COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Legal ruling and the Canadian dream

Growing up in Canada, there were expectations. If we applied ourselves, invested ourselves, worked hard and contributed to the world around us, it wasn’t a big leap to expect that we could support our family, buy a house, live in a warm community and enjoy reliable work. Sadly, the next generation is not feeling that same certainty.

You’ve heard Conservatives talking about the Canadian dream and wanting to bring it back. Until the last decade under Liberal rule, Canadians believed that “if you worked hard, you should be able to get a nice home on a safe street in a great neighbourhood”—as Pierre Poilievre has repeated. That was the social contract Canadians were raised to believe was available to them. That was the Canadian promise.

Sadly, in less than one generation, the promise is no longer assumed—especially for young Canadians living in larger urban settings. Under Mr. Carney as Prime Minister, Canada’s economy has suffered from the highest household debt in the G7, the most unaffordable housing in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the worst food price inflation in the G7, the second lowest productivity in the G7 and the second highest unemployment in the G7. Furthermore, the Liberal government has made Canada poorer with policies that have blocked economic growth, fueled inflation, and racked up nearly $1.3 trillion in debt, with a deficit of $78.3 billion in their most recent budget.

Canada could be one of the richest, most affordable countries in the world—if bad laws like the anti-resource law, the tanker ban, the industrial carbon tax and capital gains taxes on reinvestment in Canada were repealed. This would be possible if the Liberal government got out of the way of growth.

With each new announcement they make, taxpayers are squeezed just that much more. But just like the toothpaste tube, there is only so much that can be squeezed out.

Which may be why Provencher residents have been writing me wondering about an out-of-province legal decision.

In BC, based on the recent rulings, it is no longer conclusively evident that registered private landowners are entitled to that land. Legal language can sound confusing for those of us who don’t spend our days reading pages of legalese, but either way, we can understand why the ruling is alarming.

Let me assure you right now, the decision does not affect residents of Manitoba. The decision impacts residents of B.C.

The already controversial Cowichan decision regarding Indigenous title over private land called into question the strength of fee simple ownership. As has been noted, any privately owned lands in B.C. may be subject to being overridden by Indigenous title.

According to Caroline Elliot, reporting for the National Post, last summer’s ruling contrasts the assumption of private landowners that their title to their own land is bulletproof, “(it) cannot be said that a registered owner’s title under the (Land Title Act) is conclusive evidence that the registered owner is indefeasibly entitled to that land as against Indigenous title holders and claimants.”

Much of the public debate has focused on private property—and for obvious reasons. Homes are tangible. Mortgages are real. Uncertainty there travels quickly. Still, Crown land as it relates to revenue in forestry, minerals, and other resources generates royalties that flow into public budgets. When ownership shifts, so does the revenue stream. The consequences could extend into public services.

Since 1982, courts have not merely applied Indigenous title doctrine; they have reshaped it. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, with its focus on “reconciliation,” has influenced how judges interpret and evolve the law.