The political landscape in Canada is heating up as various provincial leaders propose significant changes regarding independence and property rights. British Columbia Conservative Leader John Rustad is advocating for an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1982. He argues that this amendment should require majority approval from the Senate, the House of Commons, and at least two-thirds of the provinces representing half of Canada’s population. Rustad believes this change is necessary to protect private property rights in light of a recent court ruling regarding Indigenous land rights.

In a CBC interview, Rustad expressed concern over a ruling made by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young on August 7. The ruling determined that the Cowichan Nation and its allied tribes hold unextinguished Aboriginal title to 298 hectares of land on the Fraser River, which was taken unlawfully in the 1800s. This land is currently under the control of the federal government and the City of Richmond. Rustad claimed that property owners in major cities like Vancouver could face legal challenges that might force them to buy back their homes from First Nations.

Rustad stated, "What we really need to be having a conversation about is changing our Constitution. We should actually be looking at enshrining private property rights in our Constitution." However, it is important to note that the Cowichan Nation specifically excluded privately-held property from their claim, and Justice Young exempted these properties from her ruling. Furthermore, she suspended her ruling for 18 months to allow for negotiations between the involved parties.

Rustad also suggested that instead of appealing the decision, the British Columbia New Democratic Party government should seek a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. He proposed a simple question: "Does private property rights extinguish aboriginal title where there is an overlap?" This inquiry comes in the context of several Supreme Court cases that have upheld Aboriginal rights and title in relation to various provincial and federal laws.

Despite Rustad's concerns, legal precedents indicate that Aboriginal title has not been extinguished by the B.C. Land Title Act. In fact, First Nations have consistently excluded privately-held property from their claims in leading Aboriginal title cases over the past fifty years. Rustad warned that if every community in the province were to be recognized as having Aboriginal title, the financial implications for compensation could be staggering, particularly in urban areas like downtown Vancouver.

The discussion around private property rights is complex. While Rustad's proposal for constitutional entrenchment may seem appealing, the reality is that property rights are not absolute. Both Canada and the United States recognize the principle of due process in property law, and various legal frameworks can affect property rights.

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie has also weighed in on the issue, claiming that the city was left to argue its case alone in the Cowichan ruling. He criticized both Ottawa and Victoria for limiting their legal arguments due to commitments under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Brodie contends that this constrained their ability to argue that grants of private property had extinguished Aboriginal title.

The ongoing debate highlights the challenges faced by British Columbia, where over 90 percent of the landmass is potentially subject to unextinguished Aboriginal title due to the lack of treaties. As political leaders navigate these complex issues, the responsibility often falls to the courts to resolve disputes that arise from the intersection of Indigenous rights and property laws. This situation has persisted across various political administrations, leading to frustration among leaders like Rustad, who feel compelled to take drastic measures in response to legal rulings.