“A recent court decision in British Columbia is causing real problems for a local land development project. We are not spreading fear. We are sharing the facts, and I want the member to speak about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, all morning, we on this side of the House have been raising some of the issues, some of the complexities, that have arisen from the Cowichan decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. It has been suggested by the Liberal side of the House that we are fearmongering or being misleading. I am very happy that the member opposite raised the issue of the Montrose application. He will be aware that Montrose had a land development project that has now run into complications on account of the Cowichan decision. This is not fearmongering. These are just facts. I wonder if he could comment about that.”

“The member says this is only a provincial problem, but he asked the Prime Minister about it just days ago. The city had to go to court to protect private property owners. Why did the federal government not do its job to prevent this problem?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, just a few moments ago, implied that this is only a provincial matter. Well, I would say to the member opposite, it is so much of a provincial matter that, just a few days ago, he asked the Prime Minister a lobbed question about this very issue, to which the Prime Minister had to respond. The member says it is clearly a provincial issue, yet he had the Prime Minister answer. The member also talked about the City of Richmond and that the city should have notified the residents. However, they were the only ones in court, in the longest trial in Canadian history, to argue for private property owners. Why did the government not do its job and avoid the situation we are in now?”

“A recent court decision in British Columbia created serious uncertainty for private property owners and hurt the local economy. The Liberal government caused this problem by failing to negotiate treaties and dropping key legal arguments during the trial. I want all MPs to vote for our motion to create a committee that will find ways to protect private property rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, the most important changes in life are often invisible at first. Seeds sprout underground before the first shoots appear. A ship that changes course by one degree makes no waves, but ends up somewhere entirely different. A coastline can look unchanged for years, while the tide quietly reshapes it, grain by grain. On August 7, 2025, when the B.C. Supreme Court released the Cowichan Tribes decision, nothing happened. No Canadian lost their home. Richmond continued to function. The Cowichan Tribes repeatedly said they never intended to interfere with private fee simple title. Yet, the judge decided, first, that the Cowichan have aboriginal title to land in Richmond, and second, that Crown grants of fee simple in those lands unjustifiably infringe that title. The court did say that private fee simple interests remain valid, but only “until such a time as a court may determine otherwise or until the conflicting interests are otherwise resolved through negotiation.” With that “until”, a seed was planted. Homeowners are now aware that a court could “determine otherwise”, and many of them are nervous. At paragraph 3543 of a very long decision, the judge added, “I accept that a declaration of Aboriginal title may give rise to some uncertainty for the fee simple title holders and it may have consequences for their interests in land.” Within days, it became clear that uncertainty had taken root. Within weeks, the first signs of a growing set of complications became visible. When a person gets a mortgage, their home is the collateral for the loan. If the mortgagor’s title is uncertain, they are going to have a problem. When a person sells a property, they promise valid title. If the seller’s title is uncertain, they are going to have a problem. Anyone who claims to understand the full implication of the Cowichan Tribes decision at this point is fooling themselves. We are now seeing transactions delayed, financing reconsidered and investment decisions paused in British Columbia. The case has already reportedly tanked a $100‑million deal and created complications with mortgage and property transactions. The B.C. Financial Services Authority is recommending independent legal advice before buying affected properties. Real estate agents are adding new clauses to purchase agreements across the province. Title insurers are reassessing risk. The Musqueam agreement followed quickly on the Cowichan Tribes decision, adding additional uncertainty. Investors are skittish and wondering what is coming next. Uncertainty is undermining confidence in land-based collateral in B.C. The decision is adding costs we cannot afford and disrupting parts of B.C.’s economy at a time when stability is badly needed. The problem is not that Canadians are unwilling to support reconciliation. In British Columbia, we desperately want to live in harmony, but anxiety creates strain, and government failure to negotiate treaties that would have provided legal clarity before these issues reached a crisis point is dividing our communities. For years, these Liberals talked reconciliation but dragged their feet on negotiation. They failed to negotiate a treaty with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost. Now ordinary Canadians are paying the price. Families trying to buy homes, indigenous communities seeking certainty, municipalities planning infrastructure, and businesses deciding whether to invest in British Columbia face years of legal limbo. Despite their insistence that they are going to appeal the decision and make everything fine again, the Liberals have painted themselves into a legal corner. The Prime Minister admits that property rights are “fundamental.” The parliamentary secretary admits that there are “potentially significant implications, including for private property rights” that “could extend across the country.” The Prime Minister and the Liberals say repeatedly that they will make all “viable” legal arguments, but here is the problem: Appeals are not do-overs, and the “raise it or lose it” principle is core to how our legal system works. People are not allowed to save some of their arguments for appeal, just in case they do not get what they want at trial. If they could, litigation would cost even more and it would never end. My dad used to refer to this as the “you snooze, you lose” principle. Paragraph 2096 of the decision states, “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” In plain English, what that means is that the Liberal government told its lawyers not to argue that fee simple title is superior to all other forms of title, and those lawyers amended the court documents in 2018 to take the argument out. A lot of Canadians are wondering how that could have been allowed to happen. We investigated and found the government’s legal directive, still online, that strongly encourages admissions of liability and discourages defences like extinguishment that would support fee simple title. It turns out that the one argument the government needed in a 513-day trial is the one it did not make. That means it is not viable on appeal. Conservatives have repeatedly asked how the Prime Minister is going to win an appeal with an argument he is not entitled to make. In response, we have been accused of “misinformation”, “fear and misinformation”, “fearmongering...spreading misinformation and...causing disruption in the economy of British Columbia”, and worse. We are not fearmongering, nor are we spreading misinformation. I have just laid out the problem in plain English. It is not unreasonable to want to understand how the government is going to deal with this very serious issue that is causing unsettling divisions among Canadians. Those divisions are not being caused by Conservatives. They are being caused by a Liberal government that does not make all available arguments, hides its mistakes and attacks anyone who asks how it is going to fix it. British Columbians bought their homes in good faith. They are trying not to lose them in the face of the rising cost of everything and an economic crisis already made worse by government. What is perhaps most frustrating for the homeowners I talk to is that there will be no clarity on these issues any time soon. We are staring down months, if not years, of litigation while the courts sort this out. The order itself has not been fully finalized. A 513-day judicial record still has to be assembled. Preliminary motions have to be heard before the appeal can start, including numerous intervenor applications and a motion to reopen the case by landowners who claim they should have been involved from the beginning. The justice minister has indicated that Canada is supporting that application, which will make the case drag on even longer if granted. I cannot help but wonder if the government is doing so in part because reopening the trial might get it that actual do-over. This is one of those cases where the process has process, but we got here through a complete failure of political leadership. The government knew this decision was coming. It knew there were more court cases coming. It yielded the field eight years ago, but avoided doing the hard work in that time of creating a clear legislative and policy framework around reconciliation, aboriginal title, private property rights and legal certainty. Instead, it left it all to the courts to be sorted out piecemeal through massive and voluminous constitutional litigation while the government stacks the court with activist judges. Long trials may work for lawyers billing by the hour, but they do not work for families trying to buy a home, businesses trying to invest or first nations trying to build a stable future. Reconciliation requires clarity, fairness and predictability for everyone. We need a government that is willing to find real solutions instead of continually asking the courts to do its job for it. I hope all members of this House will support our opposition day motion, in particular our call for a special multi-party committee to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect private property rights in Canada. Indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike need us to work together to come up with solutions to government incompetence on this file. The ship needs to change course, because it is currently headed for the rocks.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Ordinary Canadians are paying the price.”

  Said 8 times by 8 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“The previous Conservative government did a lot of important work on reconciliation, including apologizing for residential schools. The Liberals act like nothing happened before they took power. I want all parties to form a special committee so we can work on this together.”

“Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the negativity that comes across the aisle when we ask questions and raise issues. Stephen Harper delivered the residential school apology in the House. A Conservative government, led by former prime minister Stephen Harper, created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which resolved hundreds of specific claims, extended human rights protections on reserve and introduced reforms aimed at improving accountability and transparency for indigenous communities. Were there disagreements? Absolutely, there were. Were there tensions? Of course there were. Reconciliation is not advanced by pretending that nothing meaningful happened before 2015. Some of the most significant steps toward acknowledging historical wrongs and building new relationships with indigenous people happened under Conservative governments. The Liberals have asked what we want to do about it, and we have proposed that parties get together, form a special committee and work on this together. We owe it to Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, to make progress on this file.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I respect the Constitution. I want us to create a special committee so we can work together on this issue. I support this plan because it helps with reconciliation and gives Canadians certainty. I hope the member will work with us.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I am confused by the hon. member’s question. Of course we respect the Constitution. As for everything that I have stated in this speech, there is nothing in it that suggests that I want to do anything other than uphold it. Our proposal is to create a special committee. It is to work together. It is to find a way through this. The reason that I support that proposal is that I believe in reconciliation. I believe in creating certainty. It is important for all Canadians. I hope that the member will work with us to move this forward in a way that is good for everyone.”

“This legal case is complicated, and the government's court decisions have made it worse. We need to work together with Canadians to negotiate real solutions.”

“Mr. Speaker, I tried to stick to some pretty boring, cold, hard legal facts in my speech. Unfortunately, this is a very complicated case. It has been made more complicated by the litigation decisions that the government made in this particular case. It has been made more complicated by litigation directives that, quite frankly, do not make sense to many Canadians. If we are going to move forward on this, we really need to be thoughtful. We need to be collaborative. We need to walk alongside Canadians of all kinds in negotiating real solutions to these problems.”

“A court in British Columbia ruled that Indigenous land title applies to private property. This decision confuses landowners, hurts the economy, and makes people worry about whether they truly own their land. The federal government is appealing the ruling. I want the government to talk honestly with people in British Columbia while this long court case continues.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to an issue of great concern to every British Columbian, which is the impact of the B.C. Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and its effect on private property rights across British Columbia. It is the first time in Canada’s history that a court has declared aboriginal title over non-Crown lands, privately owned lands. There are 150 private landowners, farmers, homeowners and business owners in Richmond who discovered that their titles were now in conflict with aboriginal title designation. This is not a matter of reconciliation. It is a matter of confusion. It creates tension. It does not create a path forward. The Business Council of British Columbia conducted a survey of its members on the current uncertainty regarding B.C. property rights and found that 98% of respondents are very concerned. They are not a little concerned, but very concerned. We have already seen financing for job-created projects, including those for indigenous communities, pull back. Reconciliation remains the goal of every British Columbian I speak with, whether they have called their province home for a few years or for a few millennia. Let us not forget that our indigenous peoples own a huge swath of private property in British Columbia. They too are left in confusion by Cowichan. Our province wants to prove that the stewardship of British Columbia’s many indigenous communities, both on their lands and in many projects of prosperity they are engaged in, can be a model for the nation. What we are not calling for today is for the government to appeal this decision, as it has already, and rightly, said it will do so. What we are asking for is that the federal government engage with British Columbians straightforwardly throughout what will likely be a long judicial process. We ask it to engage with British Columbians who are confused as to whether their private property is still theirs in full and whether their property rights, long an ancient feature of our legal traditions stretching back centuries, are still theirs. We ask it to decry those who use an error of the court to spread hate, and we seek to understand those who do not know if the home, business or property in their name will remain theirs. The decisions of the courts will not be swift. Uncertainty will persist so long as Ottawa remains in court and Victoria remains deadlocked. A very real and local example of this uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls.”