“I want the government to protect private property rights in British Columbia after the Cowichan court decision. Because the government will not defend these rights, businesses are investing less money and families risk losing value on their homes.”

“Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister a simple question: Will the Liberal government defend the private property rights of British Columbians in response to the Cowichan decision, yes or no? The member for Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby said that Conservatives, myself included, were fearmongering. However, British Columbians were not imagining what was happening. Real people and real businesses are already feeling the consequences of the Cowichan decision. Real estate deals have been abandoned. The provincial government has had to backstop mortgages, and investment is draining out of British Columbia. A survey from the Business Council of British Columbia found that almost 74% of B.C. businesses plan to decrease investment due to uncertainty over DRIPA, which is the provincial equivalent of the federal UNDRIP legislation; 73% said it is harder to access external financing; and one in three respondents said they are reducing hiring plans. The CEO of Wesbild Holdings said to Global News, “If you asked us today whether we’re going to invest in land in B.C., the answer is no.” In March, the Vancouver Sun reported that property values in Richmond could decrease by up to 40%. For many families, that means their home, their biggest asset, is suddenly at risk. This is not theoretical. Business owners and homeowners are facing the consequences of the government’s refusal or denial to prioritize and protect fee simple titles. Last week, the government could have made a commitment to defend private property and remove previous instructions to its lawyers. Instead, it left British Columbia in further uncertainty, sending a signal that Canada is becoming a riskier place to invest. Thankfully, the Supreme Court refused to hear the New Brunswick Wolastoqey Nation case. Conservatives will continue to push the government to pursue a policy and a legal position that protects private property rights for all British Columbians.”

“I want the government to defend private property rights in court during the Montrose case. Its failure to do so creates uncertainty that hurts the economy and exports in British Columbia.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his response this evening. I am glad he raised the Montrose application. What is problematic is that when the court case commenced, it was only the City of Richmond and not the Government of Canada that explicitly made arguments in favour of fee simple land. Part of the uncertainty today is because the Government of Canada did not make those arguments or use the language that even the parliamentary secretary is using this evening in favour of property rights. My hope for British Columbia is that the Government of Canada revises its legal arguments with the opportunity from the Montrose application and stands firmly in favour of private property rights to move Canada’s economy forward and improve exports out of British Columbia, which are in question as a result of this case.”