The Quiet Remaking of Canada

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

B.C. residents sat up and took notice of this shocking change when the Eby government announced that it planned to embark on a plan of “co-governance” with its indigenous population – a plan that would have given 5% of B.C.’s population a veto over every aspect of public land useage in the province.

Most Canadians are unaware that a campaign to remake Canada is underway. The conception of that most Canadians have of their country – that it is, one nation, in which citizens of different ethnic, religious and racial groups are all treated equally, under one set of laws – is being fundamentally transformed. B.C. residents sat up and took notice of this shocking change when the Eby government announced that it planned to embark on a plan of “co-governance” with its indigenous population – a plan that would have given 5% of B.C.’s population a veto over every aspect of public land useage in the province.

An emphatic “No” from an overwhelming majority of citizens put an end to this scheme – at least temporarily.

But the Eby government continues to move forward with its plan to transform the province into a multitude of semi-autonomous indigenous nations to accommodate that 5% of the indigenous B.C. population. It is proceeding with a plan that recognizes the Haida nation’s aboriginal title to the entire area of the traditional Haida territory. It would basically make Haida Gwaii into what would in essence be a semi-independent nation, ruled by Haida tribal law.

Many of us are familiar with that exceptionally beautiful part of Canada, where the Haida have lived for thousands of years. Misty Haida Gwaii, formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands, is a magical place. Until now, it has been a part of Canada. How would this Haida agreement change that?

Non-Haida residents of Haida Gwaii are probably asking themselves that question. Although they are being told that their fee simple ownership and other rights will not be affected by the Haida agreement, is that true? If one must be Haida by DNA to fully participate in decisions, how can it be argued that non Haida residents have rights equal to a Haida?

For example, the Supreme Court ruled in the Vuntut Gwitchin case that, based on the allegedly greater need of maintaining so-called Indigenous cultural “difference”, individual Indigenous Canadians can now be deprived by their band governments of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on their home reserves and self-governing territories. Simply put, the law of the collective- namely tribal law- will apply.

So, tribal law takes precedence over Canadian law. And will a non-Haida resident be deprived of rights that he would enjoy anywhere else in Canada? For that matter, will an indigenous, but non-Haida, resident have equal rights to a Haida, if he can’t vote in Haida elections? Will this plan dilute, or even eliminate, fee simple ownership for some.

Or this: Does a provincial government even have the power to make such an agreement in the first place? After all Section 91(24) of our Constitution Act gives the federal government responsibility for status Indians.

These are but a few of the many questions that has B.C. residents asking many questions. In fact, the proposed Haida agreement will likely be front and centre in the upcoming provincial election, and could usher in decades of litigation and uncertainty.

But the Eby government has made it clear that the Haida agreement will be the template for others that will follow. Considering the fact that there are at least 200 separate indigenous communities in B.C. this would be a very ambitious undertaking – especially in light of the fact that most of those 200 or so communities are tiny, and almost all are dependent on taxpayers for their continued existence.

Eby is responding to the Supreme Court’s astounding decision that aboriginal title existed, unless it had been surrendered by treaty. The court relied on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to come to this decision. This was after what was the longest trial in the history of B.C. wherein the trial judge in that case, Chief Justice Allan McEachern, had written a masterful decision finding that aboriginal title did not exist as claimed by the indigenous parties to the action. The Supreme Court went on in subsequent cases to transform Canadian indigenous law and expand section 35 in a manner that emphasized the need for “reconciliation”, the primacy of the collective over the rights of the individual for indigenous people, and the need for indigenous “nation to nation” separateness, instead of assimilation. All of this was done by judicial fiat, with absolutely no input from the Canadian public. Senior Ontario lawyer, Peter Best, describes this radical transformation of Canada in his epic work, “There Is No Difference”.

The unfortunate decision by both the federal government and the B.C. government to adopt UNDRIP, (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples) and B.C.’s provincial version, DRIPA, (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) further muddied the waters.

What British Columbia will look like in 10 years is anyone’s guess, if the hundreds of indigenous communities in B.C. are successful in obtaining agreements similar to what the Haida negotiate. It also seems very likely that indigenous communities in other parts of Canada will see what the B.C. communities achieved, and want the same additional autonomy and land rights for themselves. In the treaty areas of Canada, namely mainly the prairies and parts of the north, the treaties, in theory, settle the issue. But, if the B.C. Indians succeed in obtaining superior entitlements, the treaty Indians will almost certainly agitate for “modern treaties” that include what the Haida received.

And the citizens of eastern Canada, who believe that their indigenous claims have been permanently settled long ago, are probably in for a rude shock. In “A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy” the late Gordon Gibson quotes a former senior bureaucrat in Indian Affairs who insisted on remaining anonymous. That source says bluntly that all of Canada will be at play if Canada does indeed become the “patchwork of tiny Bantustans” that journalist and visionary Jon Kay predicted in 2001, if we keep going down this “nation to nation” path.

In fact, it is quite possible that every one of the 600 or so indigenous communities in Canada will end up with at least as much “separateness” as the Haida obtained. Canada will be fundamentally transformed into a crazy quilt of mainly dependent reserves governed by tribal law. Surely the Fathers of Confederation didn’t work so hard to end up with such a backward, fractured Canada?

As we see this fundamental transformation taking place in B.C., and then heading eastward, I suspect that Canadians who do not want such a future for their country will start to ask themselves how we arrived at this point. How can a nation be fundamentally transformed with no input from the citizens? Don’t the Canadian people have to be consulted, as we watch our country being transformed by judicial fiat and tribal law? Doesn’t a constitutional process have to be invoked, as happened in the failed Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accords?

Most Canadians believe that history has not been kind to indigenous people, and that indigenous have legitimate claims that need to be addressed. But most Canadians also believe that Canada is one country, in which everyone should be equal.

Canadians also firmly believe that Canada should not be divided into racial enclaves, where different sets of laws are applied to different racial or ethnic groups. In fact, most Canadians would probably support the sub-title of the late Gordon Gibson book cited above: “Respect the Collective – Support the Individual”. Canadians want to see indigenous people succeed, and they support indigenous people in their fierce determination to hold on to their indigenous identity and culture. But they want indigenous people to succeed as Canadians – not in a Canada that has been carved up into racial ghettos, like slices of a cheap pizza.

The Haida agreement is the first highly visible slice – a symbol of a semi-independent “nation” within Canada, that will be governed by rights of the collective tribal law – as opposed to the rights of the individual. That takes us back thousands of years. Before the Haida agreement inspires hundreds of other such racial mini-states within Canada, should Canadians not have a say in what our country is becoming?

Or will we continue to let unelected judges, and faceless bureaucrats, determine our fate?

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Related Topics:#BCFirstNations #BrianGiesbrecht #Co-Governance #FrontierCentreForPublicPolicy #QuietRemakingOfCanada

Up Next

No reliable evidence that ESG investing produces above-average returns

Don't Miss

Court Ruling on Murthy Misses Point Entirely

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

UK Police Pilot AI System to Track “Suspicious” Driver Journeys

Business / 5 hours ago

Judge Declares Mistrial in Landmark New York PRC Foreign-Agent Case

Business / 5 hours ago

The “Disruptor-in-Chief” places Canada in the crosshairs

Indigenous

Residential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests

Published on December 21, 2025

Todayville

By Edgardo Sepulveda for Inside Policy

Church arsons surged again in 2024 according to new data released by Statistics Canada—continuing a disturbing trend first uncovered by a Macdonald-Laurier Institute investigation published last year.

Scorched Earth: A quantitative analysis of arson at Canadian religious institutions and its threat to reconciliation, which I published last April, warned that the arson wave – almost certainly spurred by ongoing anger over potential unmarked burials of children at residential schools –would not disappear without concerted government policy intervention.

Unfortunately, my prediction is proving accurate.

Newly available custom data from Statistics Canada confirms that arsons in 2024 continued at nearly double the baseline level established from 2011–17.

This persistent elevation is particularly concerning given that arson is a dangerous crime with significant financial costs and, in the case of religious institutions, broader implications for Canadian society and political discourse. Most importantly for those committed to Indigenous reconciliation, the apparent lack of effective policy response risks undermining public support for reconciliation efforts—suggesting these crimes are not being treated with the seriousness they deserve, particularly because many targets are Catholic churches associated with residential school legacies.

Scorched Earth developed specific terms and a conceptual framework to analyze arsons at religious institutions. First, I refer to “potential unmarked burials” rather than other terminology, including “mass graves” – language suggesting verified remains and, potentially, the site of clandestine burials. Neither has been established. No remains have been verified at any of the 21 announced sites. The Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation revised its own characterization of the Kamloops, BC, announcements in May 2024 to “probable unmarked burial sites,” a significant shift from its initial May 2021 announcement of “remains of 215 children.” This precipitated announcement, together with some of the initial media coverage in Canada and elsewhere, likely contributed to the intensity of the arson response.

Second, the conceptual framework, updated with the latest Statistics Canada data, separates “baseline” from “excess” arson associated with specific shocks, such as the announcements. It shows that arsons at religious institutions have remained elevated since the initial spike in 2021. Based on careful geographic statistical analysis presented in Scorched Earth, I demonstrated that the most likely explanation for elevated arsons was a criminal response prompted by the 17 announcements of potential unmarked burials at former residential schools, beginning in Kamloops, B.C., in May 2021. Four additional announcements occurred in 2024, bringing the total to 21. While data through 2023 showed no detectable increase in arsons related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, analysis of 2024 data suggests this changed: arsons in response to that conflict now constitute a minority of the increase above baseline levels, with the majority remaining those related to announcements of potential unmarked burials.

Investigation and Prosecution Rates Remain Insufficient for Effective Deterrence

Statistics Canada’s newly released custom clearance data for arson at religious institutions provides the first comprehensive official view of law enforcement effectiveness in these cases, superseding the preliminary compilation included in Scorched Earth.

Crimes in Canada are considered “solved” when police identify a suspect with sufficient evidence to support charges. Cases are then classified as “cleared” through two mechanisms: laying charges (“cleared by charge”) or alternative processes such as diversion programs (“cleared otherwise”).

As Figure 2 illustrates, the cleared-by-charge rate for all arson averaged 13.1 per cent over the 2011–24 period. For religious institutions, the yearly average reached 14.4 per cent—marginally higher but still concerning. The clearance rate for religious institutions shows significant year-over-year variability, reflecting the smaller statistical base compared to all arsons. The “cleared otherwise” category adds an average of 4.7 per cent for both arson types.

While these low clearance rates align with those for other property crimes, the continuing elevated arson rate suggests they provide insufficient deterrence for either first-time or serial arsonists. Evidence from Scorched Earth indicates that sustained clearance rates in the mid-30 per cent range—achieved by the National Church Arson Task Force (NCATF) in the United States during the 1990s—effectively reduced church arsons targeting predominantly Black congregations in the American South.

While my statistical analysis indicates that announcements of potential unmarked burials likely motivated many incidents, this remains circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would require confessions or explicit statements of rationale from arrested arsonists, or credible claims of responsibility from organized groups. Out of the 306 arsons at religious institutions over the 2021-24 period, 53 resulted in charges and 13 were cleared through alternative processes, totaling 64 cleared incidents—an overall clearance rate of 21 per cent.

A clearance rate at this level, while insufficient for effective deterrence, makes it unlikely that most arsons during this period resulted from organized political, ideological, or anti-religious campaigns. A coordinated campaign would likely be visible to investigators even at this clearance level. Since police identify suspects in far more cases than they prosecute, investigators develop a broader perspective on potential culprits than clearance rates alone suggest. Law enforcement officials have not provided any indication of such organized campaigns.

Federal and Provincial Funding Addresses Searches But Ignores Consequences

Neither federal nor provincial governments have introduced policy initiatives addressing elevated arson rates at religious institutions, despite substantial new funding for related matters.

Following the Kamloops announcement, the federal government launched the Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support program, providing $246 million to hundreds of communities, including for research and field investigations. Separately, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and other provinces have committed hundreds of millions in additional dollars, including programs to address mental health effects from the search process and announcements.

This funding inventory highlights a significant policy gap: substantial resources address the cause—announcements of potential unmarked burials—while none target the effect: arsons at religious institutions.

Even viewed narrowly as a crime issue, recent government responses to other property crimes demonstrate available policy tools. When auto theft peaked in 2023, the federal government announced $121 million in federal support, convened a national summit with all levels of government and law enforcement, and released a National Action Plan by May 2024.

Policy Gaps and a Call to Action

The NCATF, created in response to arsons targeting Black churches in the 1990s United States, achieved clearance rates sufficient to reduce incidents. Canada possesses the same policy tools but has not deployed them for residential school-related arsons.

This is not a matter of capacity or institutional precedent. Recent government responses to other serious property crimes, such as auto theft, demonstrate that Canada can mobilize coordinated federal-provincial action when it chooses to. The apparent policy inaction since 2021 for residential school-related arsons must end.

Canada is not powerless to stop the arsonists. The policy recommendations set out in Scorched Earth continue to be valid:

Create a national or regional integrated police/fire investigations unit focused specifically on arson at religious institutions. This integrated unit would investigate arsons at all religious institutions—Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and others.
Improve Indigenous police and fire protection services, including to ensure full Indigenous participation in the integrated unit.
Complete the long-running project of building and maintaining a comprehensive and timely national and on-reserve database of fire statistics.

Law enforcement officials must thoroughly investigate and prosecute the arsonists. The attacks threaten reconciliation and full Indigenous equality—and they must be condemned by all Canadians.

Economist Edgardo Sepulveda has more than 30 years of experience advising clients in more than forty countries. He has written for Jacobin magazine, TVO Today, and the Alberta Federation of Labour, and has been lead author of three peer-reviewed academic articles in the last five years. He received his BA (Hon) from the University of British Columbia and his MA from Queen’s University, both in Economics. He established Sepulveda Consulting Inc. in 2006.

Business

Storm clouds of uncertainty as BC courts deal another blow to industry and investment

Published on December 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jason Clemens

Recent court decision adds to growing uncertainty in B.C.

A recent decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal further clouds private property rights and undermines investment in the province. Specifically, the court determined British Columbia’s mineral claims system did not follow the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which incorporated the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into law.

DRIPA (2019) requires the B.C. provincial government to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration,” meaning that all legislation in B.C. must conform to the principles outlined in the UNDRIP, which states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” The court’s ruling that the provincial government is not abiding by its own legislation (DRIPA) is the latest hit for the province in terms of ongoing uncertainty regarding property rights across the province, which will impose massive economic costs on all British Columbians until it’s resolved.

Consider the Cowichan First Nations legal case. The B.C. Supreme Court recently granted Aboriginal title to over 800 acres of land in Richmond valued at $2.5 billion, and where such aboriginal title is determined to exist, the court ruled that it is “prior and senior right” to other property interests. Put simply, the case puts private property at risk in BC.

The Eby government is appealing the case, yet it’s simultaneously negotiating bilateral agreements that similarly give First Nations priority rights over land swaths in B.C.

Consider Haida Gwaii, an archipelago on Canada’s west coast where around 5,000 people live—half of which are non-Haida. In April 2024, the Eby government granted Haida Aboriginal title over the land as part of a bilateral agreement. And while the agreement says private property must be honoured, private property rights are incompatible with communal Aboriginal title and it’s unclear how this conflict will be resolved.

Moreover, the Eby government attempted to pass legislation that effectively gives First Nations veto power over public land use in B.C. in 2024. While the legislation was rescinded after significant public backlash, the Eby’s government’s continued bilateral negotiations and proposed changes to other laws indicate it’s supportive of the general move towards Aboriginal title over significant parts of the province.

UNDRIP was adopted by the United Nations in 2007 and the B.C. Legislature adopted DRIPA in 2019. DRIPA requires that the government must secure “free, prior and informed consent” before approving projects on claimed land. Premier Eby is directly tied to DRIPA since he was the attorney general and actually drafted the interpretation memo.

The recent case centres around mineral exploration. Two First Nations groups—the Gitxaala Nation and the Ehattesaht First Nation—claimed the duty to consult was not adequately met and that granting mineral claims in their land “harms their cultural, spiritual, economic, and governance rights over their traditional territories,” which is inconsistent with DRIPA.

According to a 2024 survey of mining executives, more uncertainty is the last thing B.C. needs. Indeed, 76 per cent of respondents for B.C. said uncertainty around protected land and disputed land claims deters investment compared to only 29 per cent and 44 per cent (respectively) for Saskatchewan.

This series of developments have and will continue to fuel uncertainty in B.C. Who would move to or invest in B.C. when their private property, business, and investment is potentially at risk?

It’s no wonder British Columbians are leaving the province in droves. According to the B.C. Business Council, nearly 70,000 residents left B.C. for other parts of Canada last year. Similarly, business investment (inflation-adjusted) fell by nearly 5 per cent last year, exports and housing starts were down, and living standards in the province (as measured by per-person GDP) contracted in both 2023 and 2024.

B.C.’s recent developments will only worsen uncertainty in the province, deterring investment and leading to stagnant or even declining living standards for British Columbians. The Eby government should do its part to reaffirm private property rights, rather than continue fuelling uncertainty.