Business of Supply

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 .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

1 statement

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP
“Both the Liberals and Conservatives are spreading false information and ignoring our Constitution. Our Constitution protects Indigenous rights, and all members of Parliament promised to uphold it. I want the member to answer yes or no: does she respect that duty?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the Liberals have been sitting on this. On spreading disinformation and paranoia, I do agree with the Liberals on that, absolutely. I would liken it to the behaviour being perpetrated by the Liberals. I do not know why they are calling that out when they are doing exactly the same thing. To my question, we know that property rights are protected and, also, that constitutional rights are protected. That includes section 35 of the Constitution, which affirms and recognizes that aboriginal rights and title are not secondary rights. We have taken an oath of office, all of us in here, as members of Parliament, to uphold the rule of law, and that means the Constitution. The Conservative motion that has been put forward suggests that we should not respect the Constitution. I am not just talking about the Conservatives. The Liberals are playing the same game. Does my hon. colleague respect her duty as a parliamentarian to respect and uphold our Constitution and the rule of law, yes or no?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 119

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 116 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Climate Change 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Youth 14 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Youth 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Air Transportation 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 4 statements
  19. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  20. Government Orders Business of Supply 69 statements
  21. Private Members' Business Financial Administration Act 11 statements
  22. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  23. Oral Questions National Defence 11 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements