TranslatePolitics.ca

Billy Morin

Conservative 3:50 p.m.

“I'm disappointed. The other guy talked big but didn't deliver. It's just empty words. My people were hoping for more. Actions speak louder than words.”

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Bloc Québécois 3:50 p.m.

“I'm used to Liberals. You've had problems with them. I think next time we'll beat them. I don't like what they do. They can have Canada. I have my own people in Quebec, and we do things our own way. I wonder whether a BC thing will change things for us.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I admit that we in Quebec are really accustomed to this. I heard my colleague say that the referendums on independence took place under a Liberal government. I can assure him that the next one will also take place under a Liberal government in the coming years and that we are going to win this time. Then the Liberals can have their country, and they can decide how to govern it. We look forward to that. We will leave Canada to them, and we will take care of our own affairs. I find this issue interesting. Not only am I a proud Quebecker, I am also a proud member of the Wendat nation. It is an important part of who I am. In Quebec, we have rights and legal systems that are quite different, particularly when it comes to property. It is a bit hard for us to wrap our heads around this situation. Can my colleague elaborate on that aspect? Does he anticipate that this ruling from British Columbia could have an impact on Quebec later on?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Billy Morin

Conservative 3:50 p.m.

“That's bad. I don't like that. People in Quebec should care about what happens in B.C. because it involves First Nations. That's a federal issue. Quebec and First Nations could work together better, but the Liberal government isn't doing that. They talk about reconciliation but don't back it up with action. We need real leadership instead of their empty words.”

Jamie Schmale

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“I respect the member for Edmonton Northwest. I've learned from him on the indigenous northern affairs committee. But the member for Winnipeg North just read a statement that claimed the exact opposite of what the Liberals are doing. In 2018, they made a conscious choice not to argue for fee simple property rights in court. That means they can't bring it up on appeal or at the Supreme Court later. How do the Liberals expect to use this argument in court when they've already given up the right to argue it? They're contradicting themselves.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything the member for Edmonton Northwest has done on the indigenous northern affairs committee. I have learned a lot from him, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this very important file. The member for Winnipeg North, just a few moments ago, read a statement; in normal circumstances, this would be a good thing. However, everything repeated in that script was the exact opposite of what the Liberals were doing. They decided in 2018, in a conscious decision, not to argue fee simple property rights in court. This means that if a party does not do it in the lower court, they cannot do it on appeal, and if it gets to the Supreme Court, they cannot do it there either. How do the Liberals expect to use this argument when they are not allowed to?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Billy Morin

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“I don't know the law details. I hope the Liberals admit they got things wrong. They shouldn't dismiss fears. This is a real issue for British Columbians and Canada. The Liberals need to step up and address the issues.”

Leah Gazan

NDP 3:55 p.m.

“I want people to stop debating a court decision. I think Conservatives and Liberals are trying to score political points by spreading fear. I think they're pitting indigenous peoples against homeowners. The court decision doesn't affect homeowners. It's clear in the decision. Conservatives and Liberals need to respect the rule of law. They need to respect the Constitution. They need to respect UNDRIP. Reconciliation means finding lawful, fair, and balanced solutions. I want people to reject fear and misinformation.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, so here we are again, debating a court decision in the House of Commons, based on arguments that misrepresent and distort a ruling confirming the aboriginal title of the Cowichan nation. This motion does not reflect the actual goals of the nation or the findings of the court. Instead, it attempts to pit individual property rights against indigenous rights protected under the Constitution. It manufactures fear about what this ruling supposedly means, rather than dealing with what the court actually said. It is shameful that the Conservatives and Liberals are trying to score political points by spreading narratives not in fact, but in fiction, so obnoxiously that we can almost hear the gears turning in the fiction mill. When did this Parliament, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, decide that some rights matter more than others? This is a dangerous political game. At a time when division is growing across the country, Conservatives and Liberals are shamefully pitting indigenous peoples against communities and homeowners. They are creating unnecessary fear among homeowners who are struggling more than ever just to make ends meet, while failing in their responsibility as legislators to uphold the Constitution and rule of law. The facts are clear. In fact, the Cowichan nation stated in court, “They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private owners.” The B.C. Supreme Court justice reinforced this directly. These are not my words, but from the court: “I also find that, as Aboriginal title and Crown title coexist, it follows that Aboriginal title and fee simple can coexist, as the latter is a derivative of Crown title.” Moreover, the paranoia being fuelled by the Conservatives and Liberals around the threat this decision poses to homeowners in Richmond is unfounded. In reality, the decision affects land that is largely undeveloped and will not displace homeowners. Just before I continue, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The court made it very clear. It stated, “The Richmond lands that fall within the Cowichan Title Lands are generally unoccupied and undeveloped, and there are no set plans for their occupation or development other than possible dike redevelopment.” Let us be honest with Canadians: Homeowners are not at risk here. This decision is not about, and has never been about, individually owned private property. It has never been about that, as affirmed by the courts. Not only does the Cowichan decision not affect homeowners, but the Cowichan nation never even intended it to, as stated in court documents. The Liberals and Conservatives need to get out of the business of deciding whether they will respect the rule of law based on political convenience, economic interests or for fundraising purposes. Rights do not become optional, depending on who is affected or whether acknowledging them is politically uncomfortable. We already have clear legal guidance. Section 35 of the Constitution affirms indigenous and treaty rights. Section 25 of the charter protects those collective rights within Canada's constitutional framework. As legislators, we swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. This means respecting the Constitution in its entirety, which includes indigenous rights. It also means respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This Parliament affirmed its application through Bill C-15 in the 43rd Parliament. Let me be clear: UNDRIP was never about placing indigenous rights above the rights of others. It was quite the opposite. It was about balance, fairness, coexistence and justice. Article 46, in fact, of the declaration makes this explicit. It states that all provisions of the declaration “shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.” I am here to do some myth-busting today. Canadians deserve facts, not panic designed to divide people against indigenous nations and against reconciliation itself. The truth is simple. The court upheld the rule of law. It rejected the argument that unlawful Crown grants could erase indigenous title. That decision does not undermine property law. It, in fact, clarifies it within the framework of reconciliation and the Constitution. In fact, the Cowichan nation and B.C.'s provincial government issued a joint statement that the ruling did not seek to invalidate privately held homes or fee simple title. The suggestion that homeowners could suddenly lose their homes is simply false. The court recognized that the Cowichan deliberately tailored its remedies to avoid impacts on third parties like homeowners. The ruling leaves room for negotiated solutions, compensation, shared jurisdictions and agreements that protect existing homeowners while respecting indigenous rights. As a matter of fact, the B.C. court affirmed the Cowichan nation's position that aboriginal title and private ownership are not a “zero-sum game”. An aboriginal title and property ownership can coexist and reconcile. Why are the Conservatives putting forward a motion today when people are dealing with the everyday emergency of just getting by? It is shameful. In Canadian history, in fact, there has been no record of a single case where an indigenous nation has displaced property owners. In reality, this whole debate is a complete oxymoron. The true struggle has been for indigenous people to prove aboriginal title on their own lands. Moreover, the Supreme Court has already repeatedly affirmed pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples. For example, in 2004, the Haida Nation v. British Columbia court decision affirmed the need to reconcile the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. We have heard claims that this decision will unleash chaos and endless lawsuits, but indigenous rights and title have been recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court of Canada. Reconciliation through law is not new. Modern agreements across the country have already shown that indigenous rights and private ownership can coexist. Most claims are resolved through negotiation, not litigation. Court cases usually happen only when governments refuse to negotiate, like the Liberal government, in good faith. The leader of the official opposition claimed that Crown lawyers pulled their punches because they would not deny indigenous rights in court, but section 35 rights are protected under the Constitution. The Crown has a legal obligation to act honourably and in good faith in its dealings with indigenous peoples. Finally, last week in question period, the Prime Minister stated, “Private property rights are fundamental, and this government, indeed, this House, will always protect them.” Property rights are protected, in fact, but so are constitutional rights. Section 35 of the Constitution affirms and recognizes that aboriginal rights and title are not secondary rights. They are protected rights within Canada's constitutional framework. The Prime Minister is obliged to uphold our Constitution without qualification or question. Reconciliation does not mean choosing one group's rights over the other. It means finding lawful, fair and balanced solutions that respect indigenous peoples, uphold and honour the Crown, and provide certainty for everyone. That is what this decision moves us toward, and we must reject attempts to weaponize fear and misinformation for political gain.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:55 p.m.

“I don't like that you accused the government of spreading misinformation. The Prime Minister and minister talked a lot. That shows the government is handling this well. The government is working with many people. Do you think working together is important? What is your party's position? Will you vote yes?”

Leah Gazan

NDP 3:55 p.m.

“I don't agree with you. The Liberal government is not protecting indigenous rights. The Prime Minister should follow the Constitution. Why is his government fighting against constitutional rights in court? That goes against the Constitution and the law.”

Jamie Schmale

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“I did not say Cowichan Tribes would force people off land. The government caused uncertainty. Even B.C.'s NDP Premier says it threatens property rights. A $100 million hotel was canceled. Uncertainty is widespread in B.C. The government should fix that uncertainty.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think the hon. member was paying attention to what we were saying on this side of the House. At no time has anyone on this side even implied that the Cowichan Tribes would be forcing people off their land. At no time did anyone on this side say that. She continues to repeat that, unfortunately. We have said that it has created massive uncertainty because the government did not do its job. Do not take my word for it. According to David Eby, the NDP Premier of British Columbia, in a quote from the Canadian Bar Association, “Mr. Eby has repeatedly raised the alarm about the Cowichan decision, saying it threatens private property rights.” He goes on to say that the court decision was very unhelpful. The member says that there are more important things to talk about. How about a $100-million project, a luxury hotel, that was cancelled? How about widespread uncertainty, according to CBC News and the Vancouver Sun, affecting Richmond and elsewhere? This is very important and we need certainty.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Leah Gazan

NDP 3:55 p.m.

“I want to cheer for a bank saying they didn't turn down a project because of Cowichan Tribes. That means Cowichan Tribes aren't causing problems. Project problems are a separate issue.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the multi-million-dollar project in question that was raised by Councillor Alexa Loo. This is what the bank said about why the project did not go through: National Bank initially said in a one-sentence response that “no specific directive has been given to our teams regarding this court ruling.” In a second statement hours later, the bank said: “We cannot comment on specific cases for confidentiality purposes, but what we can confirm is that this is not a factor that is currently taken into account in our financing decisions, and no guidelines have been issued by the bank in this regard.” What does this mean? It means that the fact that they did not receive financing is a separate matter. The bank confirmed it. It had nothing to do with the Cowichan decision.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Alexis Deschênes

Bloc Québécois 4:10 p.m.

“I want private property owners to be considered in aboriginal title decisions. I think legitimate concern exists over the Cowichan ruling that aboriginal title can exist on privately owned land.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate. I do believe we need to work toward reconciliation. Part of our job as elected officials is to reconcile competing interests. We have try to see both sides. My colleague seems to be severely downplaying the legal uncertainty resulting from the decision in the Cowichan case. While it does not resolve everything, it is true that the decision opens the door to negotiation. That is essentially what is being said. We understand that there is a legal process. However, I think we still need to consider the perspective of certain private property owners. Perhaps they have been influenced by certain political rhetoric and are more concerned than they need to be. Nevertheless, the key conclusion of the ruling is that aboriginal title can exist even on privately owned land. Does my colleague not agree that there may be some legitimate concern over this?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Leah Gazan

NDP 4:10 p.m.

“I don't want private property rights to block aboriginal title. The courts have never let aboriginal title threaten private property before.”

Elizabeth May

Green 4:10 p.m.

“People are worried this court decision threatens their property. I want to explain why I think it doesn't. It's about a specific historical injustice, not all private property.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really do want to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre, and I am grateful to her for splitting her time with me. In this day's debate, I do not want to attribute motivations and reasons for why we are doing it or to say which side is right or wrong, but the problem is that it is posing a question as if it is a live issue that needs to be addressed. That is largely due to misunderstandings and misinformation, so let me try to explain, because I am a British Columbia MP. Another British Columbia MP said that the proof of the fact that the court decision has created real problems is that we are getting calls in our constituency office. I can say that, yes, I am getting calls in my constituency office and getting constituents emailing me. I take it as my responsibility to dig into what the court said and share with my constituents and reassure them that there is no threat to their fee simple ownership of their place. There is no threat to ownership of land by settler culture British Columbians at all from the Cowichan decision. I want to go back to what it is about and what the court did. This is a declaration of the British Columbia Supreme Court. By the way, I think the Prime Minister was wrong to stand in this place and commit to appealing, and I think the British Columbia premier should be ashamed of his running away from DRIPA and of his decision to demonize this decision as if it puts anything into a state of confusion at all. I am more upset with the premier of B.C., because he is a lawyer, so he should know better. The Prime Minister is not, and the Leader of the Opposition is not. I dig into these things because I think it is my job. I will never forget one of my favourite professors at law school. He used to thwack a cane across the desk right in front of us, like something out of The Paper Chase on TV, and he would say, “Develop the habit of thoroughness”, so I have dug in. I have learned more about what this is about, and I want to share it with people because I think it will help take away the notion that in any generalized way the Cowichan decision has anything to say about fee simple property rights in Canada. What the court said was that British Columbia, the British Columbia government, has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Cowichan, now that the facts are clear, “in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown.” We use the term “honour of the Crown” quite loosely. There is a minister responsible for Crown-indigenous relations. It is not some anachronism that we still talk about the Crown; it is at the essence of indigenous nations' relationships with the country of Canada. It is something that happened before there was a country of Canada: the Crown, and the Crown's relationship with nations that were here before we got here. In this case, what happened? It is an interesting story, and I hope other colleagues here will realize how specific this was to a specific historical injustice, not a generalized one. What happened here to the honour of the Crown? The first governor of British Columbia, appointed by the Crown, Governor James Douglas, was a very interesting person and a person of real integrity. I will not digress too much about James Douglas, but he was, interestingly enough, Black, and he married an indigenous woman when he came to B.C. His mother was Black and his father was Scottish. He was our first governor of British Columbia, and he set a moral tone that was fascinating. With eight engineers at his side, not armed ones, he stood down a whole bunch of armed folks coming up from the U.S. I know we sometimes think about this now and hope it never happens, but he stood down a whole bunch of armed folks from the U.S. who, in the mid-1800s, were coming up to B.C. in the gold rush. They were armed to the teeth. They said they wanted to kill Indians and they wanted to get our gold. How the heck he did this, I do not know, but it is a great story. With eight engineers, Sir James Douglas stood them down and said to them, “You're entering British Empire now. Put your guns over there and queue up over here to buy your licence if you want to go pan for gold on the Fraser River.” This is astonishing. Governor James Douglas also negotiated with the indigenous nations, particularly in the region I am honoured to represent here, the Saanich nation. There were a lot of individual nations that entered into negotiated agreements with the Crown through Sir James Douglas. They are called the Douglas treaties, and they are really fair and largely ignored over the generations. This particular court decision is about one specific village site on Lulu Island that had been occupied for a very long time. By the way, the court case we are talking about is over 800 pages long, and much of it is about this story: What happened? What was the double-cross? Was there a double-cross? To go back, Sir James Douglas, in 1853 and again in 1859, assured the Cowichan people that this particular village site on Lulu Island, called Tl’uqtinus, which had been heavily populated and was an important village site, would always be Cowichan lands. They set it aside in reserve. That is what Sir James Douglas did. He was an honourable man. Unfortunately, a little later in our history, along comes Colonel Richard Moody, who was given the job of land commissioner for the province of B.C. The Cowichan had a specific commitment from the governor, “This is where you can stay. This is reserve land for you. We're basically taking everything else, but this is reserve land for you”, but then, about 10 years later, along comes Colonel Richard Moody as land commissioner and buys the land for himself as a land speculator. He dishonours the honour of the Crown. As the court described it, he “surreptitiously” purchased the land for himself to make himself rich while violating a commitment of the Crown to the people of the Cowichan nation. Now, time goes on, but the Cowichan people do not forget that this is actually their land. They had a commitment from the Crown, from Sir James Douglas, and the skullduggery of Colonel Richard Moody cannot dishonour the Crown, so the Cowichan never gave up. They launched a court case in 1911, saying, “This is our land.” The chief of the Cowichan, in 1913, travelled to London, England, and met with King Edward VII to say, “This is our land. Can you please repair this injustice that's been done to us?” Well, as we can see, time marches on, and they are still trying to get a resolution to this. The gold rush of 1858 was, again, what triggered Colonel Richard Moody's double-cross. As I said, Sir James Douglas stood them down. I find the history of British Columbia fascinating, but this case is not about any kind of generalized discussion of indigenous land title versus fee simple title. Not at all. Not ever. This is about a very specific injustice to a very specific nation over very specific land that was always theirs. That is what the court said. Then the court said that, because the land now is basically Crown land, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, and the B.C. government has no legal right to extinguish title, that is the honour of the Crown to these peoples. My friend Adam Olsen, who was once the Green Party member of the B.C. legislature representing me, and who is a member of the Tsartlip First Nation, in response to this Cowichan decision tried to emphasize, “When First Nations win, the rest of society does not lose.” I would like my hon. colleagues in this place to think about how significant it is for us all that what may knit us together, our sovereignty as a nation, is better protected by the honour of the Crown and its relationship with indigenous nations than almost anything else if we are dealing with a U.S. President who thinks we could be the 51st state. Lots of luck. Section 35 of our Constitution says indigenous lands are inherently held and are indigenous title. It is very important, and some of us in this place have gone to law school, like the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, so I know she knows this stuff, that we cannot conflate indigenous title with fee simple title. Crown land is in a different kind of category, and in that sense, indigenous title is more akin to that. As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg said, we have the Haida decision, and there is the Delgamuukw decision, but really the Tsilhqot’in decision of the Supreme Court of Canada made it really clear. Fee simple title is held specifically and personally and can be bought and sold. Indigenous title, as the court said in the Tsilhqot’in decision, is collective and intergenerational. To all concerned, let us please not allow people to believe something that is not true. This Cowichan decision does not threaten fee simple land or property rights. Let us wait for the courts to conclude, and let us stay calm.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tako Van Popta

Conservative 4:10 p.m.

“You say this court case doesn't threaten private property, but I think it does. The Delgamuukw case says aboriginal title gives exclusive rights to land, just like regular ownership. There can't be two groups with exclusive rights over the same land. This case is the first time aboriginal title was claimed over private land, not just public land. I think that's a problem.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Elizabeth May

Green 4:10 p.m.

“I think my friend here is worried about nothing. This court case doesn't affect regular private property at all. The problem is the provincial government ignored their duty and didn't negotiate properly. They should have dealt with this a long time ago.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:10 p.m.

“The way I see it, the government has never taken away private property rights in any of these treaties. I'm calling out the Conservatives to give me an example where that's happened. Does the Green Party leader know of any examples?”

Elizabeth May

Green 4:25 p.m.

“I want to cheer for a law that takes away more property rights to help my friends. I don't care if it's unfair to regular Canadians who lose their land.”

Patrick Bonin

Bloc Québécois 4:25 p.m.

“I'm asking you to explain why you said this project won't take away anyone's property. It looks to me like it will.”

Elizabeth May

Green 4:25 p.m.

“I'm going to ignore your question and change the topic to something I like better.”

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 4:25 p.m.

“The government should have negotiated a treaty to avoid uncertainty.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Business of Supply

Billy Morin

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Billy Morin

Jamie Schmale

Billy Morin

Leah Gazan

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Leah Gazan

Jamie Schmale

Leah Gazan

Alexis Deschênes

Leah Gazan

Elizabeth May

Tako Van Popta

Elizabeth May

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Elizabeth May

Patrick Bonin

Elizabeth May

Tamara Kronis