Madam Speaker, our government is committed to renewing the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples on a nation-to-nation basis.
This relationship will be based on respect, co-operation, and partnership. A renewed nation-to-nation relationship is a political goal, but it reflects a history of crown-indigenous relations. Nation-to-nation relations are not a revolutionary break with our legal and constitutional order, but an evolution closer to the promise of section 35 of our Constitution as outlined in jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Canada modernized its constitution in 1982 to reflect a confident, inclusive, and just country that respects diversity, with balance for individual and collective rights. In particular, section 35 recognizes indigenous peoples and provides protection for their rights. The inclusion of section 35 is a turning point in Canadian history.
It is to this end that the Supreme Court of Canada has encouraged a purposive view of section 35 and its promise of a balanced relationship between the crown and indigenous peoples. We can see this balanced approach presented in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that was referred to by my colleague, the Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, from June 2014.
The court held that the Tsilhqot’in Nation has title to approximately 1,750 square kilometres of land in the interior of British Columbia. In the decision, the indigenous perspective and legal traditions were given equal weight to common law property concepts, for example, what goes into proving title, how title content is defined by indigenous views, and how justification has to take into account indigenous perspectives as well as the interest of the general public.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not address the issue of what happens when third party property interests intersect with title. However, an essential part of section 35 is to find an appropriate balance to reconcile the sometimes competing rights, claims, and ambitions of indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians.
Reconciliation will be a multi-generational journey, requiring hard work and compromise by both indigenous nations and Canada's institutions. All Canadians will benefit from a balanced and respectful dialogue.
I would like to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for bringing this question forward, and indeed for bringing the question forward in a manner that allows for a more complete response and opportunity to emphasize the balanced approach that will be necessary in this and in all land claim disputes involving indigenous peoples.