“Recent court decisions and government deals have made Canadians unsure if they truly own their land and homes. I want the government to defend private property rights in court, make sure all future deals with First Nations protect existing property owners, and set up a special committee to study how to protect private property in Canada.”

“moved: That, given that, (i) 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 land, (ii) this decision is already having significant impact on home values and the financing of projects, (iii) the subsequent Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement has deepened uncertainty and failed to say anything definitive about fee simple property, deepening uncertainty and creating a dangerous precedent with potentially serious consequences, (iv) the government implemented the Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples, that includes Litigation Guideline #14, which discourages government lawyers from using all available arguments to defend private property rights, the House: (a) call on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case, arguing that it has priority over all other title; (b) call on the government to replace Litigation Guideline #14 from the Attorney General of Canada’s Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples that prevented the federal government from defending property rights in the Cowichan case, with a guideline that requires the federal government to aggressively defend property rights in all litigation; (c) call on the government to make no agreement without explicit property protection so that fee simple property rights are enshrined in all future agreements with First Nations; (d) call on the government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and Musqueam agreement - from the Prime Minister and with specific commitments and timelines; and (e) appoint a special committee with the mandate to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect private property rights in Canada, provided that, (A) the committee be composed of 10 members, of which five shall be from the government party, four shall be from the official opposition and one shall be from the Bloc Québécois, (B) the whips of the recognized parties shall deposit with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee within three sitting days after the adoption of this motion, (C) changes to the membership of the committee shall be effective immediately after notification by the whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House, (D) membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), (E) the Clerk of the House shall convene an organizational meeting within five sitting days of the appointment of the committee’s membership, (F) notwithstanding Standing Order 106(2), the chair of the committee shall be a member of the official opposition, the first vice-chair shall be a member of the government party and the second vice-chair shall be a member of the Bloc Québécois, (G) the quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118 and that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when at least four members are present, including one member of an opposition party and one member from the government party, (H) the committee have all of the powers of a standing committee, as well as the power (i) to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, within Canada, (ii) to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings, (I) the provisions of Standing Order 106(4) shall also extend to the committee, (J) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings, (K) it be an instruction to the committee that it hold at least 12 meetings and present an interim report before June 19, 2026. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a matter that strikes at the very foundation of security, stability and confidence in this country: the protection of private property rights in Canada following the decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. For generations, Canadians have believed that when they purchase a home, pay their mortgage, raise their children, build a business or farm a piece of land, that property belongs to them. That belief is not merely emotional. It is foundational to our economy, our financial system and the trust Canadians place in the rule of law. Today, unfortunately, that certainty has been shaken. Canadians already face enough pressure from rising costs, inflation, unaffordable housing and economic uncertainty without having to wonder whether their home is truly theirs, yet that is precisely the uncertainty that is now spreading across British Columbia and beyond. The Cowichan ruling has raised profound questions about whether fee simple property ownership, the legal basis upon which millions of Canadians own their homes and businesses, remains secure in the way Canadians have always understood it. Instead of providing clarity, the Liberal government has deepened that confusion. Instead of defending homeowners, it withdrew legal arguments that protected fee simple ownership. Instead of reassuring Canadians, it negotiated agreements behind closed doors. Instead of transparency, Canadians received uncertainty. Conservatives believe reconciliation and private property rights can and must coexist. These are not mutually exclusive principles. We respect indigenous rights, we respect the Constitution, and we recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation and the need to address historic injustices. Indigenous peoples, I think we can all agree, deserve respect, recognition and fairness. Their histories, cultures and constitutional rights are an essential part of our country. Treaty obligations matter, and section 35 rights matter. However, reconciliation cannot come at the cost of destabilizing the homes, farms, businesses and life savings of ordinary Canadians. It cannot proceed through secrecy and without transparency. It cannot proceed while governments refuse to defend the certainty upon which Canada’s entire land title system depends. That is why Conservatives have called on the government to immediately change course. As the leader of the official opposition stated in April, the government must provide certainty, defend private property in court and make clear that Canadians’ homes and land titles will be protected. Before I continue, I will mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights, a remarkable member of Parliament. I am looking forward to hearing his words. As I was saying, the government must explicitly defend private property rights in the Cowichan decision. The federal government must, going forward, argue before any court, when discussing a new agreement or treaty, that fee simple landownership supersedes all other titles. The Liberals should not have directed federal lawyers away from advancing the extinguishment argument that had previously been part of the Crown’s legal position, and they must ensure that this defence is advanced in all future legal cases involving aboriginal title. They must stop pretending that this uncertainty does not exist. This is not theoretical. The consequences are already real. According to reports, appraisers in British Columbia warned that uncertainty surrounding property rights could reduce property values dramatically in affected areas. Financing for major development projects has already reportedly been denied because lenders no longer have confidence in the certainty of title. The federal Liberals are doing nothing to support those affected by this decision. They actually waited for the province to intervene. They are not backstopping those landowners, business owners or families caught up in this legal quagmire. This means fewer homes are being built in a housing shortage, fewer jobs are being created while the economy struggles, and there is less investment and greater instability in an already fragile housing market. Families in Richmond and beyond, all over British Columbia, are seeing their property values drop far deeper than many markets are already showing. Farmers are asking whether their land is still protected. Business owners are asking whether they can still use their property as collateral to obtain financing. Municipalities are questioning the reliability of zoning and planning authority. This is not merely a regional concern. As I mentioned just a few moments ago, it is a national issue. That is why on November 20 of last year, I formally requested an emergency debate in Parliament under Standing Order 52 following the Cowichan decision. In that request, Conservatives warned that the ruling risked undermining the indefeasibility protections that underpin Canada’s entire land title system. We warned that uncertainty regarding fee simple ownership could affect mortgages, insurance, development, municipal governance and economic confidence across the country. We also warned that Canadians felt blindsided because governments had failed to consult or inform the very people whose homes and businesses could be affected. As my letter stated at the time, ordinary Canadians bought their homes in good faith. They trusted their government to be transparent and honest with them. Instead, they discovered, through news reports actually, that the legal certainty of their property rights could now be questioned. Conservatives called for that emergency debate so Parliament could address those fears openly and transparently. Unfortunately, the Liberals refused, and Canadians are now left to wonder whether that refusal had less to do with reassurance and more to do with the fact that government was simultaneously negotiating other major rights recognition agreements behind closed doors. The secrecy surrounding Cowichan did not end in the courtroom. It actually continued with the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement. That agreement, signed in February, recognized Musqueam aboriginal rights and title across asserted territory spanning much of metro Vancouver, including Vancouver itself, Richmond, Burnaby, West Vancouver and Delta. Despite the enormous implications of such recognition in one of Canada’s most densely populated urban regions, the agreement failed to explicitly protect fee simple property ownership. That silence matters. The government and Musqueam leadership later stated publicly that private property would not be affected, but the agreement itself does not clearly indicate that same comment. When dealing with constitutional rights, property ownership and land governance affecting millions of Canadians, that confusion is not enough. That confusion has deepened uncertainty. It has created fear among homeowners and has raised serious concerns among neighbouring first nations with overlapping territorial claims. The Squamish Nation publicly stated that it had not been adequately consulted and warned the agreement could affect the lands it also claims. Again, there was secrecy, insufficient consultation and more uncertainty. British Columbians were stunned to hear Premier David Eby declare that private property will never be part of provincial negotiations. We should think about what that means for homeowners listening at home. If private property is not central to negotiations involving title and jurisdiction in urban regions, then who exactly is standing up for the millions of Canadians whose life savings are tied to their homes? Who is defending the integrity of Canada’s mortgage system? Who is defending the certainty required for investment and economic growth? Conservatives are, and we are calling on the Liberal government to act immediately. We are demanding that the government put private property first in the Cowichan appeal by arguing clearly and unequivocally that fee simple property ownership has priority over pending claims. We are also demanding that no future agreement be signed without explicit protections for existing homeowners and property owners: no more confusion, no more silence, no more secretive agreements, no need to leave Canadians wondering if their home is secure. Liberals keep pretending that Canadians should simply trust them, but trust requires transparency. Transparency is what builds that trust. Trust requires governments willing to defend the very people they represent. Unfortunately, the government continues to create uncertainty, and it is growing across this country. It does not need to be this way. I look forward to the questions ahead.”

“The Liberals failed to make their case in court when they had the chance. Now their appeal will be much harder. What does the member think about that?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member’s speech covered many key points. One of the most important federal ties to this issue is the Liberals’ failure to make the argument in court when they could the first time around, making the appeal of the decision they say they oppose so much more difficult. Could the member maybe comment on that?”

“The government told its lawyers not to defend homeowners' property rights in a major court case. Now that the case is on appeal, the government cannot make that argument. Only the City of Richmond is defending those property owners.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, indeed. That is right. The government in 2018 directed its lawyers not to argue in court for fee simple property rights in the Cowichan Tribes decision. Because it was, for some reason, in that lane, to not argue for fee simple property rights for the homeowners, now that the case is at appeal, the government cannot use that argument. It cannot use the argument that it stands up for fee simple property rights. The only group that did in the original case, which was Canada’s longest trial, I might add, over 500 days, was the City of Richmond. It is the only one standing up, at this point, for fee simple property owners.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The federal government failed property owners in Richmond by telling its lawyers not to defend their land rights in court. Now a judge ruled that parts of the land title system do not apply there, and people are losing property value.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The government in 2018 directed its lawyers not to stand up for fee simple property. Justice Young cited in her very lengthy decision that the federal government was not there to stand up for fee simple property owners. Now the decision has been made, in Justice Young’s decision, pointing out that two sections of British Columbia’s land title system do not apply to a swath of land within the city of Richmond. It was the federal government that failed those landowners, those businesses owners and those people who are trying to sell their homes and watching their property values sink. That is unfortunate, and people deserve better.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Could my colleague talk more about how government delays on property rights hurt public trust? Canadians need to know that their homes truly belong to them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s remarks on this issue and the broader concern around private property rights. Could my colleague speak further to how government delay and unclear action on property rights risks setting a precedent nationwide and what that does to public trust when Canadians want certainty that their homes truly belong to them?”

“Indigenous land claims are causing uncertainty across the country. The government's new agreements fail to protect private property. People who buy land and pay their mortgages need to know their property is safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, that goes to the second part of my speech. We have the Cowichan decision, with so much uncertainty around a large swath of land within the city of Richmond. Then we have the Musqueam agreement, which is basically a menu for future talks to land on a treaty or self-government agreement, wherever that may land. In that agreement, the government, knowing all this uncertainty, did not address, or at least put in protections, that private property within the claimed area was off limits and was not going to be on the menu. The government, unfortunately, went ahead anyway, knowing that this uncertainty is spreading across the country. Now we have cases in New Brunswick and elsewhere that are growing because of this uncertainty. People need to have trust in the system, so property owners know that if they buy a piece of property in good faith and pay their mortgage, they are entitled to that property.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The government is making deals behind closed doors without talking to property owners or neighbouring First Nations. People only found out about court decisions that affect their land from the news or the city. The government needs to be open and do proper consultations.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think what we saw in the Cowichan case was that nobody informed the property owners that their property could be affected if a decision by the courts was released, which we see now. Nobody let them know. The only reason the property owners in Richmond found out was because of the media or the city itself. The federal government was silent. In the Musqueam agreement, there were no consultations within neighbouring nations. Nobody else was consulted on this agreement. The government is negotiating all this stuff away behind closed doors. Canadians deserve better.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I support our motion calling on the government to protect private property rights. A recent court decision gave an Indigenous group title over land that includes private property. This decision threatens home and business ownership, and it hurts the economy. The government failed to strongly defend private landowners in court.”

“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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.”

“I agree that the government must consult Indigenous people and work toward reconciliation. But we should not do this by weakening private property rights, which our economy depends on.”

“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.”

“I want the House to create a committee to study this issue, and I want us to debate it here right now. People in my riding and Vancouver are worried about this decision and the government's lack of action.”

“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.”

“The Prime Minister and the minister said they appealed the Cowichan court decision right away. I want to know if that is true. If it is not, it shows the government does not care about this issue.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech was excellent. We have heard repeatedly from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations that the government’s response to the Cowichan decision was to immediately appeal. Is that fact? If it is not fact, what does that say about the importance the government places on this issue?”

“The Liberals did not appeal this court decision as soon as they could. They waited until the last minute. They say they protect private property rights, but the Attorney General failed to go to court to defend private property owners.”

“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.”

“The Liberals say they will protect private property rights, but they failed to do it before. Now, they cannot make key legal arguments in court because they missed their chance at the trial.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 29 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The member talked about businesses and golf courses instead of homeowners. Is he as worried about this upcoming decision as British Columbia homeowners are?”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague had an extensive career in corporate and real estate law. His speech was interesting, because we talk about homeowners, but the member talked about warehouses, golf courses and investments. Is the member as worried as homeowners in the B.C. region are with this decision coming up?”

“Local landowners are having their building projects put on hold. A business owner now has to go to court to protect private property rights because the federal government failed to do so years ago.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →