The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.
The article I read stated there was language that could be interpreted to give private land ownership rights to FN.
Did that article rhyme? Did someone in it not like green eggs and ham? Was his name Sam?
No actually. It was from National Post. But thanks for your link, another perspective always good with the news.
I’m inclined to believe the other tho, just based on the government’s (Lib/NDP/Con) history of saying “Nothing to see here” when something has potential to backfire and piss off a lot of voters.
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
JelloPuddingPop wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 6:25 pm
That link I provided has the actual legal agreement, or you can also look it up directly.
Get it from the horse's mouth as they say. Not just a reporter/writer/media slant.
There is a hard to read embedded version in the article. The actual link goes to a dead web page.
From reading the agreement, and other rabbit holes, we seem to have language creep going on. "Aboriginal Rights" has been replaced by "Rights and Title". And everywhere, it is said to be the same thing. It obviously isn't.
The first nations rights have gone way too far. How can a band of FN people who number 1500, have the rights to a large chuck of Vancouver? It makes no sense. Anyway, as I mentioned before, Alberta has all of their FNs treaties signed and settled, so that won't happen here. Too bad BC didn't do the same when they had a chance way back when.
Whale Oil Beef Hooked
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it" - Yogi Berra