It’s delectable June, also known as the meteorological start of Summer, on June 1st. On Salt Spring and the Gulf Islands, the fresh natural world welcomes us. Yes, there may be difficult events surrounding us, but the annual beauty of Spring-into-Summer is a welcome gift.

It’s a short and sweet seasonal month, with lots of beginnings and ends. Just some random reminders:

A few things on the calendar this month.

• Graduations from senior schools and universities, sometimes with starter careers in place, often with a gap year for real life experiences.
• Father’s Day mid-month is often a day to drive from Salt Spring to Qualicum, and take in the annual Seacruisers classic car show, an amazing event and worth the drive.
• The Saturday Market and the Tuesday Farmers Market are underway.
• ArtCraft opens in Mahon Hall, Ganges Galleries are showcasing their artists. Monthly wine dinners at Hastings House are happily in place. Don’t miss!
• The longest day of the year is June 20-21. This year, B.C. chose to remain on Daylight Saving Time.
• Weddings take place, summer holidays start for many, kayaking, sailing, ferry visits between the islands, spa retreats to rejuvenate, studio tours and farmgate stands, specialty shops with one of a kind offerings. An abundance of June spills out to welcome us.

The Real Estate Market?

It has remained relatively stable in number of listings, for some substantial time. Although some owners with 2020 low interest mortgages may have had to sell when remortgaging at higher rates, the Gulf Islands have not been a first time buyer area.

The Islands Trust, in place since 1973, is the form of governance. Its mandate of “preserve and protect” basically capped growth via strict zonings and bylaws. More information? Contact me for details.

The Title Question

What of the months of recent publicity about title? Is it indigenous (based on DRIPA outcomes) or fee simple (private property ownership)? A recent Supreme Court of Canada case in New Brunswick found that private property / fee simple title superseded Indigenous.

There are many appeals underway for B.C.’s court ruling in the Cowichan vs Canada lawsuit (August, 2025), which had found in favour of indigenous title. There is an understanding that the recent New Brunswick case may settle the anxiety on this title question.

Uncertainty of ownership is not good for markets. Real estate remains active, and it may be a preservation of capital decision. The Canadian currency is perhaps perceived as not stable. Owning property in unique areas, with generally low inventory, could be seen as wise hard asset investment. It’s interesting that CMHC is noting that lack of housing remains in place.

A Thought on AI

The true opportunity in AI may not yet be fully understood or realized. Important to consider that one can make a film that is entirely AI, and the viewer would not know it wasn’t filmed per usual. What does that really mean? Should we all be studying philosophy to be able to cope with life altering shifts? IF this is our Gutenberg moment, maybe check in with the 14th Century and remind ourselves what it led to?

In the pleasing summer ease that is ushered in with June, maybe it’s a good idea to consider imaginative outcomes for ongoing change. Anyone, anywhere, can suggest what AI is really going to deliver. While swimming in the ocean, think about ideas. What about this? What about that? Why not? Invent away.

British Columbia Attorney General Niki Sharma says she believes the decision “bodes well for our arguments, and the appeals that we are seeking in B.C.”

A Supreme Court of Canada decision upholding that Aboriginal title cannot be declared over private land gives British Columbia an avenue to win a future appeal in the landmark Cowichan Tribes case, says the province’s attorney general.

The high court refused to hear an appeal on Thursday involving Aboriginal title on private land in the case of a New Brunswick First Nation, and Niki Sharma said that is promising for its appeal in the Cowichan case, which has cast doubt on the primacy of private property rights.

A B.C. Supreme Court in August ruled that the Cowichan Tribes has Aboriginal title over land along the Fraser River, that the granting of private titles by government unjustifiably infringed on the nation’s title.

It said Crown and city titles on the site are defective and invalid.

That ruling is in contrast to the ruling in a New Brunswick case, which Canada’s highest court refused to hear, following an appeal by the Wolastoqey First Nation.

The Crown-Indigenous Relations Department said Thursday that the ruling would inform arguments in other cases, including Cowichan, adding that “private property rights are fundamental.”

The nation had sought leave to appeal that ruling but it was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday.

The spokesperson said the federal government would always protect private property rights.

The federal and B.C. governments and other parties, including the City of Richmond, B.C., are appealing the Cowichan Tribes decision that ruled the First Nation holds Aboriginal title over a parcel of land on the Fraser River, including Crown, city and private property.

No one from the Cowichan Tribes or the nation’s lawyer was immediately available for comment on the high court’s decision.

The judge in the Cowichan case ruled last August that Aboriginal title was a “senior interest” compared with fee-simple title, and that sections of B.C.’s Land Title Act that establish fee-simple title as “indefeasible” do not apply to Aboriginal title.

The Cowichan ruling has led to concerns that it puts private property at risk, although the Cowichan Tribes have said they are not seeking to lay claim to private land.

Montrose Properties, the largest private land owner in the Cowichan title area, was in court this week separately seeking to reopen the case, saying it was unfairly omitted from the original trial.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 28, 2026.

How badly does the NDP government not want to talk about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples anymore?

Very badly, judging by debate on one of two First Nations treaties that were hustled into the legislature as the DRIPA crisis was reaching full boil last month.

The government made a vain attempt to steer away from DRIPA during debate on the K’ómoks treaty covering parts of northern Vancouver Island, even though DRIPA is specifically cited as an integral part of the treaty.

The Conservative Party of B.C. Opposition is intent on exploring every aspect of the contentious law that recognizes Indigenous rights to full partnership in most provincial decision-making.

It’s an obvious way to score political points. It is also warranted by the implications of the court decision last year that created the controversy.

So Conservative MLA Ward Stamer was deep into an exploration of all the intricacies of DRIPA when Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert objected.

“We’re not currently in discussion around DRIPA, which he spent a bunch of time discussing. That’s not currently in the legislation of what we’re debating.”

It most certainly is.

It’s mentioned specifically in the preamble and the treaty itself — which the bill ratifies — explicitly refers to DRIPA several times.

“UNDRIP (the United Nations statement that provincial DRIPA law flows from) is the authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement.”

The chapter on co-management of numerous broad responsibilities said it is based on UNDRIP.

Chandra Herbert similarly tried to downplay the importance of DRIPA on the treaties earlier. He said there was a reference to it, but not in any way that impacts the legislation.

Pretending the treaties have almost nothing to do with DRIPA may help the NDP cope with the controversy in their own minds.

But the Conservatives are nearing the end of a leadership race in which all five candidates capitalized on the uncertainty created by DRIPA.

Stamer continued the focus this week, saying the UN declaration is a broad statement of principles and was never designed as a governing framework for provincial constitutional law.

“It was not written as a detailed, operational blueprint for resource management … It was not designed as a constitutional replacement for the democratic institution of provinces.”

The NDP government treats it as an authoritative reference point for decision-making, he said. Words like “consent, shared decision-making and co-governance” sound collaborative, but carry significant consequences and the government has not provided enough clarity about them, he said.

Stamer said the Conservatives believe in consultation and respectful relationships with Indigenous communities. But democratic authority must remain clear and accountable.

He said many feel DRIPA is eroding the clarity of that authority.

“They sense fundamental changes are occurring, but they are not receiving clear explanations regarding the final destination of any of these changes.”

A more immediate problem with the K’ómoks treaty, and a similar one with the Kitselas Nation on the Skeena River, is the overlapping claims by neighbouring nations.

That erupted when the treaties were introduced in mid-April, with numerous leaders from various nations objecting vehemently to land they claim as their own being included in treaties.

The K’ómoks treaty confirms the band’s title to about 3,442 hectares of land, some of which is now held by the province, despite neighbouring nations’ historic claims to the same lands.

They wrote to all MLAs saying the treaties violate Indigenous law and claim territory with little or no legal or historical foundation.

Passage of the required bill is not a sure thing. Even a full debate is uncertain. There are only five sitting days left and the legislature has spent hours on second reading of the first bill. So cutting off debate and forcing a vote is a possibility.

The NDP has a one-seat edge, assuming full attendance.

The two Green MLAs served notice this week that they will vote to advance the bill for further debate, but they appear to be on the fence when it comes to final approval, given the overlap objections. The treaties were presented as examples of how governments and First Nations can reach win-win deals to the benefit of all.

In the space of a month, the overlaps with other nations have become as divisive and contentious as DRIPA is.

British Columbia Premier David Eby has backed down again on the pausing of key parts of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, scrapping plans to table a suspension bill this legislative session.

The premier’s office says in a brief statement that it “can confirm that the government will not be introducing legislation on DRIPA during this session.”

Instead, it says Eby will hold a press conference Monday to outline next steps.

A draft document provided by a First Nations source says the government now hopes to work with First Nations to come up with a joint approach to DRIPA, under a framework for negotiations.

Eby met with First Nations leaders late Sunday afternoon, one of whom says the suspension law was withdrawn as a result of planned protests.

The premier has said a recent court decision on B.C.’s mineral claims regime that cited DRIPA put the province at serious litigation risk, while First Nations have said the law should not be changed.

A Joint Framework, Not a Commitment

The draft government document says the goal now is to “arrive at a set of recommendations, supported by First Nations in B.C. and the Province of B.C.” on how to implement DRIPA.

The document provided to The Canadian Press says there is “no commitment to either a) make amendments, or b) not make amendments to DRIPA.”

It is labelled as being subject to an NDA, or non-disclosure agreement.

The document outlines how discussions between the government, First Nations and other stakeholders could take place, and says there will be a “focus on reaching a shared understanding of how legislative alignment (with DRIPA) could most effectively work, in a manner led by First Nations and government but supported by the courts.”

It says the first meetings could take place within two weeks of the process being announced.

Reversal Within Hours

The now-scrapped plan to table the suspension bill on Monday lasted just a few hours after it emerged Sunday, and was immediately repudiated by First Nations leaders who have also opposed previous plans to amend DRIPA instead.

Attorney General Niki Sharma and Indigenous Relations Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert were also at the meeting with First Nations leaders late Sunday to discuss the latest moves on DRIPA, according to information provided by a source attending the online gathering.

A First Nations leadership source in the meeting said the government was “withdrawing the proposed (suspension) legislation because we have agreed to work together to address each others concerns.”

The source said the First Nations leaders and the government agreed “to develop a joint statement on the basic agreement to work together between now and next legislative session.”

The current session ends on May 28, with sittings resuming in September.

“It’s not agreed on, but it will be the starting point I suspect,” a First Nations source said of the draft document. “It’s workable.”

A Pattern of Retreats

Sunday’s developments represent the latest climbdown for Eby on DRIPA, which was intended to reflect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

But the December court ruling on mining regulations had prompted concerns about the potential sweeping impact of DRIPA on B.C.’s laws, with the court saying DRIPA should be interpreted to give “immediate legal effect” to UNDRIP.

That prompted Eby to pledge amendments to DRIPA, saying these were “non-negotiable” — a stance that infuriated First Nations leaders, resulting in the amendments proposal being dropped.

Then came a plan to suspend key parts of DRIPA for three years, which Eby said would give the Supreme Court of Canada time to rule on the government’s appeal in the mining case. He said he would make the vote on the suspension a confidence vote, meaning his government with its one-vote majority would fall if it failed.

But that plan, too, was roundly condemned by First Nations, with Grand Chief Stewart Phillip saying his NDP MLA wife, Joan Phillip, did not support it.

The idea of a confidence vote was then also scrapped.

The next plan, to table the suspension bill in a non-confidence vote on Monday, had prompted the First Nations Leadership Council to tell legislators to reject it, before the proposal was also swiftly dropped Sunday afternoon.