Aboriginal rights and private property rights clash in B.C.

B.C.'s strong reaction to First Nations' claims to private property may provide assurances to companies and private property owners

RSS236
Follow by Email
Facebook0
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn

//

 property rights, first nations property rights, first nations

[popup url=”http://marketplace.troymedia.com/2016/01/aboriginal-rights-and-private-property-rights-clash-in-b-c/” height=”800″ width=”800″ scrollbars=”0″]Download[/popup] this column on [popup url=”http://www.troymedia.com/tag/property-rights/” height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″]property rights[/popup] and [popup url=”http://www.troymedia.com/tag/first-nations/” height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″]First Nations[/popup]
[popup url=”http://marketplace.troymedia.com/terms-and-conditions-of-use/” height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″]Terms and conditions of use[/popup]

By Ravina Bains
and Kayla Ishkanian
The Fraser Institute

VANCOUVER, B.C. Jan 27, 2016/ Troy Media/ – The muddy waters of aboriginal land claims and private property rights in British Columbia may have just cleared a little.

On Jan. 15, the B.C. government stated its opposition to the Tk’emlups and Skeetchestn bands’ aboriginal title claim on land currently owned by private citizens and mining company KGHM- Ajax, saying it will “[popup url=”http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/provincial-government-opposes-aboriginal-title-claim-on-kghm-ajax-owned-land/” height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″]vigorously oppose[/popup] a declaration that has the potential to create uncertainty over the land base and for private property owners across this territory,” which is near the city of Kamloops.

Last fall, the two First Nations bands filed a claim with the B.C. Supreme Court saying that the province and KGHM- Ajax never consulted with the communities about a proposed copper and gold mine near the Jacko Lake area. Chief Ron Ignace, of the Skeetchestn First Nation, has been vocal in opposing the project, saying that the community wants the right to dictate how the lands are used while also raising concerns about the potential environmental impact of the project. This brewing legal battle has the potential to define the boundaries in which aboriginal title and private property rights can operate, something two previous Supreme Court cases failed to do.

property rights, first nationsThe 2014 Supreme Court of Canada Tsilhqot’in judgment states that in order for development to occur on aboriginal title lands, consent (not consultation) from First Nations is required. The judgment also states that a government can infringe on aboriginal title rights if a project is in the “[popup url=”https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/real-game-changer-supreme-court-of-canada-tsilhqotin-decision.pdf” height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″]greater public interest[/popup].” However, since the Tsilhqot’in Nation withdrew its claim to privately held fee simple land, the court did not have to balance private property rights with aboriginal title rights in its judgment.

More recently, the 2015 Saik’uz First Nation and Stellat’en First Nation v. Rio Tinto Supreme Court of Canada decision [popup url=”https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-development-projects-in-jeopardy.pdf” height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″]makes private parties susceptible to litigation[/popup] by First Nations communities who have simply claimed (not proven) aboriginal title on land in B.C; an area of litigation previously only brought against provincial and federal governments, creating additional land uncertainty in B.C. The Fraser Institute’s annual [popup url=”https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/annual-survey-of-mining-companies-2014″ height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″]mining survey[/popup] demonstrates that land uncertainty is having a real impact on investment opportunities for the province. In fact, the 2015 survey shows that the number one impediment for mining investment in B.C. is uncertainty stemming from disputed land claims.

Following these two important judgments the B.C. government did not address the private property dilemma and how the government would respond if there was a situation where aboriginal rights impacted private property rights of British Columbians. Given that more than [popup url=”https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/real-game-changer-supreme-court-of-canada-tsilhqotin-decision.pdf” height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″]100 per cent of the province[/popup] is currently claimed by First Nations, it was only a matter of time before private property versus aboriginal title cases come forward.

The B.C. government’s strong reaction regarding Tk’emlups and Skeetchestn First Nations claim to private property may provide assurances to companies and private property owners in B.C. concerned about aboriginal title litigation in their backyards. And time will tell how the courts will balance aboriginal rights against property rights in the province.

Ravina Bains is the associate director and Kayla Ishkanian is a researcher for the Centre for Aboriginal Policy Studies at the Fraser Institute.

Ravina and Kayla are Troy Media contributors. [popup url=”http://www.troymedia.com/become-a-troy-media-contributor/” height=”600″ width=”600″ scrollbars=”0″] Why aren’t you?[/popup]


The views, opinions and positions expressed by all Troy Media columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Troy Media.

Submit a Letter to the Editor

Troy Media Marketplace © 2016 – All Rights Reserved
Trusted editorial content provider to media outlets across Canada

You must be logged in to post a comment Login