The House debated the impact on private property of the legal uncertainty created by the Cowichan Tribes v Canada court decision. Conservatives accused the Liberals of failing to swiftly and robustly appeal the ruling, contributing to public anxiety and economic disruption in B.C. Liberals argued they have taken appropriate steps to defend private property rights and accused Conservatives of sowing misinformation. Much of this debate was taken up by efforts to clarify and distinguish the positions of the two main parties on the issue, rather than concretely advancing the topic.
“I want the government to protect private property rights. The government should make sure fee simple property ownership is not weakened. The government needs to be clear and open about how they will protect land titles. Homeowners and businesses deserve certainty. The government is creating too much uncertainty.”
“The member made good points. The Liberals failed to argue in court to protect property rights. They say they oppose the bad decision. But they made a weak argument. It is hard to appeal now. What does the member think about that?”
“That is an important question. The government told its lawyers not to argue for property rights in court. Now that the case is at appeal, the government cannot stand up for property rights. The City of Richmond is the only one standing up for property owners in this long trial.”
“The government screwed up. It didn't defend property owners in court. Now those owners are losing property rights and their homes are worth less. The government should have shown up to protect them.”
“The government should protect property rights. If the government doesn't, Canadians won't trust that their homes are really theirs. That's bad. The government needs to make sure property rights are clear everywhere.”
“The government knows there's a lot of uncertainty around land claims. But they didn't protect private property in this agreement. That's making the uncertainty spread. People need to trust that if they buy land and pay their mortgage, the land is really theirs.”
“The government isn't being transparent about this issue. We should debate it in committee. Why don't they want that? In Quebec we don't have this problem because our civil law is clearer.”
“This government keeps people in the dark and makes decisions behind closed doors. In the Cowichan case, nobody told property owners their rights could be affected. The Musqueam agreement had no consultation with neighboring nations. Canadians deserve better than secret deals and a government that won't tell them what's going on.”
“I want the government to put private property first. This court decision creates uncertainty around owning homes and land. People are unsettled and it's undermining our economic stability. The government dropped the ball by not defending property rights aggressively enough.”
“I want to make the Conservatives look like they don't know what they're talking about. They didn't mention this one example that doesn't fit their argument. That must be because it undermines their whole point.”
“I only had 10 minutes, so I couldn't mention every case. The Haida case is important. It says governments have to consult Indigenous groups. We agree with that. We agree with reconciliation. But it doesn't mean we should weaken private property rights. That would hurt Canada's economy.”
“I want to debate this in committee. They wouldn't let us. Now I want a new special committee. This topic is important. People in my riding care. The government isn't doing enough.”
“The Liberals say they acted fast. They didn't — they waited as long as possible. They say they support property rights. But they didn't use every tool they had to protect them. They could have done more, like sending the Attorney General to defend property owners. But they didn't.”
