In 2024, both B.C. and Ottawa recognized the Haida Nation's Aboriginal title to their West Coast archipelago, setting a dangerous precedent beyond Haida Gwaii, according to Bruce Pardy, a legal academic.

“The agreements tell two conflicting stories,” Pardy writes in a Financial Post column. “One is that … Colonial occupation has ended and Haida Gwaii will now be governed in accordance with Haida Aboriginal title. But the second story is that private property will still be honoured, … and the province will still provide and pay for health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services.”

“The agreements say private property on Haida Gwaii will be honoured. But private property is incompatible with Aboriginal title.”

Aboriginal title, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, grants a group exclusive, communal land use, but with limits. Land cannot be sold except to the Crown or encumbered in ways that prevent future generations' use.

“Nor can the land be developed or misused in a way that would substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of the land.” 

Pardy asserts that land under Aboriginal title can only be surrendered to the Crown, at which point the title is extinguished. Therefore, if Haida Gwaii has Aboriginal title, private ownership of its parts is impossible.

Conflicting statements in the Haida Gwaii agreements create unclear jurisdiction, the academic continues. For instance, if local zoning permits an action on private land but the Council of the Haida Nation prohibits it, its legality is ambiguous. 

Similarly, if the Haida Gwaii Council mandates visitor vaccination but the province does not, the requirement is unclear. The agreements offer no clarity.

Jurisdictional conflicts in the agreements are to be "reconciled" via a transition process governed by uncodified Haida law. Its interpretation rests solely with those in authority, making the agreements' legal meaning objectively unascertainable.

The B.C. agreement, supported by 95% of the Haida Nation without non-Haida input, creates two classes of citizens based on ancestry.

Early in 2024, the province aimed to amend the Land Act, granting hundreds of First Nations joint decision-making power with the minister over Crown land—95% of the province—effectively giving them veto power over public land use.

The government withdrew its controversial proposal in February 2024 due to public backlash. However, it continues to pursue its goals by quietly negotiating and announcing agreements that grant specific Aboriginal groups title to or control over territories.

Inspired by UNDRIP, a non-binding document, it affirms indigenous rights to self-determination, land, and compensation for land taken without consent.

The NDP now fears the Cowichan Nation ruling jeopardizes private property rights and economic stability. Conservative Leader John Rustad states the ambiguity leaves homeowners, farmers, small businesses, and investors "in limbo," eroding confidence and halting projects.

THIS is the start of how you will OWN NOTHING and “be happy.”

The Supreme Court of B.C. just ruled that the Cowichan Tribes now have aboriginal title over HUNDREDS of acres of private lands in Richmond. pic.twitter.com/erLKe3JRyA

— Drea Humphrey (@DreaHumphrey) August 9, 2025

In late January, the government revealed a previously hidden agreement with the shíshálh (Sechelt) Nation, made in August 2024. This agreement grants management powers, allows for private land acquisition, and recognizes Aboriginal title. Residents claim they were not consulted or informed of the negotiations.

A more recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling recently granted Aboriginal title to the Cowichan First Nation for 800 acres in Richmond, calling it a "prior and senior right" over existing property titles. This decision was inspired by the 2024 agreements.

The Cowichan decision, if upheld, poses a threat to private property wherever Aboriginal title is claimed, according to Pardy.

“British Columbians—and Canadians more generally—need to be aware of the legal ramifications of the Haida Gwaii agreements and the Cowichan First Nation court ruling,” he said.

“The Haida Gwaii agreements empower the soft tyranny of legal incoherence. The danger signs are flashing. More of the same is on the way.”