Benjamin Lawton wants more than verbal assurances that British Columbians own their property. He wants candidates in B.C.’s Oct. 24 election to sign their names to a pledge.
Lawton is executive director of the Property Rights Defence Fund, a new coalition of property owners and concerned citizens that is asking candidates across B.C.’s political spectrum to endorse a five-point platform on property rights.
One of the fund’s demands is for B.C. lawmakers to repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), a controversial B.C. Indigenous rights law. Another is to pass a law that says private property ownership extinguishes Aboriginal title.
According to Lawton, “a full repeal of DRIPA” is needed to protect property rights in the province.
But others say that reconciling private and Indigenous property interests will never be that simple.
“Many of the demands that are presented [by the fund] … operate from the basis that standing on a pedestal and declaring the importance of state-backed property rights will somehow make the issue of Aboriginal title go away,” said Douglas Harris, a law professor at the University of British Columbia.
“[And that] is just wrong.”
Competing claims
British Columbia passed DRIPA with all-party support in 2019.
The legislation requires British Columbia to bring all provincial laws into alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a declaration that affirms Indigenous rights to lands, resources and self-determination.
Thomas Isaac, a partner at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP who chairs the firm’s Aboriginal Law Group, says DRIPA creates requirements the government simply cannot fulfil.
“I am on the record saying it is impossible to align every B.C. law with UNDRIP,” he said. “By design, UNDRIP is not intended to be a binding document.”
DRIPA has been at the centre of recent B.C. court rulings. In December 2025, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that courts could assess provincial laws’ consistency with UNDRIP.
The province proposed amending DRIPA after that ruling, but backed down over opposition from First Nations. It is, however, seeking to appeal.
Separately, in 2025, a B.C. trial court delivered a ruling known as Cowichan, which recognized Aboriginal title to about 300 hectares of land in Richmond, B.C., including parcels of private land.
The court in that case did not invalidate private property rights. But it did say that key Land Title Act protections do not shield private property against claims of Aboriginal title.
The government is also appealing that decision.
Isaac says he thinks the trial judge’s assertion that private property rights can co-exist with Aboriginal title is wrong.
“I don’t believe what the [B.C. Supreme] court did here is a representation of the guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada,” Isaac said.
Ownership anxiety
Lawton, who launched the Property Rights Defence Fund in September, says he had initially planned for the fund to push for legislators to prioritize property rights in the fall legislative session.
But then Premier David Eby called a snap election, creating an opportunity to directly push candidates to take a stance on property rights.
In Lawton’s view, there is an urgent need for legislators to take steps to protect property rights.
“[I]f we get this wrong, we’re in for an eternity of … economic, social, political agony,” he said.
“That’s the best way I can describe it politely.”
An Oct. 19 Angus Reid survey found 44 per cent of British Columbians favour repealing DRIPA and pursuing reconciliation through direct agreements with First Nations.
Another 24 per cent said they favour maintaining DRIPA while addressing interpretation and implementation concerns. Eleven per cent said they want to see the law strengthened.
Issac, of Cassels Brock, says he is a major proponent of Indigenous reconciliation, but notes British Columbians should be seeking from legislators a “vigorous defence of fee-simple private property rights.”
Secure property rights are the foundation of a functioning economy, he notes.
“It’s the fact that you can lend on [property], you can take credit on it, you can seize it, you can mortgage it,” he said.
“That’s what actually drives, not the entire economy, but a significant portion of the economy.”
Isaac says that the Cowichan decision leaves owners vulnerable to future claims against their property — even where a First Nation currently disavows any intention to seek their property.
“You’ve got this sword of Damocles hanging over your head,” he said.
Matt Stabler, 67, a retired marine biologist in Port Alberni, B.C., has signed a public petition by the Property Rights Defence Fund and circulated it among neighbours and on online forums.
A BC Conservative voter, he fears homeowners could eventually face competing claims to property they believe is securely theirs.
“[If] somebody comes up to my door and knocks on it and says I don’t own that house anymore, there’s gonna be a real issue,” he said.
Amend or appeal
Lawton says the Property Rights Defence Fund is non-partisan. But he also says one party is to blame for the province’s present situation.
“[T]he reason we got into this mess today, the reason why our fundamental property rights are under question today, is because of the concerted efforts of none other than David Eby himself,” he said.
The NDP, which did not respond to requests for comment, has publicly expressed a willingness to amend DRIPA.
But the Conservatives have promised to repeal it wholesale, arguing this would protect private property ownership and promote certainty for developers.
As of Oct. 22, only two Conservative candidates had signed their names to all five of the fund’s proposals. The fund says it has received supportive feedback from other party members as well.
“We’re pleased by the generally positive reaction we received over phone and email from numerous Conservative candidates that we spoke with including Tony Luck, Sacha Peter, and leader Lorne Doerkson,” the fund’s Oct. 22 press release said.
In an Oct. 22 email to Canadian Affairs, a Conservative Party spokesperson avoided specific questions about the Property Rights Defence Fund, but said the Conservatives are the clear choice for voters concerned about property rights.
Harris, of the University of British Columbia, says repealing DRIPA would have no effect on the body of constitutional law that recognizes Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title.
“The courts have said … that the province can’t unilaterally extinguish the Aboriginal title,” said Harris.
Harris calls the fund’s defence of property “one-sided” and insufficiently protective of Indigenous ownership. He sees room for settlements that combine compensation, returned land and government purchases from willing private owners.
“I think the best outcome is a negotiated outcome,” he said.
Isaac, for his part, wants governments to develop a lasting reconciliation policy that accounts for its costs and the economic development needed to sustain it. This policy, he says, needs to be “long-term, sustainable [and] affordable.”
“We need a bigger economy to reconcile properly,” he said. “I think we can, but we can’t do it on this economy. That means you need to develop more.”
