“Recent court decisions and government deals with First Nations have created confusion over private property rights in British Columbia. I want the federal government to defend private property in court. I also want it to release a plan within 30 days to protect property rights, and set up a committee of MPs to study this issue.”

“Mr. Speaker, a very real and local example of this growing uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls, whose narrow vote last year to incorporate as a municipality is now being re-evaluated as a whole community. From the decision-making powers of the town council to the municipality’s actual name, uncertainty persists because of the title changes brought about by the B.C. government, which now risk serious consequences across the nation. When people of the community of Okanagan Falls, which is 100 years old, no longer know and are waiting to be told what the name of their community they voted to incorporate will be, that is a sign of poor consultation brought on by an error-ridden provincial government. While our motion today is focused on the federal government, I join with my local and provincial representatives in encouraging Victoria to engage fully with every resident and neighbour in the beautiful community of Okanagan Falls with respect to the future of the community. As for the government across from me, Conservatives are calling for a common-sense approach that keeps the federal government involved with British Columbians throughout the entire legal process. We are calling on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case at the Department of Justice. Statements by Liberal MPs in the House are not the same as the direction they have provided to their public lawyers, who argued and lost in the Cowichan decision because of that. Litigation guideline number 14 from “Attorney General of Canada’s Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples” prevented the federal government from defending property rights in the Cowichan case, as many Canadian lawyers have pointed out. This is what the Cowichan decision itself said at paragraph 2096: “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” What is called the “principle of extinguishment”, that the Crown’s creation of fee simple title supersedes historical indigenous title, was the legal argument on which Canadian governments rested their defence of private property historically, under both Liberal and Conservative attorneys general. It does not cancel any existing treaties. It simply upholds the property rights created through Canadian history, particularly in the last century of property division in British Columbia. It was our best line of defence for property rights, but the Attorney General’s guidelines limited its use. The federal government itself has also created confusion on the intersection of title claims with its own Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement, which fails to say anything definitive about fee simple property rights, a dangerous precedent going into its appeal. Until the Cowichan case is resolved, it is clear that the federal government should be negotiating the defence of private property rights into its agreements with our first nations. It is not that first nations are trying to take private property. They are not. It is that legal agreements create precedents that could cause greater problems in the decades ahead. This creation of legal grey areas is how we got to the Cowichan decision. It should not be continued in agreements like the Musqueam agreement. Legal matters are never simply aspirational. They are law. That is why we on this side of the House are also calling for the Liberal government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement, and appoint a special committee with the mandate to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect property rights in Canada. This should be a multi-party committee that would hold multiple meetings over the next several weeks to hear from legal experts and to develop advice to be published in an interim report by the summer, with a full report to follow later. Both sides of the House feature people of great legal talent, many of whom are indigenous and many more who are familiar with indigenous law. There is no reason they cannot provide the government with clear advice before we rise for the summer. Canada is not required in international law to pursue reconciliation. We have our own law, and our own lawmakers in the House who wish to find common ground, equal rights and shared prosperity. Section 35 of our Constitution already recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada. No one pretends this framework is perfect, but it is our framework, built and improved by all Canadians. Few nations around the world maintain this kind of legal framework with indigenous peoples. It is a process of ever-greater improvement, but to maintain it we need all parties, such as the Crown, first nation leaders and everyday Canadians, who are extremely worried right now, to sit in a common understanding of how we will proceed and how we will recognize the rights of land, property and consultation. Let us maintain it as legislators of Canadian law. Setting aspirational goals aligned with UN resolutions in our laws does not serve anyone. Real Canadian law and real Canadian reconciliation can serve everyone fairly.”

“First Nations leaders, the government, and regular Canadians must talk together about land rights. People in my area are worried they will lose their property. This is a real problem across Canada, and we need to fix it now.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said, first nation leaders, the Crown and everyday Canadians all need to sit at a table in order to proceed. What I do not understand is how the member can say there is not a problem. I know that I am getting calls and emails, and I am getting people knocking on our door wondering if they are still going to own their property in the next little while. I know that the member who just spoke is not from British Columbia, but this is a Canadian issue that needs to be addressed immediately.”

“The Liberals are blocking all our ideas in committee. The government needs to realize that people are truly worried about their property rights. They are afraid to invest or build in Canada right now.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question. Liberals have shut down all communication. Everything we have tried to bring forward to committee has been shut down. I know it is not a good idea to keep pretending the issue is minor, or that somehow Conservatives are stirring the pot and making people scared. Again, how is it that the government does not realize people are scared about the future of their property rights? They are scared to develop. They are scared to invest in Canada right now.”

“Liberals say we should not talk about this because Canadians do not understand it. But our job as members of Parliament is to discuss problems and share the facts, not ignore them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my colleague a question, because the questions coming at her all the time from the Liberal side are about how we should not be talking about this in the House of Commons because Canadians are uninformed. I want to ask my colleague if it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to raise issues, discuss the issues and get the facts on the table about how we deal with the issues, rather than bury our head in the sand like ostriches.”

“The government is ignoring this problem before it gets too big to fix. All parties need to work together and use their legal and Indigenous experience to solve it.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what my colleague said. The government members are burying their head in the sand, pretending this is not something that could grow into something we will not be able to address farther down the road. We need to get together, as I mentioned in my speech. There are a lot of people on all sides of the House who have great experience, legal experience and indigenous experience. We have lawyers on both sides who can look at this and make sure. We need to be leaders. We need to show people they do not need to be frightened, because we are going to do something about this.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We need to vote for this motion so we can all meet and figure out what to do next. This is a very serious and complicated problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member’s question just confirms the fact that we all need to sit together. This is what the motion says. We need to sit together and talk about what our next steps are. This is a very complicated issue, and we cannot continue to pretend that it is not serious.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister is not approving major projects, and his government failed to defend private property rights in court. A recent court ruling in British Columbia puts Indigenous land claims ahead of private home ownership. I want the government to order its lawyers to defend private property rights, protect homeowners in any future Indigenous agreements, present a plan to protect property rights within 30 days, and have a committee study this issue.”

“Mr. Speaker, before starting my speech, I just want to mention the media reports saying that the Liberal Prime Minister is once again promising a new law to speed up projects, a year after he promised the very same thing. It is déjà vu all over again. We passed Bill C‑5 in five days almost a year ago. The Prime Minister said he was going to build at speeds not seen in generations. A year later, he has not used his powers once to approve a single new project in Canada. Now, he is repeating the same promise. Five hundred projects are waiting for federal approval. The only thing he needs to do for them to move ahead is to get out of the way. The Prime Minister needs to get out of the way by getting rid of the carbon tax. He needs to get out of the way by granting permits. He needs to get out of the way by legalizing oil and gas shipping off the West Coast. He needs to get out of the way by allowing a pipeline. That is the way to start letting builders build, investors invest and businesses create. Before starting, I just want to address that the Liberal Prime Minister is again spreading illusions. CBC ran a big headline that he is going to introduce a new law to get projects built. Where have we heard that before? Eleven months ago, the House gave him unprecedented legal powers under Bill C-5 to approve projects quickly. He said these powers would allow him to build at unimaginable speeds. Eleven months later, he has not used them once to approve a single solitary project. There are 500 of them waiting for his approval. There is only one thing in the way, and that is the Prime Minister. We do not need an announcement, a symbolic signing ceremony or any other illusions. We need him to get out of the way, get rid of the industrial carbon tax, approve the 500 projects waiting, grant a permit for a pipeline to the Pacific and legalize shipping oil off the West Coast. We need him to let builders build, workers work and investors invest. To do that, though, we also need to protect private property, which is the foundation of any economic civilization. Last August, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in the Cowichan case that aboriginal title had prior and senior status over private property rights, what is called “fee simple.” Fee simple is the legal term for the title one has to own their home. This is an unprecedented ruling, and it changes everything. We have to acknowledge how this ruling came to pass. It was the result of the Liberal government refusing to defend property rights in court. The federal government is the defendant in this case. It is named, and frankly, it is the only defendant. The Liberal government passed litigation guideline 14, an instruction from the Liberal cabinet that federal lawyers were not to argue for the seniority of fee simple property rights. The judge noted in her 800-page ruling that this is one of the reasons she could not protect property rights in her decision. That guideline is still on the Liberal government’s website, meaning the Prime Minister has kept it in place. Eight months went by after this ruling, which affects 800 acres and over $1 billion of private land, and the Prime Minister, who is the head of the government that is the defendant in the case, said absolutely nothing. He said nothing; he did nothing. Then the other day, he stood up and spread the illusion that he suddenly supports property rights, all while instructing his lawyers, through an explicit guideline still on the government website, not to defend those same property rights. Already there are reports of over $100 million in investment being cancelled because land title cannot be secured, as a result of the fact that there is no guaranteed collateral for the investors and the lenders. To make matters worse, the Prime Minister directed his Liberal government to sign the Musqueam agreement, which began the process of granting title to the Musqueam over lands that include metro Vancouver, Delta and even the same Richmond lands that the Cowichan decision granted to the Cowichan people, causing an even greater mess. The Liberals claim that their framework agreement with the Musqueam has no legal force and it does not matter, which raises the question of why they signed it at all, but what is clear and what legal experts say is that there is no protection for private property rights in that agreement either. All of this raises big concerns not just for Richmond and the Lower Mainland but right across British Columbia, because there are claims on almost the entire province. British Columbia is not a province where land cession has happened through the treaty process. There are going to be countless other claims that will come forward from other nations using the same precedent that came from the Cowichan ruling, which could literally threaten millions of homeowners. In the meantime, investment is paralyzed and suspended. Liberals across the way are trying to downplay the concern, but let me quote Mayor Malcolm Brodie of the City of Richmond, who said, “Property owners in Richmond and throughout the province can no longer rely on their title confirming a fee simple interest as conclusive evidence of absolute ownership of their land. The Court’s untenable decision cannot remain unchallenged.” Clearly, the mayor of the City of Richmond would not be raising the prospect that his own residents do not have clear title over the homes they bought if it were not truly a concern. Frankly, I do not know how the Liberals can deny the consequential impact of a court ruling that says there is one form of title that takes precedence over home ownership fee simple land title. Of course, that is a revolutionary change and an unprecedented change. It threatens the very economic foundations of our entire land-owning system. Without property rights, there are no economic rights. There is no country in the world where people are able to feed themselves, to house themselves, to prosper and to start businesses without having secure title. It is literally the single biggest determinant of economic prosperity. The great economist de Soto even pointed out that there are literally trillions of dollars of wealth that is deprived of people in third world countries simply because the people who live on the land do not have title of that land and, therefore, cannot build anything, including a home for themselves, on that land. To have a property-owning, free-market democracy, we need to have secure land title. That is why Conservatives have come forward with a solution to clean up the mess the Liberal Prime Minister has made. This motion today calls for the following action. One, it calls for the Prime Minister to cancel litigation guideline 14, the guideline that bans federal lawyers from defending property rights, and replace that guideline with a new one that requires they defend property rights in all such disputes. Two, it calls for a policy that the federal government will not sign anymore agreements with any first nations that do not explicitly protect fee simple property rights as having seniority over all other claims. Three, it calls for the Liberal Prime Minister, within 30 days, to present his plan to protect the property rights of British Columbians. It has been a month since this ruling. This is a federal issue where he is the federal defendant. He is the head of the federal government. He, by now, should have come up with a plan to defend the property rights of the people of British Columbia. Four, it calls for immediately convening a parliamentary committee to begin studying how we can save the property rights and the home ownership of the people of British Columbia and all of Canada. It is a four-step action plan that will immediately allow us to step up, do our jobs and defend homeowners. These are people who, in good faith, bought the land, paid down the mortgages and followed the rules. They deserve to have the security and the certainty that they own the homes they live in. Conservatives will fight for them. We will fight for their home, for their land, for their property and for all Canadians.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “We would get rid of the industrial carbon tax.”

  Said 5 times by 5 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“The Prime Minister says he protects property rights, but his government tells federal lawyers not to defend them in court against First Nations challenges. If he really supports property rights, he should vote for our motion to defend them.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is all an illusion. The Prime Minister says one thing while doing precisely the opposite. That has been the signature trait of his entire prime ministership. He does precisely the opposite of what he says. While he was making those comments in the House of Commons, on his own federal government website was litigation guideline 14, which forbids federal lawyers from defending fee simple property rights in challenges by first nations. It is another example of the Prime Minister providing an illusion of one thing while doing precisely the opposite. If he will actually defend property rights everywhere and always, then he can simply vote for our motion, which requires we defend property rights in court.”

• 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 did not defend property rights in court, and now people might lose their homes. I want to fix this problem today.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a bad interpretation of section 35. This interpretation came to pass because the Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend private property rights. The judge herself noted that the federal Liberal government and the provincial NDP government of British Columbia had not raised arguments for the seniority of homeowners. By deciding not to present these arguments, they lost in court, so now homeowners are at risk of losing their homes. That is what we are trying to rectify today.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People in British Columbia are worried about their property rights because of a rule the Liberals made in 2019. I want the leader of the official opposition to explain what Parliament can do to fix this.”

“Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians are afraid and they do not have certainty right now. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14 telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today. The Prime Minister likes to talk about things that we can control and focusing on them. Would the leader of the official opposition maybe tell the Prime Minister what is under our control here in Parliament and what the leader of the official opposition tends to do about it.”

“The Prime Minister tells his lawyers what to do. Right now, he is telling them not to protect private property rights. He claims in public that he supports property rights. Why is he saying one thing to Canadians and the opposite to his lawyers?”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can control the directives he gives his lawyers. We have a very simple system when it comes to lawyers and clients in our legal system. The lawyer advises and the client instructs. The Prime Minister is the client. He has absolute authority to instruct his lawyers however he wants, and right now, the instruction he has given them, as published in litigation guideline 14 on the Government of Canada website, is that they should not defend private property rights. The Prime Minister stands in the House of Commons, puts his hand on his heart and claims he is for property rights. Why is it that he is saying one thing to the Canadian people and the opposite to his lawyers?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We should make laws that serve Canadians, not international groups.”

“Mr. Speaker, we pass laws in this country for our people in Canada. We do not pass laws based on what some multinational bureaucracy tells us to pass. We work for Canadians in this country. We are Canadians first and Canadians always.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Liberal government breaks its promises to Indigenous peoples and causes division across the country. It negotiates land deals in secret, ignores historical treaties, and fails to protect private property. I want the government to work with all parties to protect property rights, respect treaties, and properly consult First Nations.”

“Mr. Speaker, why is it that when Albertans feel frustrated and feel that they are being held from reaching their full potential to share their energy with Canada and the rest of the world, there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Why is it that Alberta’s separatism is at an all-time high today, and there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Why is it that throughout history when a Quebec separation referendum happens, there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Whose was the government in Ottawa over the last decade as separation sentiment in Quebec reached heights not seen in generations? It was the Liberals’ government. The Liberal record shows a lack of leadership, the villainization of provinces for political benefit and the causing of divisions among the people of Canada. Today in British Columbia, we see a lack of leadership. We see the villainization of those asking for certainty and clarity around property rights, and we see an all-time high in division between British Columbians and first nations. Whose is the government in Ottawa today during the lead-up to this in British Columbia? It is the Liberals’ government. This is not just a provincial government issue. First nations are a federal jurisdiction under section 35 of the Constitution. Treaty-making, agreements and court action involving first nations require federal government leadership, vision, clarity and the desire for unity, but all we have from the government for the current challenges in B.C. is avoidance, a lack of transparency, contradictions and reconciliation rhetoric. The situation regarding Cowichan is not an isolated failure. It reflects a broader and more troubling pattern under the Prime Minister and his Liberal government. As a first-term member of Parliament, I have seen trust repeatedly broken with indigenous peoples, political negligence at the expense of lasting progress and an inability to take full responsibility when things continually go wrong. The Prime Minister says he is all about reconciliation, but he and his government have reduced reconciliation to a cheap political talking point. His record over one year shows a complete lack of respect and neglect for indigenous peoples. In 2015, the government promised to end boiled water advisories in six years. Now the Liberals are six years past that promise, with no end in sight. After the last election, the Prime Minister’s government promised new water legislation for fall 2025. Fall came and went with no legislation. He then told AFN chiefs at the winter assembly that there would be water legislation in the spring of 2026. There has been no water legislation tabled this spring, and there are only weeks left until the summer break for the Liberals to keep their word instead of breaking another promise regarding water. The government creates uncertainty and stress by not keeping its word, and it is doing that in B.C. at this moment. A core source of uncertainty in B.C. under the Musqueam agreement, treaties and other such initiatives, is the application of UNDRIP. I note the Prime Minister said several times that he will uphold free, prior and informed consent, a key piece of UNDRIP, but we know when he says this, it is just political rhetoric as his party has said it now for years. The Liberals’ strategy seems to be to exploit first nations when it suits their political purposes, even creating and sowing division and chaos among indigenous peoples themselves. Recently, first nations wrote to this government as it tried to expedite the Manitoba Métis Federation bill. Their question for the Liberal government was whether it has the free, prior and informed consent of first nations to sign a new modern treaty when it has yet to honour the historical ones that lay claim to the same territory. The government has several public letters now from Treaty 6, Treaty 8, Manitoba first nations, the AFN and more, citing their concerns over a lack of consultation and a lack of consideration on historical treaty rights. Conservatives make it clear, and so have first nations leaders, that nobody is against Métis self-government and self-determination, but answers remain outstanding that need to be had before moving ahead with modern treaties that overlap with historical rights. Surely the government considered this, because its silence to first nations’ concerns on this matter is deafening. Furthermore, the United States tribes are now attempting to leverage DRIPA and UNDRIP to cause chaos in our country’s developmental affairs. Where are the Liberals on this issue? They are silent. Conservatives know to put Canada first on such things and raise them in this House so that the government might do its job to stand up for this country. What about other modern treaties? Currently, the government is not serious about UNDRIP’s free, prior and informed consent when it comes to modern treaty processes in B.C. Several of the recent agreements in B.C. have raised threats of blockades and protests among the first nations themselves. While the provincial government has a big role to play, the federal government is ultimately responsible for these treaties and agreements. To pretend otherwise and to use the excuse that things should wait until the process comes to this Parliament formally is neglectful and reactive, and it will only sow more division in the future. So far it really seems as though the Liberal strategy is to sow division and chaos and water down the spirit and intent of treaties to avoid the rights of those who sacrificed to help build this country. Did the government have free, prior and informed consent of other tribes in the area when it signed its Musqueam agreement, an agreement negotiated in secrecy and sprung on the people of Vancouver and other first nations in the Lower Mainland? The answer is no. The government is hypocritical when it comes to free, prior and informed consent, as evidenced by the Squamish, who had to release a public statement saying they were “not consulted or meaningfully engaged by the federal government prior to the announcement of these agreements.” The people of Vancouver were not consulted, nor were the other local tribes, such as the Tsawwassen, when it comes to the Musqueam agreement. Speaking of consultations, first nations are asking the government right now at committee why it is weaponizing consultations against first nations women and families by creating a four-year delay sham process for S2 legislation, which would end discrimination against women and families. Women are now saying the government uses consultation as an excuse to delay human rights legislation through a four-year sham process, but it rams through other bills that have implications for first nations’ rights. Clearly, this is, again, the Liberal government being hypocritical, because it knows the Mikisew court case protects Parliament when it comes to a lack of consultation in legislation development. The vice-president of Justice for Girls said just days ago, regarding the government’s lack of urgency to change discrimination, “To resist doing that under the guise of consultation and supporting [the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples] is absolutely flabbergasting to me”. We see such hypocrisy and political games by the Liberal leadership to exploit our people. They are just stalling to keep the Indian Act discrimination going against women and families. For what reason, nobody really knows. The government talks, avoids, lacks transparency, vilifies fair questions and shows a complete lack of leadership. It is no wonder we have this situation in B.C., as well as separation in Alberta and Quebec. Conservatives are ready to lead. We are ready not to just talk about balancing property rights and section 35 rights; we are acting. We are challenging the government to lead, to bring clarity and certainty to homeowners, first nations and investors. We call upon the government to put private property first. We need to start analyzing how to do this while respecting all perspectives. When my nation settled a land claim over the west side of Edmonton that had residential and commercial property on it, we never went after private property; we worked with negotiators for solutions. We call upon the government to aggressively defend property rights in all litigation. To do otherwise would prove that it wants to see chaos and division. It must stop watering down the treaty process and bring the structures necessary to protect private property in all future agreements, negotiations and modern treaties so that we can have certainty for both first nations and Canadians. Our Treaty No. 6 brings certainty to first nations in Canada. “As long as the sun shines, grass grows and the rivers flow”, this treaty cannot be changed. The government’s signing these modern treaties with easy back-out clauses and using performative language, such as living agreements, is not a true treaty process and only delegitimizes all treaties. We call upon the government to put aside differences in this House, to strike a cross-party committee to address this, to show real leadership from this House and to be proactive in first nation and Canadian relationships. Otherwise, if the House does not act, courts, division and conflict will define where we go next. While the government claims to be a party of reconciliation, it only acts for true change when challenged in court. In areas such as Indian Act discrimination, child family services, water and more, the government is only forced to the table through court. There is an opportunity to be better and to do the role of leadership, not just more reconciliation rhetoric, in this House. Canada must do better. The government, under the Liberals, must do better. Real reconciliation does not come from rhetoric but from a responsible government, honest engagement and the resolve to follow through. It requires a government that says what it means, does what it says and is willing to be held accountable every step of the way.”