So much for British Columbiaā¦
EBY FAILED TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY
David Livingstone David W. Livingstone, PHD, is a senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and professor in liberal studies and political studies at Vancouver Island University.
National Post
Dec 29, 2025
CRISIS LOOMS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
David Ebyās government in British Columbia is reeling after two recent court decisions put private property rights in jeopardy.
In August, the B.C. Supreme Courtās Cowichan Tribes decision declared that titles to certain properties in the city of Richmond are ādefective and invalid.ā Adding to Ebyās headache is the Court of Appealās ruling in Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), which held that every law and regulation in B.C. must align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Among other things, UNDRIP refers to āthe urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of Indigenous peoplesā and āespecially their rights to their lands.ā Essentially, a United Nations document has suddenly become a second constitution.
Feigning shock, Eby declared earlier this month that he will āgo to the wallā to protect the rights of affected Richmond property owners. The province is now talking about offering loan guarantees to homeowners if banks wonāt refinance mortgages or buyers canāt secure financing. But these are Band-aid solutions that donāt solve the fundamental issue.
More than the rights of the Richmond property holders are at stake. Most of B.C. is not covered by treaties, so land claims will continue to come forward. Many more B.C. property owners could be affected. In fact, itās an even bigger problem than that. Private property held in fee simple is the basis of our economy and our standard of living. Property rights also buttress the basic freedoms we take for granted as citizens of a constitutional democracy.
Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto describes private property as one of the most remarkable achievements of the West. Keen to promote prosperity and freedom in Peru and other parts of the developing world in the early 2000s, de Soto started investigating why market economies worked so well in the West but not in developing countries. The missing ingredient, he argued in a 2001 paper, was the lack of a formal system of secure, private property title.
Formalization of private property creates rights and obligations. As de Soto says, it gives people āindisputable proof of ownership and protection from uncertainty and fraud.ā When government secures private property rights, it creates certainty for individuals and organizations. Secure rights to property give people the freedom to decide how to live their lives. They are free to express their opinions knowing that the government canāt punish them by taking away their homes or their livelihood.
Itās no accident that the highest-ranked countries in the Freedom House index are those that have secure property rights, meaning that individuals are able to āexercise the right to own property and establish private businesses without undue interference from state or nonstate actors.ā
De Soto also observed in 2001 that the lack of property protection and formalization ācondemns the majority of citizens who live in the informal sector to needless poverty.ā
Without secure title, economic opportunities are limited. People canāt use their property as collateral to get a loan from a bank, they have trouble getting utilities supplied to them because the utility company is not sure who the rightful owner is, and so on. De Soto coined a term for this: ādead capital.ā
Without secure, fee simple property rights, businesses also wonāt invest because they are uncertain whether their capital will be protected. Earlier this year, in explaining why Canadian business investment declined sharply during 2008 and again during COVID earlier this year, the Bank of Canada noted, āUncertainty can cause businesses to delay investments, to make more limited investments, or to not invest at all.ā (Emphasis mine).
If property is suddenly invalidated by Aboriginal title, the financial crises cited by the Bank of Canada will seem like a walk in the park by comparison.
University of Saskatchewan law professor Dwight Newman has suggested using section 43 of the Constitution to declare that private property rights are protected against Aboriginal title claims. A constitutional amendment would provide greater certainty than simply passing a law in the provincial legislature, which could be easily overturned by a future B.C. government.
While itās far from clear how the question of Aboriginal title will ultimately be reconciled with private property rights in B.C., the government needs to shore up the right to private property quickly before businesses begin pulling out of the province and talented people ā engineers, doctors, entrepreneurs ā start leaving, no longer content to wait and see whether their homes and businesses will suddenly plummet in value.
As de Soto argues, āCivilized living in market economies is not simply due to greater prosperity but to the order that formalized property rights bring.ā
Itās time for the government to step up and create certainty for individuals and organizations by guaranteeing the right to private property in this province.
Shared via PressReader
connecting people through news