Business of Supply

An opposition day debate focused on a British Columbia court decision that recognized Cowichan Tribes’s Aboriginal title over land that includes some privately owned parcels, and on the federal government’s handling of it. Conservatives said the ruling creates uncertainty for private property owners in British Columbia and asked the government to direct its lawyers to defend private property rights, protect homeowners in future Indigenous agreements, release a plan within 30 days, and create a committee of MPs to study the issue; one member also linked the government’s handling of land negotiations and treaties to frustration in Alberta. Liberals responded that the Conservatives are trying to divide Canadians, said many government members including those from British Columbia have spoken on the issue, emphasized reconciliation and national unity, and raised concerns about Parliament directing litigation. Bloc members asked why the issue was brought straight to the House rather than committee, how the government can act while the court process is ongoing, and why the government decided to appeal; one also asked whether the ruling could affect Quebec. A Green member and an NDP member argued that Indigenous rights and the Constitution must be upheld and that the ruling does not remove private property from Canadians. The bill title provided, the One Canadian Economy Act, was not the subject of these statements.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

69 statements

Aaron Gunn, North Island—Powell River

Conservative
“New agreements and treaties with First Nations must protect private property. This agreement does not do that, and that is a problem.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member across the way. It does not mention private property, and that is the problem. There are no explicit protections for private property in the agreement and we are currently in a legal scenario. We are in legal limbo as we await the appeal process of the Cowichan decision. As we said, as the Conservative Party, we have demanded that every new agreement, every new treaty with first nations, must have explicit protections for private property. It is a fundamental human right. That is what we are going to continue to push for on this side of the aisle.

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“The member has been talking about protecting property rights. I want him to clarify if he is asking us to reopen the Constitution to add property rights to it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. As I listened to him, I wondered what he was actually proposing. What we are seeing here is the Conservative Party attacking guideline number 14, arguing that limitation defences were not argued. We see that it is possible for the attorney general to raise limitation arguments under common law simply by obtaining authorization from the assistant deputy attorney general. Now, my colleague has been talking a lot about the possibility of strengthening property rights and giving them constitutional status. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Is he proposing today that we reopen the Constitution so that property rights can be enshrined into it? I would like him to clarify that.

Aaron Gunn, North Island—Powell River

Conservative
“We must protect people's private property rights. The government needs to let Crown lawyers fully defend private property in court. We should not make any new agreements or treaties with First Nations unless they clearly protect private property, and we support appealing the Cowichan court ruling.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the first thing to do is to remove these legal guidelines that have restricted our Crown counsel from defending private property rights with all of the tools in their tool kit. There should be no further agreements or treaties made with first nations without explicit protections for private property embedded within. As far as what comes beyond that, my position, which I believe is also the position of my colleagues, is that when it comes to defending private property, we do whatever it takes. Obviously, we are going to support the appeal of the Cowichan decision through the courts, but there is no step along this way, along this path, where we are going to allow the private property rights, the fundamental human rights of our fellow Canadians, to be abridged and to be up for debate.

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“Liberals accuse Conservatives of spreading misinformation and dividing people. But the mayor of Richmond said only the city fought in court to protect private property rights, while the federal and provincial governments did not. Is the mayor also spreading misinformation, or is he right that both governments failed to protect private landowners?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, all throughout today’s debate, Liberals continue to say that it is Conservatives who are being divisive and creating misinformation, among even worse items. Now, the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, wrote in a letter from the city to all the landowners who were affected that the “City of Richmond was the only party at trial arguing that the Crown grants of fee simple necessarily extinguished Aboriginal title. The federal and provincial Crowns were each labouring under litigation directives that constrained their ability to argue extinguishment”. Does the member believe that the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, is offering misinformation and being divisive, or is he simply calling out both the federal and provincial governments for their failures to make arguments to protect B.C.’s private property owners’ rights?

Aaron Gunn, North Island—Powell River

Conservative

Linked statement

“The federal government and the government of British Columbia failed to defend private property rights in court. They also signed agreements that do not protect private property. This hurts homeowners and businesses in British Columbia. We need a government that protects Canadians' property rights.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Richmond is simply stating the facts as they are. The federal government and the provincial government in B.C. failed to make legal arguments to defend private property. That is a fact. However, what may be even more inexcusable is that after that court decision was made, they continued to go out and sign agreements, whether they were treaties in British Columbia or the Musqueam agreement, that did not explicitly protect private property in this new era of legal uncertainty that we now find ourselves in. That is not fair to homeowners in B.C. That is not fair to private businesses. We need to get a government that is actually putting the private property rights of Canadians first.

Marc Dalton, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge

Conservative
“People work hard to own their homes. A recent court decision in British Columbia puts private property rights at risk because of Indigenous land claims. The government did not defend private landowners in court, and its rules tell lawyers not to protect private property. This creates uncertainty, hurts the economy, and scares homeowners. The government must protect private property rights.”
  • 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, we are talking today about a very important issue that is impacting all British Columbians and has implications for all Canadians: property rights. In the 2021 census, two-thirds, about 66.8%, of British Columbian households owned their own home, and it was about the same throughout the country. One-third were renters, and a good many of those renters wanted to eventually own. It has become increasingly difficult during the past decade under the Liberals due to the cost of housing, rising inflation and less and less disposable income to pay for things like groceries, gas and taxes, let alone a down payment on a home. People work hard to pay down their mortgages. It can take decades. I remember one worker I spoke to not that long ago telling me that he was working seven days a week, and very long days, just to keep a roof over his family’s head and to keep their home. “It is nothing fancy”, he told me. He said that he could not give his body a break. I think of myself when I was a new teacher buying a condo, working long hours, extra hours, for money to go towards the mortgage. I think of seniors who have spent a lifetime paying down their mortgage and want to use their house as a nest egg to provide financial resources and security for their retirement and pass it on to their children and grandchildren. I do not like saying this, but this is being undermined today. In British Columbia, we sometimes have small earthquakes, we have not had a large for probably over 100 years, but I have felt them. There are tremors, foreshocks and aftershocks. The foreshocks around the world sometimes indicate that a big one is coming and should not be ignored. However, with private property rights, there are some shocks happening. The Liberals can just ignore them and say that nothing is happening. “It is the same old, same old” is what we hear from them, but there is something dangerous looming, and it is already here. Private property rights are often considered one of the foundational elements of a free and stable economy. It is important, because it impacts people’s economic freedom, their personal security and investment. For generations, Canadians have understood a basic principle: If they lawfully purchase a home, if they hold title to their property, if they invest their life savings into a piece of land, and not just their life savings, but their sweat and work, then the law protects that ownership. It is certainly not a privilege. It is one of the cornerstones of democratic society. It is what allows families to build a future. It allows farmers to invest in their land. It allows businesses to create jobs and communities to grow. Where there is uncertainty in property rights, confidence erodes, investment dries up, families hesitate and communities stagnate. This is a big concern. I had a booth at a home show over the past weekend for several days and talked to hundreds of people. The topic of property rights came up over and over again, unsolicited. It is not just what the Liberals call “fearmongering”. It is what people are feeling in the community. It is not some bad dream they are having. It is reality. There are things happening, and the Liberals have been asleep at the switch, which is an old expression. The Liberals are more than asleep. Their incompetence is a key reason that we find ourselves in the mess we are in. Last August, the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision of the B.C. Supreme Court threatened the private property rights of landowners in British Columbia and potentially in other provinces. In one act, the judge deemed the aboriginal title had prior and senior rights over fee simple home ownership, like over 800 acres in Richmond worth a billion dollars. It is setting a precedent that other judgments can be made on. That is the concern. That is a big concern. It sets a precedent that can expand. It is already serious enough. This ruling has shaken the foundations of British Columbia’s economy and sparked fear among landowners province-wide. As Conservatives, we are bringing this up. We are hearing what communities, like Richmond, and the owners are saying. I have met with farmers who have spent generations on their land, clearing, working and spending money. This is all being threatened and the Liberals pooh-pooh us. They say we are just barking up a tree. We are not barking up a tree. This is serious and they need to take it seriously. They cannot just say it is in the court’s hands, that we need to forget about it and just go back to sleep. We are not going to. We are going to fight for this. We are going to fight for landowners. We are going to fight for homeowners. We are going to fight for our communities. We are going to try to wake up the Liberals because they have gotten us into this situation. 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. The government will say it is there and it is fighting for it, but it did not actually intervene. It said it would appeal on the very last day. The government said it had better do that as it might not be very good for it electorally. That is what it is thinking of. It is all electoral; it is all speech. Under the Prime Minister’s leadership, the federal government continues to maintain the same legal directive adopted in 2019: litigation guideline 14. That directive led Ottawa to abandon the argument in defence of fee simple title in British Columbia, including in the Cowichan case. It is still on the government’s website today, unless it was taken out this morning, to not encourage the government lawyers to stand up for fee simple property. The Liberals say we are fearmongering. That is not true. They are trying to minimize a very serious situation that British Columbians find themselves in. They say we are being racist. It is not true. Conservatives believe in reconciliation with indigenous people. It is essential. It is a moral obligation, a constitutional responsibility and an opportunity to build a stronger Canada founded on mutual respect and shared prosperity. Reconciliation cannot succeed if it is built on ambiguity, secrecy and legal confusion. What does this all mean? What is going on here for private property owners? What does it mean for municipalities? What does it mean for future land claims and development projects? British Columbia has been an important engine in Confederation and in the economy, but it is not the same. We are struggling here economically and developmentally. When business owners are afraid of expanding, that has an impact on jobs. The lack of jobs impacts taxes and revenues, which impacts health care and everything else.

Rebecca Alty, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Liberal
“We should talk to residents to explain Indigenous land rights instead of scaring them. Two different courts made opposite rulings on land title, which is why we appealed one of them for clarity. Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, which clearly says it is not a land claim. What more would it take for them to understand that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that, yes, I also speak to many residents who are concerned and have questions, but the important thing is to talk with residents and to explain the issue and not to stoke fear and confusion. In December 2025, the New Brunswick Court issued a decision on aboriginal title that ruled differently. Therefore, we have two court cases and two different decisions. We have appealed the Cowichan decision because there is a need for further clarity. I have not met a Conservative yet who has read the Musqueam agreement. Section 5.1 of the Musqueam agreement specifically states that it is not a land claims agreement. Can the member opposite please explain? If this is not explicit enough, what would it take?

Marc Dalton, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge

Conservative
“People cannot renew their mortgages and businesses cannot get loans because of legal uncertainty with First Nations treaties. This is causing serious problems in the Lower Mainland and other areas, and I blame the Liberals for it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 37 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are ignoring what is happening. Do they think that the business owners and the homeowners are just making things up, saying that they cannot renew their mortgages or that business owners cannot get loans? That is in the law. It is happening. It is the uncertainty. It is what is not in the treaties and the agreements, so it is causing problems. It is causing problems within the Lower Mainland and it is causing problems in other first nations. It is a mess and they can put that on the Liberals.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“I am asking the House to agree to move to private members' business now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin Private Members’ Business.

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