Shaun Newman Podcast - #950 - Barry Kirkham

Episode Date: November 12, 2025

Barry Kirkham is a prominent Vancouver-based lawyer with over 50 years of experience in civil litigation, specializing in alternative dispute resolution, insurance litigation, and corporate commercial disputes. We discuss the landmark B.C. Supreme Court decision Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and the land claims of Kamlooops, New Brunswick and Quebec.Tickets to Cornerstone Forum 26’: https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone26/Tickets to the Mashspiel:https://www.showpass.com/mashspiel/Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]Bow Valley Credit UnionBitcoin: www.bowvalleycu.com/en/personal/investing-wealth/bitcoin-gatewayEmail: [e-mail] Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail] your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Wednesday. How's everybody doing today? Yeah, happy hump day.

Well, let's start with a little precious metal, shall we? I'm just on Silvergoldbull.com. Checking out the charts today. as I sit here right now, 5788, 27 an ounce for gold. And a year ago, 3647. That is a giant mountain climbing. It had a bit of a dip, and it seems to be going back up. Either way, if you're interested in keeping tabs on gold, silver, and other metals,

silver gold bull, obviously the place to go to buy, sell, store. Also, you can check out their charts. They got the daily chart going on for, you know, gold. gold, silver, and a bunch of other things. That's where I go to check it out. When it comes to silver and gold, you can go down on the show notes and talk directly to Graham. You can get all his contact details down there, whether you have questions around any of the deals

going on today or around buying, selling, storing, using your retirement accounts to invest at precious metals. Look no further than Silver Gold Bowl. You can find them at silvergoldbill.ca.com, depending on what side of the border you're on, and just make sure to reference to Sean Newman podcast when you're making your purchases. Bo Valley Credit Union, buying and selling Bitcoin has. never been easier. Bow Valley Credit Union has developed the first in Canada Bitcoin Gateway, with just a few clicks

you can buy Bitcoin directly from your Bow Valley Credit Union account. And the Bitcoin you purchase through the Bitcoin Gateway is real, truly yours, securely stored, insured, and never leveraged. Custody is provided for you with no risk of losing seed phrases, complicated technology, or fear of hackers. Just visit Bow ValleyCU.com for more information. Diamond Seven Meets. Yeah, right here in Lloyd Minster, it's a family-run business with over 26 years

of service offering more than just retail cuts. They provide livestock processing for farmers and ranchers in Saskatchewan and Alberta, including custom sausage making for both domestic and wild game. If you don't have your own animals, no worries, their retail section connects you directly with the producer, offering you sides or quarters of beef, pork, and lamb. Their experienced staff can help you fill your freezer with exactly what you need. You can find them on the north end of town, Highway 17 and 67th Street north, or better yet, Give Diamond 7 call.

Give them a call today. 306, 825-9718. Caleb Taves, Renegate Acres. They got the community spotlight. Well, November 22nd, Quick Dick, McDick, live in Lashburn, now sold out. The SMP Christmas Party December 20th, now sold out. And the Mashfield, January 17th, that sold out. All right.

If you're, sorry, Tews. Sorry, Sean, I guess. If you're looking for some fun, a little bit of curdling, maybe you just want to come and hang out. January 17th, it's going to be a mash-up meetup of the community there. We're going to be having a little bit of fun in Kalmar, just west of Ladook. We've got 12 teams left, teams of four or individuals. You can either sign up.

You can find that down in the show notes, and looking forward to seeing a bunch of you there. The Cornerstone Forum returns March 28th, And the latest announcement is Sam Cooper is going to be in attendance for that. Tickets on sale now, early bird tickets on sale until December 31st. So make sure you don't wait too long. Get your ticket. Get your hotel room.

Everything is at the West and Calgary Airport. So everything is at one-stop shop this year. We're going to test this out. Looking forward to you all being there. And, well, the Cornerstone Forum returns, folks. Get your tickets today. If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Rumble, X, Facebook, make sure to subscribe make sure to leave a review make sure to share with a friend if you're

enjoying the show all right let's get on to that tale of the tape today's guest spent over 50 years of the lawyer i'm talking about barry kirkham so buckle up here we go podcast, today I'm joined by Barry Kirkham. Sir, thanks for hopping back on the podcast. Glad to be here, John. You know, the first time we chatted, we talked all about

the Coetian tribe and the land claim and the title disputes and everything else. And, you know, since our first time of chatting, I just feel like it's progressed, you know, a month. And if I was smart about this, Barry, I would have brought up

and I can do it real quick here for people who are listening don't want to know here let's just pull this up real fast the first time you're on was episode 904 so people interested that was september 1st so we're a couple months past there and there's just i don't know more developments i would say on on not only the cowherne tribe but now camloops having a claim against the entire city uh curious your thoughts and and what you're you know seeing in the tea leaves so to speak of of what's happening in BC? Well, there haven't been any legal development since we last talk. The situation is what it is, as handed down by the trial judge in the college and decision. And that's the law unless and

until an appellate court interferes, which I hope it will. What's changed, I think, is the perception. I mean, this issue has been essentially unknown, except to certain people like me that focus on it a lot. And now the Aboriginal title has been declared over private homes, such that the private homeer's title have basically been evaporated without their knowledge that was even happening. now people are starting to catch on. As to the ramifications of this, the Camloops disclosure isn't something, again, that's new. That lawsuit was filed 10 years ago, and it's a lawsuit that claims Aboriginal title

over the whole city of Camloops and entire areas. So it's been around for a long time. What's happening is people are realizing that these claims to Aboriginal title are province destroying threats that could wipe out the existence of British Columbia. Now, from a court standpoint, you hope they intervene.

What has to happen for that, like to change the ruling? Like, what has to go on or what can go on to, I don't know, stop this in its tracks? Because if this goes through, it's going to set, as far as I understand,

Barry, you can correct me. It's going to set legal precedent that they have to, you know, no, it's happened here. Why can't it happen, you know, in the city of Kamloops? And then, you know, further out, we're seeing it pop up now in Quebec in New Brunswick. What it would have to happen in order for this to go no further? Well, what has to happen is, I mean, this case is ultimately going to get to the Supreme Court of Canada. And they have to figure out a way to undo the damage. they did in their previous decisions.

In their previous decisions, they were dealing essentially with claims to Aboriginal title over Crown Land. And there was no case before them where a claim was made over a fee simple title of a business or personal. That's what's happened in college, and that's a whole new level of applying Aboriginal title. And my hope and expectation,

an expectation is that ultimately Supreme Court of Canada will realize the utter folly of what they did in previous cases dealing with Crownland and figure out a way to save fee simple titles of businesses and individuals from claims to Aboriginal title and save British Columbia. If they don't, the end is nine. I mean, they're claiming, there's over 200 Indian bands in B.C. and they've got cross claims. So they're fighting. each other as well as us but they claim the whole province including uh households so that's what that's what has to happen is there's been going to Canada has to come to grips with the horrors that they've created with their prior decisions and work out a way that we can all survive a lot a lot of people don't have a lot of faith in the supreme court of Canada what gives you faith that they because i mean i guess if they they they don't this will eventually affect every landowner in bc like it could i mean so the current law is this a claim to original title is dependent upon the indian band proving that they had exclusive occupation of the area in

1844 that being the date of the oregon treaty where the crown uh exercised sovereignty over british Columbia. So that's the key date. If the Indian band can prove that it was an exclusive occupation of a given area in 1844, then nothing that matters since, nothing that's happened since makes any difference at all. For instance, in the Cowiching case, the tribe established, according to the Charles Judge, with what I think is absurd findings of fact based on full of errors, but anyway, there are the findings of fact, found that they had a summer fishing village in 1844 and that that was exclusive occupation. The fact that they left the area completely a few years later and that it was then, the colony then issued fee simple titles made no difference. The Aboriginal titles still

exists today because they were there in 1844. What they had in 1844, of course, could have been bought for a few blankets. I mean, the line wasn't worth anything. And And there was lots of a few treaties made in BC where the Indian bands surrendered their claims for some blankets and a little bit more. Now they inherit land that at trial was worth billions and billions of dollars that they've had absolutely nothing to do with creating. And they just walk in 180 years later and claim it, including over all the simple title horrors. So that's the horror that's been created by this decision. And the risk is that it's going to apply everywhere in the province, as long as they can. can show they were there in 1844. Now, that's not the whole province, but who knows how much

it is? It could be a very big chunk of it. And the fact that T-Simple title holders have been there for 150 years is no protection against the claim. So I don't have any faith in the Supreme Court Canada at all, in fact, just the opposite. But what I'm saying is you ask what can be done, that's the only thing I know, or short of a constitutional amendment, that's the only thing I know that can be done. The Supreme Court has to recognize that what they've created is a monstrosity that can't exist and they'll come to their senses and find a way to preserve fee simple title from these claims that are an Aboriginal title based on some occupation that temporarily happened in 1844 and was abandoned after that.

It just doesn't make any sense. But we'll see whether they'll do it or not. I don't know. But that's the only outcome, the only resolution, the only alternative is a constitutional amendment to get rid of Section 35, abolish out original title. And politically speaking, that's, you know, I would think, you know, very unlikely. What's the timeline for, for, because like, you know, people are certain, you, you, you mentioned, like, well, this has been around for a while. It's not like they just got put in yesterday and they, oh, yep, like this is going back a decade.

And people are just starting to get wise to, holy crap. this is going to affect us oh yeah it's going to affect you immensely and now they're they're you know i've seen different uh groups getting together talking trying to figure out what can be done etc uh when it when we look at the timeline of things how long is there date set or anything in the future of when the supreme court is going to weigh in on this like no there's no there's The normal course of events is an appeal first to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Now, there's a complicated case. It was five years in trial.

I mean, the idea of assembling appeal books, which includes all the documents and trial and all the transcripts of all the evidence at trial. They don't have to do that, but that's what they can do. It's an enormous job. And then the hearing of the appeal from a case this complex. I mean, it could go on for a long time. There's no timeline, but I would expect at a minimum, it's two years before, and then after the case is fully argued, you've got a long delay when a court of appeal writes its judgment. I mean, this judge took over a year to write

her judgment. And the issues are so, so huge and complicated, it'll take a well. So I would think we're at least two years. There's no fixed timeline. I'm just estimating at least two years to get a decision from the court of appeal perhaps longer. And then undoubtedly leave would be granted by the Supreme Court to take it there. And that'll be another two years. So I don't think it'll get a battle answer on this for years. And there's no way of speeding up the process. It's just so complex with so much to deal with and two courts having to hear it all, that that's just the time it's going to take. If you own land in this, let's just stick with Cowichin for the time being,

there's nothing you can do with your land for the next five years, essentially. Well, that's the big uncertainty, Sean, because the Cowichin, for their own reasons, chose not to name the individual landowners as defendants. There was an application that they should be notified and the judge said it was necessary so they weren't even notified much less became parties they didn't learn about this till after the fact so because they weren't parties the judge could not deal with their titles directly what she did say is that the Cowich and have Aboriginal title over their titles that Aboriginal title is

supreme and that the prep protection under the Land Titles Act if these simple titles doesn't apply so she's essentially found their titles to be invalid, but the Kaua Ching can't take possession of the individual properties unless and until they start a new action, naming the defense, and actually asked for an order for possession. If they did that, I don't think there's any defense. They'd get that order. Now, they postured that they aren't claiming, they don't want to claim against private owners. That's just nonsense.

They did claim against the private owners. They claimed their land and they got an order to their land. So they're just, what they're trying to do is say, oh, we're really good guys, we're really not after your titles. Well, they are, and they've got an order that they have the land and own it. So that's where the owners are now. If I was a lender, if a lender came to me, should I advance a mortgage on one of these titles, as you know, I'm a lawyer, I would have said, don't do it. I mean, you've got no security. That land can be taken away like that, if the Indians choose to take it.

Yeah, and you think like you're sitting there, you're a homeowner, you're a business owner, you know, you've got all this money invested there because it didn't cost you nothing to get. It would have cost you hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars or more. And now you're sitting there. Nobody's going to lend to you because it's like, well, that's a poor decision. No one's going to buy your title. Nobody's going to buy it. So you're stuck. In fact, there's a recent, I'd roll of a start again.

but someone announced that they're bringing an action against Richmond on behalf of the homeowners to get their assessments reduced because the lands aren't worth anything like they were before this decision. I don't know what they're worth. I mean, I wouldn't banning it for any of those titles. So who knows what the marketplace is going to do? Other people might put some value into having possession for the time being and hopefully it'll all be worked out in the end, what that's worth in the marketplace. I don't know. In the meantime, Barry,

although it isn't the first decision has been rendered, but it has to get appealed and then chances are appealed again. And I hope I'm saying this right. You got years of it going through courts. Can other places, because now we see Kamloops, you know, claiming the entire city, can other groups use this case to, solidify their claim.

Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, this is the Cowichin is applying Supreme Court of Canada law of Aboriginal title. In that respect, that's not new. But what is different is that it applied it to fee simple titles. And that's never happened before. So that absolutely is a precedent

that can be and will be used by the 200 or so bans in D.C., some of which are less than a. thousand people um to claim um houses and properties everywhere and they'll have legal precedents saying they have they all they got to do is show that they had exclusive occupation in 1844 and they own it i think a lot of people are concerned uh would probably be the right word maybe there's no it should be terrified terrified sure um but This is a province threatening.

But that aren't in BC, as all I was going to say, because we're seeing it now in New Brunswick, Quebec. New Brunswick's got exactly the same problem. They never had treaties, and therefore, the Indians are saying that they own over half of New Brunswick, on the test laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada, that they were there. It'll be a different year. I mean, that's obviously the history goes way further back than 1844, but if they can prove they occupied the territory at the time of the crown assertion of sovereignty in New Brunswick, then under the Supreme Court of Canada test, it's theirs. Now, I hasten to add, because it's an important distinction. It hasn't yet been held anywhere except in the college in case that the Indians can obtain Aboriginal title over fee simple properties that have been. an issue going to go. We'll see.

But precedent has been set, which means it'll be used again and again and again, which means there will be more coming where this is going to happen, not only just in BC, although BC will be obviously the start of it, but you're seeing in a new, New Brunswick, Quebec, and I think a lot of Canadians are going, you know, like the first time we chatted, we, we, I thought, you know, my memory of our chat made it pretty clear that Alberta, this isn't going to happen. Saskatchewan, this isn't going to happen. But now there's a lot of people in Alberta and Saskatchewan going, is there a way they could use this case law to make claims to different parts of

these provinces or other provinces that have treaties signed? Well, you just put your finger on the distinction. Treaties are no treaties. D.C., there's very few treaties. That's why they can make these claims. And the Supreme Court of Canada test for Aboriginal title is one that applies only where the land hasn't been seated pursuant to a treaty. So all through the prairies in Ontario, there were treaties where the land was seated. So, you know, I would expect that their titles are secure. On the other hand, there's a movement amongst the Indian bands now

to say they didn't cede the land under these treaties. These were land-sharing agreements. Even though the language of the treaties is clear, they're seeding the lands. They say the language doesn't mean what you think it means. So you aren't safe, but you're a lot safer than anywhere where there's no treaties. I don't like there's any – I'm not fully informed about the existence of treaties east of Ontario, and each – it's very specific. We know there aren't in New Brunswick because the case that started there can only be pursued because there's no treaties.

And that may be the case in the other problem. provinces east of Ontario. Is there anything stopping, you know, like, okay, so you sign a treaty, all these different tribes signed treaties. What if you're a tribe that didn't sign a treaty? I assume in Alberta there has to be several that. No, the whole of the whole of the prairies are subject to treaties. Treaties were signed.

So there won't be a group come out saying we didn't sign anything? Correct. All of the, all of the prairie provinces. Ontario, I think all of Ontario, have been seated in treaties. How about the other thought that this is, and forgive me the number, is this one percent of the population? Is it 2% of the population? This is a small, small percentage of the population. In British Columbia, the aboriginals are 2% of the population, 1% of whom live on reservers. And so that 1% is basically claiming title to the whole profits.

And so I've been in different discussions since our first chat. And there's been a lot of people say, if they were 50% of the population, I'd be really nervous about this. But they're 1% of the population. The other 98, because obviously 1% living on reserves, the 98 of the population, once this starts affecting them all, the whole of them are going to lose their utter minds, and this isn't going to go any further than that. Your thoughts on that thought process? Well, I mean, the 98% have every right to be

concerned and to rise up, and then the next question is, well, what can they do? Well, what they can do is appeal the college in case to the Supreme Court can try to get it reversed. If that doesn't work or maybe in any event they should try and for a constitutional amendment a constitutional amendment that that declares that Aboriginal title does not exist and that the crown owns the land and they're restricted to the reserves that were granted to them back in the 19th century 18th centuries which is the way it should be there's no reason in the no reason in just that this situation should exist is just court's making up the rules as they went along and it's going to be over the next five years or or whatever the time frame is over the years to come it's going to

be the same courts that are going to have to weigh in on this yes and the hope the hope is is they go oh crap we've created a huge problem because now you're talking about everyone's fee simple title If they claim the land in Camelow's, for instance, you've got a city with, how big is Camelow's? Is it 100,000 people? Yeah. So 100,000 people are sitting there. And whether they realize it today or not, in the next coming years, they could see all their houses they bought, businesses they built, all those titles disappear overnight. And you can say that to every city in British Columbia, including Vancouver and Victoria.

There's claims to feasible titles in North Vancouver. Let's put it this way. I don't know how many lawsuits have actually been started. I've urged an organization in BC that I've made a significant contribution to to try and research that. If I don't want to actual lawsuits have been started, like the Camblooms were. Whether they've started it or not, the claim is there. And it's no doubt being negotiated or hope to be negotiated. And they are claiming the entire province.

It's not just Camus. Yeah, if you're sitting in BC right now, you should be, use your word, terrified that it's, you know, it's just around the corner for you. Whether it's been started or not, the more are these that are successful, it's. It's only going to spur on more to come, which is going to affect more and more of the population of British Columbia. Well, I live in West Vancouver, partway at the mountain. There's an Indian reserve down in the water, and that band may well say that they were there in 1844. And in 1844, they used to fish or hunt up where my house is, and therefore, they have Aboriginal title over my house. So do you think, like, is there going to be, I assume there already is happening, is a mass exodus of BC right now?

Well, I don't know that. I mean, I think people are finally waking up. I mean, this Aboriginal title nonsense, created by the Supreme Court, started in 1997 when the Supreme Court handed down the Delmogood case, just just as an example. of how unreasonable this whole thing is. That's the creation of Aboriginal title, that decision. And in that decision, they had to overrule a decision by Chief Justice Alan McKettron who heard a two-year trial of a claimed Aboriginal title.

He was a great judge, highly respected, very erudite, and he found one, there's no such thing as Aboriginal title in law, and two, if there was, it's been extinguished. Now, I think those decisions were sound. were signed. Supreme Court of Canada just made it up, reversed them, and that's created the problem we've got today. And it's been under the cover, most people don't even, aren't even aware of this, but they sure are now, if the college decision makes it clear that your house is at risk. Now, whether people are actually moving away, I mean, who knows, this thing could drag

out, there could be settlements, make it possible to resolve this. Undoubtedly, the Indians are in for a huge transfer of wealth to result in any settlement, but maybe some compromise is possible. There's so much uncertainty, so much complexity, so many different claims. There's 200 of these bands that are making these claims. And a lot of times, their adversaries are the other Indian bands who are claiming the same ground. That's in fact what happened in Cowichin. There was two other Indian vans that were defendants who were opposing the Cowichin's claim and who are also appealing because they don't like the decision either because it trumped their claims. So that's what you're into, is competing claims by Indian bans to virtually all of British Columbia,

sometimes against each, cross claims against each other. And it's an unholy mess. How much, when you're talking money, wealth, how much are we talking? You mean value of properties? Well, as I understand it, I saw a stat that the value of private property. property fee simple titles in British Columbia is something like three trillion dollars. Government's value of the government land, which is 95% of the province, is over and above that. So what it's all worth, I don't know, but I did a calculation that I think you've seen,

which if you assume that government land is also worth three trillion, which I think is probably a gross understatement. Anyway, let's say six trillion is the value, the title, the value of the land in British Columbia. If you divide it by the 1% or 2% of British Colombians who happen to be indigenous who make these claims, the number for each of them is something like $60 million, man, woman, and child. After they stand again if they take over British Columbia. Now, what will be left if they take orbit?

Who knows? I mean, will anybody even hang around? Will it go back to being uninhabitable or uninhabited, I should say? Who knows? We're facing an existential crisis to our province and also Canada. Yeah, I just, I'm no lawyer, right? I've had several different lawyers on the show, law professors, on and on and on. And we've seen different decisions come down from the Supreme Court of Canada that have really put us in a predicament.

For sure. And you go, okay, well, you had a sound judge make a ruling once upon a time that makes a complete sense. They walked in. I don't like that. And I've heard this kind of this phrase from different lawyers, including your sense. yourself where they interpret the words. Well, we're not, that's not really what they meant. And I just, I have a hard time understanding that because I'm like, how can a judge, like, isn't that, it's written there. That's what they meant. Now we're interpreting what they

meant and we're bringing it up to, I don't know, today's age of what those words actually mean. That seems so odd to me. Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to. And then the basis of the decision of Aboriginal title is entirely concocted by the courts. It's not interpreting, well, it interprets the royal proclamation of 1763 as somehow a crown statement that Indian title was going to be recognized in the way it's now recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia. Helen McCackerman didn't see it that way. I don't see it that way, but that's what they've done well when you talked about treaties uh that some bands are saying well that's not what we signed

we we interpreted it different those different things it's like well isn't it a law law uh legally binding document where what it says that is for lack of a better term the gospel like that's it's literally what it said but we're interpreting and different and it seems like the interpretation is being given credit now so that we can change things. And that's what I'm hearing that the judges have done. They've interpreted different things. They're putting different laws in place that are having massive ramifications for the years to come, the generations to come, if they all are seen through. Well, remember the college indecision and the Supreme Court of County decisions on original title are applicable where no treaties were signed. So it's not a matter

of interpreting treaties. There are no treaties. So it's a matter of finding whether Aboriginal title survives today, and they've made up these rules that allow it to survive today. I mean, what could be more extreme than a group of, I think the judge found that was something like 2,000 Cowichin back in 1844 who were using this area in Richmond as a summer fishing village. They didn't live there. They lived on Vancouver Island. So they've got their claims, they got their reserves there, they got their claim to Aboriginal title where they lived, but this is a fishing village, and she found that that qualified as exclusive occupation, and then said, therefore, they own it today, even though they vacated the place

and haven't been around since. It's just, it's just, you couldn't make up a worse situation than has been created by the judicial decisions handed down with Supreme Court of Canada. I don't think there's any other country in the world which faces this problem. No other separate country has accommodated Indians the way our courts and our politicians through creation of the Section 35 by the Constitution Act have accommodated claims by Indians. We've just, we just roll over and have been steamrolled. And that's what we're at today. Well, I think there's a growing amount of people at this and go, oh yeah, we have signed treaties, not a big deal. But once upon a time, we also had laws in place that wouldn't allow this. And they look at it and go, this is just the beginning.

And just the beginning is going to branch off into things that under, I don't know, not regular times. That's probably a poor choice of words. But this isn't regular times. And this shouldn't have been possible yet judges have made it possible and they look at where this is going and how this is going to affect everyone not just certain areas because if it's allowed to happen and go against fee simple title it take away people's private property they're like well if that's allowed to happen how long does it take before they start coming to different provinces for people's private property under the guise of we had claimed to that land and And although there is signed things, which would make this sound with nothing to worry about.

When I listen to you, and I think others, when they stare at this problem, this shouldn't have been a problem 10 years ago. And yet different decisions have allowed for it to get to where it doesn't make any sense. And yet here we are. And it should be a simple open shut case. But now we're going to have years of it being appealed and argued. and in that time we're going to have more tribes use this is case law to set up their own spots so it's not just going to be cowher now it's going to be possibly 200 other spots in bc and i think

more and more people are becoming nervous or terrified that this is going to branch out into all of canadian society not just some places that didn't sign treaties like i just i keep hearing the same thing from different people i don't know if there's a question there's a there's a there's a there's a someone i correspond with who thinks that he's very worried about that exact thing so who knows yeah uh well i i just know that people are concerned about it and i i don't have an answer there's lots of people that point to and i i know you talk about it being the first place in the world. I don't know the, the, the differences of Africa and the farmers there and how they lost land, but that's the place that's brought up as a similarity at what's happening in BC. Do you see

the similarity there? Do you see differences in the two cases? Well, I'm not an expert in their systems of law. So I can't, but, but in terms of, I mean, I don't know of any other area where they're taking over houses, feasible properties. And I don't there is one. So another first for Canada that is on the wrong side of history, where you're taking away private property from people. 2% are claiming the property from the 98% in British Columbia and potentially in other areas of Canada. Well, I mean, New Brunswick, 60% of the province.

I'm like, that is a wild statement to make. Correct. It's in trial right now. The trial is ongoing and that's the claim. They want abriddle title to six people of the province. And that means if they succeed, everybody that owns titles in those areas, they're in the same position as the Richmond owners. Their lands, they may still own title because they haven't named the individuals. They did name some individuals, actually, in that case.

And the court dismissed the claim against the individuals on the technical ground that they weren't properly made and defendant. Even though their land was being claimed, the theory is that a claim for Aboriginal title can only be made against the crowns. The crown's the only proper defendant. So you don't even have a right, according to that judge. You don't even have a right to be a defendant to protect your title. You're totally dependent upon government protecting you. Well, in British Columbia, we've got a government doesn't protect us. They don't even make the strongest defense. They've got these litigation directives where you simply don't defend Indian cases in any way that's in consistent reconciliation. So you tie one or two hands behind your back and pretend you're defending us

So they turned to do a very good job on it. If I, with the judge who made the ruling on Cowhatran, basically, if I understood it correct, they didn't involve any of the landowners because they're only coming after the crown. It's not that big a deal. They're not going to come after the individual titles. But if they grab the land on all the titles are there,

couldn't you, like, I don't understand. Does that make any sense to you the decision not to inform landowners of what was going on? Well, there's a decision on it. There was an application brought years earlier in the case that the landowners be notified. The court, the judge, addressed that and found that they didn't need to be notified. And there's a couple of theories. The first is that there aren't proper defendants because if you name every landowner, the case becomes so unwieldy that it's unmanageable and it'll never reach trial. So this is a way the court makes it simpler for the Indians to bring their case against landowners to seize their titles

by not even letting the landowners appear to defend themselves. And then there's the other theory that a claim law can only be made for Aboriginal title against the Crown and not against the individual landowners, which doesn't make any sense to me. But that's what happened. The issue was addressed. The judge found they weren't, didn't need to be notified, and the case went on without them. And it's just a, to me, it's absolutely false for the Indians to say they aren't claiming the land that's owned by these householders. They did claim that land. They got a declaration of title over that land. Just because they weren't named as defendants, doesn't change the reality.

That's what they did. And their, and their protestations, they don't want, the pretextations. they don't want the private owner's houses maybe is true only in this sense now that they own that land what they want is government to buy them out and pay them the value of the land so so the governor bc now steps in and pays them the billions of dollars uh for the private properties over which they now hold title and then they'll be good enough to relinquish the claim to those properties. So for them to say they aren't claiming the titles is is utterly false and simply a public relations exercise where they try to say we're the good guys who are rooting and then out to your titles. They are absolutely out of the titles, the value of the titles. And you're in theory,

you're talking about billions of dollars being transferred from one side to the other. Well, in the trial alone, there was at the trial as to the value of the properties. And it was many, many billions of dollars to which they succeeded. How well do you know this one in Quebec going on? Do you know much about it? I'm not familiar with that one. Because it surprised me just a little bit

because when we first chat it, I remember thinking, okay, New Brunswick, B.C. You're going to see it happen in both these places, which is exactly the case in a lot of what's happening. But I pulled it up here. see if I can find it. Yeah, I just don't familiar with it, Sean, so I can't help you on that one. Okay. So there's, well, it just says it's a Kidigan ZB. Inition and I, oh man, initial bag, First

Nation, Western Quebec filed October 29th, 2025, and Quebec Superior Court seeking Aboriginal title over 10,000 square kilometers north of the Ottawa River, including private land, forestry, and water resources explicitly cites couch and as president demands five billion compensation from Canada, Quebec, Hydro, Quebec, and the National Capital Commission for Historic Infringements via fee-simple grants overlaps with related Ontario claims set for trial in 2028. That's like when I look into this, I just keep seeing it go further and further. That's why I think a lot of people are like, you know, we got all these signed things,

agreed. But we're starting now that Cowtons happen. And it's going to be years before we get an answer. You know, even this article is starting to say. now Ontario. And so I'm just like, I don't know where this goes, but it doesn't, it doesn't seem like it ends in a couple of years. It's only just beginning. It seems like, and as I've learned from you from our two conversations, like this isn't like this happened yesterday. This has been a decade-long fight and people are just becoming aware of it. And I think they're becoming aware of

the fact that it isn't just in BC. It's in now Quebec. It's in New Brunswick. They're citing in this article that Ontario is set for a trial in 2028, like it's going to be, best case scenario, sure, it gets all thrown out. But I don't know if either one of us is sitting here going, oh, yeah, the courts have been just absolutely spot on in their decision making, which means the best case scenario becomes, which isn't a best case scenario, is billions, if not trillions of dollars being transferred to bans to pay them out for fee simple. titles. And I don't even know if that makes sense in my own head, let alone yours. Well, that is for sure in any event, because there's no chance the Supreme Court of Canada

is going to change its decision with respect to crown land. Now, 90% of the province, British Columbia is crown land. And they have a claimed Aboriginal title over all that land in respect to any area they occupy. And there's no question that that decision is in place and applies. The only thing I'm holding out is the possibility that the court may find that that Aboriginal title can't apply where fee simple titles were issued individuals on the grounds of extinguishment. But that won't apply to Crownland. So they've absolutely got the law on their side and that's not going to be changed short of a constitutional amendment to claim all areas of British Columbia that are owned by the Crown where they can show they were exclusive occupation

in 1844. Now, now, now, exclusive occupation, that doesn't mean where they were actually living. It means wherever they roamed or fished or hunted. Okay. That was the Chilkoden case in 2014 for the Supreme Court, where the argument was, while you found average, title but surely it's restricted to where they actually occupied where they lived no no no no it applies said the court to every place they wound fished hunt and whatever as long as they tried as long as they can show that they actually intended to keep other people out unless they got consent of the claimant so it's it's all a british balmy and i guess for anyone who hasn't listened to our first chat and i really uh push people to go back to that chat

that. When they're making claim of an area back to 1844, you can explain this better than anyone I've heard. This isn't like they got a signed document here. It says 1844. We're here. How are they making the case that they have claim on that land since 1844? Okay. That's, that's, that's, this is a prime example of the Supreme Court Academy just making up rules, throwing out precedents and creating entirely new legal doctrines with one purpose in mind to favor Indians in their litigation objectives and allow them to win the case. In Delmoghuk, which is the 1997 decision that unleashed all in this, Chief Justice Alan McCackering crude evidence from Indians to the effect that my grandmother told me that my grandfather told me that his

grandfather told him that his grandfather told him that we occupied this area right here all this area so that's seventh generation hearsay evidence now on the entire history of the common law hearsay has been admissible it's inadmissible today that's first hand hearsay is inadmissible with a few specific exceptions and it's inadmissible because it's unreliable the Supreme Court of Canada in Delmogood did the most astonishing thing they They decided that in Aboriginal cases, seventh generation hearsay evidence was just fine. And the rationale was, how else can they prove their case? So if you want to talk about a court just manufacturing an absurd rule to prove how they were

in 1844, there's exhibit A. Now there may be other evidence by which they get established that, archaeological evidence or, you know, but in terms of seventh generation hearsay evidence being found to be credible and admissible in the first place and then credible and be accepted, that's what happened in Cowichick. This judge found the seventh generation hearsay evidence was very reliable because the elders would pick berries with the children and pass on their history and that's how someone 160 years later can come in and give evidence of what was occupied in. 1844. That's the absurdity to which we have gone, which our courts have taken us in

respective Indian claims. It's only one of many examples, but it's the worst. I think, yeah, I don't know. I appreciate you coming back on and do this. I had a lot of people asking me, and I kept sending them our first conversation. And they're just like, yeah, but now you got cam loops you got Quebec you got New Brunswick but you know like other than the Quebec one you keep pointing out I think over and over again that this isn't something new this has been going on for quite some time people are just starting to realize the implications of this going through and happening and I you know several trials in BC there was several trials before this one where the claims for Aboriginal title went judgment but but they

were against crown lands only. Yeah. And in most cases, the courts found on the facts that the Indians hadn't proven exclusive possession to the area they were claiming and awarded them very specific areas that were a small fraction of what they were claiming. So they didn't get a lot of no variety. But there's been cases that have gone to court where Aboriginal titles have been recognized, just no case against private titles before college.

Barry, appreciate you coming on and illuminating. the situation all over again. Appreciate you giving me some time today and hopefully this helps some people understand what's going on not only in BC but other parts of the country now as far as Fee Simple title goes and, you know, what's happening in the courts around it. Sean's been my pleasure. Thank you.