Vancouver (Rajeev Sharma): The British Columbia government is facing renewed scrutiny over its approach to land governance after quietly finalizing another land-use agreement with an Indigenous group on Vancouver Island—an agreement critics say further reshapes decision-making authority and adds to uncertainty around property rights in the province.
The latest agreement, reached with the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, establishes shared management over roughly 166,000 hectares in the Nimpkish Valley on northern Vancouver Island. The arrangement spans multiple land-use areas, including forestry, and represents one of the largest co-management frameworks announced by the province in recent years.
The deal comes amid ongoing debate sparked by recent court rulings that have unsettled long-standing assumptions about private property in British Columbia. Most notably, a 2025 court decision recognizing Cowichan Tribe Aboriginal title over land in Richmond placed both Crown and privately held parcels under legal uncertainty. The ruling stated that Aboriginal title, where established, takes precedence over fee simple ownership—commonly held by homeowners and businesses.
That judgment has affected more than 150 property owners, prompting the provincial government to create a support fund exceeding $150 million to assist with loan guarantees and related financial pressures. Some affected owners have reported difficulty renewing mortgages and concerns over declining property values.
Premier David Eby publicly criticized the Cowichan decision and said his government would back an appeal, despite the province not opposing the case initially. He has also pledged to amend legislation tied to a separate mineral rights ruling, after the B.C. Court of Appeal found the province’s updated mineral claims system conflicted with its own laws.
At the centre of the debate is the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), passed unanimously by the B.C. legislature in 2019. The law requires provincial statutes to align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which affirms Indigenous peoples’ rights to traditional lands and resources and calls for free, prior and informed consent on projects affecting those areas.
Legal scholars note that UNDRIP also recognizes Indigenous self-government in matters relating to land and local affairs, as well as restitution or compensation for lands historically used or occupied. B.C. remains the only province to adopt legislation explicitly mandating alignment with the declaration.
Eby, who was attorney general when DRIPA was introduced, has acknowledged concerns about how courts are interpreting the legislation and has said changes are needed to limit judicial reach. However, critics argue the government continues to pursue bilateral agreements that mirror the effects of contested court decisions, effectively transferring land control and management authority to Indigenous governments.
Over the past several years, the province has entered into multiple such agreements. These include transferring title and governance of Haida Gwaii to the Haida Nation, granting the shíshálh Nation title to Crown lands and influence over water access on the Sunshine Coast, and expanding the Squamish Nation’s authority over culturally significant areas north of Vancouver. In another case, the Tŝilhqot’in Nation was given veto power over mining projects near Teẑtan Biny (Fish Lake).
Observers say many of these agreements are negotiated with limited public visibility, leaving residents and businesses uncertain about long-term implications. Business groups and policy analysts warn that unclear property frameworks may discourage investment, slow economic growth, and add to financial pressures at a time when the province is grappling with sluggish economic performance and strained public finances.
Supporters of the agreements argue they advance reconciliation and recognize Indigenous stewardship over traditional territories. Critics counter that without clearer boundaries and broader public consultation, the province risks deepening uncertainty for property owners and investors alike.
As legal appeals proceed and more agreements are finalized, calls are growing for the provincial government to provide clearer guidance on how private property rights will coexist with expanded Indigenous land governance in British Columbia.
