By Nadine Wellwood
" Property, power, and the referendum fix. Constitutional lawyer Professor Bruce Pardy joins Nadine to unpack the Richmond, BC aboriginal title ruling and what “senior and prior” title means for fee simple; how land acknowledgements feed a legal/political narrative; why treaties in Alberta do not end claims; what UNDRIP/DRIPA have set in motion; and why Alberta’s MOU isn’t the win it sounds like.
We also clear up castle law vs. self-defence (criminal law is federal), and close with what Bill 14 does — and doesn’t — fix: repealing s.24 of the Citizen Initiative Act is a start, but the Referendum Act’s s.8.11(3) still constrains outcomes.
What we cover
• Richmond title ruling: “senior/prior” title vs. fee simple — why it matters
• Land acknowledgements: no direct legal effect, strong narrative effect
• Alberta treaties: different claims, but claims still possible
• UNDRIP/DRIPA: how BC knitted global language into domestic law/policy
• The MOU optics: symbolic agreement ≠ binding solution; net-zero still assumed
• Castle law ≠ self-defence: division of powers; what provinces can/can’t do
• Bill 14: repeal of s.24 (good); Referendum Act s.8.11(3) still needs repeal
• The big picture: one rule of law vs. identity carve-outs; why policy “wins” aren’t constitutional reform
Bottom line: Don’t mistake policy mood music for constitutional change. Fix the statutes, ask a clear question, and stop pretending an MOU is a victory."