“The government's approach hurts reconciliation by threatening the private property rights of homeowners and business owners. A judge warned that putting these property rights at risk sets reconciliation back. We need to work together in a way that respects everyone.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have Liberal members rise to talk about this all being part of reconciliation, but a judge in New Brunswick had a very different interpretation. In fact, when there was talk in a court case in New Brunswick about extinguishment and how it related to private property rights, the judge identified that the one way to dial reconciliation back in a negative direction would be to put the private property rights of the people who I mentioned at risk, those homeowners and business owners who have done everything that has been asked of them under the law. It causes frictions between first nations in British Columbia and Canada and the interests of homeowners and business owners, and now the government is making it all worse. We need to work together to get back to a situation where everyone is comfortable with those relations moving forward.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“A recent court ruling has created huge uncertainty about private property rights in British Columbia. Homeowners cannot renew mortgages, deals are falling through, and businesses are hurting. The Liberal government waited months to appeal and ordered its lawyers not to fully defend private land ownership. I want the government to change these legal rules and clearly protect private property rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, for eight months, British Columbians have been left with silence: silence after a court ruling that raised serious questions about the certainty of private property rights in Canada; silence after repeated concerns from homeowners, businesses, municipalities and investors; silence after Richmond city council sent letters asking the government for clarity; and silence after Canadians asked the very simple question of whether the Liberal government still believes in defending the legal foundations of private property rights in Canada. After all that silence, when the Prime Minister finally addressed the issue in the House, Canadians did not get answers. They got talking points, attacks and accusations of fearmongering, but they still did not get clarity, so let us put some facts on the record. First, despite what the Prime Minister claimed in the House, the Liberal government did not immediately appeal the Cowichan ruling. It waited until the very last possible moment before filing its appeal, long after the Province of British Columbia and the City of Richmond did, which is a clear distinction in willingness to stand up for Canadians. If the Liberals truly believed the ruling created no uncertainty, why did it wait until the deadline had nearly expired? Second, throughout this entire controversy, the government has offered no meaningful public explanation of the ruling and no substantive public statement on the implications for homeowners, businesses, municipalities, lenders or investors. Eight months passed before Canadians even heard a serious acknowledgement from the Prime Minister. Third, Richmond city council repeatedly attempted to engage with the Liberal government. It wrote letters seeking clarity on the implications of the Cowichan and Musqueam agreements and the border concerns surrounding land title certainty and federal litigation policy. These are not just fringe concerns. Homeowners cannot renew their mortgage. The concerns came from elected municipal leaders representing one of the most economically significant communities in British Columbia. What did they receive? It was silence. There was no meaningful engagement, no public reassurance and no detailed explanation. Fourth, when Conservatives ask questions in committees and in the House, the government consistently provides vague and ambiguous answers. They hide behind legal technicalities. They avoid direct responses. They narrow every answer to procedural language instead of addressing the border issues Canadians were actually worried about: whether the government was weakening the legal foundations that underpin private ownership in Canada. That is not the level of clarity that business owners and investors must depend on. Finally, when the Prime Minister did speak, after months of pressure, he still refused to provide the one assurance Canadians were looking for. He would not clearly commit to withdrawing the 2019 directive’s litigation guideline 14, which effectively sent its own lawyers into court with one hand tied behind their back. Let us be absolutely clear: The central issue in this litigation is that the federal government, through litigation guideline 14, instructed its lawyers to restrict their arguments regarding the supremacy and extinguishment effect of fee simple rights. This directive was issued in the middle of ongoing litigation and represented a clear change of course in the government’s line of argument. Rather than fully defending the certainty and finality of private property rights, the government deliberately narrowed the arguments available to its own counsel, creating uncertainty with potentially far-reaching consequences for property owners across Canada. That directive remains publicly available on the Liberal government’s own website today, so Canadians are still left asking what exactly the government’s position is. Conservatives have been accused of fearmongering for raising these concerns, but let us look at the real-world consequences of uncertainty. Markets react immediately. Investors react immediately. Lenders react immediately. Businesses react immediately. The consequences are already being felt on the ground in British Columbia. Montrose Properties has publicly raised concerns about the uncertainty surrounding land title and investment confidence. The local golf course now sits in limbo, uncertain if it should continue to invest in growth or prepare to sell. Farmers who have worked their land for decades are now questioning how to manage long-term operations while watching property values decline and financing uncertainty increase. A local senior couple has reportedly been unable to sell their property in order to pursue a more secure retirement. Even a deal involving the sale of a local hotel that is not even located within the distributed area has collapsed because of the growing uncertainty surrounding land title and future risk. These are not theoretical consequences. There are real people, real businesses and real livelihoods being impacted right now. Canadians are not asking for abstract legal debates. These are foundational questions about confidence in Canada’s economy and its legal systems. These issues matter deeply in my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond is not just another municipality. It is one of Canada’s economic gateways to the Indo-Pacific. It is home to major transportation, infrastructure and international trade networks; logistics hubs; exporters; and entrepreneurs and families that have invested their life savings into homes and businesses. It is a place where immigrants have chosen to build a livelihood. That is why Richmond’s city council raised concerns. That is why residents are paying attention. That is why businesses are watching carefully. The Cowichan ruling has far-reaching consequences, yet the Liberal government is trying to water down its significance and mislead Canadians about its impact. The Liberals know they made a grave mistake when they gave their lawyers the restrictive instructions, and now they are trying to distance themselves from the consequences. They know that the impact of this ruling is real, yet instead of taking responsibility, they are attempting to whitewash the issue and accuse others of fearmongering. This decision will have profound and lasting consequences not only for Richmond, not only for the Lower Mainland and not only for British Columbia but for all of Canada. The government’s actions will be remembered as a shameful chapter in our country’s history. Canadians deserve transparency. We deserve confidence. We deserve real answers.”

“The Liberal government waited until the last minute to appeal the court ruling, well after Richmond and British Columbia did. They limited what their own lawyers could say in court. They have stayed silent for eight months and still will not give clear answers.”

“Mr. Speaker, would my colleague on the other side not admit that the Liberal government did not appeal the ruling until the very last moment, long after the City of Richmond and the Province of British Columbia had done so? Would he not admit that the Liberals gave their lawyers the restrictive directive to tie their hands in court? Does he not admit that they have been silent for eight months and that, still, to this day, they have not given us any clarity?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This is an urgent problem that is already hurting people in British Columbia and my riding. We cannot wait any longer, and the government needs to work with us to fix it.”

“Mr. Speaker, first, this is an urgent matter in the sense that we have already felt the consequences on the ground. People in my riding and in the province of British Columbia are worried, and they are already being impacted by the consequences and uncertainty. In addition, we have asked for an emergency debate before, which was not granted. This is not a matter on which we can keep waiting, and we have been asking the government to work with us on a solution.”

• 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 Richmond are worried about their homes and businesses because of a recent court decision. The government says it protects property owners, but its lawyers stopped defending basic property rights in court years ago. How can it win in court now when it gave up that argument earlier?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole’s speech was amazing. He is very passionate about the issue, given that the Cowichan decision affects a portion of his riding. He deals every day with people who are worried about the future of their homes and businesses. Maybe we can talk about the government, in 2018, deciding that its lawyers would stop arguing for fee simple property. I think that is the crux of the issue. To that point, the government says it stands up for fee simple property owners, but maybe the member could opine on how the government expects to win a court case with an argument it cannot use in appeal because it did not use it in the lower court.”

“The government needs to admit its order was a mistake or say it still stands by it. Either way, Canadians lose. I thank the City of Richmond for pushing the argument that lets us appeal this.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is the question the Liberal government has to answer. The Liberals either have to admit they made a mistake in giving the directive, or they have to stand up and say they are still honouring that directive. Either way, Canadians are the losers. With respect to the appeal, it is because the City of Richmond insisted right from the beginning on the fee simple argument that we are able to proceed in the appeal for that argument. I thank the City of Richmond for insisting on that argument. Shame on the government.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 34 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I never said the Cowichan band would kick people off their land. I said this situation creates uncertainty for private homeowners and businesses. British Columbia even had to step in to help people get bank loans because of this. The government is causing this uncertainty.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member opposite on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. The member used the comment that we have heard a lot. He was talking about disinformation. I do not think at any point in the debate today implied that the Cowichan band would be kicking people off their land. I do not think anyone on this side has said that in all the time we have been debating this, so I do not know where that member is actually getting it from. We have said it creates uncertainty within the marketplace, regarding private business and private home ownership, and that is exactly what it is creating, so much so that the Province of British Columbia actually had to come in to backstop home and business owners who are trying to obtain financing through the banks. There is uncertainty. That is true. That is not misinformation. The government also, in 2018, told its lawyers to stop arguing for fee simple property. That is a fact. There are also numerous other things the government has done that create this uncertainty, and that is what we are arguing here. The government expects to win in court on appeal with an argument it cannot make.”

“The government failed to defend private property rights in court, so it cannot use that argument on appeal. A court ruling has now weakened private property ownership laws in British Columbia. How does the government expect to win in court when it made this mistake?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the argument of private property at court. The member opposite, being involved in the law, should know that if we do not make the argument in the lower court, we cannot use that argument at appeal or if it goes to the Supreme Court. The government cannot make that argument. The other thing the court decision did was that it eviscerated sections 23 and 25 of the B.C. Land Title Act, which is the underpinning of private ownership in the city of Richmond and within the province of British Columbia. Again, how does the government expect to use an argument and win at court with something it cannot actually use?”

“A recent court decision in British Columbia is causing real problems for a local land development project. We are not spreading fear. We are sharing the facts, and I want the member to speak about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, all morning, we on this side of the House have been raising some of the issues, some of the complexities, that have arisen from the Cowichan decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. It has been suggested by the Liberal side of the House that we are fearmongering or being misleading. I am very happy that the member opposite raised the issue of the Montrose application. He will be aware that Montrose had a land development project that has now run into complications on account of the Cowichan decision. This is not fearmongering. These are just facts. I wonder if he could comment about that.”

“The member says this is only a provincial problem, but he asked the Prime Minister about it just days ago. The city had to go to court to protect private property owners. Why did the federal government not do its job to prevent this problem?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, just a few moments ago, implied that this is only a provincial matter. Well, I would say to the member opposite, it is so much of a provincial matter that, just a few days ago, he asked the Prime Minister a lobbed question about this very issue, to which the Prime Minister had to respond. The member says it is clearly a provincial issue, yet he had the Prime Minister answer. The member also talked about the City of Richmond and that the city should have notified the residents. However, they were the only ones in court, in the longest trial in Canadian history, to argue for private property owners. Why did the government not do its job and avoid the situation we are in now?”

“A recent court decision in British Columbia created serious uncertainty for private property owners and hurt the local economy. The Liberal government caused this problem by failing to negotiate treaties and dropping key legal arguments during the trial. I want all MPs to vote for our motion to create a committee that will find ways to protect private property rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, the most important changes in life are often invisible at first. Seeds sprout underground before the first shoots appear. A ship that changes course by one degree makes no waves, but ends up somewhere entirely different. A coastline can look unchanged for years, while the tide quietly reshapes it, grain by grain. On August 7, 2025, when the B.C. Supreme Court released the Cowichan Tribes decision, nothing happened. No Canadian lost their home. Richmond continued to function. The Cowichan Tribes repeatedly said they never intended to interfere with private fee simple title. Yet, the judge decided, first, that the Cowichan have aboriginal title to land in Richmond, and second, that Crown grants of fee simple in those lands unjustifiably infringe that title. The court did say that private fee simple interests remain valid, but only “until such a time as a court may determine otherwise or until the conflicting interests are otherwise resolved through negotiation.” With that “until”, a seed was planted. Homeowners are now aware that a court could “determine otherwise”, and many of them are nervous. At paragraph 3543 of a very long decision, the judge added, “I accept that a declaration of Aboriginal title may give rise to some uncertainty for the fee simple title holders and it may have consequences for their interests in land.” Within days, it became clear that uncertainty had taken root. Within weeks, the first signs of a growing set of complications became visible. When a person gets a mortgage, their home is the collateral for the loan. If the mortgagor’s title is uncertain, they are going to have a problem. When a person sells a property, they promise valid title. If the seller’s title is uncertain, they are going to have a problem. Anyone who claims to understand the full implication of the Cowichan Tribes decision at this point is fooling themselves. We are now seeing transactions delayed, financing reconsidered and investment decisions paused in British Columbia. The case has already reportedly tanked a $100‑million deal and created complications with mortgage and property transactions. The B.C. Financial Services Authority is recommending independent legal advice before buying affected properties. Real estate agents are adding new clauses to purchase agreements across the province. Title insurers are reassessing risk. The Musqueam agreement followed quickly on the Cowichan Tribes decision, adding additional uncertainty. Investors are skittish and wondering what is coming next. Uncertainty is undermining confidence in land-based collateral in B.C. The decision is adding costs we cannot afford and disrupting parts of B.C.’s economy at a time when stability is badly needed. The problem is not that Canadians are unwilling to support reconciliation. In British Columbia, we desperately want to live in harmony, but anxiety creates strain, and government failure to negotiate treaties that would have provided legal clarity before these issues reached a crisis point is dividing our communities. For years, these Liberals talked reconciliation but dragged their feet on negotiation. They failed to negotiate a treaty with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost. Now ordinary Canadians are paying the price. Families trying to buy homes, indigenous communities seeking certainty, municipalities planning infrastructure, and businesses deciding whether to invest in British Columbia face years of legal limbo. Despite their insistence that they are going to appeal the decision and make everything fine again, the Liberals have painted themselves into a legal corner. The Prime Minister admits that property rights are “fundamental.” The parliamentary secretary admits that there are “potentially significant implications, including for private property rights” that “could extend across the country.” The Prime Minister and the Liberals say repeatedly that they will make all “viable” legal arguments, but here is the problem: Appeals are not do-overs, and the “raise it or lose it” principle is core to how our legal system works. People are not allowed to save some of their arguments for appeal, just in case they do not get what they want at trial. If they could, litigation would cost even more and it would never end. My dad used to refer to this as the “you snooze, you lose” principle. Paragraph 2096 of the decision states, “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” In plain English, what that means is that the Liberal government told its lawyers not to argue that fee simple title is superior to all other forms of title, and those lawyers amended the court documents in 2018 to take the argument out. A lot of Canadians are wondering how that could have been allowed to happen. We investigated and found the government’s legal directive, still online, that strongly encourages admissions of liability and discourages defences like extinguishment that would support fee simple title. It turns out that the one argument the government needed in a 513-day trial is the one it did not make. That means it is not viable on appeal. Conservatives have repeatedly asked how the Prime Minister is going to win an appeal with an argument he is not entitled to make. In response, we have been accused of “misinformation”, “fear and misinformation”, “fearmongering...spreading misinformation and...causing disruption in the economy of British Columbia”, and worse. We are not fearmongering, nor are we spreading misinformation. I have just laid out the problem in plain English. It is not unreasonable to want to understand how the government is going to deal with this very serious issue that is causing unsettling divisions among Canadians. Those divisions are not being caused by Conservatives. They are being caused by a Liberal government that does not make all available arguments, hides its mistakes and attacks anyone who asks how it is going to fix it. British Columbians bought their homes in good faith. They are trying not to lose them in the face of the rising cost of everything and an economic crisis already made worse by government. What is perhaps most frustrating for the homeowners I talk to is that there will be no clarity on these issues any time soon. We are staring down months, if not years, of litigation while the courts sort this out. The order itself has not been fully finalized. A 513-day judicial record still has to be assembled. Preliminary motions have to be heard before the appeal can start, including numerous intervenor applications and a motion to reopen the case by landowners who claim they should have been involved from the beginning. The justice minister has indicated that Canada is supporting that application, which will make the case drag on even longer if granted. I cannot help but wonder if the government is doing so in part because reopening the trial might get it that actual do-over. This is one of those cases where the process has process, but we got here through a complete failure of political leadership. The government knew this decision was coming. It knew there were more court cases coming. It yielded the field eight years ago, but avoided doing the hard work in that time of creating a clear legislative and policy framework around reconciliation, aboriginal title, private property rights and legal certainty. Instead, it left it all to the courts to be sorted out piecemeal through massive and voluminous constitutional litigation while the government stacks the court with activist judges. Long trials may work for lawyers billing by the hour, but they do not work for families trying to buy a home, businesses trying to invest or first nations trying to build a stable future. Reconciliation requires clarity, fairness and predictability for everyone. We need a government that is willing to find real solutions instead of continually asking the courts to do its job for it. I hope all members of this House will support our opposition day motion, in particular our call for a special multi-party committee to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect private property rights in Canada. Indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike need us to work together to come up with solutions to government incompetence on this file. The ship needs to change course, because it is currently headed for the rocks.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Ordinary Canadians are paying the price.”

  Said 8 times by 8 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“The previous Conservative government did a lot of important work on reconciliation, including apologizing for residential schools. The Liberals act like nothing happened before they took power. I want all parties to form a special committee so we can work on this together.”

“Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the negativity that comes across the aisle when we ask questions and raise issues. Stephen Harper delivered the residential school apology in the House. A Conservative government, led by former prime minister Stephen Harper, created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which resolved hundreds of specific claims, extended human rights protections on reserve and introduced reforms aimed at improving accountability and transparency for indigenous communities. Were there disagreements? Absolutely, there were. Were there tensions? Of course there were. Reconciliation is not advanced by pretending that nothing meaningful happened before 2015. Some of the most significant steps toward acknowledging historical wrongs and building new relationships with indigenous people happened under Conservative governments. The Liberals have asked what we want to do about it, and we have proposed that parties get together, form a special committee and work on this together. We owe it to Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, to make progress on this file.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I respect the Constitution. I want us to create a special committee so we can work together on this issue. I support this plan because it helps with reconciliation and gives Canadians certainty. I hope the member will work with us.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I am confused by the hon. member’s question. Of course we respect the Constitution. As for everything that I have stated in this speech, there is nothing in it that suggests that I want to do anything other than uphold it. Our proposal is to create a special committee. It is to work together. It is to find a way through this. The reason that I support that proposal is that I believe in reconciliation. I believe in creating certainty. It is important for all Canadians. I hope that the member will work with us to move this forward in a way that is good for everyone.”

“When we ask questions, the government talks about the past instead of answering. That is not a responsible way to govern.”

“Mr. Speaker, any time we make a very thorough and good explanation and ask questions of the government, we hear the Liberals get up and go back to 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and refer to other places, other governments and other prime ministers. Does the member think that is an effective or responsible way for our government to respond to members of the opposition, when we have a right in the House to question, to make suggestions and to make legislation better?”

“This legal case is complicated, and the government's court decisions have made it worse. We need to work together with Canadians to negotiate real solutions.”

“Mr. Speaker, I tried to stick to some pretty boring, cold, hard legal facts in my speech. Unfortunately, this is a very complicated case. It has been made more complicated by the litigation decisions that the government made in this particular case. It has been made more complicated by litigation directives that, quite frankly, do not make sense to many Canadians. If we are going to move forward on this, we really need to be thoughtful. We need to be collaborative. We need to walk alongside Canadians of all kinds in negotiating real solutions to these problems.”

“A court in British Columbia ruled that Indigenous land title applies to private property. This decision confuses landowners, hurts the economy, and makes people worry about whether they truly own their land. The federal government is appealing the ruling. I want the government to talk honestly with people in British Columbia while this long court case continues.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to an issue of great concern to every British Columbian, which is the impact of the B.C. Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and its effect on private property rights across British Columbia. It is the first time in Canada’s history that a court has declared aboriginal title over non-Crown lands, privately owned lands. There are 150 private landowners, farmers, homeowners and business owners in Richmond who discovered that their titles were now in conflict with aboriginal title designation. This is not a matter of reconciliation. It is a matter of confusion. It creates tension. It does not create a path forward. The Business Council of British Columbia conducted a survey of its members on the current uncertainty regarding B.C. property rights and found that 98% of respondents are very concerned. They are not a little concerned, but very concerned. We have already seen financing for job-created projects, including those for indigenous communities, pull back. Reconciliation remains the goal of every British Columbian I speak with, whether they have called their province home for a few years or for a few millennia. Let us not forget that our indigenous peoples own a huge swath of private property in British Columbia. They too are left in confusion by Cowichan. Our province wants to prove that the stewardship of British Columbia’s many indigenous communities, both on their lands and in many projects of prosperity they are engaged in, can be a model for the nation. What we are not calling for today is for the government to appeal this decision, as it has already, and rightly, said it will do so. What we are asking for is that the federal government engage with British Columbians straightforwardly throughout what will likely be a long judicial process. We ask it to engage with British Columbians who are confused as to whether their private property is still theirs in full and whether their property rights, long an ancient feature of our legal traditions stretching back centuries, are still theirs. We ask it to decry those who use an error of the court to spread hate, and we seek to understand those who do not know if the home, business or property in their name will remain theirs. The decisions of the courts will not be swift. Uncertainty will persist so long as Ottawa remains in court and Victoria remains deadlocked. A very real and local example of this uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls.”