Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Indigenous Affairs

Question period focused on a B.C. Supreme Court ruling (the Cowichan decision) and its implications for private property rights. Conservatives said the ruling creates uncertainty that could hurt housing and property values, citing reports of possible drops in Richmond, and asked why Liberals voted against a Conservative motion on protecting property rights. Liberals said the Conservative motion contained false information about the Musqueam agreement, noted that multiple governments and First Nations are appealing the Cowichan ruling, pointed to a New Brunswick court case that reached a different conclusion, and said the government is appealing because it disagrees with the ruling while committing to protecting private property and pursuing negotiated agreements with First Nations.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

6 statements

Tamara Jansen

Conservative
“When people do not trust property rights, fewer homes get built and housing costs more. I want to know why the Liberals voted against our motion to protect property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, economists and business voices across the country are warning that, when people no longer trust the rules around property ownership, investment disappears, housing slows down and affordability gets worse. We are now seeing stalled projects, bankrupt developers and fewer homes being built while young Canadians lose hope of ownership, but the Liberal government calls that fearmongering. Instead of admitting there is a huge problem, they keep acting like everything is just okey-dokey. Did the Liberals vote down our Conservative motion to protect property rights yesterday because they are completely blind to this very real problem?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“The Conservative motion from yesterday is full of false information about the Musqueam agreement. The agreement is online, and it clearly says it is not a treaty or a land claim. The Conservatives should actually read it.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the motion that was presented yesterday was full of false information, including when they talked about the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement is available online, but I know the Conservatives have not read it. I will feel free to read section 5.1: “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements”. I will also read section 5.2: “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam’s Rights and Title.” The whole agreement is available online, and I encourage the Conservatives to read it.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Ellis Ross

Conservative
“The Liberals voted against protecting private property rights and are relying on a private business in court to defend them instead. Canadian homeowners need certainty. Will the Prime Minister protect private property rights while building good partnerships with First Nations?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government calls concerns about private property rights fearmongering, yet the Liberals, as the number one defendant, are appealing the Cowichan decision. The Liberal government is depending entirely on Montrose Properties, a private business, to defend private property on behalf of Canadians. On top of this, the Liberals voted against a Conservative motion that would protect private property rights. Canadian homeowners deserve certainty and clarity. Will the Liberal Prime Minister secure the private property rights of Canadians and provide economic certainty while creating respectful partnerships with first nations?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Rebecca Alty

Liberal
“We are appealing the Cowichan court decision. Two Canadian courts have ruled differently on this issue, so we need a clear answer. We will protect private property.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis

  • A repeated line

    “We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches.”

    Said 4 times by 2 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, the province, the City of Richmond, Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Cowichan are all appealing the Cowichan decision. There is also another court case. It is in New Brunswick. The Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion than what was reached in Cowichan. We now have two courts in Canada taking very different approaches. This divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity we are seeking in the Cowichan case. The Cowichan case is in active litigation, including today. We will defend private property.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Chak Au

Conservative

Linked statement

“A recent court ruling could cause Richmond property values to drop by 40 percent. The government created this uncertainty, and it worries families and businesses. I want the government to fix this problem and protect homeowners.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal housing minister accused Conservatives of fearmongering over the Cowichan ruling, but the impact is already real and immediate. According to expert reports in March, Richmond property value could fall by 40% because of uncertainty created by the government. Families, homeowners and businesses are worried, yet the Liberals remain in denial, denying the impact and denying that their litigation directive was a mistake. When will the government wake up and restore certainty for homeowners?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Jill McKnight

Liberal
“We want to work with First Nations through talks instead of court. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court ruling on Cowichan, so we are appealing it. We will always protect private property.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our government knows that the path of reconciliation with first nations is how Canada moves forward as a country. Negotiated agreements, like that with Tsawwassen in my riding of Delta, are one solution. With Cowichan, negotiations failed, and the case went to the courts. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court decision and have filed our appeal. Our government has always defended and will always defend private property ownership.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 122

All 46 items ·
  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 64 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 45 statements
  3. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 16 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 10 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Safety 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Women and Gender Equality 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Emergency Management 3 statements
  22. Government Orders Business of Supply 15 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of Supply 15 statements
  24. Government Orders Business of Supply 27 statements
  25. Private Members' Business An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping 12 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Government Orders Business of Supply 366 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements