Today’s story is one of those sticky situations for us, where we’re covering a point of view on a topic that we, as an organization, don’t agree with. But because it’s gaining traction with a subset of the Canadian population, I do feel we need to cover it, in order to properly understand the narrative around it – if only to argue against it in a more informed way.

The story of Indigenous land rights is an essential and existential debate that this country will be facing over the next decade. It’s likely to become a election issue – federally and provincially, in some places. Understanding all sides and all arguments for and against the court decisions and the government policies on this issue is essential, we think, to reducing the polarization we’re likely to see. That’s our hope anyway.

Do you agree? Disagree? I’d love to hear your thoughts on all of this. Just reply to this email to let me know.

- Stephen Smysnuik

Canada wasn't stolen. It was settled, negotiated, signed over, and then endlessly litigated as a result.

This view has been promoted for years by conservative writers, and was articulated most recently in a National Post piece written by Fraser Institute-affiliates Mark Milke and Tom Flanagan. Together, they argue that Canada was built on land that was legitimately exchanged, fair and square.

On the other hand, Indigenous peoples had land rights here long before Canada showed up — and in huge parts of the country, the government never actually secured those rights through any real legal process. The Supreme Court of Canada has said as much. It’s kind of a full-stop situation.

Aboriginal title doesn't depend on evolutionary timelines or who descended from Homo sapiens first. Indigenous peoples didn't just wander through what is now Canada 15,000 years ago and call dibs.

The weekend’s almost here, folks. You can do this.