B.C.’s plan to ‘reconcile’ by giving First Nations a veto on land use

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Bruce Pardy

UNDRIP-inspired land law reforms are poised to turn province into an untenable host for mining, forestry and much more.

We live in strange times. A new generation of political leaders seems determined to cripple their own societies. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, of course, comes to mind. But in Canada, he is not alone. In British Columbia, NDP Premier David Eby is preparing to bring his province to its knees.

The B.C. government plans to share management of Crown land with First Nations. The scheme will apply not to limited sections of public land here and there, but across the province. The government quietly opened public consultations on the proposal last week. According to the scant materials, the government will amend the B.C. Land Act to incorporate agreements with Indigenous governing bodies.

These agreements will empower B.C.’s hundreds of First Nations to make joint decisions with the minister responsible for the Land Act, the main law under which the provincial government grants leases, licences, permits and rights-of-way over Crown land. That means that First Nations will have a veto over how most of B.C. is used. Joint management can be expected to apply to mining, hydro projects, farming, forestry, docks and communication towers, just to start. Activities at the heart of B.C.’s economy will be at risk.

In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP states, among other things, that Indigenous people own the land and resources of the countries in which they live. They have “the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired … to own, use, develop and control.”

At the time, Canada sensibly voted “no,” along with the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Eleven countries abstained. In 2016, Trudeau’s government reversed Canada’s objection.

As a General Assembly declaration, UNDRIP is not binding in international law nor enforceable in domestic courts. But in 2019, under the leadership of Eby’s predecessor John Horgan, the B.C. legislature passed Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The act requires the government of B.C. to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” Eby’s joint management plan is the next step in this project.

Long before UNDRIP, the Supreme Court of Canada created a constitutional “duty to consult” with Aboriginal peoples. The court said that the “honour of the Crown” governs the relationship between the government and Aboriginal people. The Crown’s fiduciary duties include a duty to consult whenever proposed action may adversely affect established or asserted Aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution. This duty is notoriously uncertain, onerous and time-consuming. It has become an albatross around the neck of the Canadian resource industry. The courts seem unable to specify what the duty to consult requires, except after the fact.

Now, the B.C. government aims to make things even more unpredictable. Whatever the contours of the right to be consulted, the Supreme Court at least has been clear that it does not constitute a veto. Eby will create one.

Shortly before the B.C. legislature passed Bill 41 in November 2019, the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia sponsored an Aboriginal Law Conference featuring several Indigenous proponents of the bill. They promised that the new law would render the province unrecognizable.

It will “set up a whole new norm,“ “give teeth to (UNDRIP),” and move the province away, if “not fully,” from the Westminster model of governance. The veto to be conferred on Indigenous interest groups, they said, will mean that “consent will not be given very often, if at all.”

“We’re not talking small changes; we’re talking big changes,” one speaker suggested, adding that money provided by the government so far hasn’t been enough.

“Compensation for sacred sites, for lands taken, for relocation … it’s going to be an overwhelming number of compensation claims … and so I’m hoping that the province is ready for that…. Life (in B.C.) can and will change.”

For many, it is likely to change for the worse. B.C. could become an untenable host for land-based, resource-related enterprise. Impenetrable layers of red tape would entangle applications for leases and licenses. The price for First Nations approvals could be an increasing share of royalties and kickbacks, without which consent will be refused. Both governments and First Nations will siphon an ever-larger piece of a shrinking pie.

The government’s timeline is short. Written submissions will be accepted until the end of March, and anyone giving feedback will be limited by how little information the B.C. government has offered in the consultation. Bureaucrats will begin drafting amendments to the Land Act in early February, and the government plans to introduce a bill in April or May.

If you are feeling grateful not to live in B.C., don’t count your chickens. In 2021, Parliament passed its own version of B.C.’s Bill 41, the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It requires the federal government to “take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” An action plan outlining more than 100 specific measures was released in 2023.

In a speech to the B.C. Business Council in 2016, I argued that our leaders could not do a better job of preventing Canadian business from succeeding in the global economy. I underestimated them. Their determination and ingenuity know no bounds.

Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe, professor of law at Queen’s University, and senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Related Topics:#BrucePardy #MacdonaldLaurierInstitute #UNDRIP BCCrownLandFirstNations

Up Next

The Cost to Western Canada if Steven Guilbeault Copies Biden’s Assault on LNG

Don't Miss

Opportunity knocks for Canada to become key LNG supplier as U.S. pauses projects

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

Pulling back the curtain on the Carney government’s first budget

International / 9 hours ago

The capital of capitalism elects a socialist mayor

Business / 9 hours ago

Capital Flight Signals No Confidence In Carney’s Agenda

Aristotle Foundation

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

Published on November 2, 2025

Todayville

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.

Bruce Dowbiggin

Get Ready: Your House May Not Be Yours Much Longer

Published on October 30, 2025

Bruce Dowbiggin

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.