Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Indigenous Affairs

At question period, members focused on a court ruling concerning Cowichan Tribes’ land claim in British Columbia and its implications for private property ownership. Conservative members asked why the government was appealing the ruling, pressed for protection of private property rights, and called on the Prime Minister to revoke a litigation directive they said prevented government lawyers from arguing fee simple property rights in the case; one member also raised a separate New Brunswick land-claim case before the Supreme Court. Minister Rebecca Alty responded that the Cowichan case is under active litigation so legal strategy could not be discussed, said the government would raise any valid arguments, pointed to two courts reaching different conclusions as a reason to seek clarity from the appeal, and noted Canada has supported landowners being heard in the case, including agreeing to reopen the trial so an affected property owner can participate. She also referred members to the publicly available Musqueam agreement and to the full text of litigation principle 14.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

10 statements

Chak Au

Conservative
“The government says it disagrees with a court ruling about Indigenous land claims, but it has not explained why. Homeowners and businesses need certainty. I want the government to explain what part of the ruling it is challenging and how private property will be protected.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it disagrees with the Cowichan ruling, but Canadians still do not know what exactly the Liberals disagree with. Which part of the ruling are they appealing? On what legal basis does the government believe that private property ownership can coexist with aboriginal title? Homeowners, municipalities and business owners deserve clarity. Why are the Liberals refusing to give Canadians certainty?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“I will not talk about our legal strategy for the Cowichan court case here. The Conservatives keep asking about the Musqueam agreement, but they should just read it themselves. The agreement clearly says it is not a treaty or a land claims deal, and it does not change Musqueam rights or title.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we will not be discussing our legal strategy on the House of Commons floor. However, yesterday, the Conservatives had a lot of questions about something that is public and available for them to read, which is the Musqueam agreement. Let me read the Musqueam agreement since they will not read it themselves. Section 5.1 of the agreement states, “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements...”. Section 5.2 states, “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam’s Rights and Title.” There is more on the website for them.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade D– View analysis

Tamara Kronis

Conservative
“The government lost a court case to the Cowichan Tribes because it told its lawyers not to defend private property rights. Homeowners in British Columbia followed the law and need protection. I want to know if the government has a plan to protect their property rights.”

  • A repeated line

    “Paid their mortgages and followed the law.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals failed to negotiate with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost. They told their lawyers not to argue fee simple property rights, so the one argument they need is not viable on appeal. British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law. They want answers, so we spent the week asking. Instead of answers, we got insults, intimidation and illusions. The legal directive stopping federal lawyers from defending property rights is still on Canada.ca, so Liberal claims about defending those rights are just smoke and mirrors. Do the Liberals have a plan, or are they going to let judges make property rights vanish before Canadians’ eyes?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“I will not discuss our legal strategy for the Cowichan court case because it is still before the courts. We appealed the ruling, and we will use any legal argument that is supported by facts and principles.”

  • 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, as mentioned, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we are not going to discuss our litigation strategy. The Conservatives have referenced the litigation direction, but they have read only one sentence out of principle number 14. Our government will always raise valid 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. Canada has appealed the Cowichan ruling, and all viable defence—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Mel Arnold

Conservative
“The government told its lawyers not to defend property rights in a court case. Because of this, homeowners in British Columbia do not know if they still own their homes. I want the Prime Minister to cancel that rule today.”

  • A repeated line

    “Because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since May 6.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, because the Liberal government directed its lawyers to not argue property rights in the Cowichan case, British Columbians who bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law now do not know the status of their home ownership. The Liberal government directive number 14 is still in place. This means that the legal instruction for federal lawyers to not defend property rights remains in place today. British Columbians need certainty of their home ownership. Will the Prime Minister reverse directive 14 today?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“The Conservatives do not understand the rules or the Musqueam agreement. The agreement is not a secret. It is public, and they should read it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

John Williamson

Conservative
“The Supreme Court might hear a land claim case in New Brunswick that covers private land. Supporters want the government to take this land and give it back to Indigenous groups. The Liberals told government lawyers not to protect private property in a similar case in British Columbia. I want to know if the Prime Minister will change that rule and protect private property owners.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a New Brunswick land claim case involving private property across half the province. Supporters of the claim openly argue that aboriginal title should apply to private land. They believe that government should use expropriation powers to transfer it. The Liberals directed government lawyers to not defend private property rights in the Cowichan Tribes case in British Columbia. Will the Prime Minister reverse this directive or will he abandon his responsibility to defend the rights of property owners on Canada’s west and east coasts?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“Two different courts have made opposite decisions on this issue. That is why we and many other groups appealed the Cowichan case to get a clear answer from the courts.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis

  • A repeated line

    “We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches.”

    Said 4 times by 2 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite flagging the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. They reached a very different conclusion from Cowichan. Therefore, we now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity that we are seeking in the Cowichan case, which we appealed, the Government of British Columbia appealed, the Cowichan appealed, the Musqueam appealed, the Tsawwassen appealed and the City of Richmond appealed. It is active litigation before the courts.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

John Williamson

Conservative

Linked statement

“The government is putting private property rights at risk. I want to know if the Prime Minister will protect private property in all future legal cases and talks with First Nations.”
Official Hansard

However, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are demanding clarity from the government on its legal strategy and that the government stand up and defend private property, but the Liberals are putting private property rights at risk in Canada. In 2019, the Liberal government removed arguments to support fee simple private property rights in the Cowichan case. We cannot blame government lawyers for following ministerial directives. The federal government must ensure fee simple property ownership takes priority in legal cases. Will the Prime Minister protect private property rights in all future negotiations and legal cases with first nations, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“The government has supported private landowners being heard in the Cowichan court case. We agreed to a request to reopen the trial so an affected property owner can take part, and we are waiting for the judge to decide.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 44 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific 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, I encourage the member opposite to read all of litigation principle number 14. He has only read the first sentence. However, what I will talk about is the Cowichan case and the current status. As far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of litigation. However, the courts ruled against that. Since the ruling last summer, we consented to the Montrose application, and we are now awaiting a ruling from the judge on that. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. That will allow an impacted private property owner to be heard at trial.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 120

All 39 items ·
  1. Government Orders Military Justice System Modernization Act 22 statements
  2. Oral Questions Employment 12 statements
  3. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Youth 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions National Defence 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 10 statements
  10. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Health 6 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  15. Government Orders Military Justice System Modernization Act 28 statements
  16. Oral Questions International Trade 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  18. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 2 statements
  19. Private Members' Business Food and Drugs Act 14 statements
  20. Oral Questions Youth 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements