“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very interesting speech and recap of some of British Columbia’s history. I am also a history fan, so I have read the whole case and would confirm some of the things she said. The member is saying that Cowichan does not stand for the proposition that aboriginal title threatens fee simple title. The problem with that, of course, is that the Delgamuukw case said aboriginal title gives the holder thereof exclusive rights to possession, and fee simple does the same, so there cannot be the same thing on the same piece of land. I will also note that the Cowichan case was the first time in Canadian history, as far as I know, that a plaintiff first nation group claimed aboriginal title over privately held lands. The Tsilqhot’in case the member cited was only about public lands, so I would challenge her on saying that aboriginal title has no effect.”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 96 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 100%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 119 wordsit has already been quoted by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre that the court confirmed that the Cowichan nation did not seek to invalidate or render ineffective fee simple lands.1It is true there are some fee simple lands within the area that used to be the village.2It is primarily federal land, it is City of Richmond land, 3and it is the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.4However, the declaration by the court does not affect one iota the fee simple property rights of those people.5The burden is on the Province of British Columbia, which for 100 years ignored its duty to properly negotiate this dispute and to pay attention to the rights of the Cowichan nation.Partly on point
