Letter to the Editor: Officials and media must stop misstating Aboriginal title law

Rob Shaw’s recent article repeats a serious legal error introduced by Attorney General Niki Sharma and amplified by BC Conservative Leader John Rustad.

Both stated that Aboriginal title “cannot displace private property rights.”

That phrasing is not only misleading—it is constitutionally wrong.

Under Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence—Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014)—Aboriginal title predates and burdens the Crown’s radical title.

Fee-simple ownership exists only because the Crown granted it, and the Crown’s title itself is subject to Aboriginal title.

Aboriginal title is a constitutionally protected, sui generis property right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, whereas fee simple is a statutory creation that changes hands freely but rests upon the deeper Indigenous interest in land.

To assert—as Ms. Sharma did—that Aboriginal title cannot affect or “displace” fee simple turns the constitutional order upside down.

Mr. Rustad went further, framing recognition of Aboriginal title as a “threat” to homeowners, a claim that weaponizes public misunderstanding for political gain.

If any other quoted officials echoed this phrasing, they too repeated the same error.

None of these statements withstand basic legal scrutiny.

The responsibility, however, does not end with politicians.

Journalists covering constitutional issues have a duty to verify accuracy before publication.

By reproducing these claims without analysis, Mr. Shaw’s report inadvertently legitimized a false hierarchy of property rights, implying that reconciliation endangers private ownership when the opposite is true.

In law, fee simple depends upon—and does not supersede—Aboriginal title.

British Columbia’s academic institutions—particularly SFU and UBC, both leaders in Indigenous legal education—should treat this episode as a cautionary example of how public discourse can distort constitutional reality when language is used carelessly.

Precision matters.

Words like “displace” carry legal consequences; used incorrectly, they undermine both reconciliation and public trust in the rule of law.

Aboriginal title is not subordinate to private property. It is the foundation beneath it.

Our leaders and our media must start speaking—and writing—as if they understand that.