A recent meeting in Richmond, British Columbia, highlighted the legal uncertainties stemming from the B.C. Supreme Court's decision regarding the Cowichan Tribes' Aboriginal title. This decision has raised concerns among property owners about the implications for private land ownership in the region. The court recognized Aboriginal title over part of Richmond but did not transfer privately owned land. However, the ruling suggested that Aboriginal title may take precedence over private property, which has alarmed landowners across British Columbia.

The decision is currently under appeal, but the process could take years and may not directly address the concerns regarding Aboriginal title and private property. In the interim, homeowners face potential risks to their mortgages and insurance. Investors are reportedly hesitant to invest in British Columbia or Canada until there is legal clarity.

In August, a proposal was made to expedite the legal process by sending a reference case to the Supreme Court of Canada. This would allow the federal government to seek a quicker resolution to the legal questions raised by the ruling. Alternatively, British Columbia could submit a reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which could then be escalated to the Supreme Court. However, both options may take too long, exacerbating the uncertainty that could hinder investment and impact lives.

The ongoing legal ambiguity also threatens the aspirations of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Many First Nations have expressed that they seek acknowledgment of their historical dispossession rather than dispossessing others.

One potential solution is to pursue a focused constitutional amendment under Section 43 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982. This section allows for amendments affecting only one province through resolutions passed in that province's legislature and in the federal Parliament. Such amendments have previously been used to adjust rights and property laws in Canada.

A targeted amendment could clarify that private property in British Columbia is protected from Aboriginal title claims. This approach would not only address the immediate legal uncertainty but could also facilitate ongoing discussions about Aboriginal rights.

The appeals process could continue on other aspects of the case while this specific issue is resolved through a constitutional amendment. Given that First Nations have indicated they do not wish to claim against private property, they may support this approach. The B.C. government has also expressed the need for clarity on this matter, and the federal government has a vested interest in maintaining Canada’s reputation as a favorable investment destination.

Now is the time to utilize existing legal frameworks to restore certainty and address the concerns of all parties involved.