Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Indigenous Affairs

During question period on Indigenous affairs, members discussed a British Columbia court case concerning private land ownership and Indigenous land claims. Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, said the government told its lawyers not to defend homeowners’ property rights and asked the government to support a motion directing federal lawyers to argue for the protection of fee simple private property in the appeal. Liberal ministers Rebecca Alty and Sean Fraser said Canada defended fee simple title at trial, is appealing the Cowichan decision because it believes the ruling was incorrect, has urged since 2017 that private landowners be notified of the litigation, and that litigation guidelines do not bar specific defences but require a principled basis and evidence. The Liberals said the matter belongs in the courts rather than the House of Commons.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

3 statements

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“We will keep defending private land ownership in court. This issue belongs in the courts, not in the House of Commons.”

  • 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

    “That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation.”

    Said 4 times by 2 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, at trial, Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown, and we will continue to do so on appeal. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. This is why we supported Montrose’s application to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial, which is occurring today. 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 A+ View analysis

Sean Fraser

Liberal
“We are appealing this court ruling because we believe it was wrong. We support private property rights and reconciliation. We want the court to hear from private property owners, and our appeal will help do that.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 97 of 100

    Of this answer, 96% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis

  • A repeated line

    “A private property owner in the area.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the federal government has appealed the decision of the superior court because we believe it was incorrect. In addition to making that appeal, we have been advocating for the court to notify private property owners since 2017. In addition, we are supporting the application of Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to ensure that the arguments they are making will be heard by the court in full. We believe in private property rights. We believe in reconciliation. We can manage this issue appropriately by continuing forward with the appeal. I look forward to having the opportunity to make that case.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“We will always use valid legal arguments in court when we have the evidence to back them up. We appealed the Cowichan court decision, and we are keeping all our legal defence options open.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our government will always raise legally viable arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Litigation guideline number 14 does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support them. Canada has appealed the Cowichan court ruling, and all viable defences remain on the table.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 121

All 59 items ·
  1. Private Members' Business Criminal Code 10 statements
  2. Private Members' Business Points of Order 2 statements
  3. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 37 statements
  4. Government Orders Government Orders 17 statements
  5. Oral Questions Taxation 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Foreign Investment 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 10 statements
  14. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions CBC/Radio-Canada 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 7 statements
  19. Government Orders Privilege 4 statements
  20. Government Orders Military Justice System Modernization Act 2 statements
  21. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  22. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 61 statements
  24. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  25. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 2 statements
  26. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  27. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  29. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  30. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  31. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 41 statements