Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Indigenous Affairs

Question period focused on the Cowichan decision from the B.C. Supreme Court concerning Aboriginal title and private property rights, particularly for landowners in areas like Richmond. Conservative members asked how the government could now pledge to defend private property rights on appeal when it had not made that argument at trial, and what that meant for residents worried about their homes. Liberal ministers replied that the government disagrees with the ruling, appealed it in September, has sought to have private landowners notified and supports a landowner application in the case, and that agreements with First Nations have never taken away privately owned land. They said the government would advance all viable legal arguments in court while also pursuing reconciliation.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

6 statements

Tako Van Popta

Conservative

Linked statement

“The Prime Minister says the government will defend private property rights in an appeal of the Cowichan court ruling. But the government did not defend private property rights during the trial. I want to know how he can claim to argue the opposite now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that the Liberal government protects private property rights and that it will appeal the Cowichan decision. Here is the problem: At trial, the Liberals dropped the argument that private property rights come first, making it easier for the trial judge to conclude that aboriginal title is a “prior and senior right to land.” How can the Prime Minister now say that the government will argue on appeal the very opposite, that private property rights come first, when they did not raise it at trial?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“Our government protects private property rights. We appealed the court ruling in the Cowichan case because we disagree with it. Agreements with First Nations have never taken away anyone's privately owned land, and they never will.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis

  • A repeated line

    “We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling.”

    Said 5 times by 3 members since April 24.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, private property rights are fundamental and our government will always defend them. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Cowichan case, and we appealed it back in September. Any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has always and will always protect private property. The federal government has been signing agreements with first nations since the 1970s. No agreement between the federal government and first nations has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Our government will continue to advance reconciliation and protect the private property rights of Canadians.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Jamie Schmale

Conservative
“In 2018, the government chose not to defend private property rights in a court case. Now that case is on appeal. How will the Prime Minister protect people's property rights in Richmond when his lawyers cannot make that argument?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in 2018, the Liberals and the NDP of British Columbia made a deliberate decision to instruct their lawyers not to defend private property rights in the Cowichan case. Now, years later, that same case is before the courts on appeal, and the government finds itself unable to make the very argument that Canadian homeowners expect, which is that their private property rights come first. How does the Prime Minister expect to win, on appeal, the protection of private property rights within the city of Richmond with an argument he is unable to make?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Sean Fraser

Liberal
“We support private property owners in this court case. We can respect Indigenous rights and protect private property at the same time. We disagree with the court's decision, so we are appealing it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we correct the factual record. Since 2017, the federal government has been asking the court to notify private landowners of the case so that they may participate. More recently, we have decided to support the Montrose application, which is all about the rights of private property owners and would allow them to potentially advance arguments that they were not able to make at trial. We are able to walk down the path of reconciliation and protect the rights of private property owners at the same time. Our next argument will be presented when we appeal the decision, because we disagree with the superior courts. I hope all members of the House can move forward with the full appreciation of the federal government’s position when it comes to the protection of property rights in British Columbia and across the country.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Helena Konanz

Conservative
“People are worried about their property rights after the Cowichan court decision. The Liberals say they will defend these rights in court now, but they did not do that at the trial. How can their lawyers make new arguments on appeal?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan decision has left many residents across our communities concerned about their private property rights. The Liberals are now talking about how they will defend property rights in court, but they never made this argument in Cowichan before. Appeals are not do overs. They cannot raise new arguments they never argued before. How will government lawyers argue what Liberals MPs are arguing here when they did not do so at trial?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“We want to protect private property. We disagree with the court decision in British Columbia, so we appealed it. We will fight this in court, not in the House of Commons, while we also work on reconciliation.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Clarity 32 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis

  • A repeated line

    “We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling.”

    Said 5 times by 3 members since April 24.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance. That is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling. That is why we appealed it back in September. We are fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while advancing reconciliation. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs, in the courts, not on the floor of the House of Commons.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 116

All 43 items ·
  1. Government Orders Military Justice System Modernization Act 35 statements
  2. Private Members' Business Criminal Code 13 statements
  3. Government Orders Government Orders 8 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  13. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Veterans 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Natural Resources 7 statements
  18. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 10 statements
  19. Oral Questions Emergency Management 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  21. Oral Questions Northern Affairs 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 3 statements
  23. Oral Questions The Economy 5 statements
  24. Government Orders Report Stage 86 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements