Mr. Speaker, a very real and local example of this growing uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls, whose narrow vote last year to incorporate as a municipality is now being re-evaluated as a whole community. From the decision-making powers of the town council to the municipality's actual name, uncertainty persists because of the title changes brought about by the B.C. government, which now risk serious consequences across the nation.
When people of the community of Okanagan Falls, which is 100 years old, no longer know and are waiting to be told what the name of their community they voted to incorporate will be, that is a sign of poor consultation brought on by an error-ridden provincial government. While our motion today is focused on the federal government, I join with my local and provincial representatives in encouraging Victoria to engage fully with every resident and neighbour in the beautiful community of Okanagan Falls with respect to the future of the community.
As for the government across from me, Conservatives are calling for a common-sense approach that keeps the federal government involved with British Columbians throughout the entire legal process. We are calling on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case at the Department of Justice. Statements by Liberal MPs in the House are not the same as the direction they have provided to their public lawyers, who argued and lost in the Cowichan decision because of that.
Litigation guideline number 14 from “Attorney General of Canada's Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples” prevented the federal government from defending property rights in the Cowichan case, as many Canadian lawyers have pointed out. This is what the Cowichan decision itself said at paragraph 2096: “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.”
What is called the “principle of extinguishment”, that the Crown's creation of fee simple title supersedes historical indigenous title, was the legal argument on which Canadian governments rested their defence of private property historically, under both Liberal and Conservative attorneys general. It does not cancel any existing treaties. It simply upholds the property rights created through Canadian history, particularly in the last century of property division in British Columbia. It was our best line of defence for property rights, but the Attorney General's guidelines limited its use.
The federal government itself has also created confusion on the intersection of title claims with its own Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement, which fails to say anything definitive about fee simple property rights, a dangerous precedent going into its appeal. Until the Cowichan case is resolved, it is clear that the federal government should be negotiating the defence of private property rights into its agreements with our first nations.
It is not that first nations are trying to take private property. They are not. It is that legal agreements create precedents that could cause greater problems in the decades ahead. This creation of legal grey areas is how we got to the Cowichan decision. It should not be continued in agreements like the Musqueam agreement. Legal matters are never simply aspirational. They are law.
That is why we on this side of the House are also calling for the Liberal government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement, and appoint a special committee with the mandate to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect property rights in Canada.
This should be a multi-party committee that would hold multiple meetings over the next several weeks to hear from legal experts and to develop advice to be published in an interim report by the summer, with a full report to follow later. Both sides of the House feature people of great legal talent, many of whom are indigenous and many more who are familiar with indigenous law. There is no reason they cannot provide the government with clear advice before we rise for the summer.
Canada is not required in international law to pursue reconciliation. We have our own law, and our own lawmakers in the House who wish to find common ground, equal rights and shared prosperity. Section 35 of our Constitution already recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada.
No one pretends this framework is perfect, but it is our framework, built and improved by all Canadians. Few nations around the world maintain this kind of legal framework with indigenous peoples. It is a process of ever-greater improvement, but to maintain it we need all parties, such as the Crown, first nation leaders and everyday Canadians, who are extremely worried right now, to sit in a common understanding of how we will proceed and how we will recognize the rights of land, property and consultation.
Let us maintain it as legislators of Canadian law. Setting aspirational goals aligned with UN resolutions in our laws does not serve anyone. Real Canadian law and real Canadian reconciliation can serve everyone fairly.