“Recent court decisions and government deals with First Nations have made people worried about losing their private property. The government must protect private land ownership in court and put written protections for private property into every new deal.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It is always an honour to rise as the elected representative of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. As I have previously stated in this place, all of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to the citizens who depend on us to do their bidding here in Parliament. Canadians need us to be vigilant for challenges and dangers that emerge and take actions to prevent, mitigate and overcome the challenges and dangers, including unintended consequences caused by the actions or inaction of levels of government. In these times of global uncertainty, Canadians need our vigilance and action perhaps more than at any other time. Today, I rise to speak to today’s Conservative opposition day motion. This motion opens with how the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision has created massive uncertainty around fee simple property, not just in Richmond, B.C., where the land relevant to the case is located, but across my home province of British Columbia and other parts of Canada. All this is because the legal basis on which Canadians and businesses alike own their homes and land, the basis on which economies are built, the basis that has provided the general stability for growth, investment, surety and prosperity, has been undermined. The certainty of fee simple property has been undermined, and with it the stability and security of every property owner in B.C. and beyond. I believe all of us in this House are proud to call Canada home, while we also recognize historical imperfections, chapters of our shared history in which forebears, including the federal government, failed. It is important to recognize and learn from historical failures. It helps strengthen our nation. So does recognizing our historical successes, reflected by the fact that our ancestors and predecessors built a country that others around the globe have admired because they have seen the opportunities that flowed from our stability and certainty. However, the sharp decline in certainty in the wake of the Cowichan decision has caused instability, directly harming opportunities for Canadians, while also putting a chill on those who would otherwise invest in Canada. If others look at Canada and see internal turmoil and conflict rather than stability, they will go elsewhere to pursue opportunities. Instability and insecurity reflect on Parliament, and all parliamentarians should reflect on how we can increase stability and security for citizens, both today and far into the future. The Cowichan decision is already having a significant impact on the outlook of citizens. Home values and project financing, not just in the immediate area around Richmond but across B.C., have been impacted. When I meet with people at events and on the streets across the riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, people come up to me and ask if their future and title to their property, which they have worked a lifetime to pay for, are at risk. The instability caused by the Cowichan decision was compounded when the Liberals negotiated the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement in secret, without ensuring that it contains protections for property rights and without ensuring proper transparency or consultation with other potentially affected first nations. The Musqueam agreement covers up to 533,000 hectares, including metro Vancouver and the Richmond lands that are at the centre of the Cowichan ruling. Canadians are asking questions, questions that the Liberal government will not answer. When the Prime Minister stated, “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples’ rights”, did he know that this is not the case? The Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement contains the word “private” only once and not in reference to private property. The Musqueam Stewardship and Marine Management Agreement does not contain the word “private” or “property”. The Musqueam Fisheries Agreement does not mention the word “private” or “property”. The agreement that provides the Musqueam with revenues from the Vancouver airport does not contain the word “private” or “property”. None of these agreements signed by the Liberal government protect private property rights, as the Prime Minister tried to claim they do, so either the Prime Minister has no idea what is in these agreements or he has been misleading Canadians. If we are to have true reconciliation in Canada, I believe we must also have truth. When we have a Prime Minister who either does not know or does not care what agreements his government is signing, or is willing to mislead Canadians on what is in those secretly negotiated agreements, it is no wonder that Canadians have questions for us, as they have elected us to be their representatives and voice. Canadians already face enough pressure from high costs and economic uncertainty without having to wonder whether their homes are truly theirs. The Liberal government must provide certainty and stability by openly reaffirming private property in court, and it must make it clear in writing that Canadians’ homes and land titles will be protected. Thus far, they have failed to do this. As Conservatives, we have urged the federal government to reinstate the arguments before the Court of Appeal that fee simple landownership supersedes all other titles, and we call on the government to take the following steps to protect property rights. Step one would be to put private property first in the Cowichan case by arguing that this has priority over all other titles and reversing the current position directing federal lawyers not to argue for property rights and the withdrawal of the extinguishment argument from the earlier 2018 decision. Step two would be to make no agreement without explicit property protection, so that existing fee simple owners are protected in all future agreements with first nations, reversing the government’s failure to explicitly protect people’s homes in the agreements the Liberal government has signed, which fail to explicitly protect fee simple property ownership, causing confusion, fear and risk, instability and uncertainty. At a time in global history when we are all seeing so much instability and uncertainty, this is a time when Canada could be a shining example in which all Canadians, regardless of ancestry, could have the sense of certainty and stability that others used to see in us. We cannot restore certainty and stability through secretly negotiated agreements. I have always believed that bringing everyone to the same table allows us to fully understand each other’s perspective. Failing to do so only brings speculation, skepticism and distrust. If we are to build trust and respect, we need the government to respect all Canadians and restore confidence for homeowners across British Columbia and Canada, by convening a parliamentary committee to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can protect private property rights in Canada, in light of the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement. In this way, the government can begin restoring trust, the trust that is required to move forward with the transparency, balance, stability and certainty that Canada once had.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 95 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “either the Prime Minister has no idea what is in these agreements or he has been misleading Canadians”.

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister said all federal agreements with First Nations protect private property rights. I checked them, and they do not mention private property at all. Did the Prime Minister mislead the House, or did he not know the facts?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to again quote what the Prime Minister stated earlier this week in the House: “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples’ rights.” I checked those agreements this morning. As I stated, the Musqueam agreement does not mention the term “private property”. None of those agreements mention private property. Was the Prime Minister misleading the House, or was he ill-informed?”

“I do not think the Indigenous affairs committee will look into this. The Liberals use their majority on committees to shut down questions and hide the truth.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Bloc member about whether this could be studied at the indigenous affairs committee. With the regime that the current power-brokered Liberal government has now installed at committees with its majority, it is shuttering committees. Any question as to the government’s integrity is shut down, turned in camera and voted against by the majority Liberal membership on these committees. I do not trust the Liberal government to allow any of this discussion to take place at committee.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Can my colleague explain the dangers of making secret deals instead of using an open, legal treaty process?”

“Mr Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s excellent intervention. You mentioned secret agreements. Could you tell me the risks and explore some of the risks of secret agreements done behind closed doors and their effect on transparency, as opposed to a treaty process that is established through the courts and that is open and transparent?”

“We do not know the risks of these agreements because the government keeps them secret. The Liberals changed the fisheries law to hide these deals from the public.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was referring to the risks of secret agreements and asking whether I could expand on those risks. Well, because those agreements are secret, we have not seen them. We do not know what the risks are in these secret agreements. I have been privy to this through my work, for over 10 years, on the fisheries committee, where agreements are signed with organizations around the country, secret agreements. Due to the rules put in place by the Liberal government in the previous changes to the Fisheries Act, the information in those agreements cannot be made public. It is hidden behind closed doors, so the risks are absolutely unknown.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“A recent court ruling on Indigenous land rights in British Columbia has put private property rights at risk. People in my riding are worried about losing their homes, and the local economy is hurting. I want the Prime Minister to act now to protect private property owners, release a plan within 30 days, and create a committee to study this issue.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Vancouver Island, and especially all of the seniors, families, workers, businesses and, perhaps most importantly, the youth of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Our communities stretch from Langford to Crofton, Thetis Island to Lake Cowichan to Port Renfrew and across the beautiful Cowichan Valley. It is home to numerous first nations, including the Cowichan Tribes, the largest first nation in British Columbia. We are a people who love where we live. We are people who take pride in our homes, our neighbourhoods and our future. We are rooted in the lands, the rivers, the forests, the mountains and, of course, the ocean. They are all integral parts of our soul. Today, we are all worried. The Cowichan land decision has created uncertainty and division that no community, indigenous or non-indigenous, should ever have to face. Be it on the island or across British Columbia, home values are falling, banks are refusing mortgages, sales have stalled, businesses are looking elsewhere or moving away, and anger and division are building. People are lashing out at one another. This is heartbreaking, and it is unacceptable. The Liberal government has offered nothing. There is no clarity, no plan and no leadership. The language in the Cowichan ruling describes aboriginal title as a “prior and senior right to land”, effectively creating a groundbreaking precedent putting aboriginal title above fee simple title. In other words, all privately held and Crown land is at risk. This has now created real fear of whether private property rights will still hold weight across British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada. These are not abstract legal questions, however. They are conversations happening every night in Duncan, Langford, Shawnigan Lake and Mill Bay and within the Cowichan Tribes. Parents are asking whether their home, their single greatest asset, is still secure. Seniors are wondering whether they can afford to retire and young families are questioning whether they can stay on Vancouver Island at all. Our youth are wondering what Canada will look like in the future. Our first nations are seeing reconciliation sentiment taking a major step backwards. Through all of this, the Prime Minister has remained silent. Instead of leadership, we have his litigation directive number 14, which forbids federal government lawyers from defending private property rights. It is a directive that tied their hands in British Columbia’s appeals court and will now automatically tie their hands again, this time in the Supreme Court of Canada going forward. This is not reconciliation. This is the abandonment of all Canadians, and it is deepening division, anger and stress among neighbours, friends and families, which is exactly the opposite of what reconciliation should bring. British Columbia deserves better, Vancouver Island deserves better and the Cowichan Tribes deserve better. Reconciliation cannot be built on secretly negotiated agreements or confusion. It cannot come at the expense of homeowners, the very stability of our economy or the core of our country. For decades, we had a made-in-Canada approach that balanced indigenous rights with the needs of society as a whole through an established treaty process. Section 35 of our Constitution recognized and affirmed these rights. It created a framework that brought stability and prosperity. It was not perfect, but it worked, and now the Liberal government has walked away from that. It has leaned on the declaration of the United Nations, which is an unelected body. It is not Canadian and it is not part of our legal system. The declaration is not binding and was never intended to override private property rights, yet the Liberals are using UNDRIP as if it does. The Liberals signed the rights recognition agreement with the Musqueam, which is not a treaty through the court system, but a closed-door, secretly negotiated agreement that failed to explicitly protect fee simple or private property owners and neglected to even mention them. It is an agreement that awarded the Musqueam aboriginal land title over the majority of greater Vancouver, including lands previously awarded to the Cowichan Tribes in Richmond, B.C. They created a conflict between two separate aboriginal titles. In fact, almost all of British Columbia is potentially under overlapping aboriginal land claims. With the Cowichan decision setting the precedent that aboriginal title is superior to private property and Crown title, British Columbia is in a mess. That precedent has now rippled across Vancouver Island, creating confusion and fear from Langford to Ladysmith and across British Columbia. This is not reconciliation. This is recklessness. Today, I am calling on the Prime Minister to act clearly, publicly and immediately. Our Conservative plan has four straightforward pillars. First, put private property rights first in the Cowichan case and restore the extinguishment agreement the Liberals abandoned in 2018. No one should ever have to wonder whether their home is truly their home. Second, make no agreement without explicit protection for all existing fee simple owners. The secret Musqueam agreement failed to do this. The Prime Minister must correct this mistake and guarantee that all future agreements protect people’s homes. Third, publish a plan within 30 days to protect Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision in the Musqueam agreement. Do not hold a press conference. Do not make a promise. Do not sign an MOU. Publish a real plan with timelines and commitments, delivered personally by the Prime Minister. Finally, convene a special parliamentary committee to examine every legal, constitutional and political tool available to protect private property rights across Canada. This crisis is not limited to the Cowichan Valley. It has spread across Vancouver Island, Richmond and British Columbia, and it will soon spread across Canada. If we do nothing, we will leave future generations with a fractured legal landscape and a broken economy. There is a better path, one that respects indigenous rights and private homeowners. We see that path in our Conservative platform. It is practical, economic reconciliation. It will put first nations back in control of their own revenues, reduce bureaucracy and government controls, strengthen local economies, including on Vancouver Island, and bring first nations into the federation as full partners, not wards of the state. First nations chiefs from across the country and across British Columbia have said the same thing. They want less Ottawa and more autonomy, and they want to build prosperity for their people. Conservatives agree. Reconciliation must be built on partnership, not secrecy; on clarity, not confusion; on respect, not fear; and on truth, not misinformation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for both truth and reconciliation. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver either. The great people across Cowichan—Malahat—Langford deserve a government that protects their homes and their future. The Cowichan Tribes deserve a government that respects their jurisdiction and supports their economic independence. Canada deserves a government that understands that reconciliation and private property rights are not competing ideas, but are both essential to a stable and united Canada. The Prime Minister has a choice. He can continue down a path of silence and uncertainty or he can act clearly, transparently and responsibly to restore confidence in our legal system and protect the rights of every Canadian. My community is watching, the Cowichan Tribes are watching and Vancouver Island is watching, and we are waiting. It is time for the Prime Minister to show leadership.”

“The Prime Minister is not telling the truth. He restricted his own lawyers and waited until the last possible minute to file with the Supreme Court. We want the government to be honest.”

“Mr. Speaker, speaking of disinformation, the member opposite claims that the Prime Minister has defended this, but he continually fails to disclose that he has already tied the hands of the government lawyers with the extinguishment article. He speaks of it being filed immediately when, in fact, the Supreme Court filing was done on the last day, at the very last minute. That is more misinformation. Conservatives are calling for real truth, real reconciliation and real honesty.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“A bank denied a loan for a 100-million-dollar project because of a court ruling on Indigenous land rights. The government says this is not a big deal, but it is. I want the member from Vancouver Island to tell us what people in his community are actually worried about.”

“Mr. Speaker, a headline from Business in Vancouver reads, “Councillor says $100M project denied loan over Cowichan case, bank says not a factor”. The article goes on to say, “A Richmond, B.C., councillor says a company based in the city has been refused financing for what she says is a $100 million project because of uncertainty over their site due to the Cowichan Tribes aboriginal title ruling.” We are hearing conflicting things. We hear the government say it is no big deal here and other people are saying it is no big deal there, but that is what is happening and that is the reality on the ground. Despite the empty words from the Prime Minister and the minister, to the member from Vancouver Island, what are the genuine fears you are hearing about from members in your own community on the ground?”

“People in my riding and across British Columbia worry about their property values and getting mortgages because of Indigenous land claims. The province had to back some mortgages, and property assessments now include warnings. These worries are causing more racism, anger, and hard economic times.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really agree with my colleague’s statement about empty promises and empty words. People are worried about the value of their property. They are worried about getting mortgages. In fact, it is so bad that the provincial NDP government is now having to back mortgages in affected areas, and it can do that only for a small area. It is going to need to do that for the entire province. People are worried. Property assessments are now coming with waivers saying the property value only stands as long as it is not superceded by aboriginal title. People in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are facing real concerns, and they are facing increasing racism and anger. This comes on top of tough economic times as well. There are very valid reasons for concern, and we are seeing it across Vancouver Island and British Columbia.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The government made the Musqueam deal in secret. Even the Premier of British Columbia did not know about it until it was signed. That is not transparent, and the government is failing Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my comments, I said “secretly negotiated”. The Musqueam agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. Even the Premier of British Columbia claimed he did not know about it until the actual signing. That is secrecy, not transparency, and it is how the government is failing our country. As far as the comments are concerned, I have not heard those comments and I am not in a position to comment on them.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This decision hurts home values in the area. I want the member across the way to tell us how it affects his house-flipping business.”

“Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberal rhetoric, we know that the property values in the area impacted by this decision are having a significant impact on the homeowners. I am curious. Can our friend across the way answer how this decision is impacting his house-flipping business?”

“The government says it will defend private property in court. But it is not letting its own lawyers use every legal argument. How does the government plan to protect private property if its lawyers cannot make their full case?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is spending more time blaming Conservatives for the Liberals’ own failures than proposing realistic solutions in his address today, which is a typical desperate Liberal tactic. The member stated that they would vigorously defend private property with every viable argument. Members may have noticed, however, that he could not say “every argument” because he knows full well that the government lawyers’ hands are tied behind their backs. They cannot use the extinguishment argument in court. What is the Liberals’ plan to vigorously defend it when their hands are tied behind their backs and they cannot even address title and private property, without the extinguishment argument?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 70 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “he knows full well”.

  See full analysis →

“The government says we are just trying to scare people. But people are facing real problems, like higher mortgage rates and higher insurance costs. I want the member to admit these problems are real.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I have to say I am quite disappointed in the government’s response. In fact, I think it is going to have to resile from this response at some point. When I heard the minister say this was just fearmongering, to me, that was completely unbecoming. Is it fearmongering when somebody goes to renew their mortgage and they have to get a higher interest rate because the market is saying that their house is no longer worth the same amount? Crickets. Is it fearmongering when somebody cannot get insurance at the same rate? That has nothing to do with what is being said on this side of the House. It has to do with, really, what is happening on the ground. The only reason that the government is dealing with this is because it has been hearing about it. The government is hearing about it because of the reasons I just said. Does the hon. member not agree?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 41 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 →

“The government's lawyers missed their chance in the B.C. court to argue that Indigenous land title was wiped out. They cannot use that argument in the Supreme Court now. I want to know what arguments they will use instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am feeling frustration from across my riding. We keep hearing the words “all viable arguments”, but we are not hearing all arguments. Will the Liberals acknowledge what the Supreme Court knows, which was established in the B.C. appeals court, which is that the federal government lawyers will not be able to use the main argument, the extinguishment of land title argument, because they failed to do it in the B.C. appeals court? What arguments will they use in the Supreme Court?”

“The member mentions legal options. I want him to give a simple yes or no answer about whether the rule of estoppel applies here.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The member talks about all legal options. He is talking like a lawyer here. Why does he not tell us about the idea of estoppel and issue estoppel? Does that arise, yes or no?”

“I want the House to pass this motion to protect private property rights. Recent court rulings and government rules have created confusion about land ownership in British Columbia, which hurts businesses and homeowners. The government must defend private property in court and in future agreements.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I have the honour of sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond Centre—Marpole. This past week, Canadians, particularly British Columbians, received deeply troubling news. A new survey from the Business Council of British Columbia found that nearly three-quarters of businesses plan to reduce investment and one-third plan to reduce hiring because of the growing uncertainty around property rights and land title in this country. This uncertainty is not theoretical. It is very real. It affects homeowners, employers, municipalities and investors who believed that, in Canada, fee simple ownership meant certainty. Since the Cowichan ruling, I have received calls, and I was a bit shocked because Westbank First Nation is in the heart of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna and sits side by side with the City of West Kelowna. I have had people who live in Westbank First Nation ask me questions about their property and whether their investments are safe. This is not surprising because today’s debate is really about a simple question that people in my riding are asking: Will the House of Commons stand up for Canadians who followed the rules and invested their life savings, or will it allow uncertainty and inaction to undermine private property rights in Canada? Business leaders are clear about what is driving this concern. It is the increased costs, the delay, the complexity and the unpredictability caused by this court ruling, as well policy reversals and an ever-changing legal landscape. As a result, investment is being shelved, jobs are at risk and confidence is eroding. What we already know is alarming. Fee simple titles held by the city of Richmond, the federal government and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority are now potentially invalid or ineffective due to this ruling. What we do not know yet is what the full impact will be on private landowners, people who worked hard, followed every rule, paid their taxes and put their entire life savings into their homes and businesses. They are worried, and rightly so. When these concerns are raised, members opposite respond by accusing critics of fearmongering or spreading misinformation. This is what Liberals tend to do when they do not have a substantive answer to serious questions, because these are serious questions. To those making those accusations, I would offer this: It was the Liberal government that adopted litigation directive number 14. That directive restricted the arguments Crown lawyers could make in court to defend fee simple property rights. That is not rhetoric. That is documented policy. Litigation directive number 14 is not fearmongering. It is a fact. It is an inconvenient fact for the Prime Minister and his government, one it has refused to explain still being on the books and that is instructing lawyers within its employ. The Prime Minister has been asked repeatedly why his government has continued with this directive, and he has continued to avoid giving a clear answer. Why did the Liberal Prime Minister refuse to stand up for property rights when it mattered? That remains unanswered, but what we do know now is that, after the damage has been done, the Prime Minister says he disagrees with this court decision. He now says that private property rights are fundamental and that his government will defend them. I am happy to say that the Prime Minister will have that opportunity with this motion. This opposition day motion gives the Prime Minister a chance to match his words with action, something that is increasingly difficult for the Prime Minister. Will he vote to defend private property rights, or will he vote against them once again? This motion proposes practical, substantive and achievable steps to help restore certainty and confidence. First, it calls on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case by clearly arguing that fee simple ownership has priority. I have heard the term “viable arguments”, but that does not necessarily mean they are making every argument. Second, the motion specifically calls for litigation directive number 14 to be replaced with a clear requirement that the federal government aggressively defend property rights in all litigation. Third, the motion requires that no agreement be concluded without explicit protection of fee simple property rights in all future negotiations with first nations, so everyone understands and has some certainty, something failed to have been done under this government and its predecessor. Fourth, it demands a concrete plan from the Prime Minister within 30 days, complete with timelines, to protect Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement. Finally, it establishes a special parliamentary committee to examine every legal, constitutional and political tool available to protect private property rights in Canada. These are not radical proposals, and they are not ideological. They are responsible. They only become controversial if one does not believe that private property rights are fundamental to our system, both our system of capitalism in this country and our Westminster system. We have always honoured these things, and the lack of certainty that we see today is causing real harm. It is freezing investment, encouraging litigation and forcing Canadians into a legal limbo with no clear path forward. This is despite the Prime Minister and all his Liberal members of Parliament, or as I have heard it described in the Toronto Star, his deputies, describing everything that the Conservatives say as not being true. It should not be this way. Behind closed doors, negotiations are occurring with public tax dollars on the line, while affected Canadians are left without consultation, clarity or protection. Lawyers disagree and experts disagree. Lawsuits are multiplying, and the government is failing to protect the interests of some of the very people it claims to serve. British Columbia already faces enough challenges. One can look at softwood lumber, American tariffs and an NDP provincial government, which appears to have no idea of what it is doing. We do not need to add property rights chaos to that list, but I guess it already has been. We have to make sure that we pull that off the list. This motion is a way to do that. The Prime Minister often says that we should focus on what we can control. Today, with this motion, the House can control something. We can restore certainty, and we can defend property rights. We can stand up for Canadians who, by every account, have done everything right. That is why I will be voting in favour of this motion. The Prime Minister, himself, has said, “private property rights are fundamental”. Today we will see if his words mean anything. I urge all hon. members to support this motion and send a clear message that, in Canada, private property rights matter. We hear the concerns raised by British Columbians. We know we have the means to address them. We are dedicated in service to ensuring that their rights and concerns are addressed, not in some far‑off land at some yet-to-be-determined time, but here and now, in this Parliament, in this country.”

“The Liberals claim our concerns are false. But their own website still tells government lawyers not to defend property rights. The Prime Minister refuses to change this rule, even though we have asked him to many times.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said, Liberal members continue to throw out any concerns as misinformation. What is not misinformation is that in 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still enforced today despite multiple calls by Conservative members for the Prime Minister to show Canadians that he means what he says. He has yet to take us up on that offer. We have Liberals saying that it is all misinformation, but it is on the government website. If it is misinformation, is the government now the biggest misleader on this particular case? If we read the website, that is what it says. The member cannot say otherwise because it is the truth.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Liberal member is just reading prepared notes instead of answering my question. The Liberals should talk to people in British Columbia who cannot afford their mortgages or home insurance.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We just heard from a B.C. member from Surrey. I have to say that it sounded like a bureaucrat wrote the speech. The reason why I say that is that he read the whole speech. In fact, I asked him a question, and he read from a piece of paper an answer that had nothing to do with the question. My hon. colleague clearly wrote his own speech. I am wondering what message it sends when the Liberals are just reading talking points and accusing us of fearmongering. Why do they not go to the houses in Richmond and the places in Vancouver and ask how people feel about having a higher mortgage rate or not being able to get home insurance? Why do they not do that?”

“I want the government to support this motion. Local leaders in British Columbia are worried about private property rights. Liberal members are ignoring them and refusing to protect people's property.”

“Mr. Speaker, if members read any newspaper in British Columbia, they are going to read about the mayor of Richmond, who has broadly raised this issue while the province and federal government said nothing. They made clear representation on private property rights. All we are asking in this motion today, and of Liberal members, is to start listening to British Columbians and those they have elected who have been raising this alarm. They have had lots of time. The fact that they are now sending out members from British Columbia who are just reading talking points, basically giving the same line without concrete action, says to me that they are prepared to vote against this, because they truly do not protect the private property rights of British Columbians or anyone else.”

“The Liberals will not answer my question about an argument they failed to make in court. They are misleading Canadians about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, today Liberals repeatedly failed to answer my question on extinguishment and their failure to use that argument in the B.C. appeals court and, therefore, legally not being able to use it in the Supreme Court. They mislead Canadians, give a false impression and say every “viable argument” because they know they cannot say every argument. Is this just another Liberal illusion?”