Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Indigenous Affairs

In question period on Indigenous affairs, the topic was the Cowichan case in B.C. Supreme Court and its implications for private land ownership. Conservative MP Chak Au said the government chose not to argue extinguishment in the case, which he described as the historical basis for defending fee simple ownership, and asked it to withdraw its directive and instruct its lawyers to defend private property rights. Liberal MP Brendan Hanley replied that the government disagreed with the ruling and had appealed it in September, that it prefers negotiation over litigation, and that no federal agreement with First Nations dating back to 1970 has taken away privately owned land.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

2 statements

Chak Au

Conservative
“The Liberals say they protect private property, but they failed to defend private land ownership in court. I want them to change their orders and tell their lawyers to protect Canadians' property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they defend private property rights, yet in the Cowichan case they chose not to argue extinguishment, which is how fee simple ownership has been historically defended. They weaken protections and then claim to defend them. Will the Liberals withdraw their directive and instruct their lawyers to defend private property rights to protect Canadians, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Brendan Hanley

Liberal

Linked statement

“We disagree with the B.C. court's ruling, so we appealed it. We prefer to negotiate instead of fighting in court. No federal agreement with First Nations has ever taken away anyone's privately owned land.”

  • 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, let me be clear. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling. That is why we appealed it back in September. As a government, we always prefer to negotiate instead of going to court. I can tell members that in all of our negotiations, dating back to 1970, no agreement between the federal government and first nations has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land, not a single one. All discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level exclude private property. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has led to people losing privately owned land.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 110

All 38 items ·
  1. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 24 statements
  2. Oral Questions Finance 12 statements
  3. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Ethics 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Labour 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 18 statements
  13. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 5 statements
  18. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 41 statements
  19. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  20. Private Members' Business Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act 13 statements
  21. Oral Questions International Trade 4 statements