Canada is taking risks with its sovereignty on the West Coast, and the rest of North America should be paying attention. Neither the provincial government of British Columbia, nor the Canadian federal government are willing to name it.

The elected governments of Canada and BC are losing their authority over land in the province, by their own hand and those of the courts.

For the past year, Canada’s judiciary and governments have begun recognising what is called ‘Aboriginal title’ to various Indigenous groups in BC. In effect, these rulings make an Indigenous group the effective landlord of a parcel of land that they inhabited prior to colonisation.

The growing concern is not the existence of these well-established rights, but how governments are responding to them. Increasingly, provincial and federal authorities are entering into land-use agreements and decision-making frameworks that transfer elements of governance to unelected bodies, often without clear legal boundaries, public scrutiny, or consistent standards.

This combination is what creates the risk.

As authority over land becomes fragmented and less transparent, BC becomes more vulnerable to external pressure, and particularly exposed to the ambitions of China. Overlapping claims, negotiated consent regimes, and unclear jurisdiction do not just complicate development. They create openings. In a province already deeply tied to global markets, those openings are not going unnoticed.

BC hosts a massive mainland Chinese diaspora, vast commercial links to China, and business lobbies that push for deeper ties. The judiciary is now providing another opening. There is also more at stake than merely the danger of foreign interference.

China has spent a generation building factional relationships within divided countries and regions. They use their resources and influence to build self-serving, mercenary alliances to protect and expand Chinese interests. Canada is already rife with allegations of Chinese political and commercial meddling, and now there is confusion over who truly has sovereignty over land and resources in BC.

When conducting foreign policy, China typically patronises weak and pliable groups within a broader union or bloc. A good example is one of the poorest member states within the European Union (EU), whose government gladly accepts gifts of money or infrastructure partnerships. It has given China a toehold of sorts in the EU, and Hungary has often ignored or frustrated previous European attempts to scrutinise or crack down on Chinese influence.

There are also examples in Southeast Asia, where China or Chinese-linked actors have sought to drive political wedges into the Philippines as Beijing seeks to assert power in the South China Sea.

Earlier, and outside of the courts, the Canadian government reached an agreement with a First Nation group, pledging to incrementally implement Aboriginal rights and title. That agreement covered their historical territory that encompasses most of modern Metro Vancouver, home to over three million people, nearly all non-Indigenous.

The agreement has, arguably, opened the door to First Nation power and authority over the transportation corridors, fisheries, marine management, and property. All those who own property and businesses may soon find themselves at loggerheads with Indigenous authorities as they seek to assert the privileges of title.

First Nations consent for economic development and major projects typically becomes decisive when Aboriginal title is established. That reality does not just shift power to rights holders, it also creates incentives and opportunities for aligned third parties to benefit from how that authority is exercised.

Beijing has a long history of outreach with BC First Nations, including within the mining, energy, business, and state-owned enterprises. There is also an ongoing message to improve commercial ties between China and Indigenous governments.

In 2022, the Canada China Business Council and others urged Indigenous groups to ‘take on the China market’. They pointed out that China is a wellspring of capital, commercial partnership and access to the Chinese market, while promoting Indigenous control over lands and resources.

In 2012, it was reported that Canadian intelligence was probing potential financial links between First Nations and Chinese firms. One of the experts quoted stated that, ‘It certainly doesn’t sound like they’re talking about the national security of First Nations communities, but the security of the business elites who might want to develop these resources for themselves.’

Other countries in the Americas have already experienced the consequences of what are, in my opinion, divide-and-conquer tactics in the name of Beijing’s economic goals.

In Ecuador, Chinese mining firms have benefited from local divisions. They cultivated elite connections so that Ecuadorian state power can be used to enforce China’s commercial interests.

In BC, First Nations are poised to become those elite players, even though there is a major gap between China’s official rhetoric on foreign Indigenous rights and its methods of extracting wealth at home and abroad.

The primary risk of Chinese interference in Canada’s resource sector is the erosion of national sovereignty through the formation of exclusive alleged ‘pay-to-play’ partnerships with First Nations.

By leveraging financial links and bypassing traditional regulatory competition, Chinese state-controlled firms, operating as extensions of their Ministry of Defence, could effectively shut out Canadian companies and labour.

The ultimate consequence is a closed loop of resource extraction where Canadian land, employment, and revenue are off-shored to a foreign power, leaving the domestic economy and public interest entirely excluded.

This is a British Columbian problem, a Canadian problem, and an American problem, and clashes with the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ of reasserting American power in the hemisphere.

This article represents the personal opinions of the author and is intended as commentary on matters of public interest. It is based on publicly available court rulings, government agreements, and media reports.