B.C. Aboriginal agreements empower soft tyranny of legal incoherence

In April 2024, the British Columbia government agreed to recognize and affirm the Haida Nation’s Aboriginal title to the archipelago on Canada’s west coast. In December, Ottawa did likewise. These agreements signal danger, and not just on Haida Gwaii.

The agreements tell two conflicting stories. One story is that a new era has begun. Colonial occupation has ended. Haida Gwaii will be governed in accordance with Haida Aboriginal title. But the second story is that private property will be honoured, federal, provincial and local governments will continue to exercise their jurisdiction, and the province will continue to provide and pay for health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services.

On Haida Gwaii, everything has changed, but nothing will change. Though both stories cannot be true, it’s impossible to tell which is false in what respects. Who has jurisdiction over what? If you use your land in a way that complies with local government zoning but the Council of the Haida Nation prohibits it, is it prohibited or permitted? If the council requires visitors to be vaccinated, but the province does not, must they be vaccinated or not? The agreements don’t say.

When jurisdictional conflicts arise under the agreements, they are to be “reconciled” in a transition process. But that process will be decided under Haida law, which is not codified or legislated. Only those with status and authority can say what it is. The legal meaning of the Haida Gwaii agreements therefore cannot be ascertained in any objective sense.

The agreements say private property on Haida Gwaii will be honoured. But private property is incompatible with Aboriginal title. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, Aboriginal title is communal: it consists of the right of a group to exclusive use and occupation of land, but with inherent limits on that use. Land subject to Aboriginal title “cannot be alienated except to the Crown or encumbered in ways that would prevent future generations of the group from using and enjoying it,” the Court wrote in 2014. “Nor can the land be developed or misused in a way that would substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of the land.” If so, the promises in the agreement conflict. Land subject to Aboriginal title cannot be given away or sold, either as a single piece or in bits, except to the Crown. But when land is surrendered to the Crown, Aboriginal title is extinguished on that land. If Haida Gwaii really is subject to Aboriginal title, then no one can own parts of it privately.

Around 5,000 people live on Haida Gwaii, about half Haida. In April 2024, they voted 95 per cent in favour of the B.C. agreement at a special assembly in which non-Haida residents had no say. The agreements create two classes of citizens—one with political status, the other without, depending on people’s lineage.

According to B.C. Premier David Eby, the Haida Gwaii agreement is a template for the rest of the province. In early 2024, the government proposed to amend the province’s Land Act to empower hundreds of First Nations to make joint decisions with the minister on how Crown land—around 95 per cent of the province—is used. That would have given First Nations a veto over the use of public land. Public backlash forced the government to withdraw its proposal, which it did in February 2024. But it has not backed off its objectives and instead has embarked on a series of agreements granting title to, or control over, specific territories to specific Aboriginal groups. Typically, these are negotiated quietly and announced after the fact.

For example, in late January, the government revealed it had made an agreement with the shíshálh (Sechelt) Nation on B.C.’s Sunshine Coast granting management powers, providing for the acquisition of private lands, and making a commitment to recognize Aboriginal title. That agreement was made in August 2024 on the eve of the provincial election but kept hidden for five months. The government eventually posted a copy of it on its website—though with portions redacted. According to an area residents’ association, they were not consulted and weren’t even advised negotiations were taking place.

In the courts, the story is unfolding in a similar way. A judge of the B.C. Supreme Court recently found that the Cowichan First Nation holds Aboriginal title over 800 acres of government land in Richmond, B.C. But that’s not all. Wherever Aboriginal title is found to exist, said the court, it is a “prior and senior right” to fee simple title, whether public or private. That means it trumps the property people have in their house, farm or factory.

If the Cowichan decision holds up on appeal, private property will not be secure anywhere a claim for Aboriginal title is made out. In November, a New Brunswick judge suggested that where such a claim succeeds, the court may instruct the government to expropriate the private property and hand it over to the Aboriginal group.

The Haida Gwaii agreements empower the soft tyranny of legal incoherence. The danger signs are flashing. More of the same is on the way.

Up Next

DOJ urges federal judge to strike down climate change law

Don't Miss

Smith government should create stricter rules for Heritage Fund to ensure annual deposits

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

Trump to sign executive order requiring voter ID for all elections

Daily Caller / 24 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Massively Ambitious’ Nuclear Power Goals Might Save US From Rolling Blackouts

Energy / 1 day ago

DOJ urges federal judge to strike down climate change law

Alberta

Smith government should create stricter rules for Heritage Fund to ensure annual deposits

Published on September 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Earlier this year, the Smith government released its plan to grow the Heritage Fund—Alberta’s long-term resource revenue (e.g. oil and gas royalties) savings fund—to $250 billion or more by 2050. But due to the government’s own rules, which are easily broken, absent a change in approach, that promise will be hard to keep.

For example, according to the government’s current rules, if it records a budget surplus in any given year, it must use at least 50 per cent of that surplus to repay debt or invest in the Heritage Fund. This commitment, paired with a plan to reinvest any Heritage Fund investment returns back into the fund, is the main way the government plans to build up the fund.

Over the past four years, the Smith government has recorded budget surpluses, fuelled by relatively high resource revenue, and deposited $753 million in the Heritage Fund in 2023 and $2.0 billion in 2024.

But Alberta’s fiscal fortunes have changed. The Smith government now projects budget deficits from 2025/26 to 2027/28. That means that, according to current rules, the government is no longer required to deposit money into the Heritage Fund, even though it’s just as important to continue deposits during times of deficits. And while the government must still reinvest investment returns into the fund during periods of deficits, it could easily break this rule.

That’s the problem with relatively weak rules—they either don’t apply or are ignored when times get tough. Indeed, in 1976/77 when the Lougheed government created the Heritage Fund, it required that 30 per cent of resource revenue be deposited in the fund each year. If the government had stuck to this rule, it could have grown a sizeable Heritage Fund over time. But the 30 per cent contribution rate rule was “statutory,” which meant that the government could unilaterally change the rule when times got tough, and it did.

Following an oil price collapse in 1982/83, the government reduced Heritage Fund contributions to 15 per cent of resource revenue. Following a second oil price collapse in 1986/87, and budget deficits, the government ended resource revenue contributions entirely. Consequently, the government has deposited less than four per cent of Alberta’s total resource revenue in the Heritage Fund over its lifetime. And despite the fund existing for more than 50 years, it’s worth about $25 billion today—a far cry from the Smith government’s $250 billion goal.

Fortunately, there’s a way to ensure Premier Smith’s rules for the fund remain effective over time—make them constitutional, not statutory.

To create constitutional rules, the Alberta government would first seek consent from Albertans through a referendum—a procedure that in itself provides value by educating Albertans on the benefits of stricter rules for the Heritage Fund. Assuming the proposal receives the necessary level of public support, the Alberta government would then pass legislation to recognize the rules and present this legislation to the federal House of Commons and Senate for recognition, resulting in a change pertaining to Alberta in Canada’s Constitution.

As a result, if the Smith government, or any future Alberta government, wanted to reverse the rules or ignore their requirements, it would need to reverse each step in this process—seek approval from Albertans via a referendum, pass provincial legislation, and ask the federal government to approve similar legislation. In other words, it would be much more work to change or ignore Heritage Fund rules—unlike today, when the provincial government can unilaterally change the rules without the approval of Albertans or support from the federal government.

The Smith government has promised to grow the Heritage Fund, which is a worthy objective. But it must stick to its commitment—even when times are tough. Put simply, to grow the Heritage Fund over the long-term, Albertans needs constitutional rules.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Education

Spending per K-12 student in Canada ranged from $13,494 in Alberta to $19,484 in Quebec in 2022/23

Published on August 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra, Max Shang and Milagros Palacios

Spending per student (kindergarten to grade 12) in Canada ranged from a low of $13,494 in Alberta to a high of $19,484 in Quebec in 2022/23, finds a
new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

Most people—parents included—don’t understand how much is being spent educating students in public schools across Canada, which is critical before parents begin to evaluate whether they’re getting good value for the money,” said Michael Zwaagstra, senior fellow with the Fraser Institute and co-author of Education Spending in Public Schools in Canada, 2025 Edition.

The study finds that inflation adjusted per student spending on public schools in Canada increased nationally by 5.9 per cent over between 2013/14 and 2022/23. A different way to think about this increase in spending is to analyze how much was required to offset changes in student enrolment and inflation. The analysis shows that over this time period (2013/14 to 2022/23) an additional $6.5 billion was spent over and above what was needed to compensate for more students and inflation.

The spending analysis also includes different categories such as compensation, capital and other spending as categorized by Statistics Canada. Compensation (salaries, wages, fringe benefits, and pensions) contributed the most to the total growth in spending on public schools from 2013/14 to 2022/23.

In total, Quebec experienced the largest increase at 40.6 per cent. Prince Edward Island (14.5 per cent) and Nova Scotia (10.8 per cent) experienced the next largest increases in spending per student, while Saskatchewan (-14.8 per cent), Alberta (-17.5 per cent), and Newfoundland & Labrador (-11.2 per cent) were the only provinces to experience meaningful declines during this same period.

“When it comes to our children’s education, it’s important to understand exactly what’s happening with spending in public schools, and, most importantly, to question how the money spent is being put to use,” said Zwaagstra.

Per student spending in public schools across the provinces 2022/23

Province Per-student dollars

Canada 16,579

Quebec 19,484
Prince Edward Island 17,475
New Brunswick 17,346
Manitoba 17,036
Nova Scotia 16,800
Ontario 16,164
Saskatchewan 15,774
British Columbia 15,116
Newfoundland &Labrador 14,190
Alberta 13,494

Education Spending in Public Schools in Canada, 2025 Edition

Total education spending in public schools over the last 10 years increased from $63.0 billion in 2013/14 to $88.4 billion in 2022/23, a nominal increase of 40.3%.
Per-student spending adjusted for inflation (price changes), increased by 5.9% nationally from 2013/14 to 2022/23.
The highest inflation-adjusted spending increases (per student) occurred in the provinces of Quebec (40.6%), Prince Edward Island (14.5%), Nova Scotia (10.8%), and British Columbia (9.3%).
Five provinces experienced decreases in inflation-adjusted per-student spending—Alberta (17.5%), Saskatchewan (14.8%), Newfoundland & Labrador (11.2%), Manitoba (3.0%), and Ontario (1.7%).
Quebec had the second lowest level of per-student spending in public schools in 2013/14 and now has the highest. Prince Edward Island went from seventh in per-student spending to second highest.
On the other hand, Saskatchewan went from the highest in per-student spending to seventh, and Alberta went from fifth highest to tenth, the lowest.
Even though British Columbia recorded the fourth-highest growth in adjusted per-student spending, it still ranks eighth in per-student spending in Canada.
Student enrolment across Canada increased by an average of 5.6% from 2013/14 to 2022/23. Only Newfoundland & Labrador saw a decrease in enrolment (4.9%).
Compensation remains the largest and costliest aspect of education spending and has contributed the largest portion to the growth of total education spending in Canada.

READ THE FULL STUDY