EXCLUSIVE: Conservative MP Tako Van Popta says BC's future depends on protecting private property rights

For months now, private property rights have dominated the discourse in British Columbia, with much of the debate revolving around whether Aboriginal land claims are putting fee simple title at risk.

While some suggest that such fears are overblown, others warn that even the perception of uncertainty is a recipe for economic and societal disaster. Among those who fall into the latter is Conservative MP Tako Van Popta.

In an interview with Sitka Media, he argued that BC's future — and any hope of meaningful reconciliation — depends on ensuring everyone's on the same page.

"Aboriginal title gives the holder thereof exclusive right of possession — that conflicts squarely with private property rights," he said. "The judge says, well the two can live together — well, they can't, with all due respect."

Van Popta noted that the judge placed the onus to reconcile that on the Crown, but added that "in the meantime, this could drag on for years before it gets to the BC Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada."

"All this uncertainty is out there, and I can tell you it is real and it is having negative effects," he continued. "I was talking to one commercial land owner, and a project that he had ready to go, almost shovels it in the ground ready, the whole thing got held up because the bank pulled their financing commitment over all the unrest and uncertainty about what we call indefeasibility of title."

Prior to serving as an MP, Van Popta was a real estate lawyer.

"I banked on indefeasibility of title — it was never questioned," he said, "but today it is, and that's what's so significant about this case. It's only 800 acres, but the principles apply much broader."

First Nations leaders have been clear that their goal has never been, and will never be, to go after private property.

"Well, then why did you claim Aboriginal title over it?" Van Popta asked. "Your lawyers know what Aboriginal title is — the right to exclusive possession."

While the Cowichan case will have to go through the appeals process, the Conservatives have moved to try and ensure there is no debate on whether private property is at play in future agreements with First Nations.

MP Jamie Schmale has placed a motion on notice that calls on the government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and Musqueam agreement, including specific commitments and timelines, and appoint a special committee to study all legal, constitutional, and political steps that can be taken to protect private property rights in Canada.

As for how such rights could be protected, Van Popta noted there were many options available.

"It could be as simple as a phrase that says, 'Notwithstanding anything else in this agreement, fee simple title will always be superior to any other form of title, period'," he said. "That'd be clear."

When asked how we found ourselves in this situation, Van Popta explained that the back-and-forth on territory has been brewing for over a century and a half.

"You need to go back in history 155 years for British Columbia," he said. "I acknowledge that the Crown did not always act honourably with respect to First Nations communities throughout our history ... This should have been resolved. The good time to resolve it would have been when British Columbia entered into Confederation in 1871."

Van Popta lamented that "both the province and the feds dropped the ball, and we've just been bouncing along all these years."

"The matter needs to be resolved," he concluded, "but I can tell you that the resolution is not to threaten private landowners with the security of their title. That doesn't help reconciliation. That hurts it. That sets it back."