Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Indigenous Affairs

In question period, members asked about a B.C. Supreme Court decision (Cowichan Tribes v. the Attorney General of Canada) declaring Aboriginal title over lands that include private property. Conservatives said the roughly 150 private landowners in the affected area are worried, that the appeal will take years, and that in the meantime realtors, banks and property values in Richmond, B.C. are being affected; they asked why the government did not protect private property rights and how it will resolve the uncertainty. The government said it disagreed with the ruling and has appealed it, noted that the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in the Wolastoqey case found Aboriginal title cannot be declared over private property, said it supported a private property owner’s participation in the case, and said provinces handle private property and it is excluded from federal land-claim negotiation mandates, while maintaining that both private property rights and work with Indigenous peoples can be protected.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

6 statements

Tako Van Popta

Conservative
“A court gave Indigenous title over private land to a First Nation, and 150 landowners are worried. The government told its lawyers not to protect these private property rights. What is the government doing for these landowners?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in Cowichan Tribes v. the Attorney General of Canada, the B.C. Supreme Court declared aboriginal title over private lands, and the private landowners, 150 of them, are worried. It has been well documented that the Liberals directed their federal lawyers to drop arguments protecting private property rights, to pull their punches and allow aboriginal title to take precedence. Where are the results for private landowners?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“The courts disagree on whether Indigenous land rights can exist on private property. We are appealing a British Columbia ruling that says they can. We want clear rules to protect private property.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question and one that is currently before the courts. In the recent Wolastoqey decision, the Court of Appeal in New Brunswick, which is the highest court in the province, has refused leave to appeal. It found that aboriginal title cannot be declared over private property. On the other side of the country, in the Cowichan case, the B.C. judge found that they could coexist. We disagree with B.C.’s decision and are appealing it to maintain the clarity and certainty of private properties. However, as we are seeing differing views in the courts, we continue to be there to get the certainty.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Tako Van Popta

Conservative
“Homeowners in British Columbia are hurting because a legal appeal will take years. Banks will not lend money, and property values are falling. I want to know why the federal government did not protect people's private property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the appeal process in British Columbia is going to take years. In the meantime, homeowners in Richmond, British Columbia, and throughout the province are feeling insecure. Here is the reality in the subject territory in Richmond. Realtors are not taking listings, appraisers are devaluing property values and bankers are not lending money on title that they see as insecure. My question again is this: Where was the federal government to stand up for private property rights?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“We are protecting private property rights. We appealed the court ruling in B.C. and helped a local property owner bring evidence to court. Under the Constitution, provinces handle private property, and it is left out of federal land claims talks.”

  • 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

    “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, I find it disingenuous that the members opposite continue to suggest that we are not protecting the private property rights of Canada. Here is what we have been doing: We disagreed with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling and appealed it; we supported Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial. Section 92 of the Constitution sets out that private property is provincial jurisdiction. It is excluded from all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level. For Cowichan, B.C. is acting within its jurisdiction to put measures in to support any implicated property owner—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Tamara Kronis

Conservative
“Recent court decisions have created confusion in British Columbia about how Indigenous land claims affect private property. I want the government to explain how it will fix this confusion and protect private land owners.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: The Cowichan Tribe decision introduced uncertainty around how aboriginal title interacts with private property in B.C. While the Supreme Court declined an appeal in Wolastoqey, a refusal of leave is not a decision on the merits and does not create binding national precedent. This leaves Canadians with competing legal approaches on a critical legal question, all while Liberal directive 14, which discourages private property defences, remains in force and a Cowichan appeal is many months away. B.C. deserves to know now how the Liberals will provide the certainty we need. Where—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Sean Fraser

Liberal
“We appealed this court decision because we disagreed with it. We also want private property owners to be part of the case. Private property rights matter, and working with Indigenous peoples matters too. We can protect both.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, when the government disagrees with the decision of a court, the opportunity we have to do something about it is to appeal that decision. We made an appeal on this particular case because we disagree with the superior court’s assessment. Since that time, we have seen the New Brunswick Court of Appeal go through the Wolastoqey case, as the member indicates, and the Supreme Court has refused leave. In addition, throughout this piece of litigation, we have been asking the court to notify private property owners so they may participate in litigation and are in fact presently supporting the Montrose application of private property owners in the region. Private property rights are important in this country, so is reconciliation. We can pursue both at the same time.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 139

All 43 items ·
  1. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 53 statements
  2. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 14 statements
  3. Government Orders Arab Heritage Month Act 3 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 13 statements
  5. Oral Questions Government Priorities 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Government Priorities 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Housing 11 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  11. Government Orders Government Orders 3 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 5 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  14. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions Gender-Based Violence 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  17. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  19. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  20. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  22. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  23. Oral Questions Prime Minister of Canada 2 statements
  24. Oral Questions Official Languages 2 statements
  25. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements