Mr. Speaker, let me start by pointing out that the Government of Canada will be in a much better position to speak publicly once we have formally submitted our arguments for the appeal. The Cowichan case remains before the courts, and it is important that all members of the House, including me, speak carefully and responsibly while that process is under way.
I will emphasize that keeping private property predictable and stable is our priority. We are carefully considering all viable arguments on the appeal to protect private property rights while also respecting the Constitution.
I recognize the uncertainty and concern many Canadians might be feeling right now, particularly private property owners in British Columbia. We hear those concerns and are working to get the clarity that everyone in Canada is deserves. Private property ownership is a foundational part of Canada's legal system. It gives people predictability and confidence in their homes and businesses. It is important to Canadians, it is important to our economy, and it is important to all of us.
All parties to the decision are seeking greater clarity from the courts as its interpretation and implications are clarified. To gain that clarity, the Government of Canada's grounds for appeal are focusing on specific legal questions.
We are also hoping to gain additional clarity through the Montrose application, which seeks to reopen the trial in a limited way and add Montrose as a party to the proceedings. The Montrose application was heard by the British Columbia Supreme Court on May 25 and 26, 2026. Justice Young has reserved her decision, and there is no indication of when she will give her decision.
Canada's response is consistent with the position it took in 2017 when Canada applied for private landowners within the claim area to be made aware of the case. It is important that parties that may be affected by the court's decision have an opportunity to be heard. Private landowners are best placed to share any uncertainty they are feeling arising from the decisions that could impact them.
If the Montrose application is successful, it would allow Montrose to participate formally in the proceedings as a party or intervenor, and it would reopen portions of the trial so evidence and perspectives related to the impacts of the ruling on Montrose can be considered by the court. It would also introduce evidence that was not before the court during the trial.
Our approach going forward continues to be grounded in respect and constructive dialogue with all parties. This is the foundation for both advancing reconciliation and addressing further uncertainty. This approach is also how we negotiate on modern treaties and self-government agreements with first nations. These types of agreements provide clarity, stability and long-term predictability for everyone. Importantly, these measures provide a path forward that respects privately owned property while addressing land claims responsibly.
We will keep working to gain the needed clarity that the member opposite seeks and that, I am sure, all British Columbians and all Canadians seek from the courts to build a future grounded in respect, stability and lasting predictability for everyone.