B.C. Indigenous land claims decision leaves British Columbians in limbo

The Cowichan, who are based mainly on Vancouver Island, claimed they had a village on an island that is now part of Richmond that they used seasonally. They had to prove with evidence that they were fearsome enough that other groups—like the Musqueam and Tsawwassen, who incidentally were both part of the opposition to the Cowichan claim—would have been scared and thus reluctant to use the claimed area when the Cowichan were away.

The recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Cowichan Tribes v Canada (Attorney General) (cited as 2025 BCSC 1490) granting a declaration of Aboriginal title over city-owned land in Richmond and fishing rights in the Fraser River has already drawn attention and concern.

This is because the judgment’s reasoning on Aboriginal title has potentially widespread implications for private property in B.C., and perhaps elsewhere. At the same time, the judgment is also totally inaccessible for most readers. At a monster length of more than 3,700 paragraphs, it does not yield legal guidance easily.

The judgment comes after a trial that started in 2019, with more than 500 trial days. The judgment lists out more than 80 lawyers involved so far. It was the longest trial in Canadian history, and the case will probably ultimately reach the Supreme Court of Canada—perhaps with a decision by the end of the decade.

Estimating the likely costs based on the length of proceedings, and normal legal fees, I will not be surprised if overall legal costs in the Cowichan Tribes case approach or even exceed $100 million by the time all is said and done.

What does $100 million of such spending get you these days? A few things.

First, and explaining significant parts of the expense, it got a lot of detailed evidence from documents, from experts, from Aboriginal oral history, and other forms that the trial judge, Madam Justice Young, considered against the established Aboriginal title test. In other words, the trial allowed a multitude of sources, many new, for the trial judge to try to apply the existing rules on Aboriginal title.

That test looks for whether a claimant group has proven “sufficient” and “exclusive” occupation of land as of just prior to the date of assertion of European/Canadian sovereignty—in this part of B.C., that date is 1846. The Cowichan, who are based mainly on Vancouver Island, claimed they had a village on an island that is now part of Richmond that they used seasonally. They had to prove with evidence that they were fearsome enough that other groups—like the Musqueam and Tsawwassen, who incidentally were both part of the opposition to the Cowichan claim—would have been scared and thus reluctant to use the claimed area when the Cowichan were away. Sorting through these facts and other elements pertinent to the Aboriginal title test took massive amounts of evidence and time.

Second, the spending includes consideration of various defences that parties to the case mounted. The federal lawyers, the provincial lawyers, and City of Richmond lawyers all made different arguments. Both the federal and provincial lawyers were restricted in what they could argue, based on a combination of their own policies and on the judge’s rejection of some of their arguments as inconsistent with other legal acts, such as B.C.’s recognition of title in the Haida Agreement. This is an important recognition of how the trial judge’s decision was influenced by discretionary provincial policy in the province, namely its recognition of the Haida Nation’s title on their claimed land.

The City of Richmond was less restricted in its defence but critically failed with portions of its defence that might apply to private landowners. For example, the lands the City of Richmond owned were determined to not have been acquired “for value,” which means that the City didn’t buy them. The failure of meeting this test means the City of Richmond was not afforded the significant protection in property law that many private landowners would receive (under a technical category of “bona fide purchasers for value”).

Third, the spending gets you a decision that included some unclear paragraphs that say there will be interesting questions to be faced down the road, including what happens when there’s an Aboriginal title claim directly over privately owned land. Some text from the decision in the case suggest Aboriginal title might take priority over any other property interest, but private landowners will have a future chance to invoke defences such as the “bona fide purchaser for value” concept. Despite the fact the Cowichan avoided these issues for now by not asking for a declaration concerning any private land, those cases are coming. The broader trajectory is precisely towards that clash, and there are active cases of that type elsewhere, including over major private landholdings throughout New Brunswick.

There’s not any definitive legal clarity from the judgment on this crucial point of how Aboriginal title and private property interact. For $100 million, the trial delivered lingering uncertainty and heightened risks on the legal status of property, which influences the economy and residents across the province, not just those directly involved in the case.

This issue has been key in motivating a provincial government appeal, which is unlikely to take less than a year to resolve and could take two or even three years, and even then it’s likely to move on to the Supreme Court of Canada. Until then, British Columbians, including Indigenous Peoples, will continue to face heightened uncertainty and the economic costs it imposes.

Dwight Newman

Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Up Next

Canada’s equalization program is broken and requires major overhaul

Don't Miss

Poilievre Slams Carney’s Tariff Retreat

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

Breaking News: the public actually expects journalists to determine the truth of statements they report

Artificial Intelligence / 6 hours ago

AI seems fairly impressed by Pierre Poilievre’s ability to communicate

Alberta / 7 hours ago

ATA Collect $72 Million in Dues But Couldn’t Pay Striking Teachers a Dime

Alberta

ChatGPT may explain why gap between report card grades and standardized test scores is getting bigger

Published on November 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson and Max Shang

In Alberta, the gap between report card grades and test/exam scores increased sharply in 2022—the same year ChatGPT came out.

Report card grades and standardized test scores should rise and fall together, since they measure the same group of students on the same subjects. But in Alberta high schools, report card grades are rising while scores on Provincial Achievement Tests (PAT) and diploma exams are not.

Which raises the obvious question—why?

Report card grades partly reflect student performance in take-home assignments. Standardized tests and diploma exams, however, quiz students on their knowledge and skills in a supervised environment. In Alberta, the gap between report card grades and test/exam scores increased sharply in 2022—the same year ChatGPT came out. And polling shows Canadian students now rely heavily on ChatGPT (and other AI platforms).

Here’s what the data show.

In Alberta, between 2016 and 2019 (the latest year of available comparable data), the average standardized test score covering math, science, social study, biology, chemistry, physics, English and French language arts was just 64, while the report card grade 73.3—or 14.5 per cent higher. Data for 2020 and 2021 are unavailable due to COVID-19 school closures, but between 2022 and 2024, the gap widened to 20 per cent. This trend holds regardless of school type, course or whether the student was male or female. Across the board, since 2022, students in Alberta high schools are performing significantly better in report card grades than on standardized tests.

Which takes us back to AI. According to a recent KPMG poll, 73 per cent of students in Canada (high school, vocational school, college and university) said they use generative AI in their schoolwork, an increase from the previous year. And 71 per cent say their grades improved after using generative AI.

If AI is simply used to aid student research, that’s one thing. But more than two-thirds (66 per cent) of those using generative AI said that although their grades increased, they don’t think they’re learning or retaining as much knowledge. Another 48 per cent say their “critical thinking” skills have deteriorated since they started using AI.

Acquiring knowledge is the foundation of higher-order thinking and critical analysis. We’re doing students a deep disservice if we don’t ensure they expand their knowledge while in school. And if teachers award grades, which are essentially inflated by AI usage at home, they set students up for failure. It’s the academic equivalent of a ski coach looking at a beginner and saying, “You’re ready for the black diamond run.” That coach would be fired. Awarding AI-inflated grades is not fair to students who will later struggle in college, the workplace or life beyond school.

Finally, the increasing popularity of AI underscores the importance of standardized testing and diploma exams. And parents knew this even before the AI wave. A 2022 Leger poll found 95 per cent of Canadian parents with kids in K-12 schools believe it’s important to know their child’s academic performance in the core subjects by a fair and objective measure. Further, 84 per cent of parents support standardized testing, specifically, to understand how their children are doing in reading, writing and mathematics. Alberta is one of the only provinces to administer standardized testing and diploma exams every year.

Clearly, parents should oppose any attempt to reduce accountability and objective testing in Alberta schools.

Paige MacPherson

Associate Director, Education Policy, Fraser Institute

Max Shang

Economist, Fraser Institute

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.