B.C. Politics Thread

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Fundamentally I think all Canadians should be equal citizens. I don't agree that the UN should set the agenda for race relations in Canada. 1st Nations is a struggle for me to understand how to move forward. I agree with you that the answer is largely economic. !st Nations having a share of projects in their territory is an opportunity for reconciliation. That said I do not believe in 1st Nations veto as I would not for any ethnic group in Canada. 

 

As it stands now 1st Nations has a veto on land use at our Regional District. Building permits require 1st Nation sign off. I am sympathetic to land claims but hard political decisions have to be made so that the province and the country can move forward. Land claims are not a clear cut process. IMHO there are many people other than natives who have jumped on the band wagon in hopes of enriching themselves. It requires open discussion.  

 

more economic freedom = more choice in their lives, what programs they want, what futures they want for their kids, with less need to wait for provincial and federal programs that will more often than not do a crappy job for them. I don't see UNDRIP providing any specific way forward. 

 

Open discussion is critical tho for sure. 

[Optimist Prime]

15 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I have that particular bias as well. I don't know how e.g. Canada should have to support a male only hereditary system in some cases, but dunno, maybe it's over my head. 

 

I prefer to let that stuff play out on its own somewhere and focus more on what groups like the Squamish nation are actually doing to build up their own communities with some very smart folks running their investment and development portfolio. 

 

 

And in Sechelt even when I was a kid the First Nation there was kicking ass and taking names, setting up their own corporations and making bank with their resources. Kind of a Fubu concept but in the early 80s

 

[RupertKBD]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

Don't you think that he may appeal to non first Nations voters though? Particularly where the land use fear is strongest? I thought he spoke to them (and no I don't agree with him).

 

 

I think his comments on UNDRIP will definitely play well to the racist element, who believe nonsense like "Natives don't pay taxes" and "Just want handouts" etc.

 

Those of us white folks who know better, see his comments as little more than a racist dog whistle.

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

I think his comments on UNDRIP will definitely play well to the racist element, who believe nonsense like "Natives don't pay taxes" and "Just want handouts" etc.

 

Those of us white folks who know better, see his comments as little more than a racist dog whistle.

 

I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about the role of the UN without going full racist. And about how we should implement undrip. 

 

Edited October 9 by Bob Long

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

21 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Fundamentally I think all Canadians should be equal citizens. I don't agree that the UN should set the agenda for race relations in Canada. 1st Nations is a struggle for me to understand how to move forward. I agree with you that the answer is largely economic. !st Nations having a share of projects in their territory is an opportunity for reconciliation. That said I do not believe in 1st Nations veto as I would not for any ethnic group in Canada. 

 

As it stands now 1st Nations has a veto on land use at our Regional District. Building permits require 1st Nation sign off. I am sympathetic to land claims but hard political decisions have to be made so that the province and the country can move forward. Land claims are not a clear cut process. IMHO there are many people other than natives who have jumped on the band wagon in hopes of enriching themselves. It requires open discussion.  

The Nation part of First Nations comes from the fact that they are their own separate nations within Canada. It makes sense as treaties can only be made between two sovereign nations. While I don't necessarily disagree with all of your views here I think it's important to discuss why they have this power over their own land, as that power was negotiated as part of a treaty. To deny them that right is to break from the treaty, something Canada has done many times. If Canada doesn't like the terms of the treaty they have the option to renegotiate. Overriding the treaty, without an agreement in place, will do nothing but further the divide and distrust. 

[RupertKBD]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about the role of the UN without going full racist. And about how we should implement undrip. 

 

 

Maybe. But the question you asked was how Rustad's comments would play to non-natives. I gave my opinion.

[RupertKBD]

2 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

The Nation part of First Nations comes from the fact that they are their own separate nations within Canada. It makes sense as treaties can only be made between two sovereign nations. While I don't necessarily disagree with all of your views here I think it's important to discuss why they have this power over their own land, as that power was negotiated as part of a treaty. To deny them that right is to break from the treaty, something Canada has done many times. If Canada doesn't like the terms of the treaty they have the option to renegotiate. Overriding the treaty, without an agreement in place, will do nothing but further the divide and distrust. 

 

Yep. Well said.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Maybe. But the question you asked was how Rustad's comments would play to non-natives. I gave my opinion.

 

true, I just don't think it has to be about racism if you don't like how the NDP has handled the file. Of course the racist folks won't like it, but there's real concerns that have nothing to do with that which I think many people have. 

 

[RupertKBD]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

true, I just don't think it has to be about racism if you don't like how the NDP has handled the file. Of course the racist folks won't like it, but there's real concerns that have nothing to do with that which I think many people have. 

 

 

To be clear....I'm not accusing anyone of racism. I'm saying those with racist views will like what Rustad is selling.

 

In no way am I claiming that his supporters are all racists, nor am I saying that it's racist to have issues with UNDRIP. That being said, I wish people would research and see what it actually entails, before they question it.

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

That being said, I wish people would research and see what it actually entails, before they question it.

 

I have, and I have a hard time seeing what it adds that we didn't have already. I do see it brining more problems than it solves, potentially. We already had a legal duty for consultation. 

 

As an unbinding declaration, sure. New law? I don't see why we need it. 

 

[RupertKBD]

28 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I have, and I have a hard time seeing what it adds that we didn't have already. I do see it brining more problems than it solves, potentially. We already had a legal duty for consultation. 

 

As an unbinding declaration, sure. New law? I don't see why we need it.

 

I fully admit to only skimming it myself, but I didn't see anything alarming. What is it that concerns you?

[Coconuts]

1 hour ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

The Nation part of First Nations comes from the fact that they are their own separate nations within Canada. It makes sense as treaties can only be made between two sovereign nations. While I don't necessarily disagree with all of your views here I think it's important to discuss why they have this power over their own land, as that power was negotiated as part of a treaty. To deny them that right is to break from the treaty, something Canada has done many times. If Canada doesn't like the terms of the treaty they have the option to renegotiate. Overriding the treaty, without an agreement in place, will do nothing but further the divide and distrust. 

 

Good post. Canada can't strong arm things, at the provincial level or otherwise. Rustad talks a lot of bunk for the guy who was Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation under Christy Clark. You think he'd have more education on the matter than most, or maybe not given his personal and family background is resource extraction. 

 

As for all Canadians being equal, in the eye of the law they supposedly are, but in reality that isn't really the case and there are numerous examples of this, Indigenous Peoples being but one.

 

Indigenous Canadians are not like all other Canadians, in terms of law and history it's the Canadian government itself that enacted that distinction. Some things simply can't be undone, and there are those who argue they shouldn't be. History informs the present, and the future, and Canada isn't the only colonial country wrestling with it's history. New Zealand, Australia, and the US are other examples that immediately spring to mind. 

 

For example, the Indian Act. Contentious, but there are those who'd repeal it, keep it, and those who'd amend it. Frankly, it's not up to immigrants and the descendants of colonialists to decide. The presumed push for "equality" is what supposedly underpinned the white paper after all.

 

https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_white_paper_1969/

 

https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1323350306544/1544711580904

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Fundamentally I think all Canadians should be equal citizens. I don't agree that the UN should set the agenda for race relations in Canada. 1st Nations is a struggle for me to understand how to move forward. I agree with you that the answer is largely economic. !st Nations having a share of projects in their territory is an opportunity for reconciliation. That said I do not believe in 1st Nations veto as I would not for any ethnic group in Canada. 

 

As it stands now 1st Nations has a veto on land use at our Regional District. Building permits require 1st Nation sign off. I am sympathetic to land claims but hard political decisions have to be made so that the province and the country can move forward. Land claims are not a clear cut process. IMHO there are many people other than natives who have jumped on the band wagon in hopes of enriching themselves. It requires open discussion.  

Just a point on the bit i bolded. I totally agree with you, but do you see that First Nations peoples in Canada have NOT been equal citizens in any way for multiple generations. In fact for so long that there has yet to be a generation of "Indians" that is treated as equal to the rest of us in any real way. While a great many nations back east were defeated militarily, and some settler offspring in Canada point to that as "you lost the war, get over it"; a great many nations out west were never defeated militarily and instead made Nation to Nation treaties with the founders of Canada, that the Government of Canada inherited under the Westminster system of governance. 

 

So having said that, how do we as a nation of smaller nations, regional districts, cities and municipalities and Provinces and Territories move forward on the rights of indigenous people if not with a universally recognized charter outlining those rights? In short: what is your alternative solution besides "tough titty to you: shouldn't have trusted us to live up the treaty we forced you to sign".?

 

These are tough questions, i admit it, and the road to Truth and Reconciliation runs right through coming to terms on these and other bigger tough questions. I don't pretend to have the correct answers, but recognizing the rights of those who were here before 'us' is a small step in the direction of Reconciliation. 

[Optimist Prime]

I am reminded at how spitting mad my mother was at ''renaming Queen Charlotte Islands to Haida Gwaii, what was wrong with the original name of it?" Until I pointed out the original name was something akin to 'Haida Gwaii', until a boat full of guns and white men sailed into sight. She grudgingly agreed that Haida Gwaii was okay then. She also voted for Trudeau's liberals after a life time of voting Conservative. She drew the line at rainbow painted crosswalks...that was a bridge too far for her as she grew up during WW2, and was pretty stuck in her ways since the 60's.

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

 

I fully admit to only skimming it myself, but I didn't see anything alarming. What is it that concerns you?

 

mainly that I think its a duplication of Canadian law, and its also vague and its not clear how to implement it all. The UN document provides no guidance on that at all.

 

So we see the result in BC so far, with the NDP believing it's OK to try to sneak changes through with no consultation with everyone effected, and the BC con's using it to whip up fear. In the meantime, First Nations are again a political football. 

 

I see it leading to more nonsense from both parties when we should be focusing on real projects. 

 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Optimist Prime said:

So having said that, how do we as a nation of smaller nations, regional districts, cities and municipalities and Provinces and Territories move forward on the rights of indigenous people if not with a universally recognized charter outlining those rights? 

 

1. UNDRIP provides no guidance on implementation. We are still stuck having to figure it all out. 

2. We already had those rights recognized, how does duplication help? 

 

I guess the UN is supposed to be providing some sort of guide post, but I don't see where it helps dealing with actual on the ground solutions. I do see it having the potential to create more conflict and being unattainable in its language. 

 

[Boudrias]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

1. UNDRIP provides no guidance on implementation. We are still stuck having to figure it all out. 

2. We already had those rights recognized, how does duplication help? 

 

I guess the UN is supposed to be providing some sort of guide post, but I don't see where it helps dealing with actual on the ground solutions. I do see it having the potential to create more conflict and being unattainable in its language. 

 

Many posters are saying there are exisitng treaties which have been violated. In my area there is no treaty. The recent treaty with the Haida is somewhat unique. If memory serves 120% of BC is being claimed by various tribes. In my area the Colville nation is claiming a large part of the Okanagan and Kootenays. Their claim is rejected by the West Bank and Kootenay tribes. I have no problem with civil cases where there is breach of contract. Asking questions does not make someone racist. That is simply a way of shutting down discussion. 

[RupertKBD]

22 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

mainly that I think its a duplication of Canadian law, and its also vague and its not clear how to implement it all. The UN document provides no guidance on that at all.

 

So we see the result in BC so far, with the NDP believing it's OK to try to sneak changes through with no consultation with everyone effected, and the BC con's using it to whip up fear. In the meantime, First Nations are again a political football. 

 

I see it leading to more nonsense from both parties when we should be focusing on real projects. 

 

 

Sorry, I missed it....what did the NDP try to sneak through?

[RupertKBD]

6 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Many posters are saying there are exisitng treaties which have been violated. In my area there is no treaty. The recent treaty with the Haida is somewhat unique. If memory serves 120% of BC is being claimed by various tribes. In my area the Colville nation is claiming a large part of the Okanagan and Kootenays. Their claim is rejected by the West Bank and Kootenay tribes. I have no problem with civil cases where there is breach of contract. Asking questions does not make someone racist. That is simply a way of shutting down discussion. 

 

Who's saying that?

 

I thought I made it clear that I was not doing so....

[Bob Long]

22 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Sorry, I missed it....what did the NDP try to sneak through?

 

 https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/les-leyne-ndp-retreats-on-land-act-blames-dog-whistle-politics-8339967

 

there's a lot more on it if you want to go looking but this pretty much covers it. 

 

 

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

27 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

 Asking questions does not make someone racist. That is simply a way of shutting down discussion. 

I don't think anyone was saying anyone else here is a racist, in fact I don't believe it even if someone did say it. Hopefully my comments were not interpreted that way. 

 

it is hard to have a conversation on the topic which is certainly in the vein of 'racial' considering the subject matter, but that doesn't make anyone asking or anyone trying to answer questions racist, not by any stretch. Sorry if my comment several posts above was taken that way. I was merely trying to provoke critical thinking of existing paradigms, not accuse or insinuate any racist tendencies in anyone involved in the chat. 

[kilgore]

About the debate,

 

I thought Sonia Furstenau of the Green Party was clearly the best speaker.  Which helped elevate her issues.  She hammered away mostly on affordable housing. Highlighting seniors concerns for affordable housing as they age. I have those concerns myself.  I also liked her community health centers idea. Over waiting decades for one huge corporate like hospital, probably over-budget and 5 years delayed, built to sometimes serve hundreds of square miles of patients.  I hope she can win a few seats.  My only concern with her appeal is vote splitting with the NDP, allowing the Cons to slip into a majority position even with getting a minority of the vote.  Damn it, we had a brief window in BC to move to a more PR voting system and it didn't meet the 60% threshold, arbitrarily set by the BCLibs. following a big misinformation campaign about it. I would love to have more Greens to balance the polarity.

 

Eby was fine. I thought he could have answered the criticism about the backtracking on the open drug use issue a little better. I thought he could have been more forceful in defending the fact that at least they were trying something. The situation is critical. Why not try options that may seem radical? It didn't work in the end, but he should never apologize for at least trying new ideas to combat the overdose , and unsafe drug epidemic. 

I also think Eby could have linked Rustad more to the MAGA movement and its negativity lies, conspiracies, and paranoia, and aligned with the populism of Harris and the 'we're not going back' mantra (to the old Social Credit days). But in general, I think he was successful in portraying himself as an intelligent competent person to lead the Province.

 

Rustad blew a lot of dog whistles, but had no substance. In the old days, it was Conservatives who always demanded having a costed out platform for their opponents. Now its they who have some fantastical platform where they will, in an about face, now put just as much into healthcare as the NDP, around 4 billion.....instead of cuts.  Where, how? They certainly are not going to tax their wealthy donors and friends any more to do it.  Cons only platform, ever, is cutting "wasteful spending" on seniors, disabled, affordable housing, public education and other pubic programs and healthcare. And privatizing, ie. selling off to those same wealthy donors, once public resources, at dirt cheap prices. Say good bye to relatively cheap auto insurance. Once things go private, they don't go back.

[Bob Long]

30 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

In my area the Colville nation is claiming a large part of the Okanagan and Kootenays. Their claim is rejected by the West Bank and Kootenay tribes.

 

no idea how something like this gets sorted out. 

 

One of my concerns is the issue of hereditary rights claims. If we go by that, a literal handful of people control BCs land, even over the rights of elected bands. Again, UNDRIP is silent on how that is dealt with, but it provides a mechanism for endless argument. 

 

I understand the impulse to want to support UNDRIP in spirit. What really happens on the ground is another thing altogether and I think it actually has the potential to hurt more than help. 

[RupertKBD]

9 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/les-leyne-ndp-retreats-on-land-act-blames-dog-whistle-politics-8339967

 

there's a lot more on it if you want to go looking but this pretty much covers it.

 

Yeah, I don't know....it doesn't seem all that egregious to me. I read the article that this piece linked to and it seems like a lot of fear mongering from Falcon and Rustad:

 

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/bc-scraps-proposed-changes-to-land-act-amid-consultation-controversy-8339020

 

For sure, there's a lot of "poli-speak" from both sides of the issue, but I just don't see it as all that bad, TBH....

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Yeah, I don't know....it doesn't seem all that egregious to me. I read the article that this piece linked to and it seems like a lot of fear mongering from Falcon and Rustad:

 

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/bc-scraps-proposed-changes-to-land-act-amid-consultation-controversy-8339020

 

For sure, there's a lot of "poli-speak" from both sides of the issue, but I just don't see it as all that bad, TBH....

 

I guess it depends on how you view the talk on consultation. Cullen tried to sneak it though and had to back track. IMO that really got the BC con's a lot of momentum.  

 

It probably won't bring down Eby, I think the polls are pretty clear it will be a small NDP majority, but it sure made things a lot closer than anyone would have predicted. 

 

It also leaves the question open about where the proposed legislation will go, and what happens after that. It's always easy to promote the big motherhood statements but actually getting it right takes real work.