TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-28 Sitting 124 Showing 1–4 of 4

In an adjournment debate, the Conservative member raised concerns about a specific agreement, but the Liberal member deflected to discuss a different agreement and the broader issue of private property, without addressing the core of the Conservative member's question.

Official Hansard ↗

Mel Arnold

Conservative 6:15 p.m.

“I don't like the governments indigenous litigation directive. I think it's bad for property rights. The government should get rid of it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. Members of the House are elected to represent Canadians and to advocate on their behalf. Every one of us is sent here to represent the people, to be their voice and advocate and to work on behalf of the people we represent. These are basic and essential principles of representative government that are supposed to be upheld in this place, but the Liberal government seems to have persistent challenges in fulfilling basic requirements of representative government. On May 8, I asked if the Prime Minister would reverse government directive 14. What is directive 14? Well, it is the Liberal government's directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples, which instructs federal lawyers to limit their advocacy and arguments in litigation in which they are supposed to be representing the Government of Canada, which is supposed to represent the people of Canada. In other words, even if there are sound legal arguments for government lawyers to make in defending the interests of Canadian property rights, the Liberal government has instructed its lawyers to enter the ring with their hands tied behind their backs. With directive 14, the Liberal government has disabled the representatives of the representatives elected by Canadians to fight for the interests of Canadians. The Cowichan decision stated that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles that are the primary method of private home ownership. The Liberal government's directive 14 was the central factor in the Cowichan case. When I asked on May 8 whether the Prime Minister would reverse directive 14, the Liberal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations responded by dodging my question. The Liberal government issued directive 14. The government lawyers stood down as directed. The B.C. Supreme Court concluded that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles. This has directly undermined the rights of all landowners in B.C. and across Canada. The Liberal talking point and response will likely be that the Conservatives are whipping up emotions and stirring up unwarranted fear, but it is the Liberal government directive that has caused the real fear among Canadians, especially British Columbians. When a representative elected by the people stands in the House and asks if the Liberal government will discard its reckless policy that has caused so much chaos and harm, the Liberal ministers dodge the question. Constituents have contacted me to raise their personal fears for their property rights in the fallout from Cowichan, not because someone else whipped up fear but because of their own fear. The good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies can count on me to raise their concerns in the House, but sadly, they cannot count on the Liberal government to provide reasonable answers. The Liberal government is not representing Canadians' interests, nor is it defending the rights of Canadians. It is refusing to answer questions raised by members of the House elected by Canadians. All of this is the opposite of how representative government should operate. Canadians deserve to know why.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 6:20 p.m.

“The Conservatives talked a lot about this. I think they're wrong and just trying to make people mad. I want the Conservatives to prove that treaties ever took away anyone's property. I don't think they can.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue. I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite. The Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it. There were debates for hours in the House. We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”. I say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon. The most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait. We get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis. I even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons. The member just spent four minutes explaining, or attempting to explain, and justify a Conservative position, but there is nothing they can say to justify it. I asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away. The members were challenged to do that. The member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Here is what she had to say in a response: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read. Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset. Mel Arnold: Perfect, love it. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You might love it, but it is the reality of it and the member knows that. Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place. I look forward to him providing a name, but we know he is not going to be able to do that. It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mel Arnold

Conservative 6:25 p.m.

“You're talking about the wrong thing. People are scared about their homes losing value. The government caused this problem. You should fix it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for attempting to change the channel, but he really needs to go back to his drawing board. I was asking about the Cowichan agreement, not the Musqueam agreement that he referred to. His denial response is exactly what I predicted. He was going to try and blame Conservatives for stoking fear. It is real fear that is coming from Canadians, like homeowners in the Richmond area who do not know what the value of their home is. He asked whether we had specific cases of people who had lost their homes. They have not lost their homes, but they have lost all value in their homes. We have ranch properties around British Columbia that simply cannot find any interested buyers because of this situation that the government has created.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 6:25 p.m.

“I'm filling time by talking about other agreements and saying many things without ever giving a real answer. This problem isn't my fault. The other party should stop talking about it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the point is that there are many different agreements. The Conservatives are very much aware of the issue of private property. I was quoting what the minister responded to the member the other day. That was the quote I referenced, the opposition day motion where that agreement was referenced. I posed the very same question that I posed to the member, and Conservative members could not come up with one individual case. There are many treaties out there. We need to look at the harm that is done by the Conservatives stoking an issue that they know is not true. They have been provided assurances on the issue, whether it is from the Prime Minister, other ministers or members who participated in the debate. I find it, as I said before, unfortunate.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates