Tako Van Popta · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-06-18

“I say homeowners are sad. I say government should fix this. I say government did not defend property rights.”

“The court declared aboriginal title over private land. I think the government told lawyers to go easy and let it happen. 150 landowners are worried. What will the government do for them?”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

2026-06-17

“You said opposing C-22 is just fearmongering. But Vancouver East and Global News raised rational objections. Companies may leave Canada over privacy and cost. Vancouver East, what about those real concerns?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, earlier in debate tonight, we heard from the Liberal side of the House suggesting that anybody who was opposed to Bill C‑22 was fearmongering and spreading misinformation. However, the very rational debate coming from the member for Vancouver East would suggest otherwise. Also, I am reading a Global News story that says that social media platforms, satellite companies and telecommunication companies will consider leaving Canada if and when Bill C‑22 passes because they are afraid they are not going to be able to maintain their customers' privacy, something that they are committed to doing. The secondary concern of these companies seems to be the additional cost of having to maintain digital information for a long period of time. Can the member for Vancouver East comment on those very rational concerns?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Act

2026-06-12

“UNDRIP muddies the waters. We should ignore foreign documents and keep our treaties simple Canadian solutions. I want to ask my colleague to help me take a stand against UNDRIP intruding into our made-in-Canada system.”

“You say this agreement won't impact aboriginal rights. But what about the three million people in Vancouver who might be impacted by this? What about their property rights? Why don't we add something to protect their rights too?”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-12

“The Prime Minister is out of touch. He spends big on fancy meals while Canadians need food banks. Cut the PM's pampered lifestyle and policies. Canadians can't afford them. We can't afford to live. He should reverse his failed approach before it causes a recession.”

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-06-01

“I'm pointing out how much more debt the government is adding and how much interest it will cost us every year. Even with the debt already over $1 trillion, they want to add billions more. I want to know how they can justify that when people are struggling with their own costs. They should stop being so irresponsible with our money.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“You say this court case doesn't threaten private property, but I think it does. The Delgamuukw case says aboriginal title gives exclusive rights to land, just like regular ownership. There can't be two groups with exclusive rights over the same land. This case is the first time aboriginal title was claimed over private land, not just public land. I think that's a problem.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very interesting speech and recap of some of British Columbia's history. I am also a history fan, so I have read the whole case and would confirm some of the things she said. The member is saying that Cowichan does not stand for the proposition that aboriginal title threatens fee simple title. The problem with that, of course, is that the Delgamuukw case said aboriginal title gives the holder thereof exclusive rights to possession, and fee simple does the same, so there cannot be the same thing on the same piece of land. I will also note that the Cowichan case was the first time in Canadian history, as far as I know, that a plaintiff first nation group claimed aboriginal title over privately held lands. The Tsilqhot'in case the member cited was only about public lands, so I would challenge her on saying that aboriginal title has no effect.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say we're fearmongering. But I say that court decision is causing real problems. Here's one example. A land development project is now complicated because of that decision. This isn't just fearmongering. I'm stating facts. Do you have anything to say about that?”

“You said a lot but didn't really answer the key question. Let me ask it again.”

“I don't like it when you call my criticism misinformation. I think you're wrong. I have an example. They were ready to go. Now it's not working. That's not misinformation. I want you to admit your actions hurt investment.”

“I don't like that. The government should help landowners more. I'm sad for one landowner who is on hold.”

“You posturing Liberals can't defend property rights now. You didn't stand up for them before when it counted, and messed up the legal strategy.”

“The Liberals say they acted fast. They didn't — they waited as long as possible. They say they support property rights. But they didn't use every tool they had to protect them. They could have done more, like sending the Attorney General to defend property owners. But they didn't.”

“I want to debate this in committee. They wouldn't let us. Now I want a new special committee. This topic is important. People in my riding care. The government isn't doing enough.”

“I only had 10 minutes, so I couldn't mention every case. The Haida case is important. It says governments have to consult Indigenous groups. We agree with that. We agree with reconciliation. But it doesn't mean we should weaken private property rights. That would hurt Canada's economy.”

“I want the government to put private property first. This court decision creates uncertainty around owning homes and land. People are unsettled and it's undermining our economic stability. The government dropped the ball by not defending property rights aggressively enough.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the Conservative motion that is on the agenda today, which is calling on the Liberal government to put private property first in the Cowichan case, arguing that private property has priority over all other forms of title. We are saying this because the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision created massive uncertainty around fee simple property, the legal basis on which Canadians and businesses alike own their homes and their lands, and I could add their warehouses, their factories, their hotels and their high-rise apartment buildings. I want to quote from the B.C. Supreme Court decision that has shaken the confidence of the real estate market, homeowners and landowners. This is what the judge says at paragraph 2193: I agree that Aboriginal title is a prior and senior right to land. It is not an estate granted by the Crown, but rooted in prior occupation. It is constitutionally protected. The question of what remains of Aboriginal title after the granting of fee simple title to the same lands should be reversed. The proper question is: what remains of fee simple title after Aboriginal title is recognized in the same lands? This is what is unsettling so many people interested in real estate. What does “a prior and senior right” actually mean? Here is another quote, from paragraph 3551, which is close to the end of the 800-page decision. The judge says, “A precedent that will follow from this case is that provincial Crown grants of fee simple interest do not extinguish nor permanently displace Aboriginal title, and ss. 23 and 25 of the [British Columbia Land Title Act] do not apply to Aboriginal title.” Before entering Parliament as a member of Parliament in 2019, I spent many years practising corporate, real estate and land development law in the metro Vancouver area. Those decades in law taught me this with absolute clarity: Canada's economic stability rests on the bedrock of secure, indefeasible fee simple title. This principle, inherited from centuries of British common law development, is not an abstract legal doctrine. It is a foundation of our banking system, commercial investment, housing markets and, importantly, the ability of ordinary Canadians to build and preserve wealth. If we undermine that foundation, we undermine our economic stability and civic resilience as a Canadian society. The whole real estate industry banks on indefeasibility, the principle that says that when a person is registered as the legal owner of the land, their ownership cannot be challenged or defeated. The title is what the title says it is. Nobody had ever questioned the simple principle of indefeasibility until the Cowichan decision last year. One phrase bears repeating: “[Sections] 23 and 25 of the [Land Title Act] do not apply to Aboriginal title.” I am not trying to get technical, but these are the sections that underpin the principle of title indefeasibility. Today that principle is less secure than we always thought it was. This is the first in Canadian jurisprudence. There have been other cases in British Columbia where the courts ruled that a first nation had met all the criteria for proving aboriginal title. The first one was a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada case called Delgamuukw, which set out the standard for proving aboriginal title in the court of law. There was another important case, 17 years later, called the Tsilhqot’in Nation case, which declared aboriginal title over a large but remote area of British Columbia of about 2,000 square kilometres. All the land in question was Crown land. The Tsilhqot’in Nation was the plaintiff in that case. Its litigation strategy was deliberately crafted to avoid conflict with private property owners. Let us fast-forward another decade to the case we are talking about today, which declared aboriginal title over a relatively small area of only 800 acres compared to the 2,000 square kilometres in the Tsilhqot’in case. However, this land is right in the heart of metro Vancouver. Any realtor will tell us that the three most important things about real estate are location, location and location. The location in question makes the real estate very valuable. It is right in the heart of an industrial part and residential part of metro Vancouver. There are about 150 private landowners. There is a beautiful golf course. A significant landowner's project has now been put on hold. None of them had the opportunity to argue their case in court. The fact that the Cowichan plaintiffs did not restrict their claim to publicly owned lands but included privately owned lands makes this case unique. It is in that context that we accuse the Liberals of dropping the ball. A different and more far-reaching strategy on the part of the plaintiffs, compared to the Tsilhqot’in, who restricted their claim to public lands, required a different and more aggressive response from the federal Attorney General lawyers. Under the direction of the Attorney General in 2018, the justice department lawyers pulled their punches. At paragraph 2096 the judge noted, “Canada initially [argued] extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to [the] civil claim filed November 22, 2018”, obviously in direct response to new directives coming from the Attorney General. They dropped the ball. They dropped their first and best line of defence, which says that the clear and simple act of the Crown's granting fee simple title to individuals throughout B.C.'s history had the effect of extinguishing aboriginal title, to the extent that future plaintiffs might argue for aboriginal title. We are saying that it is obvious that the government lawyers should have maintained this line of defence, considering the aggressive action by the Cowichan plaintiffs. An aggressive offence demands an aggressive defence. Some people argue that weakening private property rights is a path toward reconciliation, but Canadian courts have already warned of the opposite. In the New Brunswick case of J.D. Irving v. Wolastoqey Nation, December 2025, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick put it this way: “a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately owned lands, which, by its very nature, gives the Aboriginal beneficiary exclusive possession, occupation, and use would sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians.” That is not rhetoric. It is a sober legal assessment of the consequences of eroding certainty in land ownership. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in the Cowichan decision, moved in the opposite direction. The court held that aboriginal title can extend to privately owned lands, and that aboriginal title and fee simple ownership can somehow coexist on the same land at the same time. In my respectful view, this is simply not possible. Both forms of title claim exclusive rights to occupy, to develop and to benefit economically from the land. Two competing exclusive titles cannot occupy the same legal space without destroying the certainty that underpins our entire property system. The result is not reconciliation; it is confusion. It is not economic opportunity; it is economic paralysis. It is not a path forward; it is a step backward into uncertainty at a moment when Canada desperately needs stability, investment and confidence. If the Cowichan decision stands as it is, the consequence will be profound. It risks chilling development, destabilizing markets and deepening divisions rather than healing them. Canada cannot afford a property rights regime that leaves homeowners, lenders and investors unsure if they can take their fee simple title to the bank. Reconciliation requires clarity, honesty, transparency and respect, not the erosion of the very legal foundations that allow our society to function. That is the principle that the Liberal government overlooked when it instructed its lawyers to not use all the tools in their tool box to defend property rights in Canada for Canadians. They dropped the ball, and Canadians are paying the price.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Liberation of the Netherlands

2026-05-05

“I want to flatter my Dutch constituents. My parents were Dutch immigrants. Canada liberated the Netherlands long ago. Canadians and Dutch are good friends now. We raised a flag today to celebrate.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, 81 years ago today, on May 5, 1945, Canadian Forces finally secured the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. It marked the end of a hard-fought campaign that began on D-Day in northern France, continued through a bitterly cold winter and brutal fighting along the Scheldt River, and concluded with the liberation of Arnhem and surrounding towns and cities. Victory came at the high cost of the lives of 7,600 Canadian soldiers. From that sacrifice emerged a deep and enduring friendship between Canada and the Netherlands. It led to a wave of Dutch immigration to Canada after the war, including my own parents, and it continues to be honoured on both sides of the Atlantic. Earlier today, we reflected that legacy with a simple yet elegant flag-raising ceremony here in Ottawa, celebrating the lasting bond between two freedom-loving democratic nations. May the friendship endure.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-04

“The Prime Minister says private property rights come first. But at the trial, the government made it easier for the judge to say aboriginal title is more important. Now suddenly the government says they will argue the opposite on appeal. That doesn't make sense.”