Debates of May 7th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we pass laws in this country for our people in Canada. We do not pass laws based on what some multinational bureaucracy tells us to pass. We work for Canadians in this country. We are Canadians first and Canadians always.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why is it that when Albertans feel frustrated and feel that they are being held from reaching their full potential to share their energy with Canada and the rest of the world, there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Why is it that Alberta's separatism is at an all-time high today, and there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Why is it that throughout history when a Quebec separation referendum happens, there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Whose was the government in Ottawa over the last decade as separation sentiment in Quebec reached heights not seen in generations? It was the Liberals' government. The Liberal record shows a lack of leadership, the villainization of provinces for political benefit and the causing of divisions among the people of Canada.

Today in British Columbia, we see a lack of leadership. We see the villainization of those asking for certainty and clarity around property rights, and we see an all-time high in division between British Columbians and first nations. Whose is the government in Ottawa today during the lead-up to this in British Columbia? It is the Liberals' government. This is not just a provincial government issue. First nations are a federal jurisdiction under section 35 of the Constitution. Treaty-making, agreements and court action involving first nations require federal government leadership, vision, clarity and the desire for unity, but all we have from the government for the current challenges in B.C. is avoidance, a lack of transparency, contradictions and reconciliation rhetoric.

The situation regarding Cowichan is not an isolated failure. It reflects a broader and more troubling pattern under the Prime Minister and his Liberal government. As a first-term member of Parliament, I have seen trust repeatedly broken with indigenous peoples, political negligence at the expense of lasting progress and an inability to take full responsibility when things continually go wrong. The Prime Minister says he is all about reconciliation, but he and his government have reduced reconciliation to a cheap political talking point. His record over one year shows a complete lack of respect and neglect for indigenous peoples.

In 2015, the government promised to end boiled water advisories in six years. Now the Liberals are six years past that promise, with no end in sight. After the last election, the Prime Minister's government promised new water legislation for fall 2025. Fall came and went with no legislation. He then told AFN chiefs at the winter assembly that there would be water legislation in the spring of 2026. There has been no water legislation tabled this spring, and there are only weeks left until the summer break for the Liberals to keep their word instead of breaking another promise regarding water.

The government creates uncertainty and stress by not keeping its word, and it is doing that in B.C. at this moment. A core source of uncertainty in B.C. under the Musqueam agreement, treaties and other such initiatives, is the application of UNDRIP. I note the Prime Minister said several times that he will uphold free, prior and informed consent, a key piece of UNDRIP, but we know when he says this, it is just political rhetoric as his party has said it now for years.

The Liberals' strategy seems to be to exploit first nations when it suits their political purposes, even creating and sowing division and chaos among indigenous peoples themselves. Recently, first nations wrote to this government as it tried to expedite the Manitoba Métis Federation bill. Their question for the Liberal government was whether it has the free, prior and informed consent of first nations to sign a new modern treaty when it has yet to honour the historical ones that lay claim to the same territory.

The government has several public letters now from Treaty 6, Treaty 8, Manitoba first nations, the AFN and more, citing their concerns over a lack of consultation and a lack of consideration on historical treaty rights. Conservatives make it clear, and so have first nations leaders, that nobody is against Métis self-government and self-determination, but answers remain outstanding that need to be had before moving ahead with modern treaties that overlap with historical rights. Surely the government considered this, because its silence to first nations' concerns on this matter is deafening.

Furthermore, the United States tribes are now attempting to leverage DRIPA and UNDRIP to cause chaos in our country's developmental affairs. Where are the Liberals on this issue? They are silent. Conservatives know to put Canada first on such things and raise them in this House so that the government might do its job to stand up for this country.

What about other modern treaties? Currently, the government is not serious about UNDRIP's free, prior and informed consent when it comes to modern treaty processes in B.C. Several of the recent agreements in B.C. have raised threats of blockades and protests among the first nations themselves.

While the provincial government has a big role to play, the federal government is ultimately responsible for these treaties and agreements. To pretend otherwise and to use the excuse that things should wait until the process comes to this Parliament formally is neglectful and reactive, and it will only sow more division in the future. So far it really seems as though the Liberal strategy is to sow division and chaos and water down the spirit and intent of treaties to avoid the rights of those who sacrificed to help build this country.

Did the government have free, prior and informed consent of other tribes in the area when it signed its Musqueam agreement, an agreement negotiated in secrecy and sprung on the people of Vancouver and other first nations in the Lower Mainland? The answer is no.

The government is hypocritical when it comes to free, prior and informed consent, as evidenced by the Squamish, who had to release a public statement saying they were “not consulted or meaningfully engaged by the federal government prior to the announcement of these agreements.” The people of Vancouver were not consulted, nor were the other local tribes, such as the Tsawwassen, when it comes to the Musqueam agreement.

Speaking of consultations, first nations are asking the government right now at committee why it is weaponizing consultations against first nations women and families by creating a four-year delay sham process for S2 legislation, which would end discrimination against women and families. Women are now saying the government uses consultation as an excuse to delay human rights legislation through a four-year sham process, but it rams through other bills that have implications for first nations' rights. Clearly, this is, again, the Liberal government being hypocritical, because it knows the Mikisew court case protects Parliament when it comes to a lack of consultation in legislation development.

The vice-president of Justice for Girls said just days ago, regarding the government's lack of urgency to change discrimination, “To resist doing that under the guise of consultation and supporting [the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples] is absolutely flabbergasting to me”.

We see such hypocrisy and political games by the Liberal leadership to exploit our people. They are just stalling to keep the Indian Act discrimination going against women and families. For what reason, nobody really knows.

The government talks, avoids, lacks transparency, vilifies fair questions and shows a complete lack of leadership. It is no wonder we have this situation in B.C., as well as separation in Alberta and Quebec.

Conservatives are ready to lead. We are ready not to just talk about balancing property rights and section 35 rights; we are acting. We are challenging the government to lead, to bring clarity and certainty to homeowners, first nations and investors. We call upon the government to put private property first. We need to start analyzing how to do this while respecting all perspectives.

When my nation settled a land claim over the west side of Edmonton that had residential and commercial property on it, we never went after private property; we worked with negotiators for solutions. We call upon the government to aggressively defend property rights in all litigation. To do otherwise would prove that it wants to see chaos and division. It must stop watering down the treaty process and bring the structures necessary to protect private property in all future agreements, negotiations and modern treaties so that we can have certainty for both first nations and Canadians.

Our Treaty No. 6 brings certainty to first nations in Canada. “As long as the sun shines, grass grows and the rivers flow”, this treaty cannot be changed.

The government's signing these modern treaties with easy back-out clauses and using performative language, such as living agreements, is not a true treaty process and only delegitimizes all treaties. We call upon the government to put aside differences in this House, to strike a cross-party committee to address this, to show real leadership from this House and to be proactive in first nation and Canadian relationships. Otherwise, if the House does not act, courts, division and conflict will define where we go next.

While the government claims to be a party of reconciliation, it only acts for true change when challenged in court. In areas such as Indian Act discrimination, child family services, water and more, the government is only forced to the table through court. There is an opportunity to be better and to do the role of leadership, not just more reconciliation rhetoric, in this House.

Canada must do better. The government, under the Liberals, must do better. Real reconciliation does not come from rhetoric but from a responsible government, honest engagement and the resolve to follow through. It requires a government that says what it means, does what it says and is willing to be held accountable every step of the way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the motion is to promote and encourage fear among Canadians and ultimately, I would argue, spread misinformation. We listened to the members opposite, who even tried to misquote or misrepresent what the Prime Minister was saying.

I would like to quote the Prime Minister directly. He stated:

The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.

As we continue to defend those property rights, which is something that will continue well into the future, we have the Conservatives on the other hand trying to plant the seed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member needs time to respond. The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here as a first-term member of Parliament for one year. Canadians were hoping for something different, but they got more of the same: just more Liberal rhetoric.

For my communities, it is really disappointing for me to say that the Liberals really have cheapened reconciliation to a political talking point. It is reconciliation rhetoric now. As much as the Prime Minister says something in this House, all of his actions outside of it prove otherwise. Actions speak louder than words, and he continues to fail in that regard.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that we in Quebec are really accustomed to this. I heard my colleague say that the referendums on independence took place under a Liberal government. I can assure him that the next one will also take place under a Liberal government in the coming years and that we are going to win this time. Then the Liberals can have their country, and they can decide how to govern it. We look forward to that. We will leave Canada to them, and we will take care of our own affairs.

I find this issue interesting. Not only am I a proud Quebecker, I am also a proud member of the Wendat nation. It is an important part of who I am. In Quebec, we have rights and legal systems that are quite different, particularly when it comes to property. It is a bit hard for us to wrap our heads around this situation.

Can my colleague elaborate on that aspect? Does he anticipate that this ruling from British Columbia could have an impact on Quebec later on?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the fear. It is disappointing when the Liberals deny Canadians' fear. That is a real emotion, at the end of the day.

Quebec or any other province needs to take a look at what is going on in B.C., because there is an aspect of federalism. First nations are in section 35, so this has federal implications. For Quebeckers and the people of the Wendat, there are mechanisms to work together, but continually, the Liberal government does not take full advantage or performs reconciliation rhetoric when it comes to creating real partnerships at the end of the day.

We are looking for leadership. People of the Wendat can provide that, in spite of what the Liberal government does.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything the member for Edmonton Northwest has done on the indigenous northern affairs committee. I have learned a lot from him, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this very important file.

The member for Winnipeg North, just a few moments ago, read a statement; in normal circumstances, this would be a good thing. However, everything repeated in that script was the exact opposite of what the Liberals were doing. They decided in 2018, in a conscious decision, not to argue fee simple property rights in court. This means that if a party does not do it in the lower court, they cannot do it on appeal, and if it gets to the Supreme Court, they cannot do it there either.

How do the Liberals expect to use this argument when they are not allowed to?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to have humility. I am not a lawyer, so I stand to read what lawyers say in this regard, but I thank the member for his point. That is my understanding of it as well.

I hope the Liberals have more humility too. They admit that they got things wrong and things are not going in the right direction. They should not dismiss people's fears, because this is a real issue that British Columbians are facing, and ultimately, so is Canada. We need them to step up in that regard as well and not be fearful of addressing the issues.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, so here we are again, debating a court decision in the House of Commons, based on arguments that misrepresent and distort a ruling confirming the aboriginal title of the Cowichan nation.

This motion does not reflect the actual goals of the nation or the findings of the court. Instead, it attempts to pit individual property rights against indigenous rights protected under the Constitution. It manufactures fear about what this ruling supposedly means, rather than dealing with what the court actually said.

It is shameful that the Conservatives and Liberals are trying to score political points by spreading narratives not in fact, but in fiction, so obnoxiously that we can almost hear the gears turning in the fiction mill. When did this Parliament, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, decide that some rights matter more than others? This is a dangerous political game.

At a time when division is growing across the country, Conservatives and Liberals are shamefully pitting indigenous peoples against communities and homeowners. They are creating unnecessary fear among homeowners who are struggling more than ever just to make ends meet, while failing in their responsibility as legislators to uphold the Constitution and rule of law.

The facts are clear. In fact, the Cowichan nation stated in court, “They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private owners.”

The B.C. Supreme Court justice reinforced this directly. These are not my words, but from the court: “I also find that, as Aboriginal title and Crown title coexist, it follows that Aboriginal title and fee simple can coexist, as the latter is a derivative of Crown title.”

Moreover, the paranoia being fuelled by the Conservatives and Liberals around the threat this decision poses to homeowners in Richmond is unfounded. In reality, the decision affects land that is largely undeveloped and will not displace homeowners.

Just before I continue, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The court made it very clear. It stated, “The Richmond lands that fall within the Cowichan Title Lands are generally unoccupied and undeveloped, and there are no set plans for their occupation or development other than possible dike redevelopment.”

Let us be honest with Canadians: Homeowners are not at risk here. This decision is not about, and has never been about, individually owned private property. It has never been about that, as affirmed by the courts. Not only does the Cowichan decision not affect homeowners, but the Cowichan nation never even intended it to, as stated in court documents.

The Liberals and Conservatives need to get out of the business of deciding whether they will respect the rule of law based on political convenience, economic interests or for fundraising purposes. Rights do not become optional, depending on who is affected or whether acknowledging them is politically uncomfortable.

We already have clear legal guidance. Section 35 of the Constitution affirms indigenous and treaty rights. Section 25 of the charter protects those collective rights within Canada's constitutional framework. As legislators, we swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. This means respecting the Constitution in its entirety, which includes indigenous rights. It also means respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This Parliament affirmed its application through Bill C-15 in the 43rd Parliament.

Let me be clear: UNDRIP was never about placing indigenous rights above the rights of others. It was quite the opposite. It was about balance, fairness, coexistence and justice. Article 46, in fact, of the declaration makes this explicit. It states that all provisions of the declaration “shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.”

I am here to do some myth-busting today. Canadians deserve facts, not panic designed to divide people against indigenous nations and against reconciliation itself. The truth is simple. The court upheld the rule of law. It rejected the argument that unlawful Crown grants could erase indigenous title. That decision does not undermine property law. It, in fact, clarifies it within the framework of reconciliation and the Constitution.

In fact, the Cowichan nation and B.C.'s provincial government issued a joint statement that the ruling did not seek to invalidate privately held homes or fee simple title. The suggestion that homeowners could suddenly lose their homes is simply false. The court recognized that the Cowichan deliberately tailored its remedies to avoid impacts on third parties like homeowners.

The ruling leaves room for negotiated solutions, compensation, shared jurisdictions and agreements that protect existing homeowners while respecting indigenous rights. As a matter of fact, the B.C. court affirmed the Cowichan nation's position that aboriginal title and private ownership are not a “zero-sum game”. An aboriginal title and property ownership can coexist and reconcile.

Why are the Conservatives putting forward a motion today when people are dealing with the everyday emergency of just getting by? It is shameful. In Canadian history, in fact, there has been no record of a single case where an indigenous nation has displaced property owners. In reality, this whole debate is a complete oxymoron. The true struggle has been for indigenous people to prove aboriginal title on their own lands.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has already repeatedly affirmed pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples. For example, in 2004, the Haida Nation v. British Columbia court decision affirmed the need to reconcile the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown.

We have heard claims that this decision will unleash chaos and endless lawsuits, but indigenous rights and title have been recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court of Canada. Reconciliation through law is not new. Modern agreements across the country have already shown that indigenous rights and private ownership can coexist. Most claims are resolved through negotiation, not litigation. Court cases usually happen only when governments refuse to negotiate, like the Liberal government, in good faith.

The leader of the official opposition claimed that Crown lawyers pulled their punches because they would not deny indigenous rights in court, but section 35 rights are protected under the Constitution. The Crown has a legal obligation to act honourably and in good faith in its dealings with indigenous peoples.

Finally, last week in question period, the Prime Minister stated, “Private property rights are fundamental, and this government, indeed, this House, will always protect them.” Property rights are protected, in fact, but so are constitutional rights. Section 35 of the Constitution affirms and recognizes that aboriginal rights and title are not secondary rights. They are protected rights within Canada's constitutional framework. The Prime Minister is obliged to uphold our Constitution without qualification or question.

Reconciliation does not mean choosing one group's rights over the other. It means finding lawful, fair and balanced solutions that respect indigenous peoples, uphold and honour the Crown, and provide certainty for everyone. That is what this decision moves us toward, and we must reject attempts to weaponize fear and misinformation for political gain.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do take some exception to the member's belief that the government is somehow feeding misinformation, I believe that the government has been very straightforward, whether it has been the Prime Minister, in the statements that he made earlier this week, or the minister responsible, who stood up today and articulated, in great detail, a number of points that the member opposite just raised.

I believe that the government is working in collaboration with other jurisdictions, first nations and the provinces.

What does the hon. member believe about the importance of working in collaboration? What is the NDP's position on the motion itself? Will they be voting in favour of it?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member opposite. Amnesty International confirmed the backsliding of indigenous rights by the Liberal government.

I want to know if he agrees with me that the Prime Minister should do his duty and uphold the Constitution.

Why is his government choosing to put forward litigation against constitutionally enshrined rights in section 35? That is not respecting the Constitution or the rule of law.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think the hon. member was paying attention to what we were saying on this side of the House. At no time has anyone on this side even implied that the Cowichan Tribes would be forcing people off their land. At no time did anyone on this side say that. She continues to repeat that, unfortunately. We have said that it has created massive uncertainty because the government did not do its job.

Do not take my word for it. According to David Eby, the NDP Premier of British Columbia, in a quote from the Canadian Bar Association, “Mr. Eby has repeatedly raised the alarm about the Cowichan decision, saying it threatens private property rights.” He goes on to say that the court decision was very unhelpful.

The member says that there are more important things to talk about. How about a $100-million project, a luxury hotel, that was cancelled?

How about widespread uncertainty, according to CBC News and the Vancouver Sun, affecting Richmond and elsewhere? This is very important and we need certainty.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the multi-million-dollar project in question that was raised by Councillor Alexa Loo. This is what the bank said about why the project did not go through:

National Bank initially said in a one-sentence response that “no specific directive has been given to our teams regarding this court ruling.”

In a second statement hours later, the bank said: “We cannot comment on specific cases for confidentiality purposes, but what we can confirm is that this is not a factor that is currently taken into account in our financing decisions, and no guidelines have been issued by the bank in this regard.”

What does this mean? It means that the fact that they did not receive financing is a separate matter. The bank confirmed it. It had nothing to do with the Cowichan decision.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate.

I do believe we need to work toward reconciliation. Part of our job as elected officials is to reconcile competing interests. We have try to see both sides.

My colleague seems to be severely downplaying the legal uncertainty resulting from the decision in the Cowichan case. While it does not resolve everything, it is true that the decision opens the door to negotiation. That is essentially what is being said. We understand that there is a legal process. However, I think we still need to consider the perspective of certain private property owners. Perhaps they have been influenced by certain political rhetoric and are more concerned than they need to be. Nevertheless, the key conclusion of the ruling is that aboriginal title can exist even on privately owned land.

Does my colleague not agree that there may be some legitimate concern over this?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the court ruled, it is not a zero-sum game, which means that we have real examples where both realities coexist: private property and the recognition of aboriginal rights and title.

I want to point out, though, that we are talking about this as if it is something new. That is actually false. In my discourse, I pointed to the Haida Nation case in 2004, where the court determined the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples, with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown.

There is no threat. There is no case in history where indigenous people have gone after a private property interest. They have just fought for their own recognition of aboriginal title.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do want to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre, and I am grateful to her for splitting her time with me.

In this day's debate, I do not want to attribute motivations and reasons for why we are doing it or to say which side is right or wrong, but the problem is that it is posing a question as if it is a live issue that needs to be addressed. That is largely due to misunderstandings and misinformation, so let me try to explain, because I am a British Columbia MP.

Another British Columbia MP said that the proof of the fact that the court decision has created real problems is that we are getting calls in our constituency office. I can say that, yes, I am getting calls in my constituency office and getting constituents emailing me. I take it as my responsibility to dig into what the court said and share with my constituents and reassure them that there is no threat to their fee simple ownership of their place. There is no threat to ownership of land by settler culture British Columbians at all from the Cowichan decision.

I want to go back to what it is about and what the court did. This is a declaration of the British Columbia Supreme Court. By the way, I think the Prime Minister was wrong to stand in this place and commit to appealing, and I think the British Columbia premier should be ashamed of his running away from DRIPA and of his decision to demonize this decision as if it puts anything into a state of confusion at all. I am more upset with the premier of B.C., because he is a lawyer, so he should know better. The Prime Minister is not, and the Leader of the Opposition is not.

I dig into these things because I think it is my job. I will never forget one of my favourite professors at law school. He used to thwack a cane across the desk right in front of us, like something out of The Paper Chase on TV, and he would say, “Develop the habit of thoroughness”, so I have dug in. I have learned more about what this is about, and I want to share it with people because I think it will help take away the notion that in any generalized way the Cowichan decision has anything to say about fee simple property rights in Canada.

What the court said was that British Columbia, the British Columbia government, has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Cowichan, now that the facts are clear, “in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown.” We use the term “honour of the Crown” quite loosely. There is a minister responsible for Crown-indigenous relations. It is not some anachronism that we still talk about the Crown; it is at the essence of indigenous nations' relationships with the country of Canada. It is something that happened before there was a country of Canada: the Crown, and the Crown's relationship with nations that were here before we got here.

In this case, what happened? It is an interesting story, and I hope other colleagues here will realize how specific this was to a specific historical injustice, not a generalized one. What happened here to the honour of the Crown? The first governor of British Columbia, appointed by the Crown, Governor James Douglas, was a very interesting person and a person of real integrity. I will not digress too much about James Douglas, but he was, interestingly enough, Black, and he married an indigenous woman when he came to B.C. His mother was Black and his father was Scottish. He was our first governor of British Columbia, and he set a moral tone that was fascinating.

With eight engineers at his side, not armed ones, he stood down a whole bunch of armed folks coming up from the U.S. I know we sometimes think about this now and hope it never happens, but he stood down a whole bunch of armed folks from the U.S. who, in the mid-1800s, were coming up to B.C. in the gold rush. They were armed to the teeth. They said they wanted to kill Indians and they wanted to get our gold. How the heck he did this, I do not know, but it is a great story. With eight engineers, Sir James Douglas stood them down and said to them, “You're entering British Empire now. Put your guns over there and queue up over here to buy your licence if you want to go pan for gold on the Fraser River.” This is astonishing.

Governor James Douglas also negotiated with the indigenous nations, particularly in the region I am honoured to represent here, the Saanich nation. There were a lot of individual nations that entered into negotiated agreements with the Crown through Sir James Douglas. They are called the Douglas treaties, and they are really fair and largely ignored over the generations.

This particular court decision is about one specific village site on Lulu Island that had been occupied for a very long time. By the way, the court case we are talking about is over 800 pages long, and much of it is about this story: What happened? What was the double-cross? Was there a double-cross?

To go back, Sir James Douglas, in 1853 and again in 1859, assured the Cowichan people that this particular village site on Lulu Island, called Tl’uqtinus, which had been heavily populated and was an important village site, would always be Cowichan lands. They set it aside in reserve. That is what Sir James Douglas did. He was an honourable man.

Unfortunately, a little later in our history, along comes Colonel Richard Moody, who was given the job of land commissioner for the province of B.C. The Cowichan had a specific commitment from the governor, “This is where you can stay. This is reserve land for you. We're basically taking everything else, but this is reserve land for you”, but then, about 10 years later, along comes Colonel Richard Moody as land commissioner and buys the land for himself as a land speculator. He dishonours the honour of the Crown. As the court described it, he “surreptitiously” purchased the land for himself to make himself rich while violating a commitment of the Crown to the people of the Cowichan nation.

Now, time goes on, but the Cowichan people do not forget that this is actually their land. They had a commitment from the Crown, from Sir James Douglas, and the skullduggery of Colonel Richard Moody cannot dishonour the Crown, so the Cowichan never gave up. They launched a court case in 1911, saying, “This is our land.” The chief of the Cowichan, in 1913, travelled to London, England, and met with King Edward VII to say, “This is our land. Can you please repair this injustice that's been done to us?” Well, as we can see, time marches on, and they are still trying to get a resolution to this. The gold rush of 1858 was, again, what triggered Colonel Richard Moody's double-cross. As I said, Sir James Douglas stood them down.

I find the history of British Columbia fascinating, but this case is not about any kind of generalized discussion of indigenous land title versus fee simple title. Not at all. Not ever. This is about a very specific injustice to a very specific nation over very specific land that was always theirs. That is what the court said. Then the court said that, because the land now is basically Crown land, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, and the B.C. government has no legal right to extinguish title, that is the honour of the Crown to these peoples.

My friend Adam Olsen, who was once the Green Party member of the B.C. legislature representing me, and who is a member of the Tsartlip First Nation, in response to this Cowichan decision tried to emphasize, “When First Nations win, the rest of society does not lose.” I would like my hon. colleagues in this place to think about how significant it is for us all that what may knit us together, our sovereignty as a nation, is better protected by the honour of the Crown and its relationship with indigenous nations than almost anything else if we are dealing with a U.S. President who thinks we could be the 51st state. Lots of luck. Section 35 of our Constitution says indigenous lands are inherently held and are indigenous title.

It is very important, and some of us in this place have gone to law school, like the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, so I know she knows this stuff, that we cannot conflate indigenous title with fee simple title. Crown land is in a different kind of category, and in that sense, indigenous title is more akin to that. As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg said, we have the Haida decision, and there is the Delgamuukw decision, but really the Tsilhqot’in decision of the Supreme Court of Canada made it really clear. Fee simple title is held specifically and personally and can be bought and sold. Indigenous title, as the court said in the Tsilhqot’in decision, is collective and intergenerational.

To all concerned, let us please not allow people to believe something that is not true. This Cowichan decision does not threaten fee simple land or property rights. Let us wait for the courts to conclude, and let us stay calm.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very interesting speech and recap of some of British Columbia's history. I am also a history fan, so I have read the whole case and would confirm some of the things she said.

The member is saying that Cowichan does not stand for the proposition that aboriginal title threatens fee simple title. The problem with that, of course, is that the Delgamuukw case said aboriginal title gives the holder thereof exclusive rights to possession, and fee simple does the same, so there cannot be the same thing on the same piece of land.

I will also note that the Cowichan case was the first time in Canadian history, as far as I know, that a plaintiff first nation group claimed aboriginal title over privately held lands. The Tsilqhot'in case the member cited was only about public lands, so I would challenge her on saying that aboriginal title has no effect.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has already been quoted by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre that the court confirmed that the Cowichan nation did not seek to invalidate or render ineffective fee simple lands. It is true there are some fee simple lands within the area that used to be the village. It is primarily federal land, it is City of Richmond land, and it is the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. However, the declaration by the court does not affect one iota the fee simple property rights of those people.

The burden is on the Province of British Columbia, which for 100 years ignored its duty to properly negotiate this dispute and to pay attention to the rights of the Cowichan nation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when we think of the modern treaties or agreements between the federal government and first nations and so forth, there has never been an example where the federal government has forfeited private property rights. That is a challenge I would put to Conservatives. I would ask them to give me an example of where that has taken place. Is the leader of the Green Party aware of any?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of my Conservative friends are wondering about the expropriations built into Bill C-15 for Alto. That is basing it on what kind of title rights we have in this country. Nobody's title rights in fee simple are absolute vis-à-vis our own government, but they are absolute vis-à-vis potential indigenous title, which has not in any way been put forward.

As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre says, there has been no case ever where indigenous title has resulted in fee simple title rights being lost for settler culture Canadians. Fee simple rights are only taken when a government expropriates for something big, like the Mirabel airport or what have you.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just mentioned Alto's high-speed train project. The government has given itself the power to disregard expropriation laws, which is clearly a big problem. People are being threatened with expropriation. The issue we are talking about today, the court decision at least, seems to touch on home values and project funding.

Can my hon. colleague go into more detail about why she seems to say that, from what I understand, there are really no issues in this respect?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Repentigny. It is a bit difficult because various issues are being conflated. From this confusion, untruths may grow.

We are in a situation where, for natural resource projects, we need to establish honest and thorough consultation mechanisms before the projects are implemented. At the same time, the decision from the B.C. Supreme Court in the Cowichan case has no impact on issues like major natural resource projects.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but reflect that if the circumstances were different, this would have been a very interesting discussion. I thank all of my colleagues for their commentary on case law and for all of the legal arguments that have been made.

I am just wondering if, in the short time that we have left, my colleague might reflect a little on the fact that it is such a tragedy that the government did not actually negotiate a treaty that would have allowed us to avoid all this uncertainty.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that Richard Moody was a thief. It is a shame the Government of British Columbia did not long ago negotiate in good faith with the Cowichan. It is a shame the Government of Canada did not long ago negotiate with the Cowichan.

With this degree of shame, we must not let the honour of the Crown be dishonoured now.