Discussion UNDRIP: land owners loosing their rights

I first heard about UNDRIP ( the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People) three years ago. My thoughts were, NO WAY?!
This document originated in Canada as an ideology. When the story came out regarding the mass graves from the indigenous schools ( you can read the book "Grave Error"on that subject) Trudeau announced the situation a genocide and the United Nations gave Canada its blessing to implement UNDRIP. Trudeau made it Federal Law.

British Columbia went one step further and added it to Provincial Law calling it DRIPA (Declaration of the rights of Indigenous Peoples Act). No other jurisdiction in the world has done this.
Last month the federal government released an agreement with the Musqueam Tribe that is a rights recognition framework that officially changes how the federal government not only views ownership but also management in the lower mainland. The government is acknowledging that not only do the Musqueam's have claims to the land but that they hold aborigianl title within their traditional territory. This is the 3rd land claim to happen in British Columbia. The Squamish and the Kawatchewan (spelling?) Band are the other two tribe's that have successfully obtained land rights in the court of law.

Freedom of Information (FOI) requests made by the public to receive more information about this situation have been denied. The government has implemented a new policy that information regarding anything to do with the First Nations will be off limits to FOI requests



The UNDRIP document can be found in the Waterloo Region Information Archives on this site

So, based on what the government is doing in B.C. should the other provinces be concerned about loosing their land rights??
I say YES. The land acknowledgement that has been voluntarily implemented into schools, theatres, government meetings is a sign of the psychological nudging that could explode this into much more.

I first read this and thought the same thing, like this sounds way bigger than what people are talking about publicly.

KevinH said:

I first read this and thought the same thing, like this sounds way bigger than what people are talking about publicly.

Click to expand...

I think it is big, but maybe not in the way you’re framing it. It’s more of a legal evolution than some sudden takeover.

wait so like… is this actually affecting regular people right now or is it more behind-the-scenes stuff

FickleLogic said:

wait so like… is this actually affecting regular people right now or is it more behind-the-scenes stuff

Click to expand...

I think it's mostly behind-the-scenes for now. It affects governance, land use decisions, and legal recognition more than everyday life, at least currently.

CristianB said:

I think it's mostly behind-the-scenes for now. It affects governance, land use decisions, and legal recognition more than everyday life, at least currently.

Click to expand...

Yeah but that’s kind of how big changes usually start. Quiet at first, then more noticeable later.

KevinH said:

Yeah but that’s kind of how big changes usually start. Quiet at first, then more noticeable later.

Click to expand...

Exactly. People saying “it’s no big deal” are ignoring that these frameworks shape future decisions.

immagooglethat said:

Exactly. People saying “it’s no big deal” are ignoring that these frameworks shape future decisions.

Click to expand...

The FOI request denial is the weirdest part to me. Why shut people out of information unless there’s something controversial?

Vieris said:

The FOI request denial is the weirdest part to me. Why shut people out of information unless there’s something controversial?

Click to expand...

Or it could be for privacy or legal reasons. Not every restriction means something shady is happening.

Svant said:

Or it could be for privacy or legal reasons. Not every restriction means something shady is happening.

Click to expand...

Sure, but completely blocking access creates unnecessary suspicion. That’s just bad policy optics.

I think both things can be true, there could be valid reasons, but also poor communication making it look worse than it is.

LilyB said:

I think both things can be true, there could be valid reasons, but also poor communication making it look worse than it is.

Click to expand...

ok yeah that makes sense… still feels kinda confusing tho ngl

FickleLogic said:

ok yeah that makes sense… still feels kinda confusing tho ngl

Click to expand...

That’s because it is complicated. Land rights, legal title, and governance aren’t simple topics.

But the concern about “losing land rights” isn’t completely baseless. If authority shifts, that’s still a loss of control in some sense.

I think people are mixing up ownership and control. Those aren’t always the same thing legally.

Photeo said:

I think people are mixing up ownership and control. Those aren’t always the same thing legally.

Click to expand...

True, but for most people, control is what actually matters day-to-day.

KevinH said:

True, but for most people, control is what actually matters day-to-day.

Click to expand...

And historically, Indigenous groups had neither ownership recognized nor control respected. That’s kind of the point of these changes.

Svant said:

And historically, Indigenous groups had neither ownership recognized nor control respected. That’s kind of the point of these changes.

Click to expand...

The timing is what makes people question it though. The genocide statement, then policy changes, it feels connected politically.

PCVGuy said:

The timing is what makes people question it though. The genocide statement, then policy changes, it feels connected politically.

Click to expand...

everything governments do is political that doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong

MasonT said:

everything governments do is political that doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong

Click to expand...

I’m not saying it’s wrong, just that it influences how people interpret it.