Courts and governments caused B.C.’s property crisis—they’re not about to fix it

In British Columbia, property rights are in turmoil. The B.C. Supreme Court recently declared that Aboriginal title exists on 800 acres of land in Richmond, a suburb of Vancouver. Aboriginal title, said the court, is “senior and prior” to fee simple interests. In the shadow of the decision, given the implications, Aboriginal title claims are receiving more attention. Kamloops and Sun Peaks ski resort are targets in one such claim. Meanwhile, the B.C. government has been conferring Aboriginal title across the province too. It continues to make agreements, such as on Haida Gwaii, to transfer control over land use in the province.

Courts and governments have caused this problem. The framers of Canada’s new constitution, adopted in 1982, excluded rights to private property. But at the last hour, they guaranteed existing Aboriginal rights and title. Over decades, the Supreme Court of Canada has expanded the scope of those rights. The recent decision about Richmond is a culmination of its work. That decision is under appeal, first to the B.C. Court of Appeal. After that, we may find out if the Supreme Court approves. But that could take years.

It’s not just the courts. In 2015, the Trudeau government agreed to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP says that Aboriginal groups have the right to own, use, develop and control any lands that they traditionally occupied or used. In 2019, the B.C. legislature incorporated UNDRIP into BC law. Known as DRIPA, the statute requires B.C. law to be consistent with UNDRIP. The NDP government has been granting Aboriginal title and control across the province accordingly.

What can be done? The Canadian constitution has an onerous amending formula. Repealing the section on Aboriginal rights would be next to impossible. So would adding private property guarantees to the Charter. But last week, Dwight Newman, professor of law at the University of Saskatchewan, suggested an alternative in the Post. Rather than attempt wholesale change, he proposed an amendment specific to B.C.

Section 43 is one of the ways to amend the Canadian constitution. It allows changes “in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces.” The requirements are simple. The legislature in one province and the federal Parliament must both pass a resolution declaring the amendment. That’s it. Such a resolution, Newman suggests, could guarantee that private property in B.C. has priority over Aboriginal title.

He might be right. Section 43 has been used, for example, to alter constitutional denominational school rights in Quebec and Newfoundland. In 1993, New Brunswick used Section 43 to add a provision to the Charter about linguistic rights in the province.

But Section 43 might be narrower than hoped. The New Brunswick amendment was not challenged in court at the time of its enactment. So, yes, Section 43 was used to change the Charter, but not with judicial benediction. Moreover, the Supreme Court has not considered the ways in which Section 43 can be used. Section 43 amendments so far have been minor, mere “tweaks” to the constitutional order. We do not know what meaning the Court might give to “any provision that applies to one province.” It could mean any new provision, but more likely it means any existing provision that applies only to the province. Which would rule out using Section 43 to protect property rights from Aboriginal title in B.C. If the Court allowed Section 43 to be used for that purpose, then Section 43 could theoretically be used for anything, including amending the Charter wholesale until each province had its own version.

Even if Section 43 could be used to fix the property mess, it requires both the province and Ottawa to act. In addition, B.C. legislation requires that such changes be first approved by referendum. The B.C. and federal governments have helped to cause the crisis and continue to do so. They seem intent on undermining the system of land tenure in their own society. They are not likely to disrupt the constitution to frustrate their own work.

Moreover, there are other, simpler places to begin. The federal government could reverse its support for UNDRIP. The B.C. legislature could repeal DRIPA. Neither sitting government will do that. Few political actors will step out of line on Aboriginal questions, even to defend the country’s land, economy, and people. Will we discover whether there is anything more Canadian, after all, than acquiescence? In Canada, truth and reconciliation has morphed into fiction and capitulation.

Canada’s property crisis runs deep, and not just in B.C. Aboriginal rights are widely regarded as the natural and proper order of things. Special status for Aboriginal people is deeply ingrained in Canadian culture as well as the constitution. But it is dead wrong. Legal rights should not depend on lineage or group affiliation. Everyone born in Canada is native to the place. In a free country, laws apply not to distinctive peoples, but to individual people and their private property.

Bruce Pardy

Professor of Law, Queen’s University

Up Next

Carney government needs stronger ‘fiscal anchors’ and greater accountability

Don't Miss

DEI Or Die: Out With Remembrance, In With Replacement

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Carney government needs stronger ‘fiscal anchors’ and greater accountability

Fraser Institute / 2 hours ago

Courts and governments caused B.C.’s property crisis—they’re not about to fix it

Censorship Industrial Complex / 15 hours ago

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

Business

Carney government needs stronger ‘fiscal anchors’ and greater accountability

Published on November 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Grady Munro

Following the recent release of the Carney government’s first budget, Fitch Ratings (one of the big three global credit rating agencies) issued a warning that the “persistent fiscal expansion” outlined in the budget—characterized by high levels of spending, borrowing and debt accumulation—will erode the health of Canada’s finances and could lead to a downgrade in Canada’s credit rating.

Here’s why this matters. Canada’s credit rating impacts the federal government’s cost of borrowing money. If the government’s rating gets downgraded—meaning Canadian federal debt is viewed as an increasingly risky investment due to fiscal mismanagement—it will likely become more expensive for the government to borrow money, which ultimately costs taxpayers.

The cost of borrowing (i.e. the interest paid on government debt) is a significant part of the overall budget. This year, the federal government will spend a projected $55.6 billion on debt interest, which is more than one in every 10 dollars of federal revenue, and more than the government will spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. By 2029/30, interest costs will rise to a projected $76.1 billion or more than one in every eight dollars of revenue. That’s taxpayer money unavailable for programs and services.

Again, if Canada’s credit rating gets downgraded, these costs will grow even larger.

To maintain a good credit rating, the government must prevent the deterioration of its finances. To do this, governments establish and follow “fiscal anchors,” which are fiscal guardrails meant to guide decisions regarding spending, taxes and borrowing.

Effective fiscal anchors ensure governments manage their finances so the debt burden remains sustainable for future generations. Anchors should be easily understood and broadly applied so that government cannot get creative with its accounting to only technically abide by the rule, but still give the government the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. For example, a commonly-used rule by many countries (including Canada in the past) is a ceiling/target for debt as a share of the economy.

The Carney government’s budget establishes two new fiscal anchors: balancing the federal operating budget (which includes spending on day-to-day operations such as government employee compensation) by 2028/29, and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio over the years to come, which means gradually reducing the size of the deficit relative to the economy. Unfortunately, these anchors will fail to keep federal finances from deteriorating.

For instance, the government’s plan to balance the “operating budget” is an example of creative accounting that won’t stop the government from borrowing money each year. Simply put, the government plans to split spending into two categories: “operating spending” and “capital investment” —which includes any spending or tax expenditures (e.g. credits and deductions) that relates to the production of an asset (e.g. machinery and equipment)—and will only balance operating spending against revenues. As a result, when the government balances its operating budget in 2028/29, it will still incur a projected deficit of $57.9 billion when spending on capital is included.

Similarly, the government’s plan to reduce the size of the annual deficit relative to the economy each year does little to prevent debt accumulation. This year’s deficit is expected to equal 2.5 per cent of the overall economy—which, since 2000, is the largest deficit (as a share of the economy) outside of those run during the 2008/09 financial crisis and the pandemic. By measuring its progress off of this inflated baseline, the government will technically abide by its anchor even as it runs relatively large deficits each and every year.

Moreover, according to the budget, total federal debt will grow faster than the economy, rising from a projected 73.9 per cent of GDP in 2025/26 to 79.0 per cent by 2029/30, reaching a staggering $2.9 trillion that year. Simply put, even the government’s own fiscal plan shows that its fiscal anchors are unable to prevent an unsustainable rise in government debt. And that’s assuming the government can even stick to these anchors—which, according to a new report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is highly unlikely.

Unfortunately, a federal government that can’t stick to its own fiscal anchors is nothing new. The Trudeau government made a habit of abandoning its fiscal anchors whenever the going got tough. Indeed, Fitch Ratings highlighted this poor track record as yet another reason to expect federal finances to continue deteriorating, and why a credit downgrade may be on the horizon. Again, should that happen, Canadian taxpayers will pay the price.

Much is riding on the Carney government’s ability to restore Canada’s credibility as a responsible fiscal manager. To do this, it must implement stronger fiscal rules than those presented in the budget, and remain accountable to those rules even when it’s challenging.

Business

Sluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy

Published on November 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

At a time when Canadians are grappling with epic housing supply and affordability challenges, the data show that homebuilding continues to come up short in some parts of the country including in several metro regions where most newcomers to Canada settle.

In both the Greater Toronto area and Metro Vancouver, housing starts have languished below levels needed to close the supply gaps that have opened up since 2019. In fact, the last 12-18 months have seen many planned development projects in Ontario and British Columbia delayed or cancelled outright amid a glut of new unsold condominium units and a sharp drop in population growth stemming from shifts in federal immigration policy.

At the same time, residential real estate sales have also been sluggish in some parts of the country. A fall-off in real estate transactions tends to have a lagged negative effect on construction investment—declining home sales today translate into fewer housing starts in the future.

While Prime Minister Carney’s Liberal government has pledged to double the pace of homebuilding, the on-the-ground reality points to stagnant or dwindling housing starts in many communities, particularly in Ontario and B.C. In July, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) revised down its national forecast for housing starts over 2025/26, notwithstanding the intense political focus on boosting supply.

A slowdown in residential construction not only affects demand for services provided by homebuilders, it also has wider economic consequences owing to the size and reach of residential construction and the closely linked real estate sector. Overall, construction represents almost 8 per cent of Canada’s economy. If we exclude government-driven industries such as education, health care and social services, construction provides employment for more than one in 10 private-sector workers. Most of these jobs involve homebuilding, home renovation, and real estate sales and development.

As such, the economic consequences of declining housing starts are far-reaching and include reduced demand for goods and services produced by suppliers to the homebuilding industry, lower tax revenues for all levels of government, and slower economic growth. The weakness in residential investment has been a key factor pushing the Canadian economy close to recession in 2025.

Moreover, according to Statistics Canada, the value of GDP (in current dollars) directly attributable to housing reached $238 billion last year, up slightly from 2023 but less than in 2021 and 2022. Among the provinces, Ontario and B.C. have seen significant declines in residential construction GDP since 2022. This pattern is likely to persist into 2026.

Statistics Canada also estimates housing-related activity supported some 1.2 million jobs in 2024. This figure captures both the direct and indirect employment effects of residential construction and housing-related real estate activity. Approximately three-fifths of jobs tied to housing are “direct,” with the rest found in sectors—such as architecture, engineering, hardware and furniture stores, and lumber manufacturing—which supply the construction business or are otherwise affected by activity in the residential building and real estate industries.

Spending on homebuilding, home renovation and residential real estate transactions (added together) represents a substantial slice of Canada’s $3.3 trillion economy. This important sector sustains more than one million jobs, a figure that partly reflects the relatively labour-intensive nature of construction and some of the other industries related to homebuilding. Clearly, Canada’s economy will struggle to rebound from the doldrums of 2025 without a meaningful turnaround in homebuilding.