Tensions rose in the B.C. Legislature Monday when the governing BC NDP faced questions about a lack of communication with private property owners affected by a controversial land ruling.

A B.C. Supreme Court decision in August granted Cowichan Tribes the rights to nearly eight kilometres of land along the Fraser River in Richmond — and also found Crown and city land titles in that area invalid — sparking uncertainty for nearly 150 private property owners caught in the zone and the future of fee simple land ownership across the province.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO 1130 NEWSRADIO VANCOUVER LIVE!

BC Conservative Leader John Rustad started off Monday’s Question Period, saying the BC NDP has taken no action since the ruling decision.

He referenced an August statement from Attorney General Niki Sharma’s office claiming, “British Columbia will be filing an appeal and seeking a stay to pause implementation until the appeal is resolved.”

Rustad confronted Sharma about the claims. He added that it’s been nearly one month since the provincial government last repeated its claim that it would file a stay.

“The premier is being caught, quite frankly, with his pants down,” said Rustad. “Telling the public one thing but not following through with it.”

Sharma says the government has been “hard at work since the decision came out.” 

She says the ministry has been meeting with affected landowners while working on the stay application and pursuing the appeal.

“There is no deadline for a stay application, so I think, just in terms of the importance that we place on this, we’re going to be focused on the work we need to do to file that application, work with all parties involved, and stand out for the private property owners that we are engaging with right now.”

Rustad then questioned Sharma about why it took so long to work with private property owners when the case came forward six years ago.
“Private property owners have been left in the cold until suddenly a decision was made in August,” said Rustad.

He asked why the government won’t reopen the case and allow private property owners to put forward their own cases.

“Because clearly this government is not doing the job protecting private property rights.”

The ministry’s August statement addressed private property concerns, saying it’s committed to protecting private rights while advancing Indigenous reconciliation.

“This case is an example of why the Province prefers to resolve land claims through negotiation – where we can protect property rights directly – rather than risk considerable uncertainty through court decisions,” it said.

Sharma responded to Rustad Monday, saying that the B.C. government argued at the trial level to protect private property rights and thought that owners should be notified about what was happening.

She laid the blame with the court, saying no notification was given because it didn’t “foresee any impacts” to private property owners at the time.

“And that is why we announced an appeal and a stay.”