Chris Delaney - BC Conservative

[Castanet News]

This thread is for the discussion of the candidacy of Chris Delaney - BC Conservative.

[mileslehn]

Chris Delaney is without a doubt the best person to represent Penticton. If you have not had the pleasure of meeting him or hearing him speak I encourage you to do so. He is not any ones lackey and he will be heard, unlike Bill. Remember don't split the vote, vote Conservative for a real voice.

[mileslehn]

Has the Chief accepted the debate or what is the status on that? Is he one of Campbells allies and is this Act an attempt to buy the First Nations, Aboriginal, Indigenous, Native vote. Should be a great chance for the Chief to explain how this Act will benefit all British Columbians or just who it will help!

[lawman]

Chris Delaney should be ashamed of himself and his fear-mongering. The best he can come up with for his platform is to slam a bill that didn't even get to the legislature and therefore doesn't even exist. That would be comical if he wasn't also spreading lies and hatred along with his message about a hypothetical bill, trying to whip up a frenzy of hatred and fear of the province's First Nations, sending us back into the dark ages of racism and suppression of our First Nations.
The Supreme Court has ruled several times on a couple of key facts which Delaney should know, but I will point out for him here (Supreme Court case references in brackets in case Delaney wants to look them up):
• Aboriginal title and rights exist (Sparrow, Van de Peet).
• Aboriginal land claims must be resolved (Delgamuukw).
• Until land claims are resolved, it would be unfair for the Crown to take everything of value from the land in question (Haida).
Delaney tells you the Reconciliation Act will result in people losing their homes. Not only is that an outright lie and completely irresponsible for him to say when the Supreme Court says otherwise, there IS NO Reconciliation Act. Currently it is a work in progress and the Campbell government is simply trying to find a way to save taxpayers money by acknowledging what the courts have already told them: find a way to resolve land claims and until you do you can't log, mine or dam everything until the land is completely valueless.
What would Delaney do? Spend billions of your hard-earned dollars going to court in a futile effort that is both cowardly and wasteful and borderline offensive. The only people who will profit from Delaney's myopic vision are the lawyers.
Is that what people want for British Columbia? I don't think so.

[mileslehn]

Lawman: Please read the arcticle in the Vancouver Sun by John Cummins MP dated around April 27 or 24. Please comment after reading that submission.

[ferri]

is this it?

http://www.johncummins.ca/

[lawman]

Lawman: Please read the arcticle in the Vancouver Sun by John Cummins MP dated around April 27 or 24. Please comment after reading that submission.

Sure, mileslehn, I will do that. OK, done.

Here's my comment: Would you and John Cummins please read the Delgamuukw decision by the Supreme Court (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1 ... -1010.html) and this article in the Vancouver Sun by Vaughn Palmer (http://www.vancouversun.com/veto+Libera ... story.html) and then tell me how Aboriginals or non-Aboriginals are responsibly served by government by continuing these attempts to deny Aboriginal title through litigation rather than negotiation?

John Cummins (and Chris Delaney) has adopted a narrow reading of the Sparrow and Van der Peet decisions in isolation rather than address the overall pattern of SCC decisions with cases such as Delgamuukw, Haida, and Taku River Tlingit. Aboriginal rights and title currently exist, and yes, the extent of those rights have not been fully delineated.

Our society can choose to determine the extent of those rights one of two way:
Unnecessary, costly and divisive legal battles that only make the lawyers rich and that ever since the mid-'70s have been rather one-sided in favour of Aboriginal rights. This could result in people investing money in developments only to have them snapped up by litigation-friendly First Nations. And quite frankly, this could be seen as simply continued colonial paternalism.
Or we can negotiate settlements that create certainty on the land base, where investors know what hoops they have to jump through in advance and can budget accordingly. Is that too pollyannish? Maybe. But certainly it's better than the alternative.

Unless you own stock in a law firm.