Tako Van Popta
Langley Township—Fraser Heights, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the appeal process in British Columbia is going to take years. In the meantime, homeowners in Richmond, British Columbia, and throughout the province are feeling insecure. Here is the reality in the subject territory in Richmond.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Cowichan Tribes v. the Attorney General of Canada, the B.C. Supreme Court declared aboriginal title over private lands, and the private landowners, 150 of them, are worried.”
“Madam Speaker, earlier in debate tonight, we heard from the Liberal side of the House suggesting that anybody who was opposed to Bill C‑22 was fearmongering and spreading misinformation. However, the very rational debate coming from the member for Vancouver East would suggest otherwise.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech on this self-government agreement, which she says could inform future agreements. There is the Musqueam recognition rights agreement in Vancouver, which has become very controversial.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the high-flying Prime Minister is racking up a $1-million debt for luxury inflight catering, many Canadians are struggling just to put food on the table.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate today, we heard the minister say that this agreement is a model to inform future treaties, yet the most recent treaty, the K'ómoks Treaty, which my colleague also mentioned, introduces the concept of UNDRIP, a foreign document. This is not made in Canada.”
The complete record
Every one of 218 lines we hold for Tako Van Popta, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the appeal process in British Columbia is going to take years. In the meantime, homeowners in Richmond, British Columbia, and throughout the province are feeling insecure. Here is the reality in the subject territory in Richmond. Realtors are not taking listings, appraisers are devaluing property values and bankers are not lending money on title that they see as insecure. My question again is this: Where was the federal government to stand up for private property rights?”
“Mr. Speaker, in Cowichan Tribes v. the Attorney General of Canada, the B.C. Supreme Court declared aboriginal title over private lands, and the private landowners, 150 of them, are worried. It has been well documented that the Liberals directed their federal lawyers to drop arguments protecting private property rights, to pull their punches and allow aboriginal title to take precedence. Where are the results for private landowners?”
“Madam Speaker, earlier in debate tonight, we heard from the Liberal side of the House suggesting that anybody who was opposed to Bill C‑22 was fearmongering and spreading misinformation. However, the very rational debate coming from the member for Vancouver East would suggest otherwise. Also, I am reading a Global News story that says that social media platforms, satellite companies and telecommunication companies will consider leaving Canada if and when Bill C‑22 passes because they are afraid they are not going to be able to maintain their customers' privacy, something that they are committed to doing. The secondary concern of these companies seems to be the additional cost of having to maintain digital information for a long period of time. Can the member for Vancouver East comment on those very rational concerns?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate today, we heard the minister say that this agreement is a model to inform future treaties, yet the most recent treaty, the K'ómoks Treaty, which my colleague also mentioned, introduces the concept of UNDRIP, a foreign document. This is not made in Canada. Could my colleague comment on how important it is for Canada to stick to made-in-Canada solutions when we are drafting our treaties?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech on this self-government agreement, which she says could inform future agreements. There is the Musqueam recognition rights agreement in Vancouver, which has become very controversial. It says that it is not a land agreement, and it goes on to add some comfort that nothing in this agreement is going to impact any aboriginal rights. What is missing is some comfort for the other party, the three million people in Vancouver, who are worried about private property rights. Perhaps it could say something like, “the protection and inalienability of fee simple property rights for all Canadians”. Would that be an improvement?”
“Mr. Speaker, while the high-flying Prime Minister is racking up a $1-million debt for luxury inflight catering, many Canadians are struggling just to put food on the table. There were 2.2 million Canadians who went to a food bank in one month last year alone, but the Prime Minister is living the high life, even though he is leading the only G20 country into a recession. Will the Prime Minister reverse his failed policies that are causing this food affordability crisis so that Canadians can afford to live again?”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is going to be adding somewhere between $70 billion and $80 billion in additional debt to its already sky-high deficit with accumulated debt of over $1 trillion. If I take the middle point and apply 4% interest to it, that is $3 billion every year just in additional interest payments on an already very high number. How does the Liberal government justify adding tens of billions of dollars of debt to the national debt when so many Canadians are already struggling with the cost of living?”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, all morning, we on this side of the House have been raising some of the issues, some of the complexities, that have arisen from the Cowichan decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. It has been suggested by the Liberal side of the House that we are fearmongering or being misleading. I am very happy that the member opposite raised the issue of the Montrose application. He will be aware that Montrose had a land development project that has now run into complications on account of the Cowichan decision. This is not fearmongering. These are just facts. I wonder if he could comment about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for her enlightening speech and for explaining the difference between “fee simple”, coming from British feudal law, and “absolute title”, coming from civil law. That was very enlightening. However, the same question still applies. Does the member think that absolute title and aboriginal title can coexist on the same piece of land at the same time, or is that an irreconcilable conflict?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about misinformation as though the Conservatives, when we raise issues with or weaknesses in the Liberal Party, are spreading misinformation. All we are doing is shedding light on their incompetence. We have a real-life example in the Montrose application, which the minister has already mentioned. We talked to them. They had a project that was ready to go. It has fallen apart. This is not misinformation. This is the reality on the ground. It is not the Conservatives that are repeating this. These are the facts on the ground that are making life difficult for investors. Can the minister comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Again, it was a short speech, and I did not have time to work everything into it. I have spoken to a number of the landowners, including a commercial landowner in the region who has a project under way. He had financing in place. He had tenants for the new warehouse complex he was going to build. All of it is on hold. The company is now making an application to the court, doing what the federal government and the Attorney General should have done during the trial many years ago. He is making an application to argue the rights of private property owners.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment coming from a member who did not consult with the first nation communities in her riding when she asked to drop the indigenous name from the riding name. Yes, the Liberals today are saying that they will defend private property rights. However, they failed to do it before, and they have now worked themselves into a corner where they are not able to advance some of the arguments at the Court of Appeal that they should have raised at the trial level.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard on a number of occasions that the Liberals appealed the decision as soon as they could. That is just not true. They waited until literally the last minute to appeal it. More importantly, the Liberals say they stand for private property rights. However, they did not use all the tools in their tool box to do that. Even though private property owners have not been named as defendants, the Attorney General could and should have been there to defend private property owners, which he did not do.”
“Mr. Speaker, normally we would try to argue it in committee, but it got shut down. We have put forward a motion, a proposal, that the House form a committee to look at this issue. In the meantime, we need to argue it in the House. This is very important to Canadians. It is important to people in my riding and to people in metro Vancouver, because they are deeply concerned about the uncertainty being brought by this decision and by the lack of action by the federal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, if I had a half-hour or an hour, I would have talked about all the interesting cases, but I had only 10 minutes. The Haida case is obviously a very important case. It talks about and expands on the principle of the duty to consult. I will not argue with that. There is a duty to consult. We agree with that. We agree that reconciliation is important, but to undermine the private property regime that Canada's economy is built on is not the way forward on reconciliation.”
“Reconciliation requires clarity, honesty, transparency and respect, not the erosion of the very legal foundations that allow our society to function. That is the principle that the Liberal government overlooked when it instructed its lawyers to not use all the tools in their tool box to defend property rights in Canada for Canadians. They dropped the ball, and Canadians are paying the price.”
“Both forms of title claim exclusive rights to occupy, to develop and to benefit economically from the land. Two competing exclusive titles cannot occupy the same legal space without destroying the certainty that underpins our entire property system. The result is not reconciliation; it is confusion. It is not economic opportunity; it is economic paralysis. It is not a path forward; it is a step backward into uncertainty at a moment when Canada desperately needs stability, investment and confidence. If the Cowichan decision stands as it is, the consequence will be profound. It risks chilling development, destabilizing markets and deepening divisions rather than healing them. Canada cannot afford a property rights regime that leaves homeowners, lenders and investors unsure if they can take their fee simple title to the bank.”
“Wolastoqey Nation, December 2025, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick put it this way: “a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately owned lands, which, by its very nature, gives the Aboriginal beneficiary exclusive possession, occupation, and use would sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians.” That is not rhetoric. It is a sober legal assessment of the consequences of eroding certainty in land ownership. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in the Cowichan decision, moved in the opposite direction. The court held that aboriginal title can extend to privately owned lands, and that aboriginal title and fee simple ownership can somehow coexist on the same land at the same time. In my respectful view, this is simply not possible.”
“They dropped their first and best line of defence, which says that the clear and simple act of the Crown's granting fee simple title to individuals throughout B.C.'s history had the effect of extinguishing aboriginal title, to the extent that future plaintiffs might argue for aboriginal title. We are saying that it is obvious that the government lawyers should have maintained this line of defence, considering the aggressive action by the Cowichan plaintiffs. An aggressive offence demands an aggressive defence. Some people argue that weakening private property rights is a path toward reconciliation, but Canadian courts have already warned of the opposite. In the New Brunswick case of J.D. Irving v.”
“A different and more far-reaching strategy on the part of the plaintiffs, compared to the Tsilhqot’in, who restricted their claim to public lands, required a different and more aggressive response from the federal Attorney General lawyers. Under the direction of the Attorney General in 2018, the justice department lawyers pulled their punches. At paragraph 2096 the judge noted, “Canada initially [argued] extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to [the] civil claim filed November 22, 2018”, obviously in direct response to new directives coming from the Attorney General. They dropped the ball.”
“Any realtor will tell us that the three most important things about real estate are location, location and location. The location in question makes the real estate very valuable. It is right in the heart of an industrial part and residential part of metro Vancouver. There are about 150 private landowners. There is a beautiful golf course. A significant landowner's project has now been put on hold. None of them had the opportunity to argue their case in court. (1030) The fact that the Cowichan plaintiffs did not restrict their claim to publicly owned lands but included privately owned lands makes this case unique. It is in that context that we accuse the Liberals of dropping the ball.”
“The first one was a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada case called Delgamuukw, which set out the standard for proving aboriginal title in the court of law. There was another important case, 17 years later, called the Tsilhqot’in Nation case, which declared aboriginal title over a large but remote area of British Columbia of about 2,000 square kilometres. All the land in question was Crown land. The Tsilhqot’in Nation was the plaintiff in that case. Its litigation strategy was deliberately crafted to avoid conflict with private property owners. Let us fast-forward another decade to the case we are talking about today, which declared aboriginal title over a relatively small area of only 800 acres compared to the 2,000 square kilometres in the Tsilhqot’in case. However, this land is right in the heart of metro Vancouver.”
“The whole real estate industry banks on indefeasibility, the principle that says that when a person is registered as the legal owner of the land, their ownership cannot be challenged or defeated. The title is what the title says it is. Nobody had ever questioned the simple principle of indefeasibility until the Cowichan decision last year. One phrase bears repeating: “[Sections] 23 and 25 of the [Land Title Act] do not apply to Aboriginal title.” I am not trying to get technical, but these are the sections that underpin the principle of title indefeasibility. Today that principle is less secure than we always thought it was. This is the first in Canadian jurisprudence. There have been other cases in British Columbia where the courts ruled that a first nation had met all the criteria for proving aboriginal title.”
“23 and 25 of the [British Columbia Land Title Act] do not apply to Aboriginal title.” Before entering Parliament as a member of Parliament in 2019, I spent many years practising corporate, real estate and land development law in the metro Vancouver area. Those decades in law taught me this with absolute clarity: Canada's economic stability rests on the bedrock of secure, indefeasible fee simple title. This principle, inherited from centuries of British common law development, is not an abstract legal doctrine. It is a foundation of our banking system, commercial investment, housing markets and, importantly, the ability of ordinary Canadians to build and preserve wealth. If we undermine that foundation, we undermine our economic stability and civic resilience as a Canadian society.”
“It is not an estate granted by the Crown, but rooted in prior occupation. It is constitutionally protected. The question of what remains of Aboriginal title after the granting of fee simple title to the same lands should be reversed. The proper question is: what remains of fee simple title after Aboriginal title is recognized in the same lands? This is what is unsettling so many people interested in real estate. What does “a prior and senior right” actually mean? Here is another quote, from paragraph 3551, which is close to the end of the 800-page decision. The judge says, “A precedent that will follow from this case is that provincial Crown grants of fee simple interest do not extinguish nor permanently displace Aboriginal title, and ss.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the Conservative motion that is on the agenda today, which is calling on the Liberal government to put private property first in the Cowichan case, arguing that private property has priority over all other forms of title. We are saying this because the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision created massive uncertainty around fee simple property, the legal basis on which Canadians and businesses alike own their homes and their lands, and I could add their warehouses, their factories, their hotels and their high-rise apartment buildings. I want to quote from the B.C. Supreme Court decision that has shaken the confidence of the real estate market, homeowners and landowners. This is what the judge says at paragraph 2193: I agree that Aboriginal title is a prior and senior right to land.”
“Earlier today, we reflected that legacy with a simple yet elegant flag-raising ceremony here in Ottawa, celebrating the lasting bond between two freedom-loving democratic nations. May the friendship endure.”
“Mr. Speaker, 81 years ago today, on May 5, 1945, Canadian Forces finally secured the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. It marked the end of a hard-fought campaign that began on D-Day in northern France, continued through a bitterly cold winter and brutal fighting along the Scheldt River, and concluded with the liberation of Arnhem and surrounding towns and cities. Victory came at the high cost of the lives of 7,600 Canadian soldiers. From that sacrifice emerged a deep and enduring friendship between Canada and the Netherlands. It led to a wave of Dutch immigration to Canada after the war, including my own parents, and it continues to be honoured on both sides of the Atlantic.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that the Liberal government protects private property rights and that it will appeal the Cowichan decision. Here is the problem: At trial, the Liberals dropped the argument that private property rights come first, making it easier for the trial judge to conclude that aboriginal title is a “prior and senior right to land.” How can the Prime Minister now say that the government will argue on appeal the very opposite, that private property rights come first, when they did not raise it at trial?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton Northwest talked quite a bit about the ambiguity in the treaty and how that ambiguity might lead to confusion between various Métis groups. I am wondering about the Métis Nation British Columbia. Yes, there is one, and it has jurisdiction over 30,000-plus Métis people. What assurances are there that this will not impact the very important work that they are doing in my home province?”
“They said: ...a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately owned lands, which, by its very nature, gives the Aboriginal beneficiary exclusive possession, occupation, and use would sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians. Does he agree with that statement from the Court of Appeal?”
“Mr. Speaker, the concern is that the federal lawyers have dropped the extinguishment argument, which was their first and best line of defence, under the misguided concept or idea that reconciliation requires the federal government not to be too aggressive in defending private property rights. That is the concern here, and nothing that the hon. secretary has just mentioned adds any comfort. Of course the government is going to argue. Of course it is going to appeal, but is it going to argue that line of reasoning? There is a great quote from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, which was addressing a similar fact situation.”
“Will the new Liberal Prime Minister direct the federal lawyers to argue that private property rights in Canada must be secured for homeowners, farmers, businesses and investors?”
“They did not argue that, making it easy for the trial judge to find that aboriginal title still exists on all parcels, including private lands, within the claim area, and that aboriginal title and privately held fee simple title could co-exist on the same piece of land. Many legal experts have weighed in on that, saying that it does not work, and asking how two title owners could have exclusive and competing interests over the same title. Who wins? The judge's answer was that “Aboriginal title is a prior and senior right” to other property interests, whether the land is public or private. That is what has people worried. Who actually owns the land? I will ask the question again.”
“Instead of arguing aggressively to defend private property rights, federal counsel, under the direction of then attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould and then prime minister Justin Trudeau, retreated from their strongest legal defence. This is what the court said in paragraph 2096, “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” The Liberal strategy was to drop its first and best line of defence, that the Crown's deliberate granting of fee simple title to private individuals throughout British Columbia's history had the effect of extinguishing pre-existing aboriginal title.”
“That was their strategy. Fast-forward a decade to the current case, and the Cowichan plaintiffs took a different, more aggressive approach. Their claims area does include privately owned lands. We are talking about a relatively small piece of land, not 1,750 square kilometres but 800 acres. It is right in the heart of Metro Vancouver and, as any realtor would say, the three most important things about real estate are "location, location, location". The morning after the decision, 150 private landowners, farmers, homeowners, businesses and a golf course discovered that their titles were now burdened with the aboriginal title designation. That is what makes this decision so unique. It has never happened before in Canadian history. This is why I say that the Liberals dropped the ball.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week I raised an issue of deep concern to the people of British Columbia, namely the impact of the B. C. Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and the impact that the decision has on private property rights. It is a significant ruling, because it is the first time in Canada's history that a court declared aboriginal title over non-Crown lands, privately owned lands. There have been other aboriginal title cases in British Columbia before, and I am going to highlight one of them, the Tsilhqot’in Nation case of 2014. The court declared aboriginal title over a very large piece of land, 1,750 square kilometres. It was very remote land and it was all Crown land. The Tsilhqot'in plaintiffs in that case were very careful to carve around all the privately held land, so that the claims area was only public land.”
“Appeals are not do-overs, so how do they expect to win an appeal on arguments they are not entitled to raise? How are they going to restore confidence in home ownership and fee simple security, now that they have dropped the ball?”
“Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are living with uncertainty about whether the homes they worked their whole lives to buy are truly theirs. Businesses are hearing from their commercial lenders that they cannot just assume that they can take their fee simple security to the bank. Between the Cowichan Tribes decision and the Musqueam agreements, Liberal and NDP governments have cast doubt on fee simple private property rights for thousands of Canadians. Reconciliation matters, but it cannot be pursued through legal confusion. The Cowichan case may take years to reach the Supreme Court of Canada, leaving families and businesses in limbo. The Liberals say they will appeal, but here is the problem: They had instructed their lawyers not to argue at trial that fee simple title supersedes all other titles and interests.”
“In light of the Prime Minister signing this security agreement with China, the greatest threat to our democracy, I wonder how effective the registry is actually going to be.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my next-door neighbour, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for a very thoughtful question. Indeed, there have been delays. The member asked me why the Liberal government has delayed that. I do not know. He would probably have to ask someone in of the Liberal government. I know he did not expect me to actually have an answer to that. However, this is the good news. We have now appointed Anton Boegman, the former chief electoral officer of British Columbia, to be the commissioner of the foreign influence registry. His job, number one, is now going to be to set up the registry. He came to our committee. We are optimistic that his appointment will actually be a meaningful one. However, my colleague raised a very interesting point.”
“In some things, I think it requires a further drill-down at the committee to ensure the proposals are actually going to meet their objectives. Certainly, we need to also hear from experts to ensure that it can withstand any sorts of challenges in court or challenges by people who want to find loopholes to get around them and find ways to interfere with our democratic institutions. That is what this bill is all about. We want to stop that. We want to support our democratic institutions. We want to support our free and fair elections. We want to ensure that Canadians are getting the government that they deserve and that they voted for. We want to ensure that Canadians are getting the local member of Parliament they want to choose and whom the majority are behind.”
“I believe it is because the Liberal government was not taking it seriously. It certainly was not at that time. Mr. Chiu took the brave step to introduce a private member's bill. I am going to go back to what Madam Justice Hogue said: In 2021, Mr. Chiu, the Conservative Party MP for Steveston-Richmond East, was the target of false narratives related to his proposal to implement a foreign influence registry. He was doing the work that the government should have been doing and he paid the price for it. I was very disappointed at the time. I still feel sad when I think about Mr. Chiu not being our colleague right now. I just want to underline that this bill is a step in the right direction. Much of it is supportable. In some things, it does not go far enough.”
“I want to send this to committee now for a further drill-down, to make sure that they actually would withstand the charter challenge and that they would provide the guidance that people need when they decide to get involved in the democratic process. I want to go back to my comments about the foreign influence registry. Our former colleague from Richmond East—Steveston introduced a private member's bill. I remember him asking why the government side of the House was not doing this. Many other western democracies have implemented and set up and authorized a foreign influence registry. It is not only China or Beijing but there are other countries as well that like to interfere in western democracies. (1725) Our trading nations, our fellow Westerners, have set up foreign influence registries. Why have we not done that?”
“One does not have to run for a political party. One does not need the endorsement of a party. Someone can just go out, be an independent candidate and get all their friends out to listen to them at the debate. This is all good for democracy. We did not want to stand in the way of that. We made this as permissive as possible, and I am happy to see that the government has actually picked up on this. We heard from legal experts that these restrictions are reasonable limitations on Canadians' charter-protected rights to participate fully in the democratic process. I agree that we need to put an end to the nonsense of the longest ballot committee. I also agree that these changes that we are proposing and which have found their way into Bill C-25 are reasonable and supportable.”
“I am happy to see that the drafters of the legislation have picked up the recommendations of the procedure and House affairs committee by implementing a couple of very important changes. There would now be a prohibition on a person signing nomination papers of more than one prospective candidate. There would be another prohibition on a person acting as an official agent for more than one candidate in the same electoral district. We looked at this very carefully. We listened to experts. We wanted to be as flexible as possible. We recognize that Canadians have a constitutional right, protected by section 3 in the charter, to be fully involved, in an unrestricted manner, in our electoral system. We want to encourage people to put their name forward and to be candidates. We want to encourage people to run as independents.”
“Both times, citizens, after looking at it, studying it, trying their best to understand how the different options would work, said that they were comfortable with the first-past-the-post system and that they wanted to keep it. The pranksters behind the longest ballot committee are very aware of this history. We put it to them. They know it. They knew that if they were to go through that process again, a rational process, a legal process supported by the government, they would be unsuccessful. They thought they would try something else, guerrilla war tactics, instead. That is what they are doing. They are not serious. They know that they will not succeed. They know that this is nothing more than a stunt that is making people angry. They must be stopped. That is what the bill would do.”
“I can say that, being a British Columbian, I have some experience with that. We have had quite a lot of experience with citizens' forums and citizens' institutions. Over the years, I think we have had two or three of them. These were groups of responsible people coming together, appointed by the government, to have an intelligent and high-level discussion to review our electoral system, and to possibly come up with options with regard to the first-past-the-post system, which, over the years, has been challenged many times. The citizens' forum put the options to the voters in British Columbia on at least two occasions.”