Indigenous Affairs

During question period, members asked about the Cowichan court decision in British Columbia and its effect on private land titles. Conservative members said homeowners need certainty about their land ownership and pressed the government to cancel a 2019 litigation directive they said instructs federal lawyers not to defend private property rights. Liberal ministers said the case is still in active litigation so they would not discuss legal strategy, noted the government has appealed, stated that property rights are being defended and are not at risk, and said Conservative claims are creating fear. A Liberal member also said the Musqueam agreements are public and do not deal with land title.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

3 statements

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“People in British Columbia need to know their land titles are secure to own homes. A recent court ruling put that at risk because the government told its lawyers not to defend private property rights. Why is the Prime Minister still telling government lawyers not to defend homeowners' property rights?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia land title certainty is foundational. Families buy homes, secure mortgages and plan their futures on the strength of our land registry. Today, homeowners in Richmond are being told that certainty no longer exists because of the Cowichan decision. That ruling followed a federal choice. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today. Why is the Prime Minister choosing Liberal ideology over British Columbian homeowners by continuing to tell federal lawyers not to defend their private property rights?

Sukhman Gill, Abbotsford—South Langley

Conservative
“The Prime Minister says he will protect private property, but his government still tells its lawyers not to defend it in court. I want him to cancel that rule so people in British Columbia can be sure about owning their homes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims he will defend property rights, but his Liberal government’s own website still shows that litigation directive number 14, which was announced as a directive back in 2019, still remains in effect today. The directive instructs federal lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. While the Prime Minister makes promises publicly, his government policies have not changed. Will he reverse his directive today so British Columbians can have certainty of home ownership?

Marc Dalton, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge

Conservative
“The Liberal government tells its lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. This hurt homeowners in a recent court case. Why are the Liberals still telling lawyers not to defend homeowners?”
  • A repeated line

    “Because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since May 6.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law, but because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case, the judge did not protect private property. In 2019, the Liberal government issued a directive called litigation guideline number 14, which discourages federal lawyers from defending property rights in court. The Liberal Prime Minister has kept that guideline in place. In fact, it is still on the government’s website today. Why do the Liberals continue to tell lawyers not to defend homeowners?

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