EDITORIAL: Making sense out of B.C. property chaos

Fraser Institute report outlines different approaches in addressing the issue of Indigenous land rights in B.C. while respecting private property ownership rights

Published Aug 23, 2026  •  Last updated 57 minutes ago  •  2 minute read

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie speaks to the media as hundreds attend a Cowichan Ruling Info Session at the Sheraton Vancouver Airport Hotel in Richmond, B.C., in October 2025. Photo by Arlen Redekop/Postmedia

See more Toronto Sun on Google — save as a Preferred Source 

Article content

A recent Fraser Institute report on the chaos in British Columbia over private property ownership rights sheds light on the issue and offers solutions from constitutional experts and Indigenous law professors.

Article content

Recommended Videos

Article content

A series of court decisions, legislative action by the B.C. government, and agreements with First Nations have thrown uncertainty into that province’s property laws.

“Part of the crisis is from legislation by the current B.C. government. In 2019, with unanimous support in the legislature, it passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRPIA), incorporating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into B.C. law,” Fraser reports.

UNDRIP says Indigenous peoples have the right to use, own, develop, and control lands, territories, and resources they traditionally used or occupied, and to give or withhold, “free, prior, and informed consent,” to activities on such territories.

Article content

Article content

Last November, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the province’s reformed mineral claims regime violated the legislation.

Fraser quotes law professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan. He suggests using a constitutional amendment to clarify the relationship between Aboriginal title and private property rights.

Newman points out that uncertainty impedes private business investment and “undermines the general economic environment within which Canadians pursue improved well-being.” Private property rights need protection, “including against lingering uncertainty, to support the functioning of a modern economy.” The solution is not to abandon Indigenous rights, and he disagrees wth those who take that approach.

Fraser includes an essay by Indigenous lawyer Thomas Isaac. He proposes governments “recommit to clear, transparent, and principled treaties as the primary tool to negotiate recognition of constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights.”

Article content

Finally, Queen’s University law professor Bruce Pardy suggests more fundamental and sweeping changes, including repealing Section 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees “the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada,” revising the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and repealing other statutes that treat Indigenous people differently than other Canadians.

“Canada’s prosperity rests in part on its tradition of protecting private property, but these rights have now been thrown into question,” Fraser says.

“The status quo not being an option, British Columbians, and all Canadians, need to understand the pros and cons of different solutions.”

Words of wisdom in a fraught debate.

Read More

1. 

   Tories demand government stand up for rights of property owners

2. 

   LILLEY: Private property versus Aboriginal title just got more complicated
3. 

   EDITORIAL: Words to the wise on reconciliation

4. 

   GUNTER: Cowichan Tribes land ruling shows activist judges rewriting Canadian law, threatening private property rights

5. 

   GUNTER: B.C. land claim court ruling muddies reconciliation waters

Article content