The author doesn’t advocate for the replacement of private ownership with the concept of collective ownership. Although the author likely agrees that in the case of cultural property of native Canadians, courts should not apply the concept of private ownership, we don’t know that the author is in favor of abandoning the concept of private ownership for other kinds of property and other kinds of people.

This is the best answer, because it captures the author’s opinion that the problem described in P2 and P3 will gradually be solved. No other answer captures this aspect of the passage.

The main point isn’t an attempt to characterize the conflict between collective and private ownership in some particular way. The point is to tell us about the problem faced by native Canadians, why it exists, and how courts will treat the native Candians’ lawsuits in the future.

Not supported, because the author doesn’t suggest that the problem faced by native Canadians requires a comprehensive definition of native Canadians’ rights. Rather, the author believes the problem will be solved over time as courts recognize that they shouldn’t apply the concept of private property to the native Canadians’ attempts to regain control of their cultural property.

The author doesn’t advocate for an expansion of the concept of private property. Although the author likely agrees that in the case of cultural property of native Canadians, courts should apply the concept of collective property, this doesn’t imply that the author thinks private property should be expanded to include collective property. Collective property and private property can exist as separate concepts, even if each is recognized as a legitimate basis for claims to property.