Debates of May 7th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we saw in the Cowichan case was that nobody informed the property owners that their property could be affected if a decision by the courts was released, which we see now. Nobody let them know. The only reason the property owners in Richmond found out was because of the media or the city itself. The federal government was silent.

In the Musqueam agreement, there were no consultations within neighbouring nations. Nobody else was consulted on this agreement. The government is negotiating all this stuff away behind closed doors. Canadians deserve better.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

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.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave a number of histories of aboriginal title. However, he missed the Haida aboriginal title, which includes private property and Crown land. I am just wondering why he omitted to discuss that. It has been in legislation for the past two years. I am wondering if it just does not support the argument the Conservatives are trying to make.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I had a half-hour or an hour, I would have talked about all the interesting cases, but I had only 10 minutes. The Haida case is obviously a very important case. It talks about and expands on the principle of the duty to consult. I will not argue with that. There is a duty to consult. We agree with that. We agree that reconciliation is important, but to undermine the private property regime that Canada's economy is built on is not the way forward on reconciliation.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that it is important to clarify the issue and debate it. Why do the Conservatives think that we cannot have this debate at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, normally we would try to argue it in committee, but it got shut down. We have put forward a motion, a proposal, that the House form a committee to look at this issue. In the meantime, we need to argue it in the House. This is very important to Canadians. It is important to people in my riding and to people in metro Vancouver, because they are deeply concerned about the uncertainty being brought by this decision and by the lack of action by the federal government.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent. We have heard repeatedly from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations that the government's response to the Cowichan decision was to immediately appeal. Is that fact? If it is not fact, what does that say about the importance the government places on this issue?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard on a number of occasions that the Liberals appealed the decision as soon as they could. That is just not true. They waited until literally the last minute to appeal it.

More importantly, the Liberals say they stand for private property rights. However, they did not use all the tools in their tool box to do that. Even though private property owners have not been named as defendants, the Attorney General could and should have been there to defend private property owners, which he did not do.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our new government and the Prime Minister have been clear that we will protect private property rights for Canadians. I have great respect for the member opposite and his extensive legal experience. What does the member believe is the best legal path forward to make sure that private property rights are protected?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment coming from a member who did not consult with the first nation communities in her riding when she asked to drop the indigenous name from the riding name.

Yes, the Liberals today are saying that they will defend private property rights. However, they failed to do it before, and they have now worked themselves into a corner where they are not able to advance some of the arguments at the Court of Appeal that they should have raised at the trial level.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague had an extensive career in corporate and real estate law. His speech was interesting, because we talk about homeowners, but the member talked about warehouses, golf courses and investments. Is the member as worried as homeowners in the B.C. region are with this decision coming up?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Again, it was a short speech, and I did not have time to work everything into it.

I have spoken to a number of the landowners, including a commercial landowner in the region who has a project under way. He had financing in place. He had tenants for the new warehouse complex he was going to build. All of it is on hold. The company is now making an application to the court, doing what the federal government and the Attorney General should have done during the trial many years ago. He is making an application to argue the rights of private property owners.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking directly to Canadians who may be watching this debate today and feeling anxious or uncertain. As the Prime Minister has made clear, “private property rights are fundamental...[and our government] will always defend them.” Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property.

Before I begin, I want to remind members of this House that the Cowichan case is subject to active litigation and appeal. As it stands right now, the trial order has not yet been entered and will not be entered until the Montrose application to reopen the trial, which I will discuss later, is resolved. Given the impact our words here today could have on this active litigation, it is important that all members of this House, including myself, are judicious and responsible with their words.

Let us get to the motion. Our government agrees with some of the principles in the motion and already takes many of them into negotiations. However, we will not allow the Conservatives a platform to continue to spread disinformation with a special committee. We will not allow this Parliament to be used to relitigate an active court case with partisan rhetoric, which could potentially jeopardize the ongoing litigation. Respect for the judicial process is essential. Canadians do not need the Conservatives' political chaos and poorly informed commentary layered on top of the complex legal questions at play in this case.

Further to that, this motion is redundant as it calls on the government to do things we are already doing. For example, in the Cowichan case, the government has defended the validity of grants of fee simple title by the Crown and will continue to do so on appeal.

Again, as the Prime Minister said last week, “private property rights are fundamental...[and we] will always defend them.”

It is already Government of Canada policy to only make rights and title agreements that protect the private property of Canadians. I can assure this House, and all Canadians, that we will not, nor would we ever, entertain or even consider an agreement where Canadians lose their private property. In fact, we have been signing modern agreements with first nations since the 1970s. None of those modern treaties, negotiated agreements or federal approaches have led to Canadians losing privately owned land. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has protected and will protect private property.

Before I go any further, I would like to briefly share my perspective on this debate. I come from a region shaped by modern land claims based on historic treaties. I am not indigenous. I own private property in an area covered by a modern treaty. I have lived, worked and governed in contexts where indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians have learned—sometimes imperfectly, but always constructively—to coexist on the same territory.

This experience has taught me a fundamental lesson: The key to success is not to stoke fear. It is not spread disinformation, and it is certainly not to use political opportunism. The key is to sit down at a table, have constructive discussions and responsibly carry out the difficult work of reconciliation. That is what our government is doing, but that is precisely what this motion seeks to undermine.

This motion wraps itself in the language of private property while fundamentally misrepresenting the government's position, the facts on the ground and recent federal agreements with indigenous partners. It also confuses the results of a court decision, one that our government fundamentally disagrees with, and a negotiated agreement that does not deal with Canadians' private property interests. It suggests that government agreements are giving away private land. It suggests that, because of the Musqueam agreement, Canadians could lose their homes. None of that is true. What is true is that this motion is an opportunistic political play by the Conservatives to create fear, stress and division. If they truly cared about addressing Canadians' concerns, they should have put forward a motion grounded in facts and that reflects the situation as it is, not one that only serves their political interests.

Let us turn first to the Cowichan decision. This case has a long and complex history. It is, in fact, the longest civil trial in Canadian history at over 500 days. At its core, it raises legal questions about aboriginal title and how it interacts with Crown obligations and existing land ownership systems. Throughout the case, Canada has consistently defended the validity of Crown grants of fee simple title, and we continue to do so today. That position has not changed.

We also recognize that private ownership is a foundational part of Canada's legal system. It gives people certainty and confidence in their homes and businesses. That matters to Canadians and it matters to our economy. Canada has formally appealed the decision because we believe further legal clarity is required, particularly with respect to private property interests. We will advance all legally viable arguments to protect that clarity. Importantly, the court ruled that British Columbia, not the federal government, has the duty to negotiate in good faith regarding privately held lands, because jurisdiction over private property and land registries rests with the provinces.

Section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The Conservatives continue to ignore the fact that this is constitutional reality, not political choice. To that end, British Columbia has appealed. British Columbia is acting within its jurisdiction, and British Columbia is working on measures to support potentially impacted private property owners.

When it comes to aboriginal title, more generally, it is important to note that the law is far from settled in this regard. For example, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion in J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation, as compared to the B.C. Supreme Court's decision in Cowichan. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal states that it is open for a court to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that a declaration of aboriginal title cannot be made over private property.

Canada is waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to confirm whether it will hear an appeal of the Wolastoqey Nation decision, and we are monitoring this case closely. We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the court is needed.

We recognize that the Cowichan decision has caused uncertainty and anxiety. Canadians deserve to feel secure in their homes and investments. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. Further, since the ruling last summer, we, Canada, consented to the Montrose application and we are now awaiting a ruling.

For those who are unfamiliar, Montrose is a company that operates in Richmond and claims to be the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. If the trial is reopened in a limited way, Montrose, an impacted private property owner, will have the opportunity to present evidence and its perspective on the impacts of this decision. The judge will rule on whether or not there should be a limited reopening of the trial. This may impact the decision made by the judge in August 2025.

We consented to this application because we believe that when people may be directly affected by legal ruling, they deserve to be heard. Canadians know what they can expect from our government. We have appealed the Cowichan decision, and we will advance all legally viable arguments to preserve the certainty of private property interests.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, though, the Conservatives believe that they should use Parliament to relitigate an active court case. Let me be clear. Having these discussions here on the floor of the House of Commons or in a special parliamentary committee, instead of in a courtroom where they belong, has the potential to negatively impact Canada's legal position and may actually undermine arguments on appeal that would protect private property. We must respect the judicial process and continue to seek resolution of this matter through the courts.

The Conservatives have suggested that the directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples restricted Canada's ability to advance legally viable defences in the Cowichan litigation, specifically referring to litigation guideline number 14. Litigation guideline number 14 of the directive does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.

Canada is currently reviewing potential legal arguments for the Cowichan appeal, and all potential defences remain on the table. Again, our government will always raise valid arguments that we believe will be successful in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve.

Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.

Canada is currently reviewing all legally viable arguments for the Cowichan appeal and all potential defences remain on the table. However, even if the Conservatives are not listening, I want to reassure Canadians at home who are watching that Canada will advance all legally viable arguments on appeal to protect private property.

I now want to turn to the incremental rights recognition agreement with the Musqueam first nation, another area where misinformation has flourished. This agreement did not appear overnight.

In 2017, Cowichan and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding. In February 2026, that work evolved into a framework agreement. This is not a title agreement, and it is not a land claim. Let me be absolutely clear on a point that has caused concern: This agreement does not affect private property. In fact, it cannot affect private property because it is a bilateral agreement between Musqueam and the federal government.

Why does that matter? It is because, again, private property falls under provincial jurisdiction. As I have said, section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not have the authority to negotiate Canadians' privately held lands, and this agreement does not in any way attempt to do that.

It is important to note that all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level protect private property. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Further, it is important to note that the Musqueam themselves have been clear. In fact, just a few weeks ago, Musqueam's chief negotiator said that private property was never on the table. It was a non-starter from the very beginning.

As the agreement itself states, this work is about building relationships, establishing principles and setting out processes for future discussion, not transferring land. I really want to highlight one bullet from the agreement for us to remember throughout the debate today. It reads:

For a long time we, Musqueam and Canada, misunderstood each other. We are all one and we are here to stay. It was impossible for this misunderstanding to go on. We wanted to reach a mutual understanding and that is why we gathered together to make an informed decision.

In the spirit of reconciliation and consistent with the principle of nəća̓ʔmat ct [which means we are all one], Musqueam will continue to work collaboratively with Canada to further our mutual interests to transform conflict and injustice, to create partnerships in the spirit of unity, with the aim of developing processes for shared decision-making, revenue and benefit sharing, and dispute resolution.

This agreement is the result of more than 10 years of negotiation. Negotiation, instead of litigation, provides clarity, stability and better outcomes for everyone involved. Again, despite what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, it does not interfere with fee simple property ownership.

The maps circulating online showing “land being given away” are maps of Musqueam's claimed historical territory, not title. Conservatives confusing the two is either careless or deliberate. The government has not agreed to anything new with respect to these areas. We will not, cannot and will never negotiate away Canadians' private property. There are no clauses transferring private homes. There is no sudden erosion of municipal or provincial authority, and there is no legal basis for the climate of panic the Conservatives are attempting to create.

I will remind the members on the other side of the aisle that responsible leadership means actually reading agreements before condemning them.

Let me offer the House a concrete example of a title agreement, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, which became a law in B.C. on May 16, 2024. The law confirms the “Rising Tide” Haida Title Lands Agreement and enshrines the recognition of Haida aboriginal title in the laws of B.C. The agreements and legislation provided important protections such as the following: Private property, residential, commercial or industrial, is not affected by the recognition of Haida aboriginal title; and privately owned land, or fee simple property, remains under provincial jurisdiction and the recognition of Haida aboriginal title will not change any rights associated with it.

This means that business licences, building permits and zoning continue as is through the reconciling process. It means that key infrastructure, like ferry terminals and highways, continues to be operated and maintained by the province. It means that provincial and municipal services provided by Haida Gwaii, including health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services, also continue as they are.

The agreement and provincial legislation came into effect on July 5, 2024. It has been almost two years and the sky has not fallen. Life has continued on for folks.

That is what negotiated coexistence looks like in a constitutional democracy.

With regard to aboriginal rights and treaty rights, we will continue to hold consultations on mines and major projects of national interest. None of this is new. Even before the title was established, the Crown always had a duty to consult. Title clarifies the rights of indigenous partners; it does not invent duties out of thin air.

In 2014, when the Supreme Court affirmed aboriginal title in the Tsilhqot'in decision, some critics predicted chaos. They warned of economic collapse. They said Canadians would lose their land. None of that happened.

That was 12 years ago. We have gained clarity about the nature and location of lands covered by Tsilhqot'in aboriginal title. That clarity has provided certainty to investors, communities and the government, which has enabled them to build.

One of the greatest harms of this motion is not legal, but social. It invites Canadians to fear reconciliation. That is not leadership. Many Canadians were not taught about treaties or unceded land, but a lack of education is not an excuse for the Conservatives' spreading misinformation now. Leadership means explaining complexity, not exploiting it for fundraising opportunities.

Let us be serious. We can protect private property. We can advance aboriginal title and rights. We can do both without reopening the Constitution as this motion proposes because, frankly, we do not have time for a constitutional wrangling exercise. Canadians want homes built, projects approved and the economy growing. We can do that right now within our existing constitutional framework.

Hope is not a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy. If the Conservatives ever hope to lead, they will need to learn how to work with all Canadians, including indigenous partners. That means quitting the fearmongering, quitting the misinformation, starting to learn and starting to build relationships. They need to recognize that reconciliation and economic growth are not opposites. They are partners when done properly.

I will close where I began. To Canadians watching today, they still own their home and they can still renovate it, and our government is fully committed to protecting their property rights. In indigenous treaty or agreement discussions, private property is not on the table. It is not today and it will not be tomorrow.

What we are doing is building a stronger, more honest, more stable foundation for coexistence and prosperity. What is on the table is whether this House chooses clarity over chaos, unity over division and serious governance over fear-based politics.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the minister, but I have some deep concerns with what she was saying. The minister implied that the opposition is fearmongering. I would invite her to speak to the property owners and business owners affected by this, who are watching their properties drop amid the continued questions about whether they are able to refinance their house or business.

The minister also spoke about misinformation. I am wondering which part of my speech is misinformation. Was it that in 2018, the government removed arguments for fee simple property within the Cowichan case? Was it that the Province of British Columbia had to step in to backstop business owners and homeowners to be able to secure financing to continue their operations? Was it the proposed developments that were cancelled because of this? Was it where they signed an agreement with Musqueam that did not take fee simple property?

Which part is misinformation?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point regarding the Musqueam agreement, it is an incremental rights and recognition agreement. If folks are interested, they can go to the website and there is a description of what an MOU is and what a framework agreement is. We are currently at the framework agreement. Back in 2017, we signed the MOU with Musqueam. It took nine years to come to the framework agreement. It outlines the next steps for discussion.

The other two agreements that were signed were about marine stewardship and the fisheries.

The motion the Conservatives are proposing says we have not included private property in every agreement. I ask the Conservatives why we would include that in every agreement, including the education agreements, the health agreements and the self-government agreements. When an agreement does not touch on private property, we do not include it, because it does not touch on private property.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that one of our responsibilities is to explain complexity. I would add that another of our responsibilities is to clear up any grey areas surrounding a topic so that the public, Quebeckers and Canadians can clearly understand it.

Today, we are debating a Conservative motion. In a few minutes, I will speak to the Bloc Québécois's position on that motion. Would the minister be willing to have this matter discussed by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, for example?

By the way, the committee never shut down this idea. A motion was tabled, and I heard someone say a while ago that it had been shut down, but it was never shut down. That means it can be done. In fact, when certain items of business were being granted priority this morning, the Conservatives did not bring this motion forward. I simply want to correct the information provided earlier.

I would therefore like to know whether the minister would allow us to find a way to discuss this matter, perhaps in committee, for everyone's benefit.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I think that there is an opportunity here to discuss how we can improve awareness about treaties. There is a lot of disinformation and denialism about history. We would love it if the committee could take this opportunity to look into how we can improve awareness about treaties and residential schools. I think it would be a good exercise. It would also be a good idea to look at how we can address the issue of aboriginal title, since there are numerous examples across Canada. How can we explain this better and educate Canadians on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and value what the minister has put clearly on the record to provide assurances and make sure that there is some reality in the debate we are having today.

I share the concern with regard to misinformation because of the damage it causes. I think about issues such as reconciliation and how important it is that we continue to move forward on that. It is important that we continue to work nation-to-nation as we look at ways to see the potential of Canada realized.

My concern is that intentionally misleading information causes damage to all of us. Could the minister provide her thoughts on the negative side of misinformation?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, tied to both of my colleagues' questions, I think about the opportunity for improved communications, but also the uncertainty and fear that can happen in the investment world when the education is lacking. When there is talk about the federal government giving away all this land, which is inaccurate, that is misinformation and it leads to that uncertainty the member is speaking of.

Canada was just at the United Nations indigenous peoples forum. We are a leader that many countries look to with regard to reconciliation. We can continue to shine. Our journey toward reconciliation is not over. It is a long journey, and we need to continue to evolve. Making sure that we continue to advance modern treaties and aboriginal title in a way that protects private property is important work that we need to continue.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about misinformation as though the Conservatives, when we raise issues with or weaknesses in the Liberal Party, are spreading misinformation. All we are doing is shedding light on their incompetence.

We have a real-life example in the Montrose application, which the minister has already mentioned. We talked to them. They had a project that was ready to go. It has fallen apart. This is not misinformation. This is the reality on the ground. It is not the Conservatives that are repeating this. These are the facts on the ground that are making life difficult for investors.

Can the minister comment on that?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the courts and litigation create uncertainty. This case began in 2014. The ruling ended in 2025. All parties appealed the decision. Montrose has asked for the trial to be reopened. We are awaiting the decision from the judge.

Litigation can create uncertainty while we are working through these steps, which is why we prefer to work through negotiations. Agreements like that with Haida, where the federal government, the province and the Haida Nation were able to come together and actually work through how private property and aboriginal title can work together, are a prime example.

It is ensuring that Canadians understand the current stage of the legal process, because it is being appealed. There is the opportunity that the trial may be reopened in a limited way. It is important that we continue to tell Canadians the current facts, as well as continue to work through negotiations.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and heard for weeks now, since the decision was made, about how the Conservatives are spreading misinformation, yet we know government lawyers do not act on their own. They get direction, and that direction came directly from the cabinet to the government lawyers on principle 14 in this particular decision.

Could the minister please clarify for Canadians the misinformation the Liberal Party is now propagating that suggests the misinformation is actually the failure to admit that the direction given to their own lawyers failed Canadians in this particular case?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention litigation guideline number 14, which the Conservatives have referenced a number of times. I encourage them to read beyond the first sentence and actually read the whole principle.

If they get to the second sentence, they will see that all defences are available. However, “defences must not be pleaded simply in the hope that through discoveries or investigation some basis for the defence may be found.” We can only use defences “where there is a principled basis and evidence to support the defence”.

We are in active litigation. We are continuing to review all viable legal arguments. However, when the members mention guideline number 14, I really encourage them to read beyond sentence number one and get through the whole principle. I also encourage the Conservatives to read the whole directive, because I think it will enlighten them.

Again, we are looking at all viable options in the appeal.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on this opposition day.

I would like to begin by explaining the underlying premise of my remarks. I want to talk about this in a reasonable and balanced manner, because I think it is in everyone's best interest for Quebeckers and Canadians to be informed. I am glad the Conservatives moved this motion, because it gives us a chance to discuss an issue that may affect all Quebeckers and Canadians. It is important.

For that reason alone, I can say that the Bloc Québécois supports the motion in principle, and I emphasize the word “principle”. That does not mean we agree with all the wording in the motion, and I will have the opportunity in my speech to talk more about certain aspects. Even though I have 20 minutes to speak, I am afraid that will not be long enough to say everything I want to say. This is a testament to just how rich this subject is, how far-reaching it is, and how it merits further discussion.

First of all, the reason we support the motion in principle is that the decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada creates real legal uncertainty in Quebec and across Canada. This requires a response from the government, and we cannot simply deny the scope of the decision. It is groundbreaking in the sense of being new, and it creates very real and concrete obligations for both the provincial and federal governments in the reconciliation process with indigenous communities.

Of course, as we have been hearing since this morning, this raises fundamental questions about land rights in Canada. When we talk about land and land rights, it naturally affects everyone. The decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada has raised uncertainties regarding private property rights that cannot be left unaddressed. We have discussed uncertainty and we have discussed concerns. When I mentioned earlier to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations that we need to clear up grey areas, that is what I meant. That is one way of doing things. There are others that are complementary, but that is one.

I would like to mention that property rights are not consistent across the country. The wording of the motion does not take that into account. I will give the example of Quebec, because we have a civil law tradition. We grant a real and absolute private property rights. In contrast, Canada takes a fee simple approach, as we see in the motion. Canada also relies on the many court rulings that have been handed down, including the Cowichan Tribes ruling. Fee simple ownership in Canada has roots in British feudal law and is the most comprehensive form of private property ownership.

However, the fact that this case challenges private property rights is a good reason for everyone to consider the consequences. We will not necessarily do that here, according to the wording of the motion, but we also need to take into account the legal idiosyncrasies of each province and Quebec. I will come back to that a little later.

Quebec is in a unique legal position because of the Quebec Civil Code, which is, of course, different from the common law system. The ruling is based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. On the one hand, we have a civil law tradition, but on the other, there is also the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms aboriginal title. I do not know whether I need to remind members of this, but I will do so anyway: Quebec did not sign the 1982 Constitution. When it comes to legal idiosyncrasies and context, I think that we also need to take that into account. I wanted us to consider that as well, and I wanted to remind my colleagues of it. That will have to be taken into account in future broader discussions.

While I do not want to speak for the general public, I think that one problem in the British Columbia case, specifically for the Richmond area and the greater Vancouver area, is that the court deliberately refrained from ruling on the question of how ancestral title and fee simple interests will coexist. All issues related to governance, consultation, taxation and the validity of permits therefore remain unresolved.

As we have heard, this is a complex issue. If I wanted to really simplify it, I would say that there are two types of rights: aboriginal title and fee simple interests, which establish the ownership of a territory or a piece of land, in the case of individual property. There are distinctions between the two, but we will not go into detail on that. In any case, both involve a property right. They coexist, but it is difficult to uphold absolute rights without any discussion. I think that is what people are afraid of, as they are wondering whether there is a hierarchy of rights. There is no such hierarchy, but people want negotiations. People are concerned because they do not know all the ins and outs of the issue.

A clear mechanism needs to be put in place to resolve the issue of the validity of property rights. This is the most pressing issue resulting from this situation, and I believe all my colleagues have mentioned it. Of course, there is also the fact that people in British Columbia are concerned. I have read several articles on the subject and it is clear that the government itself, if not the municipality of Richmond, will provide information to the public and answer questions. It is therefore clear that other levels of government are willing to take charge in order to answer the public's questions and reassure people. If municipalities and the Government of British Columbia itself are already having to inform the public, this shows just how many questions there are regarding the ruling in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. Those questions need to be answered, even if, it must be said, our response cannot cover off all scenarios. There has been talk of negotiations, so there will have to be agreements. There needs to be a solution, and we do not have one.

I would like to go over what led to the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling. As I said earlier, this groundbreaking decision was a precedent-setting game-changer for both ongoing and future claims to aboriginal title.

The doctrine of aboriginal title recognizes that indigenous peoples' rights to their territory were not extinguished when Europeans arrived. There is a mechanism, there is case law establishing that aboriginal title is grounded in sufficient, continuous and exclusive occupation of the territory. This is what affirms aboriginal title. The B.C. Supreme Court confirmed that the Cowichan have exclusive occupation rights in determining land use.

The 863-page judgment was delivered on August 7, 2025, which was less than a year ago. The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the descendants of first nations demonstrated the existence of aboriginal title. That has already been done. It exists apart from the current provincial land title system. Two property rights, two land entitlements coexist, as I said earlier.

The Cowichan Nation sought a declaration of an aboriginal title to their village to recognize an aboriginal right to fish. This is different from aboriginal title; it is aboriginal rights.

Of course, some groups and governments, including Canada, British Columbia and the City of Richmond, opposed that request, as did the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and two first nations, namely, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Musqueam Indian Band. It took 513 days for the court to deliver a ruling, which was based specifically on the promise made by British Governor Douglas in 1853. The Cowichan proved their title. Once again, the court decided to omit a ruling or direction regarding the coexistence of aboriginal title and fee simple ownership, which calls into question concepts that we have long regarded as immutable in the history of Canadian land rights. That is unsettling. There is a lack of information. There are also concerns because, when we innovate, we are dealing with the unknown. That is what is happening here.

I want to come back to fee simple ownership. As I said, the Conservative motion makes no mention of civil law, so I want to talk a little bit about that. I will likely be the only speaker today who talks about Quebec's specificity. As I was saying, two legal traditions coexist in Canada: common law and civil law. Civil law governs private law relationships, while common law applies to public law. In the rest of Canada, private law and public law are governed by the principles of common law. Property rights fall within this single legal framework, which means that there are significant differences between Canada and Quebec in the way those rights are defined, exercised and protected.

Fee simple ownership does not exist in Quebec. Ownership is an absolute right derived from section 947 of the Civil Code. Ownership is a real right exercised over the thing itself, directly and without an intermediary. Section 947 defines it as follows: “Ownership is the right to use, enjoy and dispose of property fully and freely, subject to the limits and conditions for doing so determined by law.” This means that, under Quebec civil law, ownership has other essential characteristics, such as the fact that it is absolute, exclusive and guaranteed in perpetuity. Registering that right in Quebec's land registry renders the right of ownership enforceable against third parties, meaning that the right is recognized and must be respected by third parties.

In Canada, things are different. The concept of fee simple ownership can be traced back directly to British common law. It is the most comprehensive type of ownership recognized by common law and most closely resembles the absolute title concept set out in civil law. The theoretical concept of fee simple, however, is fundamentally different from what we have in Quebec.

In theory, under common law, land is held by the Crown, not owned with absolute title, which means that the owner has a real estate right to the land, and fee simple ownership is the most complete type of estate. Despite the appearance of absolute title, the ownership in question remains a tenure, meaning that the Crown, theoretically, retains radical title. Fee simple ownership does not terminate on the holder's death and can be disposed of or passed on by the owner or tenant. Indigenous reserve lands are held by the Crown in trust for indigenous communities. As a result, members do not have fee simple ownership, but rather a right of possession recognized under the Indian Act. Furthermore, fee simple ownership is enforceable against all persons, including the state.

I would like to add a few words about residential property values and project financing, which is something my colleagues are concerned about, especially my official opposition colleagues who moved this motion. I have to admit that the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling and its interpretation by the business and financial communities seem to have already had economic and political repercussions. We can see it. We can read it in the extensive coverage in both French and English media in Quebec and across Canada.

However, it is important to keep in mind that there are still no studies or analyses with conclusive and robust data demonstrating a general, measurable effect on home values. I am not saying that such an effect cannot exist or does not exist. I am saying we do not have the data.

I was talking earlier about information, and I believe that here we are addressing an issue of interest to all Quebeckers and Canadians. The goal is to determine what the actual impact is, without limiting ourselves to mere interpretation. I am not saying it is just an interpretation, because some of my colleagues have specifically mentioned that there are real, concrete cases. They have met with people, so it exists, but we would also like to have data, because that can obviously inform, support and complement our thinking, as well as our actions, as legislators.

Legal experts and economists first point to the reputation and perceived impact of the decision regarding the Cowichan tribes. For market participants, the recognition of ancestral title means new long-term instability and uncertainty regarding the land tenure system in the region in question. There are concerns and legal uncertainty regarding the possibility of future restrictions on land use and development, as well as changes to land-use planning regulations and the governance of that territory.

Some pundits have also noted that, even without an obvious drop in prices, uncertainty about the future liquidity of properties and the ease of resale may be enough to influence decisions to buy, sell or invest. The market is heavily influenced by confidence. A legal jolt like this one could be an additional risk factor that might affect property valuations and influence appraisers' caution, although, as I mentioned earlier, this cannot really be accurately quantified just yet. Moreover, as I believe my colleagues have mentioned, and as was pointed out in several articles I have read, it is not as easy as it once was to get a loan. It is becoming harder. The B.C. government is already trying to address this situation.

Let me get back to my point. I tend to ramble when I speak, but I knew where I was going with this. When institutions refuse to acknowledge a direct link to decisions, even reviewing the risk model or requesting more detailed legal opinions can increase the costs associated with due diligence. This can result in financial institutions adopting a more cautious approach to new loans and refinancing, as well as access to credit being tightened temporarily in the sectors most directly affected.

I do not have much time left. Although I spoke primarily about Cowichan Tribes, I could have talked about Musqueam as well. I did not talk about the Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick either, even though the decision handed down in that case seems like the opposite of the outcome in British Columbia. Once again, this shows the complexity and concerns that can arise from decisions rendered by courts like the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick or the Supreme Court of British Columbia in relatively similar, yet not identical, cases. Although I will not go into detail, there are some similarities that make it hard to tell exactly where things are heading, despite the need for certainty.

I did not have enough time to discuss the Conservatives' motion in detail. Evidently, I can say that the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle. We would certainly like to make some changes to it. I can say without hesitation and in good faith that this topic could very easily be discussed by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. That is what committees are for. I fail to see the utility of creating a special committee, but I am open to discussing the matter, and then we will see whether we support the motion or not.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding section 92 of Canada's Constitution. Private property clearly falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Cowichan, British Columbia is backstopping the properties.

My question for the member is as follows: Can she explain how important it is for the provincial and federal governments to respect each other's jurisdictions?