The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - INSANE： BC Judge says Aboriginal title overrules Private Property rights!

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, Wyatt Claypool here. Yesterday in British Columbia, we had what may be one of

00:00:06.840 the dumbest legal decisions ever made in Canada come down. A judge ruled after a five-year-long

00:00:13.760 court case that yes, Indigenous land title also extends to places like Richmond. If you don't

00:00:21.160 know Richmond, it's a city connected to Vancouver that is a mixed urban and suburban area. But now

00:00:28.020 the Cowichan Indigenous Band has land title over it, and it means presumably that if you're the

00:00:34.360 government or private resident and you want to build a house or you want to make major renovations

00:00:40.120 to your house, put up a shed, you may need to get Indigenous Band Council approval by the Cowichan

00:00:46.400 Band in order to do so. Because this is what already happens in places like Powell River. If you want to

00:00:54.000 build a wooden dock off of your property into the water in Powell River, you may have to go through

00:00:59.920 an archaeological dig, you may have to pay for an Indigenous consultation, you may need extra

00:01:05.680 environmental inspections in what is in effect a reconciliation industry shakedown. So what this

00:01:12.700 judge has done is said that those shakedowns can extend into urban areas where everyone would have

00:01:18.760 laughed at you for suggesting that it would have gone to just a couple of years ago. This is absolutely

00:01:25.900 insane, and I'm going to break it down for you guys in this video. But before we get into it, I just want

00:01:31.760 to say if you are a resident of British Columbia, if you are a voter in British Columbia, check out the

00:01:38.660 petition I have in the description of this video below, as well as pinned to the top of the comments. I work with

00:01:44.760 the 1BC party, and we are trying to push back on this attack on property rights and make sure that we

00:01:51.300 change the laws and we try and change the charter in Canada in order to prevent these shakedowns from 0.89

00:01:57.120 happening, in order to prevent people from having effectively their private property stolen from them,

00:02:02.640 or they now have to share it with people who don't have any real legitimate claim to the land other

00:02:08.980 than these historically wide sweeping claims that because it's historical territory, they must still

00:02:15.960 have title over it and decision making powers for it. But anyways, now let's get into it. The first

00:02:23.760 person to report out on this court case was Caroline Elliott, who said on X,

00:02:29.660 A bombshell judgment was released yesterday by BC Supreme Court declaring aboriginal title

00:02:36.820 over land in Richmond, including private property. If this stands, it has massive implications for

00:02:43.320 private property across BC. Read the highlighted sections for yourself. The one thing I would say,

00:02:49.020 and Caroline Elliott has been very good on this particular file, but one thing I would say is that

00:02:53.540 private property already was undermined by previous decisions, like what is going on in Powell River,

00:02:59.000 like what happened on Haida Gwaii, which I believe used to be the St. Catherine Islands. Those areas had

00:03:06.340 already been basically fully given over to indigenous bands. They had full land title over it, which meant

00:03:11.740 you have these insane stories out of Haida Gwaii, where because somebody was related to someone who was

00:03:17.280 dealing drugs, and I believe murdered somebody, they had their house bulldozed, and the BC government

00:03:22.700 didn't do anything about it because it's the band's land. They can technically bulldoze a house that,

00:03:27.160 you know, it doesn't matter because it's their land. They can do what they want with it.

00:03:31.500 Extending that logic to Richmond is absolutely insane. The idea is that the band council could

00:03:37.100 potentially seize your house from you or say that you can't build a new house after tearing down the

00:03:42.240 old one because they first need to do a bunch of consultations inspections unless you pay a bunch of

00:03:47.300 money. But she suggests that you should read the highlighted sections for yourself, and that is what

00:03:53.320 we are going to do with this decision. So it says here, Cowichan Aboriginal title burdened and burdens

00:04:01.300 the land over which the crown grants of fee simple interest were issued. I find that the Cowichan

00:04:08.560 Aboriginal title, which is grounded in the prior occupation of the Cowichan ancestors and the

00:04:14.200 constitutional protected interest in land, is a senior interest in land vis-a-vis the fee simple titles,

00:04:23.260 which derived from the crown grants. Basically, the whole idea is that fee simple land means that

00:04:30.280 you purchased it, it's your land. But the judge is saying because the crown is the arbitrator over

00:04:37.780 what fee simple land is, meaning that it used to be crown land, that means that because basically the

00:04:44.640 judge is ruling that crown land has basically Indigenous land title over it, that if the crown says that

00:04:51.720 you have fee simple land title, that is then undermined by the fact that Indigenous groups have 1.00

00:04:59.040 land title on the crown land that was then made fee simple, so then the fee simple land has Indigenous

00:05:05.340 land title over it. It's absolutely insane. And this whole case is about whether or not the Cowichan

00:05:12.820 Indigenous Ban Council can control what the government builds. It obviously extends into this private

00:05:19.320 property question because the judge admits it. The judge admits that absolutely, this does affect fee simple land

00:05:25.740 because the crown is what granted the fee simple land, and we are talking about whether or not the crown has the

00:05:31.920 Indigenous land title, the Aboriginal land title that rules above it as another area of authority on the land. So in this 0.88

00:05:40.480 next section, it says, I agree that Aboriginal title is a prior and senior right to land. So they're saying it is above both crown land, and therefore it's also above private property because the crown is what designated this area as fee simple.

00:05:55.480 They go on to say, it is not an estate granted by the crown, but rooted in prior occupation. It is constitutionally protected. The question of what remains of Aboriginal title after the granting of fee simple title to the same lands should be reversed.

00:06:10.480 The proper question is, the proper question is, what remains of fee simple title after Aboriginal title is recognized in the same land. So she is saying that because it's fee simple, that doesn't mean we'll determine the small aspects where Aboriginal title still exists.

00:06:25.480 She's saying the reverse. She's saying the reverse. Let's see how much private property rights really still exist in the city of Richmond now that we are recognizing Aboriginal title over the territory.

00:06:36.480 Let's be clear. This is seized territory. It is ceded to the crown. It is ceded to the Canadian government. The Canadian government, who could do whatever it wanted with it, it then allowed people to be able to purchase the land and make it their own private property.

00:06:53.480 We're not walking things back because the reconciliation industry realized that there was a lot of money to be made in claiming that they actually do in fact have title over large urban areas, just as they do large swaths of mostly unoccupied land and the rest of the province, which still creates massive problems with getting major projects done or people being able to just be able to control their own property.

00:07:16.480 Because they're also trying to do this in the Peace River area. This is what independent MLA, Jordan Keeley has been blowing the whistle on. In his area, they're basically determining that potentially like 70% of all the land in the area could have Indigenous title put onto it, which means that you can't really build or do anything with it without permission.

00:07:37.380 Which then causes a lot of corruption issues because if you need their permission to do every little thing with your private property, well, you have an incentive structure to create a system where you need to pay money in order to have inspections done, in order to have consultations done, in order to have environmental overviews done.

00:07:57.040 They can now do that, and that is what they do in places like Powell River. The pure violation of property rights is what's going down in Haida Gwaii right now. 0.61

00:08:07.160 But now I need to move on to an area of hypocrisy, because one of the people who just came out and said that this is bad is somebody who set up the infrastructure for this to happen.

00:08:20.900 This ruling in Richmond is based off the Haida Gwaii precedent, based off the St. Catherine Island precedent.

00:08:27.040 B.C. Conservative leader, who was the Indigenous minister under Christy Clark, came out to say private property rights are the foundation of our democracy and our country.

00:08:38.840 Any decision that attacks our private property rights needs to be appealed and overturned.

00:08:43.980 Indigenous title and private property rights cannot coexist over top one another. 0.99

00:08:48.000 Losing private property rights on your home, your land, and undermining the rights that underpin our country is wrong.

00:08:55.080 Reconciliation cannot be achieved by taking rights away from one group and giving them to another. 0.52

00:09:02.000 Well, that's a very odd thing for John Rustad to say, considering that he supports DRIPA and UNDRIP.

00:09:08.480 He will say that he supports repealing DRIPA, which is the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act,

00:09:14.420 but then he says he wants all of his policy, if he becomes premier, guided by UNDRIP, which is the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

00:09:22.420 and it's what the current federal government does, uses, in order to deny major project, like, permissions and grants and whatnot right now on a federal level.

00:09:31.560 But now let's jump over to the response from one BC leader, Dallas Brody,

00:09:37.840 who I thought had a great takedown of John Rustad pretending that he really cares about what happened in Richmond.

00:09:43.760 Dallas highlights,

00:09:45.760 John, how can you possibly feign concern over this judgment?

00:09:51.040 You celebrated the Haida Nation Reconciliation Act in April 2024, which declared Aboriginal title over private property on Haida Gwaii.

00:09:59.760 And she has a screenshot from the left-wing newspaper, the Taiyi, that says,

00:10:04.700 when the Haida Nation title reconciliation agreement came to the legislature in April,

00:10:09.580 for example, Rustad praised the Haida on the, quote-unquote,

00:10:13.180 historic step in their long battle to assert their rights to the land.

00:10:16.900 But curiously, he took the occasion to talk at length about himself and his own view of title,

00:10:22.140 a fundamental dimension of Indigenous rights.

00:10:24.980 Quote, this is Rustad speaking,

00:10:26.460 quote, I think it might come as a surprise to some to know that I support title, he said.

00:10:32.740 Then most of his audience in the chamber that day would be familiar with his record as Minister of Aboriginal Relations

00:10:38.440 and Reconciliation in Christy Clark's BC Liberal government.

00:10:43.320 And yeah, that's pretty bad,

00:10:45.900 because everything that Rustad did as the Indigenous minister,

00:10:49.380 the guy who was in charge of reconciliation,

00:10:51.820 set the precedent for that 2024 Act that he supported,

00:10:55.940 as well as what is going on now in the courts.

00:10:59.120 We have the government giving large swaths of land to Indigenous,

00:11:03.860 saying that they have a land title over it.

00:11:07.400 And that was all based on the precedent that Rustad had been setting up,

00:11:11.660 where he signed 426 agreements,

00:11:14.360 I believe,

00:11:15.380 when he was the Indigenous minister.

00:11:17.120 But I want to now jump over to the video reaction to the leader Dallas Brody.

00:11:23.580 Of course, I work with these people,

00:11:25.040 but, you know, I can't help agree when people say things that are very agreeable.

00:11:29.420 Again, petitions in the description below.

00:11:32.040 Sign it.

00:11:32.680 And if you're in British Columbia,

00:11:34.340 because I can guarantee you,

00:11:36.700 the BC Conservatives are not going to do anything about it.

00:11:39.100 Angelo Isidoro,

00:11:40.740 the current executive director of the BC Conservative Party.

00:11:44.140 By the way,

00:11:44.940 great job, Angelo,

00:11:45.880 for putting you guys $4.5 million in debt.

00:11:49.180 Yes, the BC Conservatives are $4.5 million in debt right now,

00:11:53.200 and their fundraising is falling off a cliff.

00:11:55.100 But he, on a podcast with Mo Amir from Van Cullors,

00:11:58.640 a progressive podcast,

00:11:59.600 he went on to criticize people like Brody,

00:12:02.340 Tara Armstrong,

00:12:03.200 the other one BC MLA,

00:12:04.940 and then independent MLA Jordan Keeley

00:12:06.920 saying that they were intolerant of other people's opinions in caucus

00:12:10.360 and that they have to suck it up 0.84

00:12:12.160 if other people are in favor of DRIPA and they aren't.

00:12:15.760 But repealing DRIPA was part of the conservative platform.

00:12:20.080 And then Angelo,

00:12:21.920 the executive director came out

00:12:24.180 and basically said that other people have other opinions on DRIPA.

00:12:27.360 Presumably, that would be Alia Warbus, 0.97

00:12:29.840 Scott McInnes,

00:12:30.820 Peter Milibar,

00:12:31.620 and some of the other woke MLAs like Gavin Dew and Eleanor Sturko.

00:12:36.560 Gavin Dew, by the way,

00:12:37.900 was a big fan of Kamala Harris

00:12:40.040 and was actually a registered Democrat in the United States still.

00:12:44.500 But the thing is,

00:12:46.080 like, that's like a major platform plank.

00:12:49.040 You cannot have a DRIPA be a free vote.

00:12:52.760 Repealing it cannot be a free vote.

00:12:54.520 It is fundamentally what is undermining property rights

00:12:57.460 in the province right now.

00:12:58.800 And when Moamir pushed him on that,

00:13:00.840 I played it in another video.

00:13:02.340 When Moamir said,

00:13:03.340 wait, isn't that part of your platform?

00:13:05.140 Angelo said,

00:13:05.760 well, yeah, it is part of our platform,

00:13:06.940 but you'd have to ask John whether or not it's still something

00:13:09.740 that we would require MPs or MLAs to vote on to repeal.

00:13:13.940 But here's Dallas Brody reacting to the story of this judgment.

00:13:17.560 Just when you thought things couldn't get any more insane in this province,

00:13:22.380 a BC Supreme Court judge has just ruled that Aboriginal title

00:13:26.880 will be recognized over the private lands in the city of Richmond.

00:13:32.440 Wake up, people.

00:13:33.860 Your fee simple title is now uncertain and possibly invalid.

00:13:38.960 And you thought you owned your land.

00:13:41.380 Well, you'd better think again.

00:13:42.940 This is exactly why 1BC has been raising the alarm about the threat

00:13:47.940 that Indigenous claims pose to the future prosperity of British Columbia. 0.75

00:13:53.100 Make no mistake.

00:13:54.760 To undo the damage that this is going to cause

00:13:57.500 will require every one of us to stand up

00:14:00.480 and demand changes to the Constitution of Canada.

00:14:04.180 We at 1BC are here to lead that movement.

00:14:07.720 We will fight for you and fight for the future of British Columbia.

00:14:10.560 Join 1BC to fight for the future of British Columbia.

00:14:13.880 Anyway, so I want to move on to some other details from the case.

00:14:17.180 We've gone over a little bit of it that Caroline Elliott highlighted,

00:14:20.140 but now I want to move on and talk about some of the very strange things

00:14:26.040 that were said during the course of this ruling.

00:14:31.420 So this was highlighted by the former BC Conservative candidate, Brian Berguet.

00:14:36.680 You know, great guy.

00:14:37.340 By the way, most of the MLAs in the BC Conservatives could be great cabinet ministers.

00:14:44.080 They're actually very good conservative people.

00:14:46.260 I'll just name a bunch of them.

00:14:48.320 Heather Maas is great.

00:14:49.640 Lawrence Mock is great.

00:14:50.880 Brent Chapman is great.

00:14:52.080 Brian Tepper is great.

00:14:53.540 I think that some other people I'm forgetting about.

00:14:55.900 I don't want to be rude to them.

00:14:56.880 But there's like, I could probably name like a good 20 of the MLAs

00:15:00.220 who are like pretty good to very good.

00:15:02.260 And they're being held down by John Rustad, Amelia Boltby, Sterko, Dew, and others

00:15:09.280 who don't actually want to be conservative.

00:15:11.500 You know, it's like they're allergic to it.

00:15:13.460 And so they basically have been threatening people into not saying anything conservative

00:15:17.640 on issues like this.

00:15:18.780 You had Heather Maas bring ARPA to the legislature,

00:15:22.520 which is a, you know, reformed Protestant policy group

00:15:26.220 who talks about life issues, you know, pro-life issues and MAID and whatnot.

00:15:31.240 And she had Sterko and Boltby attack her online and in the media

00:15:36.360 for daring to have a Protestant group come to the legislature.

00:15:40.220 That's how much of like that's you will get scolded

00:15:42.620 if you do anything socially conservative in that party right now.

00:15:46.280 But here we have Jamie Sarkonic, I'm bad with last names, people.

00:15:53.960 You've learned this at this point.

00:15:55.780 But she says, regarding private land, the judge Barbara Young,

00:15:59.340 a Harper appointee, takes an ominous tone, private land is valid for now.

00:16:05.240 She also ruled that the crown has a duty to reconcile the competing interests

00:16:09.260 of private landowners and the Cowichan.

00:16:11.780 Who knows what that looks like?

00:16:13.520 And I got to say, sorry.

00:16:16.280 To the Cowichan Band Council,

00:16:18.000 and I don't believe this is representative of most Cowichan Indigenous people.

00:16:22.280 This is the band.

00:16:23.260 It's the reconciliation industry.

00:16:24.880 It is the shakedown industry doing this

00:16:26.780 with a few of the activists from the community.

00:16:29.840 What did they think they were going to build there?

00:16:32.140 Sorry, the city of Richmond being built in an area next to the water

00:16:36.380 was violating their rights to build the same city?

00:16:40.700 Were they going to build the city?

00:16:42.100 I'm sorry, but a lot of these Indigenous communities are very small communities.

00:16:46.280 I don't think that they need land title over the city of Richmond, British Columbia.

00:16:51.440 And let's be clear, if Richmond, British Columbia was not well developed

00:16:55.680 and there wasn't much there and it was just rocks,

00:16:58.120 or it was just a small town with a few scattered houses,

00:17:01.340 they wouldn't want it.

00:17:02.540 They are going after it because there's a lot of money in Richmond, British Columbia.

00:17:05.780 And if you bring the shakedown industry to Richmond,

00:17:08.960 you could make a lot in consultation fees and other land disputes that you can bring to the courts.

00:17:15.220 But then in the highlighted sections, we have Jamie highlighting,

00:17:19.740 however, the Cowichan have not challenged the validity of the private fee simple interest

00:17:25.300 and those interests are valid until such a time as the court may determine otherwise

00:17:29.680 or until the conflicting interests are otherwise resolved through negotiation.

00:17:34.800 So the judge is saying that even though the Cowichan did not actually challenge fee simple title

00:17:40.800 because they were mostly going after government title,

00:17:43.560 that, you know, at a later date, we can determine whether or not the private property rights really matter anymore.

00:17:48.900 But the other things that the judges said basically indicate that, yeah,

00:17:53.000 they would rule against it if they were in that court case

00:17:57.860 because they've already said that no private property rights,

00:18:01.200 we're not seeing what's left of indigenous title or aboriginal title in the face of private property rights.

00:18:06.560 We're going to see how much private property rights are still active

00:18:10.240 once you add aboriginal title to the equation,

00:18:14.580 basically saying aboriginal title, Uber, Alice.

00:18:16.960 And then in this other highlighted part, it says,

00:18:20.720 while I agree with BC that the private landowners fee simple interests are valid

00:18:25.660 and remain so for the time being,

00:18:28.100 I do not agree that the reconciliation of the Cowichan aboriginal title

00:18:31.760 is appropriately defined with reference to those interests.

00:18:35.960 So we can't actually even curb what the Cowichan aboriginal title interests are 0.53

00:18:42.340 in the face of the fact that people already own land there,

00:18:45.040 people have already built houses, they've already built skyscrapers.

00:18:48.300 That's cute and all, basically, the judge is saying,

00:18:51.020 we'll figure out how much of that really matters once this comes back to court at a later date.

00:18:55.520 And Jamie then follows this up, saying,

00:18:59.520 Notably, the Cowichan didn't ask the court to extinguish private title,

00:19:05.820 only government title.

00:19:07.040 They held back a bit.

00:19:08.520 We haven't seen the full power of aboriginal title.

00:19:10.940 The judge implies here that the private property is on the chopping block next.

00:19:15.140 And the highlighted part says,

00:19:16.340 The only comfort the plaintiffs offer non-party landowners 0.80

00:19:20.040 is their assertion in the proceedings that they do not seek to invalidate

00:19:24.380 those fee simple titles.

00:19:26.400 The basis on which they seek a declaration of invalidity against Richmond

00:19:32.400 and the Canada BFPA could be turned against the private owners next.

00:19:37.740 I'm not sure if this is also maybe a dissenting decision from someone else

00:19:40.640 or like one of the lawyers, but this was said in the trial,

00:19:43.420 so that might not be the judge.

00:19:45.000 Jamie then says,

00:19:45.920 In this spectacular rollercoaster of a paragraph,

00:19:51.860 the judge scolds Richmond's lawyers for bringing up big picture concerns

00:19:55.620 about what this will do to the economy and to the integrity of the property system.

00:20:00.520 Then she agrees with them, yellow.

00:20:02.620 So it's first purple, then yellow.

00:20:04.940 First it says,

00:20:05.660 Richmond's submission that a declaration of aboriginal title

00:20:08.500 will destroy the land title system and the LTA,

00:20:12.400 wreak economic havoc,

00:20:14.900 and harm every resident in British Columbia

00:20:16.720 is not a reasoned analysis on the evidence.

00:20:19.700 It inflames and incites rather than it grapples with the evidence

00:20:22.860 and the scope of the claim in the case.

00:20:24.560 Well, this does kind of matter.

00:20:27.560 Judges are supposed to have judgment.

00:20:30.060 They're supposed to be able to say,

00:20:31.480 does this seem reasonable?

00:20:33.100 There is, in fact, a reasonableness kind of threshold in the court

00:20:37.100 where a judge can say,

00:20:38.680 well, yeah, maybe you're technically following the law,

00:20:41.360 but this is not a reasonable application of the law.

00:20:43.960 You are supposed to prevent the law from being gamified

00:20:47.620 to somebody's disproportionate benefit that they really don't deserve.

00:20:52.700 But then the judge goes on to say,

00:20:54.460 a precedent that will follow from this case

00:20:56.300 is that provincial crown grants of fee simple interest

00:20:59.280 do not extinguish or permanently displace aboriginal title.

00:21:04.100 So, yeah, they're basically saying that your private property rights do not affect you.

00:21:09.400 Yeah, and then Jamie says,

00:21:11.000 there's a lot at stake here.

00:21:12.300 I looked up the value for the federally owned lots

00:21:15.200 and found estimates for all but one.

00:21:18.040 They came out to $546,485,000.

00:21:23.700 That doesn't include the municipal lots.

00:21:26.240 And this is just one case.

00:21:28.360 Now, think of all the other aboriginal title claims.

00:21:31.120 So, yes, we are looking at over a half a billion dollars

00:21:34.520 of just the government, the federal government's

00:21:37.540 property that could be affected by this decision.

00:21:42.900 This is why Dallas Brody, Tara Armstrong,

00:21:46.740 actually one of our powerhouses, of course, in the party,

00:21:49.360 Tim Teelman, have been blowing the whistle

00:21:51.500 on the issue of what was called the reconciliation

00:21:54.760 or aboriginal industry.

00:21:57.340 It has turned into an industry of lawyers, consultants, and activists

00:22:01.080 to undermine other people's property rights in order to profit.

00:22:04.960 And by the way, this doesn't help the average indigenous person at all.

00:22:09.320 It's not helping poverty on reserves.

00:22:11.500 It's not helping crime on reserves.

00:22:13.820 It's not fixing the economic disparities between people

00:22:17.400 because it's basically incentivizing people to live

00:22:19.740 where there is no economic development

00:22:21.280 and which economic development will be challenged

00:22:23.720 because there may be more money to be made in courts

00:22:26.200 than actually having sustainable jobs on reserves.

00:22:29.060 This is actually hurting indigenous people's own rights 0.59

00:22:32.900 because the only way the indigenous people have rights 0.99

00:22:35.480 according to the reconciliation industry

00:22:37.920 is through collective rights through the Ban Council.

00:22:41.640 If you're an indigenous person living in Haida Gwaii,

00:22:44.980 you don't have private property rights either.

00:22:46.960 It's banned property rights.

00:22:48.560 It's collective property rights.

00:22:49.940 That's why the Haida Gwaii Ban Council

00:22:53.000 bulldozed someone's house

00:22:54.500 for merely having a connection with a drug dealer

00:22:57.380 and someone who I believe was a murderer.

00:22:59.220 Just having the connection with them,

00:23:00.980 having a family relation with them

00:23:02.640 was deemed good enough to then have a bulldozer

00:23:05.520 destroy somebody's house.

00:23:07.360 Did the RCMP investigate?

00:23:09.180 Did the government declare that we need an investigation

00:23:11.880 of the Ban Council for what just went on?

00:23:14.520 No, they are completely mum.

00:23:17.320 And yes, you're going to have the conservatives

00:23:19.320 making a couple noises about how this is bad,

00:23:21.960 but they don't have a leg to stand on.

00:23:24.060 They are basically trying to walk a rhetorical tightrope

00:23:27.080 where they keep talking about how it's very important

00:23:29.280 that we pursue economic reconciliation.

00:23:31.740 But we oppose DRIPA kind of,

00:23:33.660 but we also support UNDRIP.

00:23:35.620 But like Rustad was very happy with the Haida Gwaii Act,

00:23:40.320 but he's also very proud of his past

00:23:43.100 in signing all these land deals,

00:23:44.840 but the land deals are now going too far.

00:23:46.600 So they'll come out and say,

00:23:47.900 well, the Joffrey Lakes decision saying

00:23:49.980 that only indigenous people can be 1.00

00:23:52.080 in the Joffrey Lakes provincial parks

00:23:54.420 for a hundred plus days out of the year.

00:23:55.940 That's wrong.

00:23:57.240 We shouldn't do that.

00:23:58.320 But then the next breath,

00:23:59.380 they'll say that DRIPA should be defended,

00:24:01.540 that we need our DRIPA land,

00:24:03.620 like that DRIPA legislation needs to be recognized

00:24:07.160 when making decisions.

00:24:08.580 I think I have something to this effect.

00:24:10.920 I just need to pull up here

00:24:12.200 because we had one of the,

00:24:15.580 we had an Alia Warbus basically come out and say this,

00:24:20.160 that we need to be respecting DRIPA in our legislation here.

00:24:25.780 Actually, I have it right here.

00:24:27.480 And so whenever I hear people saying,

00:24:29.000 no, no, no, the party's still against DRIPA,

00:24:30.800 they need to reconcile that claim

00:24:33.780 with the fact that their house leader,

00:24:36.760 their house leader, yes,

00:24:39.540 is saying stuff like this

00:24:41.100 when opposing things like Bill 14 and 15.

00:24:43.920 The conservatives scuffed.

00:24:46.000 Are Bill 14 and 15 good pieces of legislation?

00:24:48.700 No.

00:24:50.040 But the conservatives argued against them

00:24:52.100 from the perspective that they were not

00:24:54.380 pro-indigenous title enough.

00:24:57.020 Check this out.

00:24:57.600 This is a conservative MLA.

00:24:59.360 There needs to be a recognition

00:25:05.260 that it be afforded the time it takes

00:25:11.280 to have the alignment with DRIPA

00:25:15.100 and that indigenous leaders are going to be

00:25:20.880 on side with any changes to legislation

00:25:23.220 that's going to affect them.

00:25:24.660 That's very clear.

00:25:26.480 So we need indigenous leaders to be on side

00:25:29.300 with legislation

00:25:30.320 and probably any other legal decisions

00:25:32.460 that could affect them.

00:25:33.980 So now in that context,

00:25:36.220 we must now align with indigenous leaders

00:25:38.760 over anything that happens in the city of Richmond

00:25:40.740 because they have land title over that land

00:25:43.300 and presumably it now affects them.

00:25:45.700 This is why this kind of philosophy

00:25:48.140 is toxic and dangerous to private property rights.

00:25:52.080 We should be trying to make sure

00:25:53.160 everyone has private property rights,

00:25:54.900 whether it's indigenous Canadians

00:25:56.840 or it's any other Canadians

00:25:58.500 in British Columbia.

00:25:59.600 They should all have private property rights

00:26:01.180 and that's why there needs

00:26:02.160 to be constitutional changes made in Canada.

00:26:04.800 That's why we need to change legislation

00:26:06.780 on the provincial level.

00:26:08.280 That's why we may actually need

00:26:09.640 to use the notwithstanding clause

00:26:10.940 in order to do an end run 0.83

00:26:12.660 around these ridiculous decisions 0.84

00:26:14.040 that are being made. 0.91

00:26:15.660 And I know that indigenous issues

00:26:17.080 are one of those areas

00:26:17.860 where you're not usually supposed to be

00:26:19.220 able to use the notwithstanding clause.

00:26:21.080 I would say just use it anyways.

00:26:23.820 Let the courts try and enforce its decision

00:26:25.640 if they say you can't do it

00:26:26.840 because goodness,

00:26:28.140 this needs to be pushed back on.

00:26:30.000 Anyways, so with that being said,

00:26:32.360 that should be the end of the video.

00:26:33.920 Again, guys, petition is in the description below

00:26:35.980 as well as pinned to the top of the comments.

00:26:38.100 I will see you guys next time.

00:26:39.900 Thank you.

The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - August 09, 2025

INSANE： BC Judge says Aboriginal title overrules Private Property rights!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript