A Conservative supply day motion about private property rights following the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada court decision in British Columbia. The motion asks the government to defend private property rights in court, ensure future agreements with First Nations explicitly protect fee simple property owners, and create a special committee to study the issue. Conservatives argued the ruling and recent agreements have created uncertainty about home ownership, citing impacts on property values, mortgages, and municipal leaders’ concerns in B.C., and said the government waited until late to appeal the ruling. Liberals opposed the motion, saying private property is protected, that agreements covering areas like health, education, and policing do not affect private land, and that the motion risks spreading misinformation and harming reconciliation; they also said Parliament should not interfere with an active court case. The Bloc Québécois said it was open to committee study but wanted reliable data on the actual impacts.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
45 statements
“I want the member to explain why they disagree with principle 14, and what they think it means.”
“Mr. Speaker, can the member opposite speak to principle number 14, which they disagree with? I am wondering what his interpretation of principle number 14 is.”
Mr. Speaker, can the member opposite speak to principle number 14, which they disagree with? I am wondering what his interpretation of principle number 14 is.
“The member left out the Haida land title agreement from his speech. It has been law for two years, and it includes both private and public land. I want to know why he did not mention it, unless it goes against what his party is arguing.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave a number of histories of aboriginal title. However, he missed the Haida aboriginal title, which includes private property and Crown land. I am just wondering why he omitted to discuss that. It has been in legislation for the past two years. I am wondering if it just does not support the argument the Conservatives are trying to make.”
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave a number of histories of aboriginal title. However, he missed the Haida aboriginal title, which includes private property and Crown land. I am just wondering why he omitted to discuss that. It has been in legislation for the past two years. I am wondering if it just does not support the argument the Conservatives are trying to make.
“Our government wants to protect people's property rights. How does the member think we can best protect these rights under the law?”
“Mr. Speaker, our new government and the Prime Minister have been clear that we will protect private property rights for Canadians. I have great respect for the member opposite and his extensive legal experience. What does the member believe is the best legal path forward to make sure that private property rights are protected?”
Mr. Speaker, our new government and the Prime Minister have been clear that we will protect private property rights for Canadians. I have great respect for the member opposite and his extensive legal experience. What does the member believe is the best legal path forward to make sure that private property rights are protected?
“I want the House to vote against this Conservative motion. It asks the government to do things we are already doing to protect private property. We have already appealed the Cowichan court decision, and we agree that landowners should have their say in court. Federal deals with Indigenous groups do not take away private land. Arguing about an active court case in Parliament risks hurting Canada's legal appeal, so we should let the courts do their job.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking directly to Canadians who may be watching this debate today and feeling anxious or uncertain. As the Prime Minister has made clear, “private property rights are fundamental...[and our government] will always defend them.” Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. Before I begin, I want to remind members of this House that the Cowichan case is subject to active litigation and appeal. As it stands right now, the trial order has not yet been entered and will not be entered until the Montrose application to reopen the trial, which I will discuss later, is resolved. Given the impact our words here today could have on this active litigation, it is important that all members of this House, including myself, are judicious and responsible with their words. Let us get to the motion. Our government agrees with some of the principles in the motion and already takes many of them into negotiations. However, we will not allow the Conservatives a platform to continue to spread disinformation with a special committee. We will not allow this Parliament to be used to relitigate an active court case with partisan rhetoric, which could potentially jeopardize the ongoing litigation. Respect for the judicial process is essential. Canadians do not need the Conservatives’ political chaos and poorly informed commentary layered on top of the complex legal questions at play in this case. Further to that, this motion is redundant as it calls on the government to do things we are already doing. For example, in the Cowichan case, the government has defended the validity of grants of fee simple title by the Crown and will continue to do so on appeal. Again, as the Prime Minister said last week, “private property rights are fundamental...[and we] will always defend them.” It is already Government of Canada policy to only make rights and title agreements that protect the private property of Canadians. I can assure this House, and all Canadians, that we will not, nor would we ever, entertain or even consider an agreement where Canadians lose their private property. In fact, we have been signing modern agreements with first nations since the 1970s. None of those modern treaties, negotiated agreements or federal approaches have led to Canadians losing privately owned land. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has protected and will protect private property. Before I go any further, I would like to briefly share my perspective on this debate. I come from a region shaped by modern land claims based on historic treaties. I am not indigenous. I own private property in an area covered by a modern treaty. I have lived, worked and governed in contexts where indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians have learned—sometimes imperfectly, but always constructively—to coexist on the same territory. This experience has taught me a fundamental lesson: The key to success is not to stoke fear. It is not spread disinformation, and it is certainly not to use political opportunism. The key is to sit down at a table, have constructive discussions and responsibly carry out the difficult work of reconciliation. That is what our government is doing, but that is precisely what this motion seeks to undermine. This motion wraps itself in the language of private property while fundamentally misrepresenting the government’s position, the facts on the ground and recent federal agreements with indigenous partners. It also confuses the results of a court decision, one that our government fundamentally disagrees with, and a negotiated agreement that does not deal with Canadians’ private property interests. It suggests that government agreements are giving away private land. It suggests that, because of the Musqueam agreement, Canadians could lose their homes. None of that is true. What is true is that this motion is an opportunistic political play by the Conservatives to create fear, stress and division. If they truly cared about addressing Canadians’ concerns, they should have put forward a motion grounded in facts and that reflects the situation as it is, not one that only serves their political interests. Let us turn first to the Cowichan decision. This case has a long and complex history. It is, in fact, the longest civil trial in Canadian history at over 500 days. At its core, it raises legal questions about aboriginal title and how it interacts with Crown obligations and existing land ownership systems. Throughout the case, Canada has consistently defended the validity of Crown grants of fee simple title, and we continue to do so today. That position has not changed. We also recognize that private ownership is a foundational part of Canada’s legal system. It gives people certainty and confidence in their homes and businesses. That matters to Canadians and it matters to our economy. Canada has formally appealed the decision because we believe further legal clarity is required, particularly with respect to private property interests. We will advance all legally viable arguments to protect that clarity. Importantly, the court ruled that British Columbia, not the federal government, has the duty to negotiate in good faith regarding privately held lands, because jurisdiction over private property and land registries rests with the provinces. Section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The Conservatives continue to ignore the fact that this is constitutional reality, not political choice. To that end, British Columbia has appealed. British Columbia is acting within its jurisdiction, and British Columbia is working on measures to support potentially impacted private property owners. When it comes to aboriginal title, more generally, it is important to note that the law is far from settled in this regard. For example, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion in J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation, as compared to the B.C. Supreme Court’s decision in Cowichan. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal states that it is open for a court to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that a declaration of aboriginal title cannot be made over private property. Canada is waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to confirm whether it will hear an appeal of the Wolastoqey Nation decision, and we are monitoring this case closely. We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the court is needed. We recognize that the Cowichan decision has caused uncertainty and anxiety. Canadians deserve to feel secure in their homes and investments. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. Further, since the ruling last summer, we, Canada, consented to the Montrose application and we are now awaiting a ruling. For those who are unfamiliar, Montrose is a company that operates in Richmond and claims to be the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. If the trial is reopened in a limited way, Montrose, an impacted private property owner, will have the opportunity to present evidence and its perspective on the impacts of this decision. The judge will rule on whether or not there should be a limited reopening of the trial. This may impact the decision made by the judge in August 2025. We consented to this application because we believe that when people may be directly affected by legal ruling, they deserve to be heard. Canadians know what they can expect from our government. We have appealed the Cowichan decision, and we will advance all legally viable arguments to preserve the certainty of private property interests. As I said at the beginning of my speech, though, the Conservatives believe that they should use Parliament to relitigate an active court case. Let me be clear. Having these discussions here on the floor of the House of Commons or in a special parliamentary committee, instead of in a courtroom where they belong, has the potential to negatively impact Canada’s legal position and may actually undermine arguments on appeal that would protect private property. We must respect the judicial process and continue to seek resolution of this matter through the courts. The Conservatives have suggested that the directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples restricted Canada’s ability to advance legally viable defences in the Cowichan litigation, specifically referring to litigation guideline number 14. Litigation guideline number 14 of the directive does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada is currently reviewing potential legal arguments for the Cowichan appeal, and all potential defences remain on the table. Again, our government will always raise valid arguments that we believe will be successful in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada is currently reviewing all legally viable arguments for the Cowichan appeal and all potential defences remain on the table. However, even if the Conservatives are not listening, I want to reassure Canadians at home who are watching that Canada will advance all legally viable arguments on appeal to protect private property. I now want to turn to the incremental rights recognition agreement with the Musqueam first nation, another area where misinformation has flourished. This agreement did not appear overnight. In 2017, Cowichan and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding. In February 2026, that work evolved into a framework agreement. This is not a title agreement, and it is not a land claim. Let me be absolutely clear on a point that has caused concern: This agreement does not affect private property. In fact, it cannot affect private property because it is a bilateral agreement between Musqueam and the federal government. Why does that matter? It is because, again, private property falls under provincial jurisdiction. As I have said, section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not have the authority to negotiate Canadians’ privately held lands, and this agreement does not in any way attempt to do that. It is important to note that all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level protect private property. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Further, it is important to note that the Musqueam themselves have been clear. In fact, just a few weeks ago, Musqueam’s chief negotiator said that private property was never on the table. It was a non-starter from the very beginning. As the agreement itself states, this work is about building relationships, establishing principles and setting out processes for future discussion, not transferring land. I really want to highlight one bullet from the agreement for us to remember throughout the debate today. It reads: For a long time we, Musqueam and Canada, misunderstood each other. We are all one and we are here to stay. It was impossible for this misunderstanding to go on. We wanted to reach a mutual understanding and that is why we gathered together to make an informed decision. In the spirit of reconciliation and consistent with the principle of nəća̓ʔmat ct [which means we are all one], Musqueam will continue to work collaboratively with Canada to further our mutual interests to transform conflict and injustice, to create partnerships in the spirit of unity, with the aim of developing processes for shared decision-making, revenue and benefit sharing, and dispute resolution. This agreement is the result of more than 10 years of negotiation. Negotiation, instead of litigation, provides clarity, stability and better outcomes for everyone involved. Again, despite what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, it does not interfere with fee simple property ownership. The maps circulating online showing “land being given away” are maps of Musqueam’s claimed historical territory, not title. Conservatives confusing the two is either careless or deliberate. The government has not agreed to anything new with respect to these areas. We will not, cannot and will never negotiate away Canadians’ private property. There are no clauses transferring private homes. There is no sudden erosion of municipal or provincial authority, and there is no legal basis for the climate of panic the Conservatives are attempting to create. I will remind the members on the other side of the aisle that responsible leadership means actually reading agreements before condemning them. Let me offer the House a concrete example of a title agreement, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, which became a law in B.C. on May 16, 2024. The law confirms the “Rising Tide” Haida Title Lands Agreement and enshrines the recognition of Haida aboriginal title in the laws of B.C. The agreements and legislation provided important protections such as the following: Private property, residential, commercial or industrial, is not affected by the recognition of Haida aboriginal title; and privately owned land, or fee simple property, remains under provincial jurisdiction and the recognition of Haida aboriginal title will not change any rights associated with it. This means that business licences, building permits and zoning continue as is through the reconciling process. It means that key infrastructure, like ferry terminals and highways, continues to be operated and maintained by the province. It means that provincial and municipal services provided by Haida Gwaii, including health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services, also continue as they are. The agreement and provincial legislation came into effect on July 5, 2024. It has been almost two years and the sky has not fallen. Life has continued on for folks. That is what negotiated coexistence looks like in a constitutional democracy. With regard to aboriginal rights and treaty rights, we will continue to hold consultations on mines and major projects of national interest. None of this is new. Even before the title was established, the Crown always had a duty to consult. Title clarifies the rights of indigenous partners; it does not invent duties out of thin air. In 2014, when the Supreme Court affirmed aboriginal title in the Tsilhqot’in decision, some critics predicted chaos. They warned of economic collapse. They said Canadians would lose their land. None of that happened. That was 12 years ago. We have gained clarity about the nature and location of lands covered by Tsilhqot’in aboriginal title. That clarity has provided certainty to investors, communities and the government, which has enabled them to build. One of the greatest harms of this motion is not legal, but social. It invites Canadians to fear reconciliation. That is not leadership. Many Canadians were not taught about treaties or unceded land, but a lack of education is not an excuse for the Conservatives’ spreading misinformation now. Leadership means explaining complexity, not exploiting it for fundraising opportunities. Let us be serious. We can protect private property. We can advance aboriginal title and rights. We can do both without reopening the Constitution as this motion proposes because, frankly, we do not have time for a constitutional wrangling exercise. Canadians want homes built, projects approved and the economy growing. We can do that right now within our existing constitutional framework. Hope is not a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy. If the Conservatives ever hope to lead, they will need to learn how to work with all Canadians, including indigenous partners. That means quitting the fearmongering, quitting the misinformation, starting to learn and starting to build relationships. They need to recognize that reconciliation and economic growth are not opposites. They are partners when done properly. I will close where I began. To Canadians watching today, they still own their home and they can still renovate it, and our government is fully committed to protecting their property rights. In indigenous treaty or agreement discussions, private property is not on the table. It is not today and it will not be tomorrow. What we are doing is building a stronger, more honest, more stable foundation for coexistence and prosperity. What is on the table is whether this House chooses clarity over chaos, unity over division and serious governance over fear-based politics.”
A repeated line
“That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation.”
Said 4 times by 2 members since May 7.
Every time it was saidMr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking directly to Canadians who may be watching this debate today and feeling anxious or uncertain. As the Prime Minister has made clear, “private property rights are fundamental...[and our government] will always defend them.” Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. Before I begin, I want to remind members of this House that the Cowichan case is subject to active litigation and appeal. As it stands right now, the trial order has not yet been entered and will not be entered until the Montrose application to reopen the trial, which I will discuss later, is resolved. Given the impact our words here today could have on this active litigation, it is important that all members of this House, including myself, are judicious and responsible with their words. Let us get to the motion. Our government agrees with some of the principles in the motion and already takes many of them into negotiations. However, we will not allow the Conservatives a platform to continue to spread disinformation with a special committee. We will not allow this Parliament to be used to relitigate an active court case with partisan rhetoric, which could potentially jeopardize the ongoing litigation. Respect for the judicial process is essential. Canadians do not need the Conservatives’ political chaos and poorly informed commentary layered on top of the complex legal questions at play in this case. Further to that, this motion is redundant as it calls on the government to do things we are already doing. For example, in the Cowichan case, the government has defended the validity of grants of fee simple title by the Crown and will continue to do so on appeal. Again, as the Prime Minister said last week, “private property rights are fundamental...[and we] will always defend them.” It is already Government of Canada policy to only make rights and title agreements that protect the private property of Canadians. I can assure this House, and all Canadians, that we will not, nor would we ever, entertain or even consider an agreement where Canadians lose their private property. In fact, we have been signing modern agreements with first nations since the 1970s. None of those modern treaties, negotiated agreements or federal approaches have led to Canadians losing privately owned land. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has protected and will protect private property. Before I go any further, I would like to briefly share my perspective on this debate. I come from a region shaped by modern land claims based on historic treaties. I am not indigenous. I own private property in an area covered by a modern treaty. I have lived, worked and governed in contexts where indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians have learned—sometimes imperfectly, but always constructively—to coexist on the same territory. This experience has taught me a fundamental lesson: The key to success is not to stoke fear. It is not spread disinformation, and it is certainly not to use political opportunism. The key is to sit down at a table, have constructive discussions and responsibly carry out the difficult work of reconciliation. That is what our government is doing, but that is precisely what this motion seeks to undermine. This motion wraps itself in the language of private property while fundamentally misrepresenting the government’s position, the facts on the ground and recent federal agreements with indigenous partners. It also confuses the results of a court decision, one that our government fundamentally disagrees with, and a negotiated agreement that does not deal with Canadians’ private property interests. It suggests that government agreements are giving away private land. It suggests that, because of the Musqueam agreement, Canadians could lose their homes. None of that is true. What is true is that this motion is an opportunistic political play by the Conservatives to create fear, stress and division. If they truly cared about addressing Canadians’ concerns, they should have put forward a motion grounded in facts and that reflects the situation as it is, not one that only serves their political interests. Let us turn first to the Cowichan decision. This case has a long and complex history. It is, in fact, the longest civil trial in Canadian history at over 500 days. At its core, it raises legal questions about aboriginal title and how it interacts with Crown obligations and existing land ownership systems. Throughout the case, Canada has consistently defended the validity of Crown grants of fee simple title, and we continue to do so today. That position has not changed. We also recognize that private ownership is a foundational part of Canada’s legal system. It gives people certainty and confidence in their homes and businesses. That matters to Canadians and it matters to our economy. Canada has formally appealed the decision because we believe further legal clarity is required, particularly with respect to private property interests. We will advance all legally viable arguments to protect that clarity. Importantly, the court ruled that British Columbia, not the federal government, has the duty to negotiate in good faith regarding privately held lands, because jurisdiction over private property and land registries rests with the provinces. Section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The Conservatives continue to ignore the fact that this is constitutional reality, not political choice. To that end, British Columbia has appealed. British Columbia is acting within its jurisdiction, and British Columbia is working on measures to support potentially impacted private property owners. When it comes to aboriginal title, more generally, it is important to note that the law is far from settled in this regard. For example, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion in J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation, as compared to the B.C. Supreme Court’s decision in Cowichan. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal states that it is open for a court to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that a declaration of aboriginal title cannot be made over private property. Canada is waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to confirm whether it will hear an appeal of the Wolastoqey Nation decision, and we are monitoring this case closely. We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the court is needed. We recognize that the Cowichan decision has caused uncertainty and anxiety. Canadians deserve to feel secure in their homes and investments. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. Further, since the ruling last summer, we, Canada, consented to the Montrose application and we are now awaiting a ruling. For those who are unfamiliar, Montrose is a company that operates in Richmond and claims to be the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. If the trial is reopened in a limited way, Montrose, an impacted private property owner, will have the opportunity to present evidence and its perspective on the impacts of this decision. The judge will rule on whether or not there should be a limited reopening of the trial. This may impact the decision made by the judge in August 2025. We consented to this application because we believe that when people may be directly affected by legal ruling, they deserve to be heard. Canadians know what they can expect from our government. We have appealed the Cowichan decision, and we will advance all legally viable arguments to preserve the certainty of private property interests. As I said at the beginning of my speech, though, the Conservatives believe that they should use Parliament to relitigate an active court case. Let me be clear. Having these discussions here on the floor of the House of Commons or in a special parliamentary committee, instead of in a courtroom where they belong, has the potential to negatively impact Canada’s legal position and may actually undermine arguments on appeal that would protect private property. We must respect the judicial process and continue to seek resolution of this matter through the courts. The Conservatives have suggested that the directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples restricted Canada’s ability to advance legally viable defences in the Cowichan litigation, specifically referring to litigation guideline number 14. Litigation guideline number 14 of the directive does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada is currently reviewing potential legal arguments for the Cowichan appeal, and all potential defences remain on the table. Again, our government will always raise valid arguments that we believe will be successful in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada is currently reviewing all legally viable arguments for the Cowichan appeal and all potential defences remain on the table. However, even if the Conservatives are not listening, I want to reassure Canadians at home who are watching that Canada will advance all legally viable arguments on appeal to protect private property. I now want to turn to the incremental rights recognition agreement with the Musqueam first nation, another area where misinformation has flourished. This agreement did not appear overnight. In 2017, Cowichan and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding. In February 2026, that work evolved into a framework agreement. This is not a title agreement, and it is not a land claim. Let me be absolutely clear on a point that has caused concern: This agreement does not affect private property. In fact, it cannot affect private property because it is a bilateral agreement between Musqueam and the federal government. Why does that matter? It is because, again, private property falls under provincial jurisdiction. As I have said, section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not have the authority to negotiate Canadians’ privately held lands, and this agreement does not in any way attempt to do that. It is important to note that all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level protect private property. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Further, it is important to note that the Musqueam themselves have been clear. In fact, just a few weeks ago, Musqueam’s chief negotiator said that private property was never on the table. It was a non-starter from the very beginning. As the agreement itself states, this work is about building relationships, establishing principles and setting out processes for future discussion, not transferring land. I really want to highlight one bullet from the agreement for us to remember throughout the debate today. It reads: For a long time we, Musqueam and Canada, misunderstood each other. We are all one and we are here to stay. It was impossible for this misunderstanding to go on. We wanted to reach a mutual understanding and that is why we gathered together to make an informed decision. In the spirit of reconciliation and consistent with the principle of nəća̓ʔmat ct [which means we are all one], Musqueam will continue to work collaboratively with Canada to further our mutual interests to transform conflict and injustice, to create partnerships in the spirit of unity, with the aim of developing processes for shared decision-making, revenue and benefit sharing, and dispute resolution. This agreement is the result of more than 10 years of negotiation. Negotiation, instead of litigation, provides clarity, stability and better outcomes for everyone involved. Again, despite what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, it does not interfere with fee simple property ownership. The maps circulating online showing “land being given away” are maps of Musqueam’s claimed historical territory, not title. Conservatives confusing the two is either careless or deliberate. The government has not agreed to anything new with respect to these areas. We will not, cannot and will never negotiate away Canadians’ private property. There are no clauses transferring private homes. There is no sudden erosion of municipal or provincial authority, and there is no legal basis for the climate of panic the Conservatives are attempting to create. I will remind the members on the other side of the aisle that responsible leadership means actually reading agreements before condemning them. Let me offer the House a concrete example of a title agreement, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, which became a law in B.C. on May 16, 2024. The law confirms the “Rising Tide” Haida Title Lands Agreement and enshrines the recognition of Haida aboriginal title in the laws of B.C. The agreements and legislation provided important protections such as the following: Private property, residential, commercial or industrial, is not affected by the recognition of Haida aboriginal title; and privately owned land, or fee simple property, remains under provincial jurisdiction and the recognition of Haida aboriginal title will not change any rights associated with it. This means that business licences, building permits and zoning continue as is through the reconciling process. It means that key infrastructure, like ferry terminals and highways, continues to be operated and maintained by the province. It means that provincial and municipal services provided by Haida Gwaii, including health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services, also continue as they are. The agreement and provincial legislation came into effect on July 5, 2024. It has been almost two years and the sky has not fallen. Life has continued on for folks. That is what negotiated coexistence looks like in a constitutional democracy. With regard to aboriginal rights and treaty rights, we will continue to hold consultations on mines and major projects of national interest. None of this is new. Even before the title was established, the Crown always had a duty to consult. Title clarifies the rights of indigenous partners; it does not invent duties out of thin air. In 2014, when the Supreme Court affirmed aboriginal title in the Tsilhqot’in decision, some critics predicted chaos. They warned of economic collapse. They said Canadians would lose their land. None of that happened. That was 12 years ago. We have gained clarity about the nature and location of lands covered by Tsilhqot’in aboriginal title. That clarity has provided certainty to investors, communities and the government, which has enabled them to build. One of the greatest harms of this motion is not legal, but social. It invites Canadians to fear reconciliation. That is not leadership. Many Canadians were not taught about treaties or unceded land, but a lack of education is not an excuse for the Conservatives’ spreading misinformation now. Leadership means explaining complexity, not exploiting it for fundraising opportunities. Let us be serious. We can protect private property. We can advance aboriginal title and rights. We can do both without reopening the Constitution as this motion proposes because, frankly, we do not have time for a constitutional wrangling exercise. Canadians want homes built, projects approved and the economy growing. We can do that right now within our existing constitutional framework. Hope is not a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy. If the Conservatives ever hope to lead, they will need to learn how to work with all Canadians, including indigenous partners. That means quitting the fearmongering, quitting the misinformation, starting to learn and starting to build relationships. They need to recognize that reconciliation and economic growth are not opposites. They are partners when done properly. I will close where I began. To Canadians watching today, they still own their home and they can still renovate it, and our government is fully committed to protecting their property rights. In indigenous treaty or agreement discussions, private property is not on the table. It is not today and it will not be tomorrow. What we are doing is building a stronger, more honest, more stable foundation for coexistence and prosperity. What is on the table is whether this House chooses clarity over chaos, unity over division and serious governance over fear-based politics.
“The agreement with the Musqueam is just a plan for future talks. The Conservatives want every agreement to protect private property. We only include private property when the agreement is actually about private property.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point regarding the Musqueam agreement, it is an incremental rights and recognition agreement. If folks are interested, they can go to the website and there is a description of what an MOU is and what a framework agreement is. We are currently at the framework agreement. Back in 2017, we signed the MOU with Musqueam. It took nine years to come to the framework agreement. It outlines the next steps for discussion. The other two agreements that were signed were about marine stewardship and the fisheries. The motion the Conservatives are proposing says we have not included private property in every agreement. I ask the Conservatives why we would include that in every agreement, including the education agreements, the health agreements and the self-government agreements. When an agreement does not touch on private property, we do not include it, because it does not touch on private property.”
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point regarding the Musqueam agreement, it is an incremental rights and recognition agreement. If folks are interested, they can go to the website and there is a description of what an MOU is and what a framework agreement is. We are currently at the framework agreement. Back in 2017, we signed the MOU with Musqueam. It took nine years to come to the framework agreement. It outlines the next steps for discussion. The other two agreements that were signed were about marine stewardship and the fisheries. The motion the Conservatives are proposing says we have not included private property in every agreement. I ask the Conservatives why we would include that in every agreement, including the education agreements, the health agreements and the self-government agreements. When an agreement does not touch on private property, we do not include it, because it does not touch on private property.
“I want the committee to study how we can better teach Canadians about treaties, residential schools, and Indigenous land rights. There is too much false information and denial about our history.”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, I think that there is an opportunity here to discuss how we can improve awareness about treaties. There is a lot of disinformation and denialism about history. We would love it if the committee could take this opportunity to look into how we can improve awareness about treaties and residential schools. I think it would be a good exercise. It would also be a good idea to look at how we can address the issue of aboriginal title, since there are numerous examples across Canada. How can we explain this better and educate Canadians on this?”
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I think that there is an opportunity here to discuss how we can improve awareness about treaties. There is a lot of disinformation and denialism about history. We would love it if the committee could take this opportunity to look into how we can improve awareness about treaties and residential schools. I think it would be a good exercise. It would also be a good idea to look at how we can address the issue of aboriginal title, since there are numerous examples across Canada. How can we explain this better and educate Canadians on this?
“Spreading false information causes real harm to everyone, including work on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. I want the minister to talk about the damage false information causes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and value what the minister has put clearly on the record to provide assurances and make sure that there is some reality in the debate we are having today. I share the concern with regard to misinformation because of the damage it causes. I think about issues such as reconciliation and how important it is that we continue to move forward on that. It is important that we continue to work nation-to-nation as we look at ways to see the potential of Canada realized. My concern is that intentionally misleading information causes damage to all of us. Could the minister provide her thoughts on the negative side of misinformation?”
Question or comment in debate
Clarity 45 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I appreciate and value what the minister has put clearly on the record to provide assurances and make sure that there is some reality in the debate we are having today. I share the concern with regard to misinformation because of the damage it causes. I think about issues such as reconciliation and how important it is that we continue to move forward on that. It is important that we continue to work nation-to-nation as we look at ways to see the potential of Canada realized. My concern is that intentionally misleading information causes damage to all of us. Could the minister provide her thoughts on the negative side of misinformation?
“It is not true that the government is giving away land, and saying that scares investors. Canada is a world leader on reconciliation, but our work is not done. We must keep working on modern treaties and Indigenous land rights while also protecting private property.”
“Mr. Speaker, tied to both of my colleagues’ questions, I think about the opportunity for improved communications, but also the uncertainty and fear that can happen in the investment world when the education is lacking. When there is talk about the federal government giving away all this land, which is inaccurate, that is misinformation and it leads to that uncertainty the member is speaking of. Canada was just at the United Nations indigenous peoples forum. We are a leader that many countries look to with regard to reconciliation. We can continue to shine. Our journey toward reconciliation is not over. It is a long journey, and we need to continue to evolve. Making sure that we continue to advance modern treaties and aboriginal title in a way that protects private property is important work that we need to continue.”
Mr. Speaker, tied to both of my colleagues’ questions, I think about the opportunity for improved communications, but also the uncertainty and fear that can happen in the investment world when the education is lacking. When there is talk about the federal government giving away all this land, which is inaccurate, that is misinformation and it leads to that uncertainty the member is speaking of. Canada was just at the United Nations indigenous peoples forum. We are a leader that many countries look to with regard to reconciliation. We can continue to shine. Our journey toward reconciliation is not over. It is a long journey, and we need to continue to evolve. Making sure that we continue to advance modern treaties and aboriginal title in a way that protects private property is important work that we need to continue.
“Going to court causes uncertainty because cases take a long time and decisions get appealed. We prefer to solve land issues by negotiating agreements, like we did with the Haida Nation. In this case, the legal process is still ongoing, and we will keep Canadians updated while we continue to negotiate.”
“Mr. Speaker, the courts and litigation create uncertainty. This case began in 2014. The ruling ended in 2025. All parties appealed the decision. Montrose has asked for the trial to be reopened. We are awaiting the decision from the judge. Litigation can create uncertainty while we are working through these steps, which is why we prefer to work through negotiations. Agreements like that with Haida, where the federal government, the province and the Haida Nation were able to come together and actually work through how private property and aboriginal title can work together, are a prime example. It is ensuring that Canadians understand the current stage of the legal process, because it is being appealed. There is the opportunity that the trial may be reopened in a limited way. It is important that we continue to tell Canadians the current facts, as well as continue to work through negotiations.”
Mr. Speaker, the courts and litigation create uncertainty. This case began in 2014. The ruling ended in 2025. All parties appealed the decision. Montrose has asked for the trial to be reopened. We are awaiting the decision from the judge. Litigation can create uncertainty while we are working through these steps, which is why we prefer to work through negotiations. Agreements like that with Haida, where the federal government, the province and the Haida Nation were able to come together and actually work through how private property and aboriginal title can work together, are a prime example. It is ensuring that Canadians understand the current stage of the legal process, because it is being appealed. There is the opportunity that the trial may be reopened in a limited way. It is important that we continue to tell Canadians the current facts, as well as continue to work through negotiations.
“The Conservatives need to read the full legal guideline they keep talking about. It says we can only use legal defences that have real evidence behind them. We are in court right now, and we are looking at all valid legal arguments for our appeal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to mention litigation guideline number 14, which the Conservatives have referenced a number of times. I encourage them to read beyond the first sentence and actually read the whole principle. If they get to the second sentence, they will see that all defences are available. However, “defences must not be pleaded simply in the hope that through discoveries or investigation some basis for the defence may be found.” We can only use defences “where there is a principled basis and evidence to support the defence”. We are in active litigation. We are continuing to review all viable legal arguments. However, when the members mention guideline number 14, I really encourage them to read beyond sentence number one and get through the whole principle. I also encourage the Conservatives to read the whole directive, because I think it will enlighten them. Again, we are looking at all viable options in the appeal.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I want to mention litigation guideline number 14, which the Conservatives have referenced a number of times. I encourage them to read beyond the first sentence and actually read the whole principle. If they get to the second sentence, they will see that all defences are available. However, “defences must not be pleaded simply in the hope that through discoveries or investigation some basis for the defence may be found.” We can only use defences “where there is a principled basis and evidence to support the defence”. We are in active litigation. We are continuing to review all viable legal arguments. However, when the members mention guideline number 14, I really encourage them to read beyond sentence number one and get through the whole principle. I also encourage the Conservatives to read the whole directive, because I think it will enlighten them. Again, we are looking at all viable options in the appeal.
“Private property is the job of provincial governments, not the federal government. Does the member agree that both levels of government need to respect each other's roles?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding section 92 of Canada’s Constitution. Private property clearly falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Cowichan, British Columbia is backstopping the properties. My question for the member is as follows: Can she explain how important it is for the provincial and federal governments to respect each other’s jurisdictions?”
Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding section 92 of Canada’s Constitution. Private property clearly falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Cowichan, British Columbia is backstopping the properties. My question for the member is as follows: Can she explain how important it is for the provincial and federal governments to respect each other’s jurisdictions?
“This case is being appealed. Does the member think Parliament trying to influence a trial weakens the independence of our courts?”
“Mr. Speaker, the case is being appealed, so I would like to ask my colleague a question. Does she think that getting Parliament to influence the outcome of a trial could blur the boundary between political debate and judicial independence?”
Mr. Speaker, the case is being appealed, so I would like to ask my colleague a question. Does she think that getting Parliament to influence the outcome of a trial could blur the boundary between political debate and judicial independence?
“I want the member to explain why clear legal rules matter here, and whether this motion actually provides them.”
“Mr. Speaker, could the member tell us about the importance of clarity and legal certainty in this case and could she speak to whether this motion actually helps to provide such guarantees?”
Mr. Speaker, could the member tell us about the importance of clarity and legal certainty in this case and could she speak to whether this motion actually helps to provide such guarantees?
“This motion asks the government to protect private property in all future deals with First Nations. But we make deals about things like schools, health care, and police, which have nothing to do with private property. Why are the Conservatives only asking for this in deals with First Nations, and not in deals with provinces?”
“Mr. Speaker, one part of the motion, part (c), calls on the government “to make no agreement without explicit property protection so that fee simple property rights are enshrined in all future agreements with First Nations”. However, agreements relate to education, health and policing. We do not reference private property there. Are the Conservatives proposing that we include the health transfer for the Government of British Columbia or any type of provincial government? Why is it limited to first nations?”
Mr. Speaker, one part of the motion, part (c), calls on the government “to make no agreement without explicit property protection so that fee simple property rights are enshrined in all future agreements with First Nations”. However, agreements relate to education, health and policing. We do not reference private property there. Are the Conservatives proposing that we include the health transfer for the Government of British Columbia or any type of provincial government? Why is it limited to first nations?
“The government is already in court defending private property rights with expert lawyers. Does the member really think a committee of politicians can make better legal arguments than those experts?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke very clearly in this House, making it very clear that the government was going to defend private property rights and that the government immediately appealed the decision. My question is for the hon. member whose speech I just listened to. I felt there were multiple times when it sank into disinformation. Does the hon. member believe a parliamentary committee would develop arguments for the court that are better than those of the expert constitutional lawyers who are currently arguing on behalf of the Government of Canada and being instructed to use every type of argument available to defend property rights?”
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke very clearly in this House, making it very clear that the government was going to defend private property rights and that the government immediately appealed the decision. My question is for the hon. member whose speech I just listened to. I felt there were multiple times when it sank into disinformation. Does the hon. member believe a parliamentary committee would develop arguments for the court that are better than those of the expert constitutional lawyers who are currently arguing on behalf of the Government of Canada and being instructed to use every type of argument available to defend property rights?
“The agreements with the Musqueam are public online, not secret. I want to know if the member's party will condemn an MP who said Indigenous people asked for residential schools and that no genocide happened.”
“Mr. Speaker, I noted that in the member opposite’s comments, he expressed that somehow these Musqueam agreements were secret. If he would like, I am more than happy to share with him the links online, where they are available to the public. He also spoke about the need for true reconciliation, which he alleges his party believes in. Does that strategy of true reconciliation include condemning the comments of the member for North Island—Powell River, who said indigenous people “asked for” residential schools and there was no indigenous genocide?”
Mr. Speaker, I noted that in the member opposite’s comments, he expressed that somehow these Musqueam agreements were secret. If he would like, I am more than happy to share with him the links online, where they are available to the public. He also spoke about the need for true reconciliation, which he alleges his party believes in. Does that strategy of true reconciliation include condemning the comments of the member for North Island—Powell River, who said indigenous people “asked for” residential schools and there was no indigenous genocide?
“A recent court decision about Indigenous land in British Columbia has made many homeowners and businesses worry about their property. We disagree with that ruling, and we are appealing it. We can respect Indigenous rights while still protecting private property. The Conservatives are spreading fear about this for political gain, and that uncertainty is hurting our economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock. I rise this afternoon to speak about a court decision that has caused real worry in my province and to speak directly to the Canadians, particularly British Columbians, who have been watching this debate and wondering what it means for them and for their homes. Let us begin with the facts, because the facts have been in short supply in the debate by members opposite. The fact is that the government has fundamentally disagreed with, and continues to disagree with, the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in Cowichan. The fact is that we appealed that decision on September 8 of last year. The fact is that the Prime Minister of Canada has stood in this House and stated clearly to all who would listen that private property rights are fundamental, that this government will protect them and that federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. These are the facts. They are on the record. They are not in dispute, except by those who find facts inconvenient to the story that they would prefer to tell, a story that leads to mistrust, anti-indigenous racism and, perhaps most importantly, instability in British Columbia’s economy. I want to speak directly to the homeowner in Richmond who read a headline and felt their stomach drop. I want to speak to the family in my riding of Vancouver Granville who have spent 20 years paying down a mortgage and are now wondering whether the ground beneath their home is as solid as they believed it to be. I want to speak to the small business owner who has been asking their bank for financing and getting questions they have never been asked before. These concerns are legitimate. A home is the largest investment most Canadians will ever make. When a court raises questions about the relationship between aboriginal title and fee simple ownership, people are right to ask for clarity. They deserve a serious answer, not a slogan or a sound bite, so allow me, if you would, Mr. Chair, to give them one. Three principles guide this government’s response to the Cowichan decision. First, we believe in the security of private property. Canadians who hold title to their homes and their land must be able to rely on that title. This should not be a partisan position. It is the foundation on which families plan their future, on which businesses make investments and on which our economy functions. Second, we believe in the principles of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not a slogan, and it is not an obstacle to be managed. It is a constitutional and moral obligation that this country has been working through for generations, and we continue that work patiently, lawfully and in good faith. Third, we believe in building shared prosperity for homeowners, for workers, for businesses and for indigenous communities who have for too long been excluded from the economic life of this country. These are not competing goods. They are connected goods. I want to be honest with the House and with the Canadians watching. The legal questions raised in the Cowichan decision are genuinely complex, and the clarity that Canadians deserve is going to come from where it should come from in our system: from the courts on appeal, with all viable arguments tested and all parties heard. That process is under way. It will take time, and none of us should stand in this place and pretend otherwise, because Canadians deserve, as I said before, a serious answer, not a slogan. They deserve facts, not fearmongering. The Conservative motion before the House asks Canadians to choose between the first principle and the second. It asks them to believe that property rights and reconciliation cannot exist in harmony. This is false and has always been false, and the people advancing that false choice know it is false. Let me say something very clearly. The legal questions we are working through in Cowichan are not questions that indigenous peoples created. They are the product of decisions made by the Crown over generations in a province where most of the land was never covered by treaty. The Crown made those decisions, the Crown bears responsibility to resolve them, and no responsible government should allow any ordinary homeowner to be made afraid, or indigenous peoples to be scapegoated, while that work is carried out. Here is what is being missed in the noise: Almost every party to this litigation has gone to the Court of Appeal. The Government of Canada is appealing. The Province of British Columbia is appealing. The City of Richmond is appealing. Musqueam is appealing. Chief Wayne Sparrow has spoken publicly about Musqueam’s deep concern with the decision that declared aboriginal title in what they assert is their own traditional territory. Tsawwassen First Nation is appealing alongside Musqueam on similar grounds. The Cowichan themselves are appealing on different grounds. This is not the picture of settled judgment. This is the picture of a decision that has satisfied almost no one, that produced a clarity that almost no one was looking for and that is now being worked through by our courts exactly as our system is designed to handle it. This is also not the story of homeowners on one side and indigenous peoples on the other. It is the story of a serious country with a serious legal system doing serious work. This includes first nations that are using that very system to seek the clarity that each and every one of us needs and deserves. It is the story that members opposite are refusing to tell because it does not serve a political agenda. The cost of that political agenda and of this misinformation is real and is being paid right now in my home province of British Columbia. Just yesterday, the Business Council of British Columbia released a survey of its members. About 74% of respondents are decreasing investment plans in B.C., one in three are reducing hiring, 41% report harder access to external financing, and 80% of those same business leaders say they continue to support reconciliation as an important goal. Why are they reducing those investments? They are reducing those investments because of misinformation and uncertainty that is being spurred on by people who would like to use the Cowichan decision as a political cudgel. In this House, in this Parliament, we must ensure that does not continue, for the security of the economy in British Columbia and for preservation of the principle of true reconciliation. The people who are supporting reconciliation are very clear. This is a business community that is pro-reconciliation and is exhausted by uncertainty. They are not asking us to choose. They are asking us to lead. The damage is not abstract. Homes are not being built. Jobs are not being created. There are workers waiting for projects that have been paused while financing is renegotiated. There are businesses across B.C. that are delaying decisions; holding back on investment; watching the noise around this case created by politicians, not by the courts; and concluding that the cost of moving forward is too uncertain to bear. That is what irresponsibility looks like in practice, and it is being done deliberately for the political gain of the party opposite. The seriousness of this moment is not lost on the political leadership of British Columbia. The Premier of B.C. has spoken at length about the impact of legal uncertainty on his province. Mayors have spoken. The City of Richmond is in court. There is broad cross-partisan recognition in B.C., not from one party and not from one ideology but from across the political spectrum of my province, that resolving this matters and that the work cannot wait. The only people who seem to disagree are the Conservative members opposite, who have decided that uncertainty and a parliamentary committee are more useful to them than actual resolution of the problem. The Conservatives know exactly what they are doing. They know that the Cowichan decision is under appeal. They know that the Government of Canada, the Province of B.C., the City of Richmond, Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nation have all gone to the Court of Appeal precisely because the legal questions need to be resolved. They know that the Prime Minister has committed, clearly and repeatedly, that this government will defend private property rights. They know the historical record across this country is that modern treaties and negotiated agreements have always protected private property. Not one Canadian has lost their private property as a result of a negotiated agreement. They know this, and they are choosing every day to tell their constituents the opposite because fear is more politically useful than the truth. It is not leadership but a calculation, and the people paying for that calculation are the homeowners they claim to defend. I want to close with a story about what is possible when we get this right. This Friday in my riding of Vancouver Granville, I will be at the blessing ceremony of the opening of Sen̓áḵw. Sen̓áḵw sits in Squamish territory at the foot of the Burrard bridge, where it has always been, in the land, in the stories and in the people. What is new is what is being built there: 6,000 rental homes in a city that is desperately in need of them. This is true reconciliation, where rents to 30% below market are being provided by the Squamish Nation in partnership with the Government of Canada. The Squamish Nation is moving toward economic independence and helping Vancouver provide the housing it needs. Property rights will be respected, indigenous rights will be honoured, homes will be built, and jobs will be created. For the Squamish Nation, there will be prosperity, and for the city that I represent, 6,000 families will be able to call Sen̓áḵw home. That is reconciliation, that is prosperity, and that is what is possible when we refuse the false choice being put upon us by the opposition. That is happening in real time in my riding. To the homeowners in my riding and across B.C. who have been worried, the government has appealed the Cowichan decision. We are advancing every legally viable argument to defend the security of fee simple. We have been clear, from the Prime Minister on down, that protecting private property is fundamental to who we are as a country, and we will always stand for that.”
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock. I rise this afternoon to speak about a court decision that has caused real worry in my province and to speak directly to the Canadians, particularly British Columbians, who have been watching this debate and wondering what it means for them and for their homes. Let us begin with the facts, because the facts have been in short supply in the debate by members opposite. The fact is that the government has fundamentally disagreed with, and continues to disagree with, the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in Cowichan. The fact is that we appealed that decision on September 8 of last year. The fact is that the Prime Minister of Canada has stood in this House and stated clearly to all who would listen that private property rights are fundamental, that this government will protect them and that federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. These are the facts. They are on the record. They are not in dispute, except by those who find facts inconvenient to the story that they would prefer to tell, a story that leads to mistrust, anti-indigenous racism and, perhaps most importantly, instability in British Columbia’s economy. I want to speak directly to the homeowner in Richmond who read a headline and felt their stomach drop. I want to speak to the family in my riding of Vancouver Granville who have spent 20 years paying down a mortgage and are now wondering whether the ground beneath their home is as solid as they believed it to be. I want to speak to the small business owner who has been asking their bank for financing and getting questions they have never been asked before. These concerns are legitimate. A home is the largest investment most Canadians will ever make. When a court raises questions about the relationship between aboriginal title and fee simple ownership, people are right to ask for clarity. They deserve a serious answer, not a slogan or a sound bite, so allow me, if you would, Mr. Chair, to give them one. Three principles guide this government’s response to the Cowichan decision. First, we believe in the security of private property. Canadians who hold title to their homes and their land must be able to rely on that title. This should not be a partisan position. It is the foundation on which families plan their future, on which businesses make investments and on which our economy functions. Second, we believe in the principles of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not a slogan, and it is not an obstacle to be managed. It is a constitutional and moral obligation that this country has been working through for generations, and we continue that work patiently, lawfully and in good faith. Third, we believe in building shared prosperity for homeowners, for workers, for businesses and for indigenous communities who have for too long been excluded from the economic life of this country. These are not competing goods. They are connected goods. I want to be honest with the House and with the Canadians watching. The legal questions raised in the Cowichan decision are genuinely complex, and the clarity that Canadians deserve is going to come from where it should come from in our system: from the courts on appeal, with all viable arguments tested and all parties heard. That process is under way. It will take time, and none of us should stand in this place and pretend otherwise, because Canadians deserve, as I said before, a serious answer, not a slogan. They deserve facts, not fearmongering. The Conservative motion before the House asks Canadians to choose between the first principle and the second. It asks them to believe that property rights and reconciliation cannot exist in harmony. This is false and has always been false, and the people advancing that false choice know it is false. Let me say something very clearly. The legal questions we are working through in Cowichan are not questions that indigenous peoples created. They are the product of decisions made by the Crown over generations in a province where most of the land was never covered by treaty. The Crown made those decisions, the Crown bears responsibility to resolve them, and no responsible government should allow any ordinary homeowner to be made afraid, or indigenous peoples to be scapegoated, while that work is carried out. Here is what is being missed in the noise: Almost every party to this litigation has gone to the Court of Appeal. The Government of Canada is appealing. The Province of British Columbia is appealing. The City of Richmond is appealing. Musqueam is appealing. Chief Wayne Sparrow has spoken publicly about Musqueam’s deep concern with the decision that declared aboriginal title in what they assert is their own traditional territory. Tsawwassen First Nation is appealing alongside Musqueam on similar grounds. The Cowichan themselves are appealing on different grounds. This is not the picture of settled judgment. This is the picture of a decision that has satisfied almost no one, that produced a clarity that almost no one was looking for and that is now being worked through by our courts exactly as our system is designed to handle it. This is also not the story of homeowners on one side and indigenous peoples on the other. It is the story of a serious country with a serious legal system doing serious work. This includes first nations that are using that very system to seek the clarity that each and every one of us needs and deserves. It is the story that members opposite are refusing to tell because it does not serve a political agenda. The cost of that political agenda and of this misinformation is real and is being paid right now in my home province of British Columbia. Just yesterday, the Business Council of British Columbia released a survey of its members. About 74% of respondents are decreasing investment plans in B.C., one in three are reducing hiring, 41% report harder access to external financing, and 80% of those same business leaders say they continue to support reconciliation as an important goal. Why are they reducing those investments? They are reducing those investments because of misinformation and uncertainty that is being spurred on by people who would like to use the Cowichan decision as a political cudgel. In this House, in this Parliament, we must ensure that does not continue, for the security of the economy in British Columbia and for preservation of the principle of true reconciliation. The people who are supporting reconciliation are very clear. This is a business community that is pro-reconciliation and is exhausted by uncertainty. They are not asking us to choose. They are asking us to lead. The damage is not abstract. Homes are not being built. Jobs are not being created. There are workers waiting for projects that have been paused while financing is renegotiated. There are businesses across B.C. that are delaying decisions; holding back on investment; watching the noise around this case created by politicians, not by the courts; and concluding that the cost of moving forward is too uncertain to bear. That is what irresponsibility looks like in practice, and it is being done deliberately for the political gain of the party opposite. The seriousness of this moment is not lost on the political leadership of British Columbia. The Premier of B.C. has spoken at length about the impact of legal uncertainty on his province. Mayors have spoken. The City of Richmond is in court. There is broad cross-partisan recognition in B.C., not from one party and not from one ideology but from across the political spectrum of my province, that resolving this matters and that the work cannot wait. The only people who seem to disagree are the Conservative members opposite, who have decided that uncertainty and a parliamentary committee are more useful to them than actual resolution of the problem. The Conservatives know exactly what they are doing. They know that the Cowichan decision is under appeal. They know that the Government of Canada, the Province of B.C., the City of Richmond, Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nation have all gone to the Court of Appeal precisely because the legal questions need to be resolved. They know that the Prime Minister has committed, clearly and repeatedly, that this government will defend private property rights. They know the historical record across this country is that modern treaties and negotiated agreements have always protected private property. Not one Canadian has lost their private property as a result of a negotiated agreement. They know this, and they are choosing every day to tell their constituents the opposite because fear is more politically useful than the truth. It is not leadership but a calculation, and the people paying for that calculation are the homeowners they claim to defend. I want to close with a story about what is possible when we get this right. This Friday in my riding of Vancouver Granville, I will be at the blessing ceremony of the opening of Sen̓áḵw. Sen̓áḵw sits in Squamish territory at the foot of the Burrard bridge, where it has always been, in the land, in the stories and in the people. What is new is what is being built there: 6,000 rental homes in a city that is desperately in need of them. This is true reconciliation, where rents to 30% below market are being provided by the Squamish Nation in partnership with the Government of Canada. The Squamish Nation is moving toward economic independence and helping Vancouver provide the housing it needs. Property rights will be respected, indigenous rights will be honoured, homes will be built, and jobs will be created. For the Squamish Nation, there will be prosperity, and for the city that I represent, 6,000 families will be able to call Sen̓áḵw home. That is reconciliation, that is prosperity, and that is what is possible when we refuse the false choice being put upon us by the opposition. That is happening in real time in my riding. To the homeowners in my riding and across B.C. who have been worried, the government has appealed the Cowichan decision. We are advancing every legally viable argument to defend the security of fee simple. We have been clear, from the Prime Minister on down, that protecting private property is fundamental to who we are as a country, and we will always stand for that.
“The Conservatives are spreading false information about property rights. This uncertainty stops builders from making affordable homes and creating jobs. Our government does protect property rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for yet again, like his colleagues, making light of what is a very serious situation for folks in Vancouver and across British Columbia. There are people who listen to the debates in this Parliament and expect serious discussion and serious debate. What they hear is misinformation, which leads to market uncertainty. Market uncertainty leads to builders not wanting to build affordable homes and to jobs not being created. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. They should be asking themselves what they will tell their constituents when they ask if the government is going to stand for property rights or not when the answer is yes.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 22 of 100
None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Signal 18 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 analysisMr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for yet again, like his colleagues, making light of what is a very serious situation for folks in Vancouver and across British Columbia. There are people who listen to the debates in this Parliament and expect serious discussion and serious debate. What they hear is misinformation, which leads to market uncertainty. Market uncertainty leads to builders not wanting to build affordable homes and to jobs not being created. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. They should be asking themselves what they will tell their constituents when they ask if the government is going to stand for property rights or not when the answer is yes.
“People are spreading false information about our legal rule. The rule just says government lawyers need evidence and a good reason to back up their arguments. Can the member give any example where the government should make an argument without evidence?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question relates to litigation directive number 14, which I, again, have heard a lot of misinformation about, claiming that somehow the directive would preclude counsel for the Government of Canada from making every argument necessary to defend property rights. My understanding is that all the directive does is, if I can find the right words, require “a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.” Could my hon. colleague tell me of any instance where the Government of Canada should advance an argument that does not meet that criteria?”
Mr. Speaker, my question relates to litigation directive number 14, which I, again, have heard a lot of misinformation about, claiming that somehow the directive would preclude counsel for the Government of Canada from making every argument necessary to defend property rights. My understanding is that all the directive does is, if I can find the right words, require “a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.” Could my hon. colleague tell me of any instance where the Government of Canada should advance an argument that does not meet that criteria?
“The answer is no. The opposition should read the whole document and look at the facts, not just the first line or the headlines.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the simple answer is no. I would invite members opposite to read beyond the first line of the directive because they would see there is substantial depth there. They should choose to look at the facts. I know my hon. friend here, who is a lawyer, has read the entirety of the decision and would understand why we have to read the whole thing, not just the headlines.”
Mr. Speaker, I think the simple answer is no. I would invite members opposite to read beyond the first line of the directive because they would see there is substantial depth there. They should choose to look at the facts. I know my hon. friend here, who is a lawyer, has read the entirety of the decision and would understand why we have to read the whole thing, not just the headlines.
