“The Prime Minister says private property rights come first. But at the trial, the government made it easier for the judge to say aboriginal title is more important. Now suddenly the government says they will argue the opposite on appeal. That doesn't make sense.”
What they said. What they meant.
Plain-language translations from the House of Commons.
Recent debates
8 latest topics
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
57 statements
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
19 statements
Arab Heritage Month Act
5 statements
The Economy
15 statements
Government Priorities
2 statements
Government Priorities
2 statements
Housing
12 statements
The Environment
2 statements
Oral Questions
Indigenous Affairs
A debate about a court case related to Aboriginal title and private property rights. The B.C. Supreme Court's Cowichan decision caused concern and the federal government appealed it, claiming to defend private property rights. The Conservatives accused the Liberals of not properly defending property rights in the original case, while the Liberals insisted they have always and will always protect private property.
“You screwed up. You made a deliberate choice not to defend private property rights in 2018. Now it's years later and you can't make the argument you need to win. How do you expect to protect property rights in Richmond with an argument you can't make?”
“You say you'll defend property rights now, in the appeal. But you didn't argue for them the first time around. Appeals aren't a second chance to make new arguments you never made before. So how are your government lawyers going to argue what you're saying now when they didn't do that at the actual trial?”