British Columbia’s evolving land policies position the province as a global test case for land seizure and Indigenous rights.

Bill 7 Is Now Law: Part 4 Could Make Government Control Of Private Land Permanent By The Fall Of 2025

British Columbia: The First Domino   

When British Columbia passed the Emergency and Disaster Management Act (Bill 7) on November 8, 2023, few understood what had just happened. The public was told it was a routine update, just another response to wildfires, floods, and climate change. But in reality, this quiet piece of legislation marked the beginning of a new era: the end of private land ownership as we know it.

This is not hyperbole. This is the blueprint. British Columbia is the pilot project, the test lab for global governance through emergency law. What is happening there is being studied closely by bureaucrats, technocrats, and international planners around the world. If it works in Canada, it will be exported everywhere.

Emergency Powers Without Emergencies

Bill 7 radically redefines what constitutes an emergency, expanding the list to include not only natural disasters but also climate modeling, cyber threats, pandemics, critical incidents, and any event that could disrupt social cohesion. These emergencies do not have to occur. They only need to be predicted.

This is one of the most dangerous elements of Bill 7. The government no longer needs actual evidence that something is happening. It only needs a model, a forecast, or a simulation that suggests something might happen at some point in the future. That prediction alone can be used to:

• Declare a provincial state of emergency
• Seize land, homes, infrastructure, and personal property
• Occupy private dwellings or buildings for shelter or storage
• Extract water, fuel, food, and other supplies
• Remove trees or destroy structures

In other words, they only need to be predicted.

No damage is required. No fire needs to burn. No floodwaters need to rise. If a government agency or artificial intelligence (AI) model predicts a potential future risk, the province can exercise full emergency powers without court orders, public input, or due process.

This is not governance. This is pre-emptive expropriation, legalized under the banner of safety. It is a shift from responding to real crises to managing projected threats, a move that removes all checks and balances on the state.

How Bill 7 Enables Property Confiscation

At its core, Bill 7 grants the province the authority to override individual ownership rights in the name of emergency management. Once an emergency is declared, even based on a predicted event, the government is empowered to enter, occupy, and requisition land and resources, including private homes, farms, commercial buildings, fuel, food, or water.

This confiscation does not require permission from the owner. Nor does it require a judge’s approval. Although compensation is vaguely mentioned, there is no clear framework outlining when or how that compensation will be delivered, or whether it will be fair. There is no guaranteed right to appeal.

In practice, this means:

• Private homes can be converted into emergency shelters
• Farms can be cleared to create firebreaks or resource corridors
• Stored food or fuel can be taken by officials
• Water rights can be suspended
• Structures can be removed or destroyed without consent

If you refuse access or fail to comply with imposed mandates, you may be subject to penalties, legal enforcement, and possibly the permanent loss of control over your property.

Permanent Confiscation Without Formal Expropriation

While the legislation frames these powers as temporary, the structure of Bill 7 makes confiscation effectively permanent in practice. Here is why:

• Emergencies can be declared indefinitely based on speculative modelling
• There are no precise time limits for government control once property is seized
• The province is not obligated to return land or compensate owners meaningfully
• Part 4 would allow the Cabinet to regulate land use permanently without legislative review

This is not traditional expropriation, which requires a court process, transparent compensation, and judicial oversight. Instead, Bill 7 establishes a model of rolling emergencies, where ownership remains on paper but use, control, and decision-making are permanently transferred to the state.

This amounts to confiscation in all but name. You still pay taxes, bear liabilities, and hold title, but you lose functional control of your land.

Owners Become Enforcers

The law goes further. Landowners are now responsible for emergency preparedness. This includes:

• Paying for hazard assessments
• Building firebreaks and drainage systems
• Providing access to government inspectors
• Complying with infrastructure demands

These are not voluntary measures. They are mandates. Failure to comply can lead to fines, liens, and forced compliance. In this way, the individual pays for the government’s control, effectively reversing the traditional relationship between citizen and state.

The Shadow of Part 4

In March 2025, the most extreme section of the Act, Part 4, was withdrawn in response to public backlash. However, make no mistake, Part 4 is likely to return. And when it does, it could formalize the permanent suspension of private property rights in the name of climate resilience and risk mitigation.

Part 4 is expected to:

• Grant the Cabinet the ability to issue binding land-use regulations without parliamentary approval
• Enable long-term surveillance and monitoring of private property
• Criminalize non-compliance with government-mandated land modifications
• Allow indefinite state intervention under permanent emergency declarations

This is not temporary emergency management. This is permanent regulatory governance, a system where ownership is conditional, revocable, and monitored.

The United Nations’ Position on Private Property Rights

Bill 7 aligns closely with a global ideological shift driven by United Nations (UN) policy, one that has been in motion since the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I). In the official conference report, the UN openly stated:

“Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals… private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice… Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.”

This framework has never been renounced. It has simply evolved through documents like:

• Agenda 21: a UN action plan for sustainable development, adopted in 1992
• The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: a 2015 UN plan consisting of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: a 2015–2030 global agreement that uses disaster response to transform governance
• New Urban Agenda: a UN strategy to guide urban development policy

Each of these documents reaffirms that land should be managed collectively, not held privately as an untouchable right. Under this worldview, landowners are viewed as caretakers whose rights must be balanced or overridden by social, environmental, or equity priorities.

In this model:

• Private property is conditional
• Land use is a tool for redistribution
• Government intervention is viewed as a moral and environmental necessity

British Columbia’s Bill 7 is not an isolated overreach; it is the real-world implementation of decades-old UN policy, which turns legal ownership into administrative stewardship under global climate and equity directives.

DRIPA, UNDRIP, and the Erosion of Private Property Rights

In 2019, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada to pass legislation aligning provincial law with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) mandates that the province take all necessary measures to ensure that laws are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including provisions related to land rights.

While the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) is framed as a step toward reconciliation, its implementation has raised concerns about the impact on private property rights. For example, the provincial government’s denial of a luxury real estate development on James Island, citing potential impacts on Indigenous rights, is seen as a concrete application of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in a provincial approval process.

Critics argue that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA)’s alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) could lead to a redefinition of land ownership, where private property rights are subordinate to Indigenous claims. One of the most significant threats is the provision for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), which may effectively give Indigenous groups a veto over land use even on legally held private property if that land falls within a claimed or traditional territory.

Because the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) lacks clear definitions of what constitutes Indigenous land or traditional territory, private landowners now face a legal grey zone. Even if their title is valid and recognized by the courts, their rights can be curtailed through administrative decisions that prioritize reconciliation or risk mitigation over property rights. No compensation is guaranteed, and no judicial process is required.

As the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) intersects with Bill 7, the danger intensifies. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) allows land to be frozen under the guise of Indigenous reconciliation. Bill 7 will enable it to be seized under the guise of emergency preparedness. Together, these frameworks may quietly dismantle the foundation of freehold property ownership in British Columbia. 

The Global Model: Sendai and the UN Playbook

Bill 7 is not a local anomaly; it is modeled after the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which Canada signed in 2015. The Sendai Framework is a global treaty that reimagines disaster response as a mechanism for governance transformation.

Its key principles include:

• Predictive emergency modelling as a justification for intervention
• Centralized planning over decentralized private decisions
• Public-private partnerships that enforce state agendas
• Equity-based resource allocation, where aid and enforcement are based on identity, not need
• Treating land as a public utility, not a private asset

The Sendai Framework shifts the role of governments from responders to regulators, transforming emergency management into a permanent justification for social restructuring, where land, wealth, and autonomy are redistributed according to centralized priorities.

British Columbia is not only adopting this framework; it is also becoming the testbed for its full implementation.

Intersectional Disaster Response: A New Social Hierarchy

Embedded within Bill 7 is the policy of “intersectional disadvantage.” This requires the government to prioritize disaster response based on identity categories rather than geography, vulnerability, or economic need.

This means:

• Disaster aid may be withheld from those who do not qualify as disadvantaged
• Enforcement may be harsher for those seen as privileged landholders
• Land use decisions may be filtered through a political lens

The result is a two-tiered emergency response system, one built not on risk but on ideology. Equal protection under the law is being replaced by conditional protection based on identity.

From Ownership to Occupation

We warned in It Starts With Gold that the future of wealth would not be digital; it would be physical and essential. Land, precious metals, and critical infrastructure are the final assets standing in a collapsing system. That makes them the primary targets for state control.

Bill 7 confirms this truth. It quietly converts landowners into caretakers for the state. It rewrites ownership as a licence to comply. It strips away generations of legal precedent and property rights in favour of an administrative model where:

• The state decides how your land is used
• The state decides what upgrades are mandatory
• The state decides who gets help and who gets punished

And when Part 4 returns, the state will no longer need your permission or your vote.

The Real Threat Is Global Replication

British Columbia is not unique; it serves as proof of concept for the global regime of land control. The same model is already spreading through international disaster treaties, urban resilience programmes, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) real estate mandates, and climate finance systems.

If this model proves effective in a stable, property-owning democracy like Canada, expect rapid replication across Europe, Australia, the United States, and beyond. What starts with forest management and flood control ends with governments managing your land like a digital asset, conditional, revocable, and monitored by AI.

The land you pay taxes on may soon be land you cannot use. The title deed in your name may mean nothing if compliance is too expensive or politically inconvenient.

What You Must Do Now

The window to resist is closing. Fall 2025 marks a crucial turning point. If Part 4 of Bill 7 is passed, it will become almost impossible to reverse the transformation of landownership in British Columbia or to stop that same model from being exported across Canada and beyond.

Bill 7 is not about protecting people from disaster. It is about transforming the structure of society using disaster as a pretext.

It is not about land use. It is about land control.

British Columbia is the test. If it succeeds here, your land may be next.

To British Columbians: Act Now Before It Is Too Late 

• Read the Emergency and Disaster Management Act in full. Focus on Part 4. It quietly hands the provincial government sweeping authority over private property under the banner of emergency management.
• Contact your MLA immediately. Demand that Part 4 be permanently withdrawn when the Legislature reconvenes in Fall 2025. If passed, it could establish permanent government control over private land.
• Consult legal experts in constitutional rights and property law. Understand how this legislation could affect your home, your farm, your business, and your family’s future.
• Educate your neighbours. Many, especially in rural and agricultural areas, remain unaware that their land may already be at risk. Bring them into the conversation now—before decisions are locked in.
• Secure your wealth in tangible, unregulated assets. Diversify into physical precious metals stored outside of government-controlled systems. Explore alternative holdings that cannot be easily seized or regulated.

To Residents of Other Canadian Provinces:

Please don’t assume this stops in British Columbia. If Bill 7 succeeds, it will become the model for Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and every other province. Review your province’s emergency legislation and begin educating others before it spreads.

To U.S. Citizens:

Most U.S. states already have similar emergency frameworks in place. Under the correct narrative or crisis, they can be activated to bypass property rights entirely. Review your state laws, speak to your representatives, and take pre-emptive action now to avoid irreversible loss.

To International Citizens:

Similar land control frameworks are advancing under climate and emergency laws worldwide, often tied to the UN’s Sendai Framework and ESG mandates. Review your country’s disaster laws and property regulations, as these policies are frequently overlooked and can be hidden in plain sight. Alert your community now before they are enforced without consent.