Connect with us

Indigenous

Bloodvein First Nation blockade puts public land rights at risk

Published

1 month ago

6 minute read

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Brian Giesbrecht

The Bloodvein blockade of Crown land is illegal. Canadians must insist on the rule of law, or watch public land quietly slip away

The Bloodvein First Nation in northeastern Manitoba has erected a blockade on Crown land, barring non Indigenous hunters from accessing a large area surrounding its reserve. While the move may reflect frustration with provincial policies or rising tensions over land use, there’s one inescapable fact: it is illegal.

Yet you wouldn’t know that from media coverage.

CBC, for instance, referred to the affected area as “its land,” quoting First Nations leaders and provincial politicians who appear to believe that land surrounding a reserve belongs to the First Nation itself. It does not. The land in question is Crown land—public land owned and managed by governments on behalf of all Canadians, not by any individual or group.

Bloodvein is governed under Treaty 5, which, like other numbered treaties, involved the full cession of land to the Crown. The numbered treaties, signed between 1871 and 1921, were formal agreements between Indigenous nations and the federal government. In exchange for surrendering large territories, First Nations received reserved land, annual payments and the right to hunt and fish on unoccupied Crown land, among other benefits.

The language in Treaty 5 is clear: Indigenous signatories “cede, release, surrender and yield up” all rights and title to the land in question. While the treaty permits hunting and fishing on Crown land, those rights are subject to regulation and can be overridden when land is needed for settlement, resource development
or other public uses.

This framework was reinforced in 1930 through the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, which granted provinces full control over Crown lands and resource management, while protecting treaty-based hunting and fishing rights.

This means Bloodvein residents, like all Indigenous peoples in Manitoba, retain the right to hunt and fish on Crown land, but they do not have the right to prevent others from doing the same.

The Manitoba Wildlife Federation has called the blockade unlawful and urged the government to act. So far, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has remained silent. That silence sends the wrong message, not just about this specific dispute, but about the rule of law more broadly.

While public sympathy for reconciliation is real, so too is concern that Indigenous land claims are increasingly encroaching on public and private property rights.
Cases like the Cowichan Tribes’ recent title claim, supported by oral history and largely untested assertions of continuous occupation, are raising alarm bells for
property owners, especially in British Columbia, where court decisions have cast doubt on long-held ownership rights.

At the heart of these cases is “Aboriginal title”: a legal concept created by Canadian courts that recognizes ongoing Indigenous land rights based on historic occupation, even in the absence of a treaty. These claims, if successful, can override existing property titles and affect both public and private lands.

That concern is compounded by public messaging. Terms like “unceded territory,” “stolen land” and “traditional lands” are now used uncritically in media and government communications. That messaging includes the widespread use of land acknowledgements, statements recognizing that land is historically Indigenous territory. While often intended as gestures of respect, these acknowledgements are also used by some activists to reinforce legal and political claims to land.

Canadians have sat through countless land acknowledgements without being told that these rituals are often linked to broader strategies aimed at asserting expanded territorial control. Many are now asking: How far will this go?

If we are to preserve a fair and functioning system of property rights, the public must insist that governments enforce existing laws, even when it’s politically difficult. Crown land belongs to all Canadians. Indigenous groups have rights, important ones protected by treaty and by law, but so do other Canadians. Those rights must not be overridden by unilateral action or political inertia.

Premier Kinew and other provincial leaders need to reaffirm that the rule of law applies to everyone. That means making it clear: the Bloodvein blockade has no
legal standing and should be removed. Canadians—Indigenous and non Indigenous alike—have equal rights to access public land under the law. Respect for treaty rights requires clarity and honesty about what those treaties say. They must not be reinterpreted after the fact through the lens of modern politics or public pressure.

Crown land is not a bargaining chip. It’s a trust held for all Canadians. If politicians won’t defend it, then Canadians must—because public land isn’t something we give away to silence criticism. It’s something we defend, together.

Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

 

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Automotive / 5 hours ago

Elon Musk Poised To Become World’s First Trillionaire After Shareholder Vote

International / 5 hours ago

Kazakhstan joins Abraham Accords, Trump says more nations lining up for peace

Business / 5 hours ago

Carney’s Deficit Numbers Deserve Scrutiny After Trudeau’s Forecasting Failures

Aristotle Foundation

B.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land

Published on November 2, 2025

By

By Caroline Elliott

It claims to oppose the Cowichan decision that threatens private property, but it’s been working against property owners for years

A City of Richmond letter to property owners in the Cowichan Aboriginal title area recognized by the B.C. Supreme Court has brought the judgment’s potential impacts into stark reality.

“For those whose property is in the area outlined in black,” the letter explained, “the Court has declared Aboriginal title to your property which may compromise the status and validity of your ownership.”

While Premier David Eby has been quick to disavow the decision, the reality is his government helped set the stage for it in multiple ways. Worse, it quietly supported a similar outcome in a related case, even after the concerning implications of the Cowichan judgment were well-known.

The problematic nature of the Cowichan decision has been well-established. It marks the first time a court has declared Aboriginal title over private property in B.C., and declares certain fee simple land titles (i.e., private property) in the area “defective and invalid.”

Understandably, the letter raised alarm bells not only for directly-affected property owners, but also for British Columbians generally, who recognize that the court’s findings in Richmond may well be replicated in other areas of the province in the future.

As constitutional law professor Dwight Newman pointed out in August, if past fee simple grants in areas of Aboriginal title claims are inherently invalid, “then the judgment has a much broader implication that any privately owned lands in B.C. may be subject to being overridden by Aboriginal title.”

In response to media questions about the City of Richmond’s letter, Eby re-stated his previous commitment to appeal the decision, saying, “I want the court to look in the eyes … of the people who will be directly affected by this decision, and understand the impact on certainty for business, for prosperity and for our negotiations with Indigenous people.”

While the words were the right ones, his government helped lay the groundwork for this decision in at least three ways.

First, the province set the policy precedent for the recognition of Aboriginal title over private property with its controversial Haida agreement in 2024. The legislation implementing the agreement was specifically referenced by the plaintiffs in the Cowichan case, and the judge agreed that it illustrated how Aboriginal title and fee simple can “coexist.”

Eby called the Haida agreement a “template” for other areas of B.C., despite the fact that it raised a number of democratic red flags, as well as legal concerns about private property rights and the constraints it places on the ability of future governments to act in the public interest.

While the agreement contains assurances that private property will be honoured by the Haida Nation, private property interests and the implementation of Aboriginal title are ultimately at odds. As Aboriginal law experts Thomas Isaac and Mackenzie Hayden explained in 2024, “The rights in land which flow from both a fee simple interest and Aboriginal title interest … include exclusive rights to use, occupy and manage lands. The two interests are fundamentally irreconcilable over the same piece of land.”

Second, the provincial and federal lawyers involved in the Cowichan proceedings were constrained by the government in terms of the arguments they were allowed to make to protect private property. In August, legal expert Robin Junger wrote, “One of the most important issues in this case was whether Aboriginal title was ‘extinguished’ when the private ownership was created over the lands by the government in the 1800s.”

The Cowichan judgment expressly notes that B.C. and Canada did not argue extinguishment. In B.C.’s case, this was due to civil litigation directives issued by Eby when he was attorney general.

Finally, provincial legislation implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) also played a role in supporting the judge’s conclusions, a point Newman wrote about in August. “They’re used in support of (even if not as the main argument for) the idea that Aboriginal title could yet take priority over current private property rights,”

In addition to setting the stage for the Cowichan decision, and despite their stated concerns with that judgment, the B.C. government has actively sought judicial recognition of Aboriginal title over private property elsewhere.

The overlaying of Aboriginal title over private property with the Haida agreement was already problematic enough prior to the Cowichan decision. However, even after the serious implications of the Cowichan decision were clear, the provincial and federal governments quietly went before the B.C. Supreme Court in support of a consent order that would judicially recognize the Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii.

The successful application had the effect of constitutionally entrenching Aboriginal title for the Haida Nation, including over private property, with the explicitly stated goal of making it near-impossible for future democratically elected governments to amend the agreement.

The reality is, the B.C. government claims to oppose the Cowichan decision even as it laid the groundwork for it, and it has actively pursued similar outcomes on Haida Gwaii. Repeated claims of seeking certainty and protecting private property have been belied by this government’s actions again and again.

Caroline Elliott, PhD, is a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and sits on the board of B.C.’s Public Land Use Society.

Continue Reading

Bruce Dowbiggin

Get Ready: Your House May Not Be Yours Much Longer

Published on October 30, 2025

By

As political scientist Philip Kaufman explains, “If you keep saying you are on stolen land, don’t be surprised when judges give it away to the natives you said you stole it from.” 

“At Dodger Stadium on Monday night, singer JP Saxe re-wrote the lyrics of O Canada. The Toronto pop singer swapped the official “our home and native land” for “our home on native land.”

All things considered the land acknowledgement by Saxe (born Jonathan Percy Starker) is pretty tame stuff in today’s climate where some Canadians are suddenly learning they may not own their homes. But like Justin Trudeau washing “genocidal” Canadian laundry at the UN Saxe’s stunt at the Series is just another sign that Canada’s clever folk remain all-in on humiliating themselves in front of the world over reconciliation.

The latest acknowledgements go beyond an off-key pop singer toying with a song lyric. Just ask citizens of Richmond, B.C. which has sent a letter to residents warning that their property may not belong to them.  This after a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled the Vancouver Island First Nation have won back fishing rights and title for part of the land its ancestors used as a summer home in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland— despite opposition by two other Indigenous communities.

The gormless BC NDP government, which brought on the crisis by refusing to legally challenge native demands in the Blueberry River dispute, says it’s monitoring the Richmond file, admitting “owning private property with clear title is key to borrowing for a mortgage, economic certainty, and the real estate market.” But no promises, folks.

Naturally the locals are not amused. One Richmond property owner, who says he’s owned and paid taxes on his home since 1975, has been told by his lender they won’t be renewing his mortgage after First Nations land claim.

The Eby government settlement— called by Bruce Pardy “an existential threat to the future of his own province”— is part of a wave of claims both written and oral gaining momentum across the nation. As we wrote in August, “Among those properties in question is the Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, B.C.. How slick is that? A Carney government that ran on protecting Boomers’  primary residence cashboxes has now managed to put the entire notion of fee simple home ownership at risk. 

As blogger Liam Harlow writes, “Indigenous people will now have an unprecedented, parallel title to private property in that area, a legal first of its kind in a court declaration. This title is declared a ‘prior and senior right to land,’ implying a stronger claim, with the court fundamentally asking “what remains of fee simple title after Aboriginal title is recognized in the same lands?”

It doesn’t stop there. Under UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) the UN will hold any properties acquired “in trust” for all “aboriginals” as they bicker among themselves for supremacy. Whether Canada’s natives will actually get the land, they will have served as a convenient vehicle for the progressive Left to expand its jurisdiction.

The glass half full on reconciliation holds that Canada’s politicians negotiate a fee with the new native owners to stay on these properties. (Good luck getting a mortgage with the Haida Gwai as co-owners on title.) The glass half empty is your equity goes bye-bye. The decision shocked many earnest Elbows Up types who had no idea their elected governments had fumbled the ball this way. 

This is the culmination of decades of federal Liberal acquiescence on the Indigenous file, incompetence highlighted by Trudeau’s pandering visit to a graveyard that contained no alleged murdered babies. Or his refusal to re-open the main rail lines in 2020 when natives blocked the CP tracks.”

Citizens losing their homes in legal disputes should lead every newscast in the nation. Good luck sparking debate on these onrushing crises. As members of the B.C. legislature discovered when they were fired by their party for articulating a few inconvenient facts on reconciliation. The paid-off media, meanwhile, are too obsessed with Trudeau dating celebrity Katy Perry.

The reconciliation fatwa imposed by the Canadian Left powers the ludicrous ongoing spectacle over the Rez School graves. Based on verbal tradition alone, the prime minister of Canada staged pictures with teddy bears when there has never been a murder charge or a family searching for a dead child ever registered in Canada.

Multi-million dollar payouts by the Canadian government to investigate graves produced no evidence of any bodies— mostly because no effort was made. Evidence shows that children in Rez schools might have had a lower mortality rate from TB than those children in their residences. Or even in the general public.

Anyone challenging this reconciliation orthodoxy is fired from teaching positions, expelled from mainline political parties and banned from polite society. No one in Laurentian media seems willing to touch the hot skillet. No wonder polling in 2024 showed 60 percent of Canadians still believe the genocide claim.

Using this blank cheque indigenous radicals demanded land acknowledgements before meetings, political rallies and sports events. To which Woke Canada has caved. A bill in the BC legislature to ban acknowledgements “that deny the sovereignty of the Crown within British Columbia or that attribute collective guilt to individuals based on race, ancestry or the actions of Canadian historical figures” was quashed (88 of 93 MLAs voting no) The MLA behind the bill, Dallas Brodie, was instructed by a fellow PC MLA to get on the “right side of history.”

Meanwhile activists are in classrooms repeating the sanctity of land acknowledgements, ignoring that these lands had turned over many times in tribal warfare. To take just one example, the Comanche used the horse to go from a Canadian tribe to conquering multiple tribes and civilizations across the continent, stealing land and enslaving women and children. But new history mandates that it was their “ancestral” land. The pattern is repeated across North America.

Canadian liberals shrug at this as all just words and theatre. But as political scientist Philip Kaufman explains, “If you keep saying you are on stolen land, don’t be surprised when judges give it away to the natives you said you stole it from.”  The BC NDP government’s guilt trip is now producing land claims across the country with warning home owners that, guess what, you may not own your home, either. Like this aboriginal challenge over lands in western Quebec.

There may be better ways to inspire radicalism among normally placid Canadians than kicking people out of homes they’ve bought, but for the moment we can’t think of any. And that’s nothing to sing about.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

Trending

X