Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Indigenous Affairs

Question period focused on the B.C. Supreme Court’s Cowichan land decision and the government’s handling of private property rights in that case, as well as recently signed agreements with the Musqueam. Conservatives asked whether the government had directed its lawyers not to defend private property rights in the case, and said the decision and the agreements were creating uncertainty for homeowners in British Columbia. Government members, including the Minister of Indigenous Services, said the government protects private property rights, has appealed the ruling, and that the Musqueam agreements do not affect private property but recognize constitutionally protected rights in areas like fisheries and marine emergency management. One Liberal member said Conservative statements were spreading fear and hurting the B.C. housing market.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

8 statements

Chak Au

Conservative

Linked statement

“The government told its lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. Is this still the government's policy, and will the Prime Minister cancel it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watched a poorly staged performance last week when the Prime Minister responded to a simple question on private property rights from another Liberal MP. They could not even pretend to care. The fact remains that the Liberal government issued a litigation directive instructing federal lawyers to avoid protecting arguments for private property rights. That directive remains posted on the Liberal government’s website today. Is this directive still government policy and if so, will the Prime Minister withdraw it, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“We want to protect private property rights. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling, so we appealed it. We will handle this issue in court, not in the House of Commons, while we continue our work on reconciliation.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis

  • A repeated line

    “We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling.”

    Said 5 times by 3 members since April 24.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of the utmost importance. That is why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling and that is why we appealed it back in September. We are fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while we advance reconciliation. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs: in the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Ellis Ross

Conservative
“The government told its lawyers not to defend property rights in a recent court case. Canadians need to know that their homes belong to them. Why is the Prime Minister not defending private property in court?”

  • A repeated line

    “Because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since May 6.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case. The judge then ruled that private property was defective and invalid. Canada must pursue reconciliation with indigenous peoples, but these decisions are moving in the wrong direction. Canadians need the certainty that comes with knowing that their homes and property are theirs. With appeals and other court cases coming, why is the Liberal Prime Minister telling his lawyers not to defend private property?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Sean Fraser

Liberal
“We protect private property rights, and we also support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. We can do both at the same time.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, this government believes in private property rights and does not view them to be mutually exclusive to the notion that we can reconcile our challenging history with indigenous peoples who call these lands home. We have been advocating for the court to notify private property owners in this case since 2017. We have more recently supported the application by Montrose to be able to advance arguments to protect private property interests. In the meantime, we have made arguments to defend fee simple insofar as it impacts the federal government. We will defend private property rights. We will advance a path to reconciliation. We can do both at the same time.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Jeff Kibble

Conservative
“Secret government deals on Indigenous land claims are hurting property values and dividing British Columbians. The Prime Minister has stopped government lawyers from defending private property in court. I want him to explain his plan to protect private property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan land decision and the Liberal-Musqueam agreements signed secretly and outside the treaty process have resulted in economic uncertainty, falling property values and unsettling division among British Columbians, especially on Vancouver Island. We need truth and reconciliation. The Prime Minister is failing to deliver either. He is clearly unaware that by handcuffing the government lawyers in the B.C. appeals court, he has now legally handcuffed them in the Supreme Court. When will the Prime Minister explain his plan to protect private property rights now that the government lawyers cannot use the private property argument in court?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“The new agreements with the Musqueam do not affect private property. They recognize Musqueam rights in fishing, land care, and water emergencies. They also help Canada and the First Nation work together so we can solve issues without going to court. I want the member opposite to read the agreements.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that everybody remembers that the recently signed Musqueam agreements do not affect private property. The agreements recognize the Musqueam’s constitutionally protected aboriginal rights in the specific areas of fisheries, stewardship and marine emergency management, while establishing a clear framework for collaboration between the first nation and Canada. These agreements respect the rights of indigenous peoples and establish how Canada and the first nation should engage so we get our issues out of the courts and increase certainty for indigenous communities, businesses and all Canadians. I encourage the member opposite to read the agreements.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Mark Strahl

Conservative
“A recent court decision put private property rights in British Columbia at risk. The government told its lawyers not to defend those rights in court. How can British Columbians trust the Prime Minister to protect their property now?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and played by the rules, but due to the Cowichan decision, they now face uncertainty as to whether their private property will be protected going forward. Instead of arguing in favour of those rights in the Cowichan case, this Liberal government told federal lawyers not to defend those rights through litigation directive number 14, a directive that is still active to this day. How can British Columbians believe that this Liberal Prime Minister will stand up for their private property rights when his government guidelines are telling his lawyers to stand down?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Taleeb Noormohamed

Liberal
“Our government is protecting private property rights and appealing this court decision. The Conservatives are spreading fear and false information. That is what is causing uncertainty and hurting the housing market in British Columbia, not the facts.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 37 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what the facts are. The fact is that the Prime Minister has stood and said very clearly that our government is going to protect private property rights. Let us be clear about the facts. We have said that we are appealing the decision, which we are. Let us also be clear that the fearmongering and misinformation coming from the other side of the House is causing uncertainty in British Columbia, not what the facts on the ground say. The facts on the ground say that we are defending private property rights. The opposition is trying to drive uncertainty and is driving problems in the housing market in British Columbia.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 118

All 42 items ·
  1. Oral Questions Finance 5 statements
  2. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Small Business 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Automotive Industry 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Health 5 statements
  8. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  9. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Health 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Official Languages 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 6 statements
  13. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 3 statements
  14. Oral Questions Health 3 statements
  15. Oral Questions Taxation 5 statements
  16. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 8 statements
  17. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  18. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 7 statements
  19. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Seniors 3 statements
  21. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 37 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Silver Alert National Framework Act 11 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements