that Jamie Sarkonic has highlighted.
00:20:13.540 This is from the judge.
00:20:15.000 And it says, however, the Cowichan have not challenged the validity of the private fee simple interests.
00:20:21.060 And those interests are valid until such a time as a court may determine otherwise,
00:20:25.440 or until conflicting interests are otherwise resolved through negotiations.
00:20:29.140 And so it says, while I agree with BC that the private landowner's fee simple interests are valid and remain so for the time being,
00:20:38.720 I do not agree that the recognition of the Cowichan's Aboriginal titles is appropriately defined with reference to those interests.
00:20:46.440 So basically, it's just that the judge is saying that right now we don't really know if private property rights.
00:20:53.820 We have not ruled on it, so we're in stasis right now.
00:20:56.380 We will continue with the idea that your private property rights mean something until such a time that we have another case where we rule otherwise.
00:21:05.140 And then Jamie Sarkonic here, we read this on the other video, but this is basically saying that I don't think Northern Perspectives may have seen this stuff,
00:21:13.620 or maybe they just kind of ignored it.
00:21:15.420 I don't know.
00:21:16.520 But Jamie Sarkonic said, notably, the Cowichan didn't ask the courts to extinguish private title, only government title.
00:21:23.980 They held back a bit.
00:21:25.000 We haven't seen the full power of the Aboriginal title.
00:21:27.620 The judge implies here that private property is on the chopping block next.
00:21:32.880 Because this is one of the judge's points.
00:21:35.160 It says, finally, BC submits that the plaintiff's contention that a declaration of invalidity would not impact private interests is of little comfort.
00:21:47.440 The only comfort of the plaintiff's offer non-party landowners is their assertion in this proceeding that they do not seek to invalidate those fee simple titles.
00:21:57.400 The basis on which they seek a declaration of invalidity against Richmond and Canada, the FPA, could be turned against the private landowners next.
00:22:06.900 And then it goes on to say, and then Jamie says, in this spectacular rollercoaster of a paragraph, the judge scolds Richmond's lawyers for bringing up a big picture concerns about what his will will do to the economy, what this will do to the economy, and the integrity of the property system.
00:22:23.600 And then she agrees with them on yellow.
00:22:25.740 I just want to jump down to the yellow part because this is the part that is very telling.
00:22:30.600 It says, a precedent that will follow from this case is that the provincial crown grants of fee simple interest do not extinguish nor permanently displace aboriginal title.
00:22:43.080 Yeah, so that's a bit of a problem.
00:22:45.620 And I remember there's another quote.
00:22:47.040 It's not here, but they say that we don't have to determine how much aboriginal title exists in the context that private property rights are already there.
00:22:56.620 We have to determine how much private property rights still exist now that we've recognized aboriginal title if that case is brought.
00:23:04.740 So, yes, this does affect private property.
00:23:07.760 No one's home is being stolen from them, like some people may have said.
00:23:10.980 But it's also not a case where it has nothing to do with private property.
00:23:14.780 Does the literal case have nothing to do with it?
00:23:17.220 Does what the judge was directly ruling on have nothing to do with it?
00:23:20.600 Yes, but the implications of the case, the precedent, and the judge's comments have to do with a simple interest being undermined.
00:23:29.040 So, I will probably just leave it there.
00:23:31.400 Again, Northern Perspectives does great research, and they are correct in debunking people who are claiming things like,
00:23:39.980 this is your land being stolen from you, you're going to have your property confiscated.
00:23:43.600 No, but you could imagine a world where the Cowichan indigenous band could argue that while, yes, you have your private property already there,
00:23:55.000 and they have no interest in taking it from you, because probably a court wouldn't let them go that far,
00:23:59.820 they could say, well, because we own the land, in effect, it's our land title,
00:24:05.080 the city or you directly must pay us a certain portion of property taxes, because it's our property.
00:24:12.260 That's where you could see this going.
00:24:13.800 Yeah, are you going to have your home confiscated?
00:24:16.180 No, but maybe they can block certain things from being built without oversight from them, without extra sign-off.
00:24:23.020 Maybe they could tax you more.
00:24:24.700 There could be a lot of things that could come out of this.
00:24:26.660 In fact, the whole case is on an 18-month pause before the ruling actually takes effect.
00:24:31.800 While the two sides negotiate how they're actually going to resolve
00:24:35.460 Aboriginal title being placed over the city and what the city's going to do to, like, honor it in some way.
00:24:42.020 But anyways, so that should be it for me today, guys.
00:24:45.020 Make sure to like the video, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment, do all that great stuff,
00:24:49.000 and sign up on the 1BC petition if you live in the province of British Columbia.
00:24:54.560 I'll see you guys all later.