Debates of May 7th, 2026

Privacy Commissioner

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to lay before the House, pursuant to section 40(1) of the Privacy Act, a special report from the Privacy Commissioner entitled “Investigation of unauthorized disclosures and modifications of taxpayer personal information at the Canada Revenue Agency”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I table the government's response to the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Becoming a Candidate in an Election: A Review of the Criteria”.

The government wishes to thank the committee for its work on this important matter. The government is pleased to see that all seven legislative amendments recommended by the committee have been incorporated into Bill C-25. I understand there was an attempt to get them emailed, but just in case they have not been emailed, I will table the documents.

Canadian Identity and Culture

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Korea on Cooperation in Audiovisual Coproduction”, done at Gatineau on April 22.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 34 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Zoe Royer, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the Canada-China Legislative Association 25th bilateral meeting, in Ottawa, Ontario, and Vancouver, British Columbia, from December 1 to 3, 2025; as well as the Canada-China Legislative Association co-chairs' annual visit to China, in Beijing, Hangzhou, Shanghai and Shenzhen, China, from March 16 to 20, 2026.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27: Vote 1 under House of Commons, Vote 1 under Leaders' Debates Commission, Vote 1 under Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and Vote 1 under Parliamentary Protective Service”.

While I am on my feet, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and Standing Order 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding membership of the committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 27th report later this day.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled “A War on Civilians: Addressing the Human Toll of the Conflict in Sudan”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House of Commons gives its consent, I move that the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Rail Transportation

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to table several petitions signed by thousands of concerned constituents who are calling on the government to immediately halt the Alto high-speed rail project. They cite a number of very legitimate concerns, including heavy-handed expropriation, dividing up communities with no level crossings, the proposed costs and the questionable benefits the project offers.

I would like to thank the countless citizens of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, and those all across Canada, for their continued efforts in raising awareness of the negative consequences of this project.

Trans-Canada Highway

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight our continued efforts in northern Ontario to circulate a petition calling for Highway 11 to be designated as a project of national interest.

We encourage everyone to sign this petition as soon as it reaches their town or city. By working together, we can ensure that Trans-Canada Highway 11 is safe and, above all, reliable.

The work is just getting started. We will keep collecting signatures from communities across northern Ontario to make one thing clear: Safety must come first.

Food Security

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition drafted by Graham Riches from Parksville in my riding. He calls on the government to fulfill international commitments to treat food as a human right. He draws the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that the right to adequate food is a fundamental human right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Canada in 1976. Under the ICESCR, Canada has a legal obligation to ensure physical economic access to sufficient, safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food for all.

The petitioners highlight that the United Nations has affirmed that food insecurity is primarily the result of inadequate income and social protection, not food shortages, yet over 10 million people in Canada experience some form of household food insecurity, and the reliance on food banks continues to rise. Canada has neither entrenched the right to food in domestic law nor established clear legal duties for monitoring or remedies to fulfill this obligation.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to recognize the right to adequate food as a justifiable human right in Canadian law consistent with the ICESCR; invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to conduct an official visit to Canada and report to Parliament; develop, in consultation with indigenous peoples, provinces, territories, civil society and people with lived experience, a federal right to food framework act that establishes government duties, measurable targets, monitoring remedies; and lastly, align federal poverty reduction, income security, food and health policies with Canada's international human rights obligations, including the ICESCR and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Foreign Affairs

[Alexandre Boulerice, Independent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting an important petition signed by thousands and thousands of people in response to U.S. aggressions and threats in the Caribbean region.

These people are calling on the Government of Canada to condemn U.S. aggressions as violations of international law; refuse to participate in military or economic aggressions; reaffirm and actively support the Caribbean as a zone of peace, free from external military intervention; actively reject any and all interventions and military aggressions against Cuba, Colombia and Mexico; firmly oppose U.S. economic and other coercive measures against Cuba and vigorously advocate for their removal; deepen economic ties, trade and assistance to Cuba; and unequivocally uphold and promote the right of self-determination of the peoples and countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

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

moved:

That, given that,

(i) 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 land,

(ii) this decision is already having significant impact on home values and the financing of projects,

(iii) the subsequent Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement has deepened uncertainty and failed to say anything definitive about fee simple property, deepening uncertainty and creating a dangerous precedent with potentially serious consequences,

(iv) the government implemented the Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples, that includes Litigation Guideline #14, which discourages government lawyers from using all available arguments to defend private property rights,

the House:

(a) call on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case, arguing that it has priority over all other title;

(b) call on the government to replace Litigation Guideline #14 from the Attorney General of Canada's Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples that prevented the federal government from defending property rights in the Cowichan case, with a guideline that requires the federal government to aggressively defend property rights in all litigation;

(c) call on the government to make no agreement without explicit property protection so that fee simple property rights are enshrined in all future agreements with First Nations;

(d) call on the government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and Musqueam agreement - from the Prime Minister and with specific commitments and timelines; and

(e) appoint a special committee with the mandate to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect private property rights in Canada, provided that,

(A) the committee be composed of 10 members, of which five shall be from the government party, four shall be from the official opposition and one shall be from the Bloc Québécois,

(B) the whips of the recognized parties shall deposit with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee within three sitting days after the adoption of this motion,

(C) changes to the membership of the committee shall be effective immediately after notification by the whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House,

(D) membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2),

(E) the Clerk of the House shall convene an organizational meeting within five sitting days of the appointment of the committee's membership,

(F) notwithstanding Standing Order 106(2), the chair of the committee shall be a member of the official opposition, the first vice-chair shall be a member of the government party and the second vice-chair shall be a member of the Bloc Québécois,

(G) the quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118 and that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when at least four members are present, including one member of an opposition party and one member from the government party,

(H) the committee have all of the powers of a standing committee, as well as the power (i) to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, within Canada, (ii) to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings,

(I) the provisions of Standing Order 106(4) shall also extend to the committee,

(J) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,

(K) it be an instruction to the committee that it hold at least 12 meetings and present an interim report before June 19, 2026.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a matter that strikes at the very foundation of security, stability and confidence in this country: the protection of private property rights in Canada following the decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada.

For generations, Canadians have believed that when they purchase a home, pay their mortgage, raise their children, build a business or farm a piece of land, that property belongs to them. That belief is not merely emotional. It is foundational to our economy, our financial system and the trust Canadians place in the rule of law. Today, unfortunately, that certainty has been shaken.

Canadians already face enough pressure from rising costs, inflation, unaffordable housing and economic uncertainty without having to wonder whether their home is truly theirs, yet that is precisely the uncertainty that is now spreading across British Columbia and beyond. The Cowichan ruling has raised profound questions about whether fee simple property ownership, the legal basis upon which millions of Canadians own their homes and businesses, remains secure in the way Canadians have always understood it. Instead of providing clarity, the Liberal government has deepened that confusion. Instead of defending homeowners, it withdrew legal arguments that protected fee simple ownership. Instead of reassuring Canadians, it negotiated agreements behind closed doors. Instead of transparency, Canadians received uncertainty.

Conservatives believe reconciliation and private property rights can and must coexist. These are not mutually exclusive principles. We respect indigenous rights, we respect the Constitution, and we recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation and the need to address historic injustices. Indigenous peoples, I think we can all agree, deserve respect, recognition and fairness. Their histories, cultures and constitutional rights are an essential part of our country. Treaty obligations matter, and section 35 rights matter.

However, reconciliation cannot come at the cost of destabilizing the homes, farms, businesses and life savings of ordinary Canadians. It cannot proceed through secrecy and without transparency. It cannot proceed while governments refuse to defend the certainty upon which Canada's entire land title system depends. That is why Conservatives have called on the government to immediately change course. As the leader of the official opposition stated in April, the government must provide certainty, defend private property in court and make clear that Canadians' homes and land titles will be protected.

Before I continue, I will mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights, a remarkable member of Parliament. I am looking forward to hearing his words.

As I was saying, the government must explicitly defend private property rights in the Cowichan decision. The federal government must, going forward, argue before any court, when discussing a new agreement or treaty, that fee simple landownership supersedes all other titles. The Liberals should not have directed federal lawyers away from advancing the extinguishment argument that had previously been part of the Crown's legal position, and they must ensure that this defence is advanced in all future legal cases involving aboriginal title. They must stop pretending that this uncertainty does not exist.

This is not theoretical. The consequences are already real. According to reports, appraisers in British Columbia warned that uncertainty surrounding property rights could reduce property values dramatically in affected areas. Financing for major development projects has already reportedly been denied because lenders no longer have confidence in the certainty of title. The federal Liberals are doing nothing to support those affected by this decision. They actually waited for the province to intervene. They are not backstopping those landowners, business owners or families caught up in this legal quagmire. This means fewer homes are being built in a housing shortage, fewer jobs are being created while the economy struggles, and there is less investment and greater instability in an already fragile housing market.

Families in Richmond and beyond, all over British Columbia, are seeing their property values drop far deeper than many markets are already showing. Farmers are asking whether their land is still protected. Business owners are asking whether they can still use their property as collateral to obtain financing. Municipalities are questioning the reliability of zoning and planning authority.

This is not merely a regional concern. As I mentioned just a few moments ago, it is a national issue. That is why on November 20 of last year, I formally requested an emergency debate in Parliament under Standing Order 52 following the Cowichan decision. In that request, Conservatives warned that the ruling risked undermining the indefeasibility protections that underpin Canada's entire land title system. We warned that uncertainty regarding fee simple ownership could affect mortgages, insurance, development, municipal governance and economic confidence across the country. We also warned that Canadians felt blindsided because governments had failed to consult or inform the very people whose homes and businesses could be affected.

As my letter stated at the time, ordinary Canadians bought their homes in good faith. They trusted their government to be transparent and honest with them. Instead, they discovered, through news reports actually, that the legal certainty of their property rights could now be questioned.

Conservatives called for that emergency debate so Parliament could address those fears openly and transparently. Unfortunately, the Liberals refused, and Canadians are now left to wonder whether that refusal had less to do with reassurance and more to do with the fact that government was simultaneously negotiating other major rights recognition agreements behind closed doors.

The secrecy surrounding Cowichan did not end in the courtroom. It actually continued with the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement. That agreement, signed in February, recognized Musqueam aboriginal rights and title across asserted territory spanning much of metro Vancouver, including Vancouver itself, Richmond, Burnaby, West Vancouver and Delta. Despite the enormous implications of such recognition in one of Canada's most densely populated urban regions, the agreement failed to explicitly protect fee simple property ownership. That silence matters. The government and Musqueam leadership later stated publicly that private property would not be affected, but the agreement itself does not clearly indicate that same comment.

When dealing with constitutional rights, property ownership and land governance affecting millions of Canadians, that confusion is not enough. That confusion has deepened uncertainty. It has created fear among homeowners and has raised serious concerns among neighbouring first nations with overlapping territorial claims. The Squamish Nation publicly stated that it had not been adequately consulted and warned the agreement could affect the lands it also claims. Again, there was secrecy, insufficient consultation and more uncertainty.

British Columbians were stunned to hear Premier David Eby declare that private property will never be part of provincial negotiations. We should think about what that means for homeowners listening at home. If private property is not central to negotiations involving title and jurisdiction in urban regions, then who exactly is standing up for the millions of Canadians whose life savings are tied to their homes? Who is defending the integrity of Canada's mortgage system? Who is defending the certainty required for investment and economic growth?

Conservatives are, and we are calling on the Liberal government to act immediately. We are demanding that the government put private property first in the Cowichan appeal by arguing clearly and unequivocally that fee simple property ownership has priority over pending claims. We are also demanding that no future agreement be signed without explicit protections for existing homeowners and property owners: no more confusion, no more silence, no more secretive agreements, no need to leave Canadians wondering if their home is secure.

Liberals keep pretending that Canadians should simply trust them, but trust requires transparency. Transparency is what builds that trust. Trust requires governments willing to defend the very people they represent. Unfortunately, the government continues to create uncertainty, and it is growing across this country. It does not need to be this way.

I look forward to the questions ahead.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech covered many key points. One of the most important federal ties to this issue is the Liberals' failure to make the argument in court when they could the first time around, making the appeal of the decision they say they oppose so much more difficult. Could the member maybe comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, indeed.

That is right. The government in 2018 directed its lawyers not to argue in court for fee simple property rights in the Cowichan Tribes decision. Because it was, for some reason, in that lane, to not argue for fee simple property rights for the homeowners, now that the case is at appeal, the government cannot use that argument. It cannot use the argument that it stands up for fee simple property rights. The only group that did in the original case, which was Canada's longest trial, I might add, over 500 days, was the City of Richmond. It is the only one standing up, at this point, for fee simple property owners.

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

Mr. Speaker, can the member opposite speak to principle number 14, which they disagree with? I am wondering what his interpretation of principle number 14 is.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The government in 2018 directed its lawyers not to stand up for fee simple property. Justice Young cited in her very lengthy decision that the federal government was not there to stand up for fee simple property owners.

Now the decision has been made, in Justice Young's decision, pointing out that two sections of British Columbia's land title system do not apply to a swath of land within the city of Richmond. It was the federal government that failed those landowners, those businesses owners and those people who are trying to sell their homes and watching their property values sink. That is unfortunate, and people deserve better.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks on this issue and the broader concern around private property rights.

Could my colleague speak further to how government delay and unclear action on property rights risks setting a precedent nationwide and what that does to public trust when Canadians want certainty that their homes truly belong to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, that goes to the second part of my speech.

We have the Cowichan decision, with so much uncertainty around a large swath of land within the city of Richmond. Then we have the Musqueam agreement, which is basically a menu for future talks to land on a treaty or self-government agreement, wherever that may land. In that agreement, the government, knowing all this uncertainty, did not address, or at least put in protections, that private property within the claimed area was off limits and was not going to be on the menu. The government, unfortunately, went ahead anyway, knowing that this uncertainty is spreading across the country. Now we have cases in New Brunswick and elsewhere that are growing because of this uncertainty.

People need to have trust in the system, so property owners know that if they buy a piece of property in good faith and pay their mortgage, they are entitled to that property.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not have this problem in Quebec because of the province's civil law tradition.

Why does my colleague think that everything is happening in secret like this? I think the point of setting up a committee is to be able to debate this issue transparently.

Why does he think the government seems to be opposed to that?

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to talk about areas of jurisdiction, even though, as a Bloc Québécois member, we often talk about this. Of course it is important to respect jurisdictions.

I discussed what makes Quebec unique in terms of civil law and the issue of the signing of the Constitution, which is something that is missing for us in Quebec. I expect everyone to fulfill their responsibility for dialogue in a fully transparent and productive way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my Bloc counterpart. While I do usually get along and agree with a lot of what she has to say, especially in the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I do disagree with some of what she said in her speech, particularly around perception.

I want to read to the House a headline from Global News dated December 11, 2025: “Cowichan case blamed for sinking B.C. property deals, including luxury hotel purchase”. That was a few million dollars. The member next to me has another one where a $15‑million hotel project and development was cancelled as well.

I have personally met with people in the city of Richmond affected by this decision. They would like to move, for a variety of reasons, like job opportunities, and they have seen their property values go down a lot further than the market has declined in other parts of the province. There are some real impacts because the government did not do its job.

Regarding committee, if the member recalls, there was a notice of motion that we have been told has no chance of being debated because the Liberals disagreed with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are actually two points in my colleague's remarks, which I also appreciate.

The first concerns the actual impacts. I do not know if my colleague missed the part where I discussed the actual impacts. I said that I had read about the subject in several articles. I said that there were no rigorous and precise studies providing us with conclusive data on the situation. I even said it would be interesting to have such data, because it is of interest to everyone and we want to discuss the issue based on such data. That does not mean we do not want to act quickly. That is one thing.

As for the second point, my colleague may not have been paying attention when I specifically mentioned one of his colleagues, who said that we had refused to consider the matter in committee. In fact, it was not put to a vote in committee. I believe it was simply proposed. Today, we held committee proceedings, and the matter was not brought up. Obviously, as I just mentioned, we agree in principle, so I am open to discussing it. It is possible the government said no, but my hon. colleague did not mention a word about it to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on her excellent speech, which shows her in-depth knowledge of the issue. She already talked about the fact that I asked why the motion was not brought up in committee and that I was told that it was defeated. It appears that is not the case.

Can my colleague tell us more about the changes we would like to make to the motion and about the way to create the committee that the Conservatives are proposing?

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

Mr. Speaker, we want to be responsible, reasonable and rigorous, as I said at the outset. These are the three “Rs”. We find that doing all this work in just a few days or a few weeks is asking the committee, and even the government, to work too quickly. We believe that we need time to understand, consult and reflect. That is one of the things I think we can talk about.

The whole issue of the special committee is another thing I mentioned. I think it is fair to ask what it is that a special committee can do that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs cannot. Of course, we can always talk about that.

We have these questions and concerns because we want to be productive and because we do not want to engage in partisan politics.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the case is being appealed, so I would like to ask my colleague a question. Does she think that getting Parliament to influence the outcome of a trial could blur the boundary between political debate and judicial independence?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We certainly do not want to blur the boundaries between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Nevertheless, I believe these issues are relevant to everyone. That is why I decided to deliver a carefully considered, fact-based speech.

Some concerns may be legitimate. The goal is not to interfere in a debate, but these rulings do have an impact on all Quebeckers and Canadians, including members of first nations. I think it is healthy to be able to discuss any subject in the House. Nothing should be off limits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for her enlightening speech and for explaining the difference between “fee simple”, coming from British feudal law, and “absolute title”, coming from civil law. That was very enlightening.

However, the same question still applies. Does the member think that absolute title and aboriginal title can coexist on the same piece of land at the same time, or is that an irreconcilable conflict?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go beyond what the courts have said. However, as I have mentioned on several occasions, this is exactly the question we are asking ourselves: How can they coexist?

On the one hand, when reading between the lines in the New Brunswick judgment, it appears that they cannot coexist, whereas in British Columbia, with the Cowichan Tribes, for example, it appears that they can coexist. However, we do not know how this could be achieved. We have concerns. There could be negotiations, agreements. Will it be on a case-by-case basis?

Obviously, there is still a lot of uncertainty, and I cannot speak on legal matters, but I can point out that we are asking these questions responsibly. How can they coexist? How will we find solutions? Will it be through negotiated agreements? Obviously, there are plenty of questions, so the motion is relevant.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, could the member tell us about the importance of clarity and legal certainty in this case and could she speak to whether this motion actually helps to provide such guarantees?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat myself for what is perhaps the third time, but I am trying to be thorough and the Bloc Québécois is, too. I said that I was in favour of the principle of the motion, but not the wording of the motion. I think that gives my colleague an answer.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

It is always an honour to rise as the elected representative of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. As I have previously stated in this place, all of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to the citizens who depend on us to do their bidding here in Parliament. Canadians need us to be vigilant for challenges and dangers that emerge and take actions to prevent, mitigate and overcome the challenges and dangers, including unintended consequences caused by the actions or inaction of levels of government. In these times of global uncertainty, Canadians need our vigilance and action perhaps more than at any other time.

Today, I rise to speak to today's Conservative opposition day motion. This motion opens with how the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision has created massive uncertainty around fee simple property, not just in Richmond, B.C., where the land relevant to the case is located, but across my home province of British Columbia and other parts of Canada. All this is because the legal basis on which Canadians and businesses alike own their homes and land, the basis on which economies are built, the basis that has provided the general stability for growth, investment, surety and prosperity, has been undermined. The certainty of fee simple property has been undermined, and with it the stability and security of every property owner in B.C. and beyond.

I believe all of us in this House are proud to call Canada home, while we also recognize historical imperfections, chapters of our shared history in which forebears, including the federal government, failed. It is important to recognize and learn from historical failures. It helps strengthen our nation. So does recognizing our historical successes, reflected by the fact that our ancestors and predecessors built a country that others around the globe have admired because they have seen the opportunities that flowed from our stability and certainty.

However, the sharp decline in certainty in the wake of the Cowichan decision has caused instability, directly harming opportunities for Canadians, while also putting a chill on those who would otherwise invest in Canada. If others look at Canada and see internal turmoil and conflict rather than stability, they will go elsewhere to pursue opportunities. Instability and insecurity reflect on Parliament, and all parliamentarians should reflect on how we can increase stability and security for citizens, both today and far into the future.

The Cowichan decision is already having a significant impact on the outlook of citizens. Home values and project financing, not just in the immediate area around Richmond but across B.C., have been impacted. When I meet with people at events and on the streets across the riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, people come up to me and ask if their future and title to their property, which they have worked a lifetime to pay for, are at risk.

The instability caused by the Cowichan decision was compounded when the Liberals negotiated the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement in secret, without ensuring that it contains protections for property rights and without ensuring proper transparency or consultation with other potentially affected first nations. The Musqueam agreement covers up to 533,000 hectares, including metro Vancouver and the Richmond lands that are at the centre of the Cowichan ruling. Canadians are asking questions, questions that the Liberal government will not answer.

When the Prime Minister stated, “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights”, did he know that this is not the case?

The Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement contains the word “private” only once and not in reference to private property. The Musqueam Stewardship and Marine Management Agreement does not contain the word “private” or “property”. The Musqueam Fisheries Agreement does not mention the word “private” or “property”. The agreement that provides the Musqueam with revenues from the Vancouver airport does not contain the word “private” or “property”.

None of these agreements signed by the Liberal government protect private property rights, as the Prime Minister tried to claim they do, so either the Prime Minister has no idea what is in these agreements or he has been misleading Canadians. If we are to have true reconciliation in Canada, I believe we must also have truth. When we have a Prime Minister who either does not know or does not care what agreements his government is signing, or is willing to mislead Canadians on what is in those secretly negotiated agreements, it is no wonder that Canadians have questions for us, as they have elected us to be their representatives and voice.

Canadians already face enough pressure from high costs and economic uncertainty without having to wonder whether their homes are truly theirs. The Liberal government must provide certainty and stability by openly reaffirming private property in court, and it must make it clear in writing that Canadians' homes and land titles will be protected. Thus far, they have failed to do this.

As Conservatives, we have urged the federal government to reinstate the arguments before the Court of Appeal that fee simple landownership supersedes all other titles, and we call on the government to take the following steps to protect property rights.

Step one would be to put private property first in the Cowichan case by arguing that this has priority over all other titles and reversing the current position directing federal lawyers not to argue for property rights and the withdrawal of the extinguishment argument from the earlier 2018 decision.

Step two would be to make no agreement without explicit property protection, so that existing fee simple owners are protected in all future agreements with first nations, reversing the government's failure to explicitly protect people's homes in the agreements the Liberal government has signed, which fail to explicitly protect fee simple property ownership, causing confusion, fear and risk, instability and uncertainty.

At a time in global history when we are all seeing so much instability and uncertainty, this is a time when Canada could be a shining example in which all Canadians, regardless of ancestry, could have the sense of certainty and stability that others used to see in us.

We cannot restore certainty and stability through secretly negotiated agreements. I have always believed that bringing everyone to the same table allows us to fully understand each other's perspective. Failing to do so only brings speculation, skepticism and distrust. If we are to build trust and respect, we need the government to respect all Canadians and restore confidence for homeowners across British Columbia and Canada, by convening a parliamentary committee to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can protect private property rights in Canada, in light of the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement.

In this way, the government can begin restoring trust, the trust that is required to move forward with the transparency, balance, stability and certainty that Canada once had.

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

Mr. Speaker, one part of the motion, part (c), calls on the government “to make no agreement without explicit property protection so that fee simple property rights are enshrined in all future agreements with First Nations”. However, agreements relate to education, health and policing. We do not reference private property there. Are the Conservatives proposing that we include the health transfer for the Government of British Columbia or any type of provincial government? Why is it limited to first nations?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice, under Standing Order 43(2)(a), that all remaining Conservative caucus speaking slots will be divided in two.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to again quote what the Prime Minister stated earlier this week in the House: “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights.”

I checked those agreements this morning. As I stated, the Musqueam agreement does not mention the term “private property”. None of those agreements mention private property.

Was the Prime Minister misleading the House, or was he ill-informed?

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I asked why we are not debating this issue at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I was told that it got shut down. My Bloc colleague who serves on the committee told me that, to her knowledge, this was not true and that the motion for a study had simply been moved. The committee met this morning and the motion was not brought forward again.

If the government agreed to study this issue in committee, would the Conservatives also agree to do that, rather than appointing a special committee?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Bloc member about whether this could be studied at the indigenous affairs committee.

With the regime that the current power-brokered Liberal government has now installed at committees with its majority, it is shuttering committees. Any question as to the government's integrity is shut down, turned in camera and voted against by the majority Liberal membership on these committees.

I do not trust the Liberal government to allow any of this discussion to take place at committee.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's excellent intervention.

You mentioned secret agreements. Could you tell me the risks and explore some of the risks of secret agreements done behind closed doors and their effect on transparency, as opposed to a treaty process that is established through the courts and that is open and transparent?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I remind the hon. member to address comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was referring to the risks of secret agreements and asking whether I could expand on those risks. Well, because those agreements are secret, we have not seen them. We do not know what the risks are in these secret agreements.

I have been privy to this through my work, for over 10 years, on the fisheries committee, where agreements are signed with organizations around the country, secret agreements. Due to the rules put in place by the Liberal government in the previous changes to the Fisheries Act, the information in those agreements cannot be made public.

It is hidden behind closed doors, so the risks are absolutely unknown.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Vancouver Island, and especially all of the seniors, families, workers, businesses and, perhaps most importantly, the youth of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Our communities stretch from Langford to Crofton, Thetis Island to Lake Cowichan to Port Renfrew and across the beautiful Cowichan Valley. It is home to numerous first nations, including the Cowichan Tribes, the largest first nation in British Columbia.

We are a people who love where we live. We are people who take pride in our homes, our neighbourhoods and our future. We are rooted in the lands, the rivers, the forests, the mountains and, of course, the ocean. They are all integral parts of our soul.

Today, we are all worried. The Cowichan land decision has created uncertainty and division that no community, indigenous or non-indigenous, should ever have to face. Be it on the island or across British Columbia, home values are falling, banks are refusing mortgages, sales have stalled, businesses are looking elsewhere or moving away, and anger and division are building. People are lashing out at one another. This is heartbreaking, and it is unacceptable. The Liberal government has offered nothing. There is no clarity, no plan and no leadership.

The language in the Cowichan ruling describes aboriginal title as a “prior and senior right to land”, effectively creating a groundbreaking precedent putting aboriginal title above fee simple title. In other words, all privately held and Crown land is at risk. This has now created real fear of whether private property rights will still hold weight across British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada.

These are not abstract legal questions, however. They are conversations happening every night in Duncan, Langford, Shawnigan Lake and Mill Bay and within the Cowichan Tribes. Parents are asking whether their home, their single greatest asset, is still secure. Seniors are wondering whether they can afford to retire and young families are questioning whether they can stay on Vancouver Island at all. Our youth are wondering what Canada will look like in the future. Our first nations are seeing reconciliation sentiment taking a major step backwards.

Through all of this, the Prime Minister has remained silent. Instead of leadership, we have his litigation directive number 14, which forbids federal government lawyers from defending private property rights. It is a directive that tied their hands in British Columbia's appeals court and will now automatically tie their hands again, this time in the Supreme Court of Canada going forward.

This is not reconciliation. This is the abandonment of all Canadians, and it is deepening division, anger and stress among neighbours, friends and families, which is exactly the opposite of what reconciliation should bring.

British Columbia deserves better, Vancouver Island deserves better and the Cowichan Tribes deserve better. Reconciliation cannot be built on secretly negotiated agreements or confusion. It cannot come at the expense of homeowners, the very stability of our economy or the core of our country.

For decades, we had a made-in-Canada approach that balanced indigenous rights with the needs of society as a whole through an established treaty process. Section 35 of our Constitution recognized and affirmed these rights. It created a framework that brought stability and prosperity. It was not perfect, but it worked, and now the Liberal government has walked away from that. It has leaned on the declaration of the United Nations, which is an unelected body. It is not Canadian and it is not part of our legal system. The declaration is not binding and was never intended to override private property rights, yet the Liberals are using UNDRIP as if it does.

The Liberals signed the rights recognition agreement with the Musqueam, which is not a treaty through the court system, but a closed-door, secretly negotiated agreement that failed to explicitly protect fee simple or private property owners and neglected to even mention them. It is an agreement that awarded the Musqueam aboriginal land title over the majority of greater Vancouver, including lands previously awarded to the Cowichan Tribes in Richmond, B.C. They created a conflict between two separate aboriginal titles.

In fact, almost all of British Columbia is potentially under overlapping aboriginal land claims. With the Cowichan decision setting the precedent that aboriginal title is superior to private property and Crown title, British Columbia is in a mess. That precedent has now rippled across Vancouver Island, creating confusion and fear from Langford to Ladysmith and across British Columbia. This is not reconciliation. This is recklessness.

Today, I am calling on the Prime Minister to act clearly, publicly and immediately. Our Conservative plan has four straightforward pillars.

First, put private property rights first in the Cowichan case and restore the extinguishment agreement the Liberals abandoned in 2018. No one should ever have to wonder whether their home is truly their home.

Second, make no agreement without explicit protection for all existing fee simple owners. The secret Musqueam agreement failed to do this. The Prime Minister must correct this mistake and guarantee that all future agreements protect people's homes.

Third, publish a plan within 30 days to protect Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision in the Musqueam agreement. Do not hold a press conference. Do not make a promise. Do not sign an MOU. Publish a real plan with timelines and commitments, delivered personally by the Prime Minister.

Finally, convene a special parliamentary committee to examine every legal, constitutional and political tool available to protect private property rights across Canada.

This crisis is not limited to the Cowichan Valley. It has spread across Vancouver Island, Richmond and British Columbia, and it will soon spread across Canada. If we do nothing, we will leave future generations with a fractured legal landscape and a broken economy.

There is a better path, one that respects indigenous rights and private homeowners. We see that path in our Conservative platform. It is practical, economic reconciliation. It will put first nations back in control of their own revenues, reduce bureaucracy and government controls, strengthen local economies, including on Vancouver Island, and bring first nations into the federation as full partners, not wards of the state.

First nations chiefs from across the country and across British Columbia have said the same thing. They want less Ottawa and more autonomy, and they want to build prosperity for their people. Conservatives agree. Reconciliation must be built on partnership, not secrecy; on clarity, not confusion; on respect, not fear; and on truth, not misinformation.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for both truth and reconciliation. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver either. The great people across Cowichan—Malahat—Langford deserve a government that protects their homes and their future. The Cowichan Tribes deserve a government that respects their jurisdiction and supports their economic independence. Canada deserves a government that understands that reconciliation and private property rights are not competing ideas, but are both essential to a stable and united Canada.

The Prime Minister has a choice. He can continue down a path of silence and uncertainty or he can act clearly, transparently and responsibly to restore confidence in our legal system and protect the rights of every Canadian. My community is watching, the Cowichan Tribes are watching and Vancouver Island is watching, and we are waiting. It is time for the Prime Minister to show leadership.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke very clearly in this House, making it very clear that the government was going to defend private property rights and that the government immediately appealed the decision.

My question is for the hon. member whose speech I just listened to. I felt there were multiple times when it sank into disinformation. Does the hon. member believe a parliamentary committee would develop arguments for the court that are better than those of the expert constitutional lawyers who are currently arguing on behalf of the Government of Canada and being instructed to use every type of argument available to defend property rights?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of disinformation, the member opposite claims that the Prime Minister has defended this, but he continually fails to disclose that he has already tied the hands of the government lawyers with the extinguishment article. He speaks of it being filed immediately when, in fact, the Supreme Court filing was done on the last day, at the very last minute. That is more misinformation.

Conservatives are calling for real truth, real reconciliation and real honesty.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a headline from Business in Vancouver reads, “Councillor says $100M project denied loan over Cowichan case, bank says not a factor”. The article goes on to say, “A Richmond, B.C., councillor says a company based in the city has been refused financing for what she says is a $100 million project because of uncertainty over their site due to the Cowichan Tribes aboriginal title ruling.”

We are hearing conflicting things. We hear the government say it is no big deal here and other people are saying it is no big deal there, but that is what is happening and that is the reality on the ground.

Despite the empty words from the Prime Minister and the minister, to the member from Vancouver Island, what are the genuine fears you are hearing about from members in your own community on the ground?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I remind the member to go through the Chair.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really agree with my colleague's statement about empty promises and empty words. People are worried about the value of their property. They are worried about getting mortgages. In fact, it is so bad that the provincial NDP government is now having to back mortgages in affected areas, and it can do that only for a small area. It is going to need to do that for the entire province.

People are worried. Property assessments are now coming with waivers saying the property value only stands as long as it is not superceded by aboriginal title. People in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are facing real concerns, and they are facing increasing racism and anger. This comes on top of tough economic times as well.

There are very valid reasons for concern, and we are seeing it across Vancouver Island and British Columbia.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that in the member opposite's comments, he expressed that somehow these Musqueam agreements were secret. If he would like, I am more than happy to share with him the links online, where they are available to the public.

He also spoke about the need for true reconciliation, which he alleges his party believes in. Does that strategy of true reconciliation include condemning the comments of the member for North Island—Powell River, who said indigenous people “asked for” residential schools and there was no indigenous genocide?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my comments, I said “secretly negotiated”. The Musqueam agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. Even the Premier of British Columbia claimed he did not know about it until the actual signing. That is secrecy, not transparency, and it is how the government is failing our country.

As far as the comments are concerned, I have not heard those comments and I am not in a position to comment on them.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

I rise this afternoon to speak about a court decision that has caused real worry in my province and to speak directly to the Canadians, particularly British Columbians, who have been watching this debate and wondering what it means for them and for their homes. Let us begin with the facts, because the facts have been in short supply in the debate by members opposite.

The fact is that the government has fundamentally disagreed with, and continues to disagree with, the British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in Cowichan. The fact is that we appealed that decision on September 8 of last year. The fact is that the Prime Minister of Canada has stood in this House and stated clearly to all who would listen that private property rights are fundamental, that this government will protect them and that federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property.

These are the facts. They are on the record. They are not in dispute, except by those who find facts inconvenient to the story that they would prefer to tell, a story that leads to mistrust, anti-indigenous racism and, perhaps most importantly, instability in British Columbia's economy.

I want to speak directly to the homeowner in Richmond who read a headline and felt their stomach drop. I want to speak to the family in my riding of Vancouver Granville who have spent 20 years paying down a mortgage and are now wondering whether the ground beneath their home is as solid as they believed it to be. I want to speak to the small business owner who has been asking their bank for financing and getting questions they have never been asked before. These concerns are legitimate. A home is the largest investment most Canadians will ever make. When a court raises questions about the relationship between aboriginal title and fee simple ownership, people are right to ask for clarity. They deserve a serious answer, not a slogan or a sound bite, so allow me, if you would, Mr. Chair, to give them one.

Three principles guide this government's response to the Cowichan decision. First, we believe in the security of private property. Canadians who hold title to their homes and their land must be able to rely on that title. This should not be a partisan position. It is the foundation on which families plan their future, on which businesses make investments and on which our economy functions.

Second, we believe in the principles of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not a slogan, and it is not an obstacle to be managed. It is a constitutional and moral obligation that this country has been working through for generations, and we continue that work patiently, lawfully and in good faith.

Third, we believe in building shared prosperity for homeowners, for workers, for businesses and for indigenous communities who have for too long been excluded from the economic life of this country. These are not competing goods. They are connected goods.

I want to be honest with the House and with the Canadians watching. The legal questions raised in the Cowichan decision are genuinely complex, and the clarity that Canadians deserve is going to come from where it should come from in our system: from the courts on appeal, with all viable arguments tested and all parties heard. That process is under way. It will take time, and none of us should stand in this place and pretend otherwise, because Canadians deserve, as I said before, a serious answer, not a slogan. They deserve facts, not fearmongering.

The Conservative motion before the House asks Canadians to choose between the first principle and the second. It asks them to believe that property rights and reconciliation cannot exist in harmony. This is false and has always been false, and the people advancing that false choice know it is false.

Let me say something very clearly. The legal questions we are working through in Cowichan are not questions that indigenous peoples created. They are the product of decisions made by the Crown over generations in a province where most of the land was never covered by treaty. The Crown made those decisions, the Crown bears responsibility to resolve them, and no responsible government should allow any ordinary homeowner to be made afraid, or indigenous peoples to be scapegoated, while that work is carried out.

Here is what is being missed in the noise: Almost every party to this litigation has gone to the Court of Appeal. The Government of Canada is appealing. The Province of British Columbia is appealing. The City of Richmond is appealing. Musqueam is appealing. Chief Wayne Sparrow has spoken publicly about Musqueam's deep concern with the decision that declared aboriginal title in what they assert is their own traditional territory. Tsawwassen First Nation is appealing alongside Musqueam on similar grounds. The Cowichan themselves are appealing on different grounds.

This is not the picture of settled judgment. This is the picture of a decision that has satisfied almost no one, that produced a clarity that almost no one was looking for and that is now being worked through by our courts exactly as our system is designed to handle it.

This is also not the story of homeowners on one side and indigenous peoples on the other. It is the story of a serious country with a serious legal system doing serious work. This includes first nations that are using that very system to seek the clarity that each and every one of us needs and deserves. It is the story that members opposite are refusing to tell because it does not serve a political agenda. The cost of that political agenda and of this misinformation is real and is being paid right now in my home province of British Columbia.

Just yesterday, the Business Council of British Columbia released a survey of its members. About 74% of respondents are decreasing investment plans in B.C., one in three are reducing hiring, 41% report harder access to external financing, and 80% of those same business leaders say they continue to support reconciliation as an important goal.

Why are they reducing those investments? They are reducing those investments because of misinformation and uncertainty that is being spurred on by people who would like to use the Cowichan decision as a political cudgel. In this House, in this Parliament, we must ensure that does not continue, for the security of the economy in British Columbia and for preservation of the principle of true reconciliation.

The people who are supporting reconciliation are very clear. This is a business community that is pro-reconciliation and is exhausted by uncertainty. They are not asking us to choose. They are asking us to lead. The damage is not abstract. Homes are not being built. Jobs are not being created. There are workers waiting for projects that have been paused while financing is renegotiated. There are businesses across B.C. that are delaying decisions; holding back on investment; watching the noise around this case created by politicians, not by the courts; and concluding that the cost of moving forward is too uncertain to bear. That is what irresponsibility looks like in practice, and it is being done deliberately for the political gain of the party opposite.

The seriousness of this moment is not lost on the political leadership of British Columbia. The Premier of B.C. has spoken at length about the impact of legal uncertainty on his province. Mayors have spoken. The City of Richmond is in court. There is broad cross-partisan recognition in B.C., not from one party and not from one ideology but from across the political spectrum of my province, that resolving this matters and that the work cannot wait. The only people who seem to disagree are the Conservative members opposite, who have decided that uncertainty and a parliamentary committee are more useful to them than actual resolution of the problem.

The Conservatives know exactly what they are doing. They know that the Cowichan decision is under appeal. They know that the Government of Canada, the Province of B.C., the City of Richmond, Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nation have all gone to the Court of Appeal precisely because the legal questions need to be resolved. They know that the Prime Minister has committed, clearly and repeatedly, that this government will defend private property rights.

They know the historical record across this country is that modern treaties and negotiated agreements have always protected private property. Not one Canadian has lost their private property as a result of a negotiated agreement. They know this, and they are choosing every day to tell their constituents the opposite because fear is more politically useful than the truth. It is not leadership but a calculation, and the people paying for that calculation are the homeowners they claim to defend.

I want to close with a story about what is possible when we get this right. This Friday in my riding of Vancouver Granville, I will be at the blessing ceremony of the opening of Sen̓áḵw. Sen̓áḵw sits in Squamish territory at the foot of the Burrard bridge, where it has always been, in the land, in the stories and in the people. What is new is what is being built there: 6,000 rental homes in a city that is desperately in need of them.

This is true reconciliation, where rents to 30% below market are being provided by the Squamish Nation in partnership with the Government of Canada. The Squamish Nation is moving toward economic independence and helping Vancouver provide the housing it needs. Property rights will be respected, indigenous rights will be honoured, homes will be built, and jobs will be created. For the Squamish Nation, there will be prosperity, and for the city that I represent, 6,000 families will be able to call Sen̓áḵw home. That is reconciliation, that is prosperity, and that is what is possible when we refuse the false choice being put upon us by the opposition. That is happening in real time in my riding.

To the homeowners in my riding and across B.C. who have been worried, the government has appealed the Cowichan decision. We are advancing every legally viable argument to defend the security of fee simple. We have been clear, from the Prime Minister on down, that protecting private property is fundamental to who we are as a country, and we will always stand for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberal rhetoric, we know that the property values in the area impacted by this decision are having a significant impact on the homeowners. I am curious. Can our friend across the way answer how this decision is impacting his house-flipping business?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for yet again, like his colleagues, making light of what is a very serious situation for folks in Vancouver and across British Columbia.

There are people who listen to the debates in this Parliament and expect serious discussion and serious debate. What they hear is misinformation, which leads to market uncertainty. Market uncertainty leads to builders not wanting to build affordable homes and to jobs not being created.

The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. They should be asking themselves what they will tell their constituents when they ask if the government is going to stand for property rights or not when the answer is yes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to litigation directive number 14, which I, again, have heard a lot of misinformation about, claiming that somehow the directive would preclude counsel for the Government of Canada from making every argument necessary to defend property rights.

My understanding is that all the directive does is, if I can find the right words, require “a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.”

Could my hon. colleague tell me of any instance where the Government of Canada should advance an argument that does not meet that criteria?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the simple answer is no. I would invite members opposite to read beyond the first line of the directive because they would see there is substantial depth there. They should choose to look at the facts. I know my hon. friend here, who is a lawyer, has read the entirety of the decision and would understand why we have to read the whole thing, not just the headlines.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is spending more time blaming Conservatives for the Liberals' own failures than proposing realistic solutions in his address today, which is a typical desperate Liberal tactic.

The member stated that they would vigorously defend private property with every viable argument. Members may have noticed, however, that he could not say “every argument” because he knows full well that the government lawyers' hands are tied behind their backs. They cannot use the extinguishment argument in court.

What is the Liberals' plan to vigorously defend it when their hands are tied behind their backs and they cannot even address title and private property, without the extinguishment argument?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased the member opposite chose to hang his entire argument on the word “viable”. The whole premise of our legal system is based on viable argument, on the fact that we make arguments that can stand up in court and that we win or lose decisions on the basis of the quality of our arguments and our understanding of the law.

I would invite the member opposite to look at the agreements with Musqueam that he claims were done in secret to understand the Cowichan decision and the basis of the appeals. What he would see is a government that is vigorously defending private property rights and doing the work that is required to run this through the systems designed by our Constitution, which are the courts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a good discussion with the member for Vancouver Quadra. The concern that he raised, and I fully agree with him, about this attempt by the Conservative Party is the damage it would do to things like reconciliation between indigenous people and Canada. There is a very negative side to what the Conservatives are putting on the table.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts and concerns on the damage that could be done by misleading information at a time when we should be encouraging and promoting reconciliation.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that we have to rise in the House to even address this issue. I suppose when we are dealing with an opposition party whose leader once said that indigenous people needed a better work ethic, not support, this is what we get.

There are members across the way who have made comments that have disparaged indigenous people, directly and indirectly. Their arguments about this case, which are being litigated with absolutely no basis in judgment, are causing people to look at indigenous people as the cause of a problem, to blame them and cast dispersions upon them, when in fact what we need to be doing is working through this toward reconciliation in a way that creates prosperity but also ensures private property is protected.

If the Conservatives focused their attention on that, perhaps we would have committees in which we felt like we could work together, which is what the Conservatives simply have no interest in doing.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time today to speak about the recent agreements that Canada signed with the Musqueam nation. These agreements build on the Constitution Act, 1982, the direction provided by the courts over the last several decades and efforts of indigenous groups over many years to have their rights recognized and upheld by the Crown. To understand these agreements, it is helpful to begin with the Constitution.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” It reflects Parliament's recognition that indigenous nations will become partners in Confederation based on fair and just reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Crown. Existing aboriginal and treaty rights include rights defined under historical or modern treaties and the asserted aboriginal rights and title of indigenous nations with claims to land that remain unresolved.

Indigenous nations have rights and title within their territory that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35 recognizes what first nations have always known, that they have aboriginal rights. However, acknowledging aboriginal rights is not the same as defining those rights. General recognition that a first nation has aboriginal title acknowledges a legal and historical fact. That recognition also creates an important and respectful starting point for the negotiation of agreements to address their claims. General recognition of aboriginal rights, including title, is often included in agreements negotiated between governments and indigenous nations, including both treaties and incremental non-treaty agreements.

Agreements such as the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement contain general recognition and do not create a legal interest in any specific lands. Specific recognition of aboriginal title means that an indigenous group has aboriginal title to specific lands, including a legal ownership interest based on their historical use and occupation of those lands. This type of recognition can happen either as part of an agreement negotiated between governments and indigenous nations or as a result of a court decision in an aboriginal title case such as in the Cowichan and Tsilhqot’in cases. Quite simply, this agreement does not create aboriginal rights for Musqueam. It does not define the nature or scope of their aboriginal rights. It simply acknowledges that Musqueam have aboriginal rights including aboriginal title somewhere, not throughout, within their entire traditional territory. Most important, it sets out a process for discussion about how and where those rights might be implemented in the future. To use the analogy of a tool box, general recognition of aboriginal rights through the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement is like agreeing that a tool box exists. What it does not do is decide how the tools will be used or which tools will be needed. Those are questions that will be worked through later, together, through discussion and negotiation.

Moreover, the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement does not impact third party interests, including private property. It does not impact the rights of other first nations. It does not impact or alter the jurisdiction of federal, provincial or local governments. No decision-making powers about lands, waters or resources are transferred through these agreements. The Musqueam agreement does not mention private property because private property was never on the negotiating table in the first place. There has been a lot of commentary regarding these agreements. Canadians place great value on private property and also recognize the importance of advancing reconciliation with indigenous people.

Given the importance of advancing reconciliation with first nations and the need for clarity as Canada strengthens its economy, it is critical that we are clear about what these agreements are and what they are not. To that end, I would emphasize that private property is firmly under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. It cannot be negotiated away from provinces or Canadians without their consent and it is not something the federal government can alter through this type of agreement. The Government of Canada respects both existing private property interests and constitutionally protected indigenous rights within the federal government's areas of responsibility. The Musqueam people have clearly stated that they have no intention of pursuing private property through this agreement.

If I may quote Musqueam chief Wayne Sparrow, he said, ”Our approach to traditional unceded territory is one of partnership and relationship with our neighbours, not trying to take away our neighbours' private property.”

Treaties and other agreements, such as the one with Musqueam, allow government to advance reconciliation and address indigenous rights and title through dialogue and co-operation while protecting private property and providing certainty for all Canadians. The Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement provides a path forward to address Musqueam's rights and title collaboratively and avoid the uncertainty and high costs of pursuing litigation in the courts.

Canada has consistently stated that the best way to resolve outstanding claims is to work together in partnership through co-operative negotiations and respectful dialogue, not through litigation. The litigation of land claims often involves unpredictable outcomes and significant costs for provincial, territorial and federal governments, and Canadians. Negotiated agreements provide an alternative that supports clarity and stability around the exercise of aboriginal rights.

Agreements like the Musqueam agreement are about creating certainty and predictability, predictability for investors, for major projects, for private landowners, for indigenous groups and for all Canadians. By negotiating agreements such as this one, Canada is taking a responsible approach to resolving outstanding claims, including through its work with Musqueam. In so doing, we are able to advance the resolution of long-standing disputes about land and rights in ways that respect the rights of indigenous peoples, uphold existing private property rights and reflect the best interests of all Canadians.

This approach supports a stronger and more unified Canada, where private property and indigenous rights are respected together.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I have to say I am quite disappointed in the government's response. In fact, I think it is going to have to resile from this response at some point. When I heard the minister say this was just fearmongering, to me, that was completely unbecoming. Is it fearmongering when somebody goes to renew their mortgage and they have to get a higher interest rate because the market is saying that their house is no longer worth the same amount? Crickets. Is it fearmongering when somebody cannot get insurance at the same rate? That has nothing to do with what is being said on this side of the House. It has to do with, really, what is happening on the ground.

The only reason that the government is dealing with this is because it has been hearing about it. The government is hearing about it because of the reasons I just said.

Does the hon. member not agree?

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion misrepresents both the law and the government's position. It suggests that Canadians could lose their homes because of agreements with indigenous partners, and that is simply not true. Our government has been clear. We support protecting private property rights and we are actively defending them through the courts. At the same time, we will not support a partisan process that supports and spreads fear and misinformation about reconciliation and indigenous partnerships.

Our government has been clear that reconciliation is the way in which we want to move forward on these.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could my hon. colleague explain why it is important to protect private property rights while also reflecting the courts, the Constitution and our responsibility towards reconciliation?

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, protecting the certainty and integrity of private property rights remains a fundamental priority for our government. That is precisely why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We do not agree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling, which is why the government appealed it back in September. Our government is fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while we advance reconciliation.

This matter is before the courts, where it should properly be addressed, not reduced to partisan rhetoric in this chamber.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling frustration from across my riding. We keep hearing the words “all viable arguments”, but we are not hearing all arguments.

Will the Liberals acknowledge what the Supreme Court knows, which was established in the B.C. appeals court, which is that the federal government lawyers will not be able to use the main argument, the extinguishment of land title argument, because they failed to do it in the B.C. appeals court? What arguments will they use in the Supreme Court?

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance. This is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We believed then and we continue to believe now that those potentially affected by a decision of this magnitude deserve to be informed and heard. This is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. This is why we have supported an application that would allow Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to present evidence that was not before—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

The member talks about all legal options. He is talking like a lawyer here. Why does he not tell us about the idea of estoppel and issue estoppel? Does that arise, yes or no?

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to be very clear about the Musqueam agreements. These agreements do not impact private property. The agreements recognize the Musqueam's constitutionally protected aboriginal rights in the specific areas of stewardship and marine emergency management while creating a practical framework for collaboration between Canada and the first nations. These agreements respect the rights of indigenous peoples—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has the floor.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

I have the honour of sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond Centre—Marpole.

This past week, Canadians, particularly British Columbians, received deeply troubling news. A new survey from the Business Council of British Columbia found that nearly three-quarters of businesses plan to reduce investment and one-third plan to reduce hiring because of the growing uncertainty around property rights and land title in this country. This uncertainty is not theoretical. It is very real. It affects homeowners, employers, municipalities and investors who believed that, in Canada, fee simple ownership meant certainty.

Since the Cowichan ruling, I have received calls, and I was a bit shocked because Westbank First Nation is in the heart of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna and sits side by side with the City of West Kelowna. I have had people who live in Westbank First Nation ask me questions about their property and whether their investments are safe. This is not surprising because today's debate is really about a simple question that people in my riding are asking: Will the House of Commons stand up for Canadians who followed the rules and invested their life savings, or will it allow uncertainty and inaction to undermine private property rights in Canada?

Business leaders are clear about what is driving this concern. It is the increased costs, the delay, the complexity and the unpredictability caused by this court ruling, as well policy reversals and an ever-changing legal landscape. As a result, investment is being shelved, jobs are at risk and confidence is eroding.

What we already know is alarming. Fee simple titles held by the city of Richmond, the federal government and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority are now potentially invalid or ineffective due to this ruling. What we do not know yet is what the full impact will be on private landowners, people who worked hard, followed every rule, paid their taxes and put their entire life savings into their homes and businesses. They are worried, and rightly so.

When these concerns are raised, members opposite respond by accusing critics of fearmongering or spreading misinformation. This is what Liberals tend to do when they do not have a substantive answer to serious questions, because these are serious questions.

To those making those accusations, I would offer this: It was the Liberal government that adopted litigation directive number 14. That directive restricted the arguments Crown lawyers could make in court to defend fee simple property rights. That is not rhetoric. That is documented policy. Litigation directive number 14 is not fearmongering. It is a fact. It is an inconvenient fact for the Prime Minister and his government, one it has refused to explain still being on the books and that is instructing lawyers within its employ. The Prime Minister has been asked repeatedly why his government has continued with this directive, and he has continued to avoid giving a clear answer.

Why did the Liberal Prime Minister refuse to stand up for property rights when it mattered? That remains unanswered, but what we do know now is that, after the damage has been done, the Prime Minister says he disagrees with this court decision. He now says that private property rights are fundamental and that his government will defend them. I am happy to say that the Prime Minister will have that opportunity with this motion. This opposition day motion gives the Prime Minister a chance to match his words with action, something that is increasingly difficult for the Prime Minister. Will he vote to defend private property rights, or will he vote against them once again?

This motion proposes practical, substantive and achievable steps to help restore certainty and confidence. First, it calls on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case by clearly arguing that fee simple ownership has priority. I have heard the term “viable arguments”, but that does not necessarily mean they are making every argument. Second, the motion specifically calls for litigation directive number 14 to be replaced with a clear requirement that the federal government aggressively defend property rights in all litigation.

Third, the motion requires that no agreement be concluded without explicit protection of fee simple property rights in all future negotiations with first nations, so everyone understands and has some certainty, something failed to have been done under this government and its predecessor. Fourth, it demands a concrete plan from the Prime Minister within 30 days, complete with timelines, to protect Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement. Finally, it establishes a special parliamentary committee to examine every legal, constitutional and political tool available to protect private property rights in Canada.

These are not radical proposals, and they are not ideological. They are responsible. They only become controversial if one does not believe that private property rights are fundamental to our system, both our system of capitalism in this country and our Westminster system. We have always honoured these things, and the lack of certainty that we see today is causing real harm. It is freezing investment, encouraging litigation and forcing Canadians into a legal limbo with no clear path forward. This is despite the Prime Minister and all his Liberal members of Parliament, or as I have heard it described in the Toronto Star, his deputies, describing everything that the Conservatives say as not being true.

It should not be this way. Behind closed doors, negotiations are occurring with public tax dollars on the line, while affected Canadians are left without consultation, clarity or protection. Lawyers disagree and experts disagree. Lawsuits are multiplying, and the government is failing to protect the interests of some of the very people it claims to serve.

British Columbia already faces enough challenges. One can look at softwood lumber, American tariffs and an NDP provincial government, which appears to have no idea of what it is doing. We do not need to add property rights chaos to that list, but I guess it already has been. We have to make sure that we pull that off the list. This motion is a way to do that.

The Prime Minister often says that we should focus on what we can control. Today, with this motion, the House can control something. We can restore certainty, and we can defend property rights. We can stand up for Canadians who, by every account, have done everything right. That is why I will be voting in favour of this motion. The Prime Minister, himself, has said, “private property rights are fundamental”. Today we will see if his words mean anything.

I urge all hon. members to support this motion and send a clear message that, in Canada, private property rights matter. We hear the concerns raised by British Columbians. We know we have the means to address them. We are dedicated in service to ensuring that their rights and concerns are addressed, not in some far‑off land at some yet-to-be-determined time, but here and now, in this Parliament, in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the motion that we have before us today is that it is trying to give the false impression that the government does not support private land rights, which is just not the case. Every Conservative member knows that.

The damage of bringing forward motions of this nature, which significantly mislead Canadians, has a great cost. We talk a great deal about reconciliation, and this is a step backwards. The Prime Minister and the minister responsible have been very clear.

The question I have for the member is, why does the Conservative Party want to promote fear when there is no need to do so?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Liberal members continue to throw out any concerns as misinformation. What is not misinformation is that in 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still enforced today despite multiple calls by Conservative members for the Prime Minister to show Canadians that he means what he says. He has yet to take us up on that offer.

We have Liberals saying that it is all misinformation, but it is on the government website. If it is misinformation, is the government now the biggest misleader on this particular case? If we read the website, that is what it says. The member cannot say otherwise because it is the truth.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

We just heard from a B.C. member from Surrey. I have to say that it sounded like a bureaucrat wrote the speech. The reason why I say that is that he read the whole speech. In fact, I asked him a question, and he read from a piece of paper an answer that had nothing to do with the question.

My hon. colleague clearly wrote his own speech. I am wondering what message it sends when the Liberals are just reading talking points and accusing us of fearmongering.

Why do they not go to the houses in Richmond and the places in Vancouver and ask how people feel about having a higher mortgage rate or not being able to get home insurance? Why do they not do that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if members read any newspaper in British Columbia, they are going to read about the mayor of Richmond, who has broadly raised this issue while the province and federal government said nothing. They made clear representation on private property rights.

All we are asking in this motion today, and of Liberal members, is to start listening to British Columbians and those they have elected who have been raising this alarm. They have had lots of time. The fact that they are now sending out members from British Columbia who are just reading talking points, basically giving the same line without concrete action, says to me that they are prepared to vote against this, because they truly do not protect the private property rights of British Columbians or anyone else.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today Liberals repeatedly failed to answer my question on extinguishment and their failure to use that argument in the B.C. appeals court and, therefore, legally not being able to use it in the Supreme Court. They mislead Canadians, give a false impression and say every “viable argument” because they know they cannot say every argument.

Is this just another Liberal illusion?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have Liberal members rise to talk about this all being part of reconciliation, but a judge in New Brunswick had a very different interpretation. In fact, when there was talk in a court case in New Brunswick about extinguishment and how it related to private property rights, the judge identified that the one way to dial reconciliation back in a negative direction would be to put the private property rights of the people who I mentioned at risk, those homeowners and business owners who have done everything that has been asked of them under the law. It causes frictions between first nations in British Columbia and Canada and the interests of homeowners and business owners, and now the government is making it all worse.

We need to work together to get back to a situation where everyone is comfortable with those relations moving forward.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for eight months, British Columbians have been left with silence: silence after a court ruling that raised serious questions about the certainty of private property rights in Canada; silence after repeated concerns from homeowners, businesses, municipalities and investors; silence after Richmond city council sent letters asking the government for clarity; and silence after Canadians asked the very simple question of whether the Liberal government still believes in defending the legal foundations of private property rights in Canada.

After all that silence, when the Prime Minister finally addressed the issue in the House, Canadians did not get answers. They got talking points, attacks and accusations of fearmongering, but they still did not get clarity, so let us put some facts on the record.

First, despite what the Prime Minister claimed in the House, the Liberal government did not immediately appeal the Cowichan ruling. It waited until the very last possible moment before filing its appeal, long after the Province of British Columbia and the City of Richmond did, which is a clear distinction in willingness to stand up for Canadians. If the Liberals truly believed the ruling created no uncertainty, why did it wait until the deadline had nearly expired?

Second, throughout this entire controversy, the government has offered no meaningful public explanation of the ruling and no substantive public statement on the implications for homeowners, businesses, municipalities, lenders or investors. Eight months passed before Canadians even heard a serious acknowledgement from the Prime Minister.

Third, Richmond city council repeatedly attempted to engage with the Liberal government. It wrote letters seeking clarity on the implications of the Cowichan and Musqueam agreements and the border concerns surrounding land title certainty and federal litigation policy. These are not just fringe concerns. Homeowners cannot renew their mortgage. The concerns came from elected municipal leaders representing one of the most economically significant communities in British Columbia. What did they receive? It was silence. There was no meaningful engagement, no public reassurance and no detailed explanation.

Fourth, when Conservatives ask questions in committees and in the House, the government consistently provides vague and ambiguous answers. They hide behind legal technicalities. They avoid direct responses. They narrow every answer to procedural language instead of addressing the border issues Canadians were actually worried about: whether the government was weakening the legal foundations that underpin private ownership in Canada. That is not the level of clarity that business owners and investors must depend on.

Finally, when the Prime Minister did speak, after months of pressure, he still refused to provide the one assurance Canadians were looking for. He would not clearly commit to withdrawing the 2019 directive's litigation guideline 14, which effectively sent its own lawyers into court with one hand tied behind their back. Let us be absolutely clear: The central issue in this litigation is that the federal government, through litigation guideline 14, instructed its lawyers to restrict their arguments regarding the supremacy and extinguishment effect of fee simple rights.

This directive was issued in the middle of ongoing litigation and represented a clear change of course in the government's line of argument. Rather than fully defending the certainty and finality of private property rights, the government deliberately narrowed the arguments available to its own counsel, creating uncertainty with potentially far-reaching consequences for property owners across Canada. That directive remains publicly available on the Liberal government's own website today, so Canadians are still left asking what exactly the government's position is.

Conservatives have been accused of fearmongering for raising these concerns, but let us look at the real-world consequences of uncertainty. Markets react immediately. Investors react immediately. Lenders react immediately. Businesses react immediately.

The consequences are already being felt on the ground in British Columbia. Montrose Properties has publicly raised concerns about the uncertainty surrounding land title and investment confidence. The local golf course now sits in limbo, uncertain if it should continue to invest in growth or prepare to sell. Farmers who have worked their land for decades are now questioning how to manage long-term operations while watching property values decline and financing uncertainty increase.

A local senior couple has reportedly been unable to sell their property in order to pursue a more secure retirement. Even a deal involving the sale of a local hotel that is not even located within the distributed area has collapsed because of the growing uncertainty surrounding land title and future risk.

These are not theoretical consequences. There are real people, real businesses and real livelihoods being impacted right now. Canadians are not asking for abstract legal debates. These are foundational questions about confidence in Canada's economy and its legal systems.

These issues matter deeply in my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond is not just another municipality. It is one of Canada's economic gateways to the Indo-Pacific. It is home to major transportation, infrastructure and international trade networks; logistics hubs; exporters; and entrepreneurs and families that have invested their life savings into homes and businesses. It is a place where immigrants have chosen to build a livelihood. That is why Richmond's city council raised concerns. That is why residents are paying attention. That is why businesses are watching carefully.

The Cowichan ruling has far-reaching consequences, yet the Liberal government is trying to water down its significance and mislead Canadians about its impact. The Liberals know they made a grave mistake when they gave their lawyers the restrictive instructions, and now they are trying to distance themselves from the consequences. They know that the impact of this ruling is real, yet instead of taking responsibility, they are attempting to whitewash the issue and accuse others of fearmongering.

This decision will have profound and lasting consequences not only for Richmond, not only for the Lower Mainland and not only for British Columbia but for all of Canada. The government’s actions will be remembered as a shameful chapter in our country’s history. Canadians deserve transparency. We deserve confidence. We deserve real answers.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I question some of the logic in the member's speech. I understand that these are concerns that his constituents have brought up, but aboriginal title has been recognized in Canada since 1973. There was the Delgamuukw case in 1997, and three or four different aboriginal title cases have been recognized in British Columbia.

Can the member opposite point to a single time when someone lost their property as a result of aboriginal title?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, would my colleague on the other side not admit that the Liberal government did not appeal the ruling until the very last moment, long after the City of Richmond and the Province of British Columbia had done so? Would he not admit that the Liberals gave their lawyers the restrictive directive to tie their hands in court? Does he not admit that they have been silent for eight months and that, still, to this day, they have not given us any clarity?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion states that the committee should study the issue over at least 12 meetings but that the report should be tabled before June 19. Given that this is such a complex and important topic, would it not be appropriate to extend that deadline to the fall, if necessary, to ensure that members can discuss the issues in depth?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, this is an urgent matter in the sense that we have already felt the consequences on the ground. People in my riding and in the province of British Columbia are worried, and they are already being impacted by the consequences and uncertainty.

In addition, we have asked for an emergency debate before, which was not granted. This is not a matter on which we can keep waiting, and we have been asking the government to work with us on a solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole's speech was amazing. He is very passionate about the issue, given that the Cowichan decision affects a portion of his riding. He deals every day with people who are worried about the future of their homes and businesses.

Maybe we can talk about the government, in 2018, deciding that its lawyers would stop arguing for fee simple property. I think that is the crux of the issue. To that point, the government says it stands up for fee simple property owners, but maybe the member could opine on how the government expects to win a court case with an argument it cannot use in appeal because it did not use it in the lower court.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the question the Liberal government has to answer. The Liberals either have to admit they made a mistake in giving the directive, or they have to stand up and say they are still honouring that directive. Either way, Canadians are the losers.

With respect to the appeal, it is because the City of Richmond insisted right from the beginning on the fee simple argument that we are able to proceed in the appeal for that argument. I thank the City of Richmond for insisting on that argument. Shame on the government.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond East—Steveston.

I want to take a few minutes today to separate fact from fiction. Right now, when it comes to aboriginal title in this country, there is a lot of confusion. That confusion fuels concern and, in some cases, misinformation is making it worse. Let me be very clear from the outset: Some of the anxiety Canadians are feeling right now is understandable and it is rooted in the fact that this area of law is not settled and is evolving. For many Canadians, this is not an abstract. It is about their homes, their businesses, their communities and their sense of security. When people hear conflicting information about something as fundamental as property rights, it is entirely reasonable that they ask questions and expect clear answers.

For decades, Canadian courts have developed aboriginal title law carefully and incrementally since it was first recognized back in 1973. The decision in the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada case at the Supreme Court of British Columbia took a novel approach. It found that aboriginal title could exist in areas that include private fee simple lands and suggested that those interests could actually coexist. The court did not invalidate private property held titles. It did not remove land from individuals. What it did was introduce a new and complex legal question about precisely how continuing private property interests could coexist with what the court also declared was a superior aboriginal title interest.

Our government has been clear. We do not agree with the court's decision in Cowichan. We recognized that it creates uncertainty, and that is why it is being appealed. Canadians deserve clarity on something as fundamental as property rights. That is not just our view; it is reflected in the fact that the courts themselves are not aligned on this issue. I want to bring to members' attention that in New Brunswick, the litigation involving the Wolastoqey Nations v. New Brunswick and Canada decision at the Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion. The court stated that it was open for courts to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that declaration of aboriginal title could not be made over private property.

Therefore, we now have two court decisions in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why we need to have clarity from the courts, and that is why it is being appealed. This is an important point. When the law is unsettled, it creates space for speculation. It creates space for competing interpretations and, in that space, misinformation can take hold and facts can be twisted. This is where myth begins to enter the picture because while this legal uncertainty is real, it is being used and weaponized in some cases to suggest that negotiated agreements are putting private property at risk. That is simply not true. It is important that we say that clearly, but also respectfully, because many Canadians asking these questions are doing so in good faith.

Therefore, let me address one example directly. There has been commentary about the Musqueam agreement and what it does and does not do. Here are the facts. It does not impact Canadians' private property. This agreement does not grant new rights. It does not define or finalize the scope of any existing Musqueam aboriginal rights and it does not attach any such rights to specific parcels of land. What it does do is acknowledge that rights exist, which they do under section 35 of the Constitution, and it creates a structured process for Canada and Musqueam to work together to better understand how those rights may be addressed over time. That is it. It is a framework for negotiations. It is not a transfer of land or change in ownership and it does not affect private property. It does not override provincial jurisdiction and it does not give any decision-making authority over land or resources to Musqueam through this agreement. In other words, it is about creating a path forward for dialogue and clarity, not changing who owns what today. In fact, private property was never part of these negotiations and will never be part of any future negotiations.

I would remind colleagues that in British Columbia, jurisdiction over private property rests with the province. It is not something that the federal government can simply negotiate away, and it has not done so. The Musqueam themselves have been clear that this agreement is not about pursuing privately owned land, so when Canadians hear claims that agreements like this somehow put their homes and businesses at risk, those claims are not grounded in fact. They are grounded in trying to create fear.

The distinction is important. On the one hand, we have court decisions that are exploring new and unsettled legal territory. On the other hand, we have negotiated agreements that are designed to create clarity, not uncertainty. That distinction matters because litigation and negotiation do very different things. Litigation can clarify the law over time, but it often does so in a narrow, incremental way that can leave broader uncertainty in the meantime. Negotiation allows parties to sit down, address concerns directly and build solutions that reflect real-world impacts. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has resulted in Canadians losing privately owned land. This goes back to 1973 when aboriginal title was first recognized and discussed in the Calder case.

In fact, negotiated agreements consistently do the opposite. They provide predictability and clarity and explicitly protect private interests while advancing reconciliation. We saw that recently in the agreement with the Haida Nation, which addressed aboriginal title while clearly providing for the protection of private fee simple lands. That is the value of negotiations. Negotiations allow complexity to be addressed directly and balanced outcomes to be reached. Courts answer legal questions. Negotiations build lasting solutions. We are committed to ensuring those negotiations go forward in a way that creates clarity.

Yes, there is uncertainty right now. Canadians have legitimate questions, and we are acting to address that uncertainty by seeking clarity through the courts where the issue is already being raised. At the same time, that uncertainty cannot be used to misinterpret the facts. We will continue to engage Canadians with honesty and transparency and acknowledging what we know, what we do not know yet and what we are doing to get clarity. Fear must not replace facts. Reconciliation must move forward through respectful, balanced and negotiated agreements. At the end of the day, Canadians have confidence that their rights and interests are being protected and reconciliation is being advanced in a thoughtful, measured and fact-based way. That is how certainty is built and trust is strengthened and how we will move together.

I want to dwell on this because there has been a lot of misinformation. Conservatives continue to act as if aboriginal title in Canada is a new thing. It has been recognized since 1973. We have seen multiple British Columbia tribes go to court and have their aboriginal titles recognized, from the Nisga'a to the Delgamuukw and the Tsilhqot’in. There is not one example where these court cases resulted in someone losing their fee simple property rights. It just has not happened. To suggest that for some reason or somehow these tribes are going to come after this title and take people's homes and property is just irresponsible, not factual and meant to create fear and misinform Canadians.

On this side of the House, we will continue to balance our efforts toward reconciliation with the interests of Canadians. We have done so in every single indigenous case that has ever gone to the Supreme Court where indigenous tribes have won, and we will continue to do so moving forward. For Canadians at home hearing this, our government is ready, prepared and willing to negotiate and ensure that we are protecting property rights at the same time as advancing reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member opposite on the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

The member used the comment that we have heard a lot. He was talking about disinformation. I do not think at any point in the debate today implied that the Cowichan band would be kicking people off their land. I do not think anyone on this side has said that in all the time we have been debating this, so I do not know where that member is actually getting it from.

We have said it creates uncertainty within the marketplace, regarding private business and private home ownership, and that is exactly what it is creating, so much so that the Province of British Columbia actually had to come in to backstop home and business owners who are trying to obtain financing through the banks. There is uncertainty. That is true. That is not misinformation. The government also, in 2018, told its lawyers to stop arguing for fee simple property. That is a fact. There are also numerous other things the government has done that create this uncertainty, and that is what we are arguing here. The government expects to win in court on appeal with an argument it cannot make.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I respect that member, and I want to respectfully say that I have heard a lot of Conservatives get up and pretend they know something about aboriginal litigation. As someone who taught aboriginal and treaty rights law at university, I have heard some of these arguments. When a court case comes to the Supreme Court of Canada, many intervenors will come in with many different arguments. For the members opposite to suggest that there was one opportunity to have an argument that might go to the Supreme Court of Canada is non-factual. It is not based in any kind of actual fact from anyone who has ever read an aboriginal title case or anyone who has actually looked at the court cases and said, here is what happens when indigenous nations have proved what their section 35 rights are. We sit down and negotiate with them. We protect the interests of Canadians, but we also do it in a way that does not create fear, mistrust and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that we should study the issue either at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs or at a special committee, as the Conservatives suggest?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this determination needs to go through the court system. When we have things that are before the courts, we have an independent judiciary. It is really important that, when it comes to the law, we have the application of those facts in law done in independent ways.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I have memories of being in high school in the early 1990s when the B.C. treaty process was opened up because of the many title cases that my colleague has talked about. Fellow students asked, “Are you coming for our house? Are you coming for our land?” We had to have leadership come say absolutely not, we will never do that; we want to work in co-operation and we want to live in harmony with each and every person who lives in and around our territory.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has been involved in first nations politics for a very long time across this country. Has he ever once heard a first nations person, a chief or anybody, say they want private property rights?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Mr. Speaker, truthfully, when I go across this country, I hear chiefs and leaders talking about justice. They talk about the rights that they had, the title and the resources, and they just want their fair share. They are not asking for anything over and above what Canadians receive. They want to be part of a system. They want to be a part of growing. They have these rights, recognized by section 35 and often upheld in the courts, and when those rights are upheld, they often negotiate with our federal government to figure out how we implement those rights. It has happened for the Mi'kmaq in 1990 with the Marshall decision. It happens in British Columbia with aboriginal title. The government, the nations and the province find ways to create dialogue, get to the negotiation table and ensure that we are representing all rights in a situation where all parties are winning and no one loses out.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the argument of private property at court. The member opposite, being involved in the law, should know that if we do not make the argument in the lower court, we cannot use that argument at appeal or if it goes to the Supreme Court. The government cannot make that argument. The other thing the court decision did was that it eviscerated sections 23 and 25 of the B.C. Land Title Act, which is the underpinning of private ownership in the city of Richmond and within the province of British Columbia.

Again, how does the government expect to use an argument and win at court with something it cannot actually use?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to look at every single aboriginal title litigation or every section 35 case. There are things called intervenors. The Conservative Party of Canada could actually apply to be an intervenor, since it has all the answers when it comes to litigating first nations rights. I doubt it would be granted, because the Supreme Court looks at rational and reasonable arguments, not at political and irresponsible arguments.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. There has been a bit of back and forth. It has been relatively good-natured, but I will just remind members to try to wait for the question and comment period before asking questions across the floor.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond East—Steveston.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the matter of the Cowichan court decision, as it has understandably raised questions in the House; in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia; and across Canada.

Let me first say that our government disagrees with the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision and that we immediately appealed the court decision. As the case is before the courts, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the ongoing aspects of the litigation itself. I will, however, provide background on the history of the case and speak about private property interests.

It is helpful at the outset to understand the scope of the litigation and the number of parties involved. Besides the federal Crown, there are five other defendants in the litigation: the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the Government of British Columbia, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam first nation, and the Tsawwassen First Nation.

The litigation began in November 2014. The Cowichans sought a declaration of aboriginal title to 1,846 acres of land located in the city of Richmond, along with a declaration of an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. The claimed lands include federal lands owned by Transport Canada and managed by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Richmond municipal lands, and some lands held by private landowners.

Given the complexity of the issues and the number of parties involved, it is not surprising that the case unfolded over several years. On August 7, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court delivered its decision, ruling that the Cowichan hold aboriginal title over approximately 40% of the claimed area, as well as an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. Soon after the release of the decision, all parties took further steps within the court process. The court's decision is being appealed by all parties to the litigation, including Canada.

Some of the court's findings have potentially significant implications, including with respect to private property rights. Because the decision is not entirely clear on certain points, that clarity is being sought through the proper legal process. I have also been working to seek clarity, and I recognize that the decision has raised questions or concerns.

We know that Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown at trial. Canada also defended the principle of transparency in this trial, particularly for parties that are not directly involved in this case but that may be affected by its outcome. In 2017, Canada brought an application seeking an order requiring the plaintiffs to notify private landowners within the claim area in this case. The court declined to exercise its discretion to require the Cowichan to give formal notice to private landowners. I should note that every aboriginal title claim is unique, and the reasoning in this decision will not necessarily apply to other cases. It depends on the facts of the case in question.

With that background in mind, I will turn to more recent developments.

Three related private real estate companies, which I will refer to as Montrose, operate in Richmond and claim they are the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial, be added as a party and file new evidence and argument. Its application would allow the company to present its perspective on how the declaration of aboriginal title impacts its legal and financial interests.

Canada has filed a response to support Montrose's application. It is important for all parties to be heard when they are directly and significantly affected by a court decision. Canada's position is consistent with the application it brought in 2017 regarding the need to provide notice of the trial to private landowners.

If successful, Montrose would become an official party to the litigation, and the record would be reopened so the court could receive Montrose's evidence and submissions, including submissions related to the impacts of the ruling. The Montrose application is scheduled to be heard before the British Columbia Supreme Court on May 25 and May 26, 2026.

The Government of Canada respects the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. Canada's approach in this litigation reflects the use of appropriate court process to address legal uncertainty, while continuing to advance reconciliation in accordance with the Constitution. I will add that private property rights are fundamental and that our government will always protect them.

For the Government of Canada, private property cannot and will not be negotiated. This is not only because our government would never negotiate Canadians’ private property but also because, as members all know, private land ownership and land deeds fall under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level protects private property. In fact, no modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has led to Canadians' losing their privately owned land.

As the member of Parliament for Richmond East—Steveston, I have been working and will continue to work with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to address residents' concerns and share constituents’ perspectives with the government, and to advocate for the people of our city. At the same time, I will work with the Richmond city council and all levels of government to ensure that the residents of our city are engaged and informed on these matters as they proceed in the months and years to come.

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

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.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that if we listened to colleagues who spoke earlier, the fearmongering we are talking about has to do with what the members opposite are implying: that private property lands will be taken away.

I come back to the issue at hand. This is a provincial matter. I have outlined how the federal government cannot and will not negotiate private lands. Most of these questions should be directed to the province and the Premier of British Columbia.

A corresponding decision on a similar case happened in New Brunswick. That court of appeal issued a decision in the context of an aboriginal title claim on the issue of whether aboriginal title can coexist with fee simple title. The court found that it could make a finding of aboriginal title leading to compensation for an indigenous nation, but it went the other way. This is a provincial matter.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, has been very involved with the issue. He is very concerned as well, because he does take this very seriously with his residents and his constituents. I have seen him working on the ground, not only with them but also with the parties appealing the decision along with the federal government. There is the municipality. There are other first nations. There is the province of British Columbia. There is a unified approach to make sure the decision is appealed.

I want to ask the member what he has been hearing from the other parties, so we know they are all working together to ensure that it is appealed.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his hard work on this issue as well.

With respect to the other members who are involved, the concerns are there. What they have shared is about having an opportunity to be involved in the case.

I would like to mention that the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole, who has been talking quite a bit about this, sat as a Richmond city councillor when this issue was in court. He did not inform residents but is now bringing this issue forward. He also ran for the NDP provincial government that was responsible for the issue at the time, and now we are hearing contradictory information from the other side.

Again, it begs the question about why misinformation is being brought forward into the House.

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

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?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, in 2017, the federal government applied to the court to make sure that they notify the residents.

If we look at the question the member has brought forward with respect to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is taking responsibility for this country, and he wanted to ensure that Canadians understand that the federal government will not negotiate private property rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will quote the Prime Minister directly and ask for my colleague's comments on it.

This is what the Prime Minister said, just the other day: “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights.”

The Prime Minister has been very clear on the issue. Can the member just reinforce that particular thought?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the Prime Minister taking responsibility to make sure Canadians know what our position as a federal government is, that we will have their backs.

I will reiterate one more piece. The federal government would never negotiate Canadians' private property, but also, as members know, private land ownership and land deeds fall under provincial jurisdiction. This is why I am stating that this is a provincial matter.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

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.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I have much respect for my colleague from the Nanaimo territory.

She mentioned that the government failed to negotiate a treaty with the Cowichan Tribes. However, the Stz’uminus tribe, which is part of the Cowichan Tribes, dropped out of the treaty process in 2014, and who was in government at the time, in 2014?

We try to negotiate on this side. We go to court. These sorts of things happen. Then the Conservatives criticize the negotiations on a government-to-government level. What are we supposed to do? What is their solution, to negotiate with first nations or to go to court, because they are saying that both do not work?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the Liberals have been sitting on this. On spreading disinformation and paranoia, I do agree with the Liberals on that, absolutely. I would liken it to the behaviour being perpetrated by the Liberals. I do not know why they are calling that out when they are doing exactly the same thing.

To my question, we know that property rights are protected and, also, that constitutional rights are protected. That includes section 35 of the Constitution, which affirms and recognizes that aboriginal rights and title are not secondary rights. We have taken an oath of office, all of us in here, as members of Parliament, to uphold the rule of law, and that means the Constitution. The Conservative motion that has been put forward suggests that we should not respect the Constitution.

I am not just talking about the Conservatives. The Liberals are playing the same game.

Does my hon. colleague respect her duty as a parliamentarian to respect and uphold our Constitution and the rule of law, yes or no?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

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.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, any time we make a very thorough and good explanation and ask questions of the government, we hear the Liberals get up and go back to 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and refer to other places, other governments and other prime ministers.

Does the member think that is an effective or responsible way for our government to respond to members of the opposition, when we have a right in the House to question, to make suggestions and to make legislation better?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

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.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

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.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is agreement to suspend the sitting until 2 p.m. Therefore, the House is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1:50 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 2 p.m.)

Right to Strike

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, workers from across Canada are supporting the NDP's Bill C-247 to uphold workers' right to strike and repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. The Liberals have repeatedly used this undemocratic law to shut down strikes and undermine workers' fight for fair, livable wages.

With Air Canada, the Liberals sided with CEOs and used section 107 less than 12 hours after flight attendants began their strike against unpaid work. This affected workers everywhere. Today, cabin crew representatives from CUPE told me that, after over seven months of bargaining with WestJet, they are concerned that the use of section 107 may discourage management from coming back to the bargaining table as it might believe that the government would shut down any future strike. This is unacceptable.

New Democrats stand shoulder to shoulder with all workers, whether at airlines, at rail lines, in the public service or in the postal service. New Democrats are telling the government to stop the attack on the right to strike and pass Bill C-247.

Plant-Based Proteins

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the growing importance of Canada's plant-based industry for our economy, our farmers and our future. Across the country, producers are diversifying into plant-based proteins, creating new markets, strengthening supply chains and adding value to Canadian crops. This sector is driving innovation, supporting rural communities and positioning Canada as a leader in sustainable agriculture. I believe this growth must be built in partnership with producers that have practical, market-driven policies grounded in the realities of those who feed our communities.

Finally, I am delighted to acknowledge a distinguished delegation from Denmark, along with members of World Animal Protection Canada, who are visiting Ottawa this week and whose insights are advancing this important conversation.

Youth in Vaughan—Woodbridge

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize something truly special happening in Vaughan—Woodbridge. I recently launched a youth advisory council, and the response has been remarkable. Young people in our community are stepping up. They are showing up and saying, “We care about the future of this country, and we want a seat at the table.” That is exactly the spirit that builds Canada, and that spirit is alive and well in Woodbridge.

After more than a decade of Liberal government, our young people are worried. They are worried about crime in their neighbourhoods and the rise of artificial intelligence. They are wondering what AI means for the future and its impact on jobs. They look at this country, and they wonder if the cultural fabric can still hold together. Many of them have stopped believing they will ever own a home or raise a family in the communities that they grew up in. That is not the Canada we promised them, and that is not the Canada we are willing to accept.

I want to hear the voice of every young person in Vaughan—Woodbridge. They deserve to be heard.

Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, a time to recognize the strength and resilience of the nearly 90,000 Canadians living with MS, including many in my home province of Prince Edward Island.

This week on Parliament Hill, representatives from MS Canada met with members of Parliament to advocate for a $15-million investment in MS research. This funding would help Canada continue to work alongside international research partners toward what so many families are hoping for, a cure.

To everyone living with MS, along with the caregivers, researchers, advocates and organizations such as MS Canada, I thank them for their leadership and their perseverance. Together, we will keep pushing for better treatments, stronger supports and, ultimately, a world free of MS.

Harvest Hands

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, food affordability remains a serious challenge for families in my community and across the country. Today, I want to recognize some of the unsung heroes who are meeting that challenge head-on. Founded just six years ago by Jim and Jacintha Collins, Harvest Hands in St. Thomas has rescued more than 45 million dollars' worth of surplus food, nearly $20 million last year alone.

What started in a small church space is now a major distribution centre with a fleet of trucks and nearly 300 volunteers. Harvest Hands rescues unsold and surplus food from farms and producers and then sorts and ships it out to more than 380 partner organizations, including food banks and shelters. To quote Harvest Hands, “We are the trucks, the warehouse, the volunteers, the cold storage, the sorting tables, and the systems that move food at scale. Organizations serve the people. We serve the organizations.”

Harvest Hands is tackling food insecurity with compassion, dedication and action. I thank the Collins family and every volunteer for making this possible.

Story of Two Ukrainians in Mansonville

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to share a heartwarming story.

It is a story from back home in Mansonville about Vladyslav and Yulia. They are two Ukrainians who came here in 2022 to rebuild their lives. Their journey has not been easy. There were complicated processes to navigate and moments of uncertainty along the way, but they never gave up. They hung in there, and most importantly, they found a community that chose to stand by them.

I am thinking of NexKemina, their employer, which has been there for them every step of the way. I am thinking of the Missisquoi-Nord volunteer centre and its director, Mabel Hastings, who welcomed them as if they were part of the family.

The wonderful thing today is that Vladyslav and Yulia can continue working and are now giving back. They are getting involved and are part of our community. When we went to meet them, there were tears, but above all, a great deal of gratitude.

That is the Quebec and Canada we love: a community that sticks together and chooses hope.

Vaisakhi

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with over 100,000 people expected to gather in Calgary this week, the Nagar Kirtan, organized by the Dashmesh Culture Centre gurdwara, stands as one of the most anticipated Sikh celebrations in our country. It is a powerful public expression of faith, humility and the principle of seva, which is selfless service to all of humanity. Led by President Harpal Singh Grewal, the DCC has built a legacy of service that extends far beyond celebration. Through their no hungry tummy initiative and food bank operations, they feed thousands of Calgarians facing food insecurity, regardless of background, belief or faith.

The DCC reminds us that true faith is expressed not only in prayers, but in action by showing up for neighbours in need. I invite all members to join me in congratulating the director of operations Raj Sidhu, the entire DCC committee, all volunteers and the Sikh community of Calgary on this joyous occasion.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

Jewish Community Institutions

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding a deeply troubling complaint filed with the Canada Revenue Agency targeting 11 Jewish schools in Montreal and Toronto. These schools are essential pillars of Jewish life in Canada. They exist to teach language, history, culture and identity, just as faith-based schools across this country do. For months, there has been a coordinated effort to mis-characterize Jewish schools, to strip them of funding and to undermine their place in Canadian society. Let me be clear: Attacking Jewish schools or Jewish day camps is a direct attack on Canadian Jewish life.

The CRA must be unequivocally clear that it will not allow tax laws to be weaponized against any group. Jewish schools in this country have already faced serious threats, including repeated gunfire attacks. All Canadians have a right to be safe and feel safe; this includes Canadian Jews and this includes Canadian children.

I hope all members of the House will join me in denouncing these attacks on Jewish community institutions.

Vyshyvanka Day

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, every third Thursday in May, we celebrate Vyshyvanka Day. This year marks 20 years of this tradition in Ukraine and 10 years here in Canada. What began as a student initiative at Chernivtsi University has grown into a global celebration of Ukrainian heritage, identity and resilience. This Vyshyvanka Day, more than four years into Russia's illegal invasion, we are reminded that this symbol has endured centuries of attempts to erase the Ukrainian people, both physically and as a nation. Like every stitch in a vyshyvanka, every act of support matters.

Canada must continue to step up by providing the military support Ukraine needs and by dramatically increasing our energy exports to displace the Russian resources that are financing this war. On behalf of Canada's Conservatives, I reaffirm our unwavering commitment to stand with Ukraine until victory.

Happy Vyshyvanka Day and slava Ukraini.

Gérald Savard

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a great man. Gérald Savard has served as the mayor of the municipality of Bégin for nearly 30 years. He is descended from a long line of public servants. Like his father and grandfather, he has dedicated his life to serving the people of his municipality.

Gérald also served as reeve of the Fjord-du-Saguenay RCM for 13 years, during which he dedicated himself to developing our region. Gérald often spoke of Lucien Bouchard, who he said once told him that in order to succeed in politics, one must love people and act with courage. I can assure everyone that Gérald has always been known for his abiding love for the residents of Bégin and for his genuine interest in the people of our region.

Today I especially want to acknowledge Gérald's exemplary courage and perseverance. Despite a terminal cancer diagnosis, he continues to serve as mayor with the same passion and dedication he has shown for the past 30 years.

On behalf of everyone back home, and with the utmost respect, I wish to offer our most sincere congratulations on his exceptional career.

Vyshyvanka Day

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today many of us in this chamber wear a vyshyvanka, a symbol of Ukrainian heritage and resilience that has endured through some of history’s darkest moments. For Ukrainian Canadians, these embroidered shirts carry identity and the stories of generations who held on to their culture through hardship and persecution.

Canada is home to one of the largest Ukrainian communities in the world outside Ukraine. For more than a century, Ukrainian Canadians have helped shape our country. These roots also exist in my own family. My grandfather came from Ukraine after his family endured persecution under Stalin's regime. He came to Canada in search of freedom and opportunity, and he was always grateful to live in such a welcoming country that allowed him to give back to the next generations.

Today, as Ukraine continues to defend its sovereignty and democracy, Canadians stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. To those celebrating, I wish them a happy Vyshyvanka Day.

Slava Ukraini.

Fuel Taxes

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, gas prices across Canada remain higher than they need to be, not just because of the war in Iran but because of unnecessary federal taxes. The last time a barrel of oil cost $100 was in 2014 under a Conservative government, and gas prices never reached their current levels.

In Penticton and Oliver, gas prices are now two dollars a litre, with communities like Castlegar, Grand Forks, Osoyoos and Princeton over $1.90 a litre. We need to offer real relief for longer. Our Conservative plan would scrap all federal gas taxes, the excise tax, GST and the fuel standard tax, for the rest of 2026. We would pay for this by ending Liberal waste, like their gun-grab program.

Uncertainty abroad does not mean Canada cannot be affordable and strong at home.

Finance

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, families in my riding of Whitby are working hard, but rising costs are certainly stretching their budgets.

This spring's economic update responds to that reality with action and tangible help that people can count on. It would deliver a new federal benefit this year for almost $1,900 for the average family to help them with the cost of groceries, along with real relief at the pumps, saving 10¢ a litre for daily commuters. It would also protect families from unfair banking fees and help workers keep more of their hard-earned paycheques through lower Canada pension plan contributions, while offering higher tax deductions for tradespeople who must relocate for work. It would also accelerate over $7 billion in financing to build more homes faster and offer support to recruit, train and hire up to 1,000 new skilled trades workers.

For families and workers in my riding, it means a boost today and a bridge to a better tomorrow.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Liberals for turning Canada's economy into a “buy now, pay later” scheme. Canadians now finance their meals. Never before have we heard of Canadians buying pizza in four separate installments. The Liberals' only financial plan is to spend like crazy now and have Canadians pay forever.

The Liberal Prime Minister doubled Trudeau's deficit and added even more to the national credit card; more costs and taxes are all on the heads of struggling families. No wonder Canada has the highest food inflation in the G7, with 2.2 million Canadians at a food bank in a single month and one in 10 Canadians living in poverty. This is what happens when Liberals tax the farmer, the trucker, the grocer and the restaurant, and then act shocked when the price of meals goes up.

We should scrap the Liberals' fuel taxes, stop inflationary spending and bring home affordable food for Canadian families. In Canada, feeding families should not be put on a line of credit.

Francophone Distance Education

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the tabling of a white paper by the Réseau d'enseignement francophone à distance, or REFAD, on inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility in distance education.

This document is the product of a collective effort. It highlights concrete issues facing francophone learners and institutions, especially in a minority context. In today's digital age, we have to ensure that no one is left behind. This white paper contains practical recommendations for building a more inclusive, equitable and accessible education system for all of Canada's francophones.

I congratulate REFAD, its partners and the working group for their efforts and contributions to this analysis of a topic of vital importance to Canada's francophonie. Through these initiatives and the Government of Canada's commitment to official languages and accessibility, we are building a more inclusive Canada where everyone has full access to learning opportunities, regardless of their circumstances or background.

Property Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are increasingly concerned about the security of private property rights. Following the Cowichan decision, many Canadians were looking for clear assurances from the federal government about the stability of fee simple ownership and the implications for homeowners across British Columbia. Instead, questions remain about the government's approach in court and about agreements reached with the Musqueam nation, which some homeowners and stakeholders believe have added further uncertainty.

Conservatives believe reconciliation should proceed in a way that provides transparency, certainty and fairness for all. We respect indigenous rights. We respect the Constitution. We recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation and the need to address historical wrongs. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to provide greater certainty and clarity on how private property rights will be protected to ensure future agreements give homeowners certainty and to restore confidence in Canada's land title system.

Cops for Cancer

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that on Friday, April 24, I was arrested by the Coquitlam RCMP. The crime was drinking too much coffee while on House duty. I pleaded guilty. I was cuffed for a cure.

Cuffed for a Cure is the lighter side of Cops for Cancer. The harder side is the cycling. Each year, officers across Canada cycle hundreds of kilometres raising funds for life-saving childhood cancer research and supporting families facing the unimaginable. Their commitment reflects the very best of our community: compassion, resilience and a deep sense of service.

I encourage all Canadians to support Cops for Cancer and to help ensure that no child faces cancer alone.

The Economy

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, after too many years of this costly Liberal government, Canadians are broke. They are lining up at food banks, and our streets are more dangerous than ever, yet the Liberal government has spent over $742 million on a failed gun grab. While in Newfoundland and Labrador, hard-working Canadians are choosing between gas for their trucks and heat for their homes, the Prime Minister is wasting nearly $25,000 per gun to target law-abiding hunters. It is more cost, more corruption and more Liberal waste.

When will the Liberal Prime Minister cut the waste and cut the gas taxes so that Canadians can afford to live?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we have cut the gas tax by 28¢, but the member from Newfoundland and Labrador gets up, and maybe we will ask her, because we have not really had success of late getting that list of things that they consider to be inflationary spending on the table. We have no idea what the Conservatives consider to be inflationary spending. Is it the child benefit? Is it employment insurance? Is it small craft harbours? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to know.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, to start, Conservatives would cut $20 billion in consultants. The failed gun grab is another example of the trillion dollars of spending by the costly Liberal government. The Prime Minister is more interested in $524,000 being spent on food for his private jet than in making life more affordable for hard-working Canadians who actually pay the bills. It is more cost, more cover-up and more Liberal waste. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal.

When will the Prime Minister remove all the taxes on all the gases for all the year, so Canadians can get real relief?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to focus, on this side, on affordability. We just launched the grocery and essentials benefit that will put up to $1,900 in the pockets of hard-working families. We just cut the excise tax. That is 10¢. I combine that with the carbon tax cut, and that is 28¢. The spring economic update continued to confirm that our economy is strong and growing.

On this side of the House, we are laser-focused on building a strong economy. That side can continue with the rhetoric and the riddles.

Natural Resources

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now the Liberals have blamed external events for homegrown problems. For higher gasoline, they blame Iran. For higher diesel, they blame Iran. However, yesterday the CEO of Cenovus said it was not external events but Liberal policies that were making resource development and investment in Canada uncompetitive. He said the industrial carbon tax incents industry to invest outside Canada, so Liberal policies equal higher costs, more debt for Canadians and fleeing investors.

Will the Minister of Energy instead give Canadians a break and cut all the gas taxes for the entire year?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, maybe he should read about what the CEO of Shell said. The CEO of Shell said that Canada is the best place in the world to invest, and he just put $20 billion behind that statement. The CEO of Enbridge put $4 billion behind his statement, so maybe they should look a little harder in the paper.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, CBC is reporting that the Liberals will change the rules for resource development and pipeline approvals to allegedly try to speed them up, but we have been here before. Last year they promised big projects at speeds never seen before. If the minister were right, we would have projects coming out of everywhere, but in that year, no project has been approved in the national interest and nothing has been fast-tracked. Not one anti-resource development law or tax has been removed. It is beginning to feel a little like Alice in Wonderland, in which the rule is, “pipeline tomorrow, pipeline yesterday, but never a pipeline today.”

If that is not the case, will the minister tell us when the next pipeline will be approved?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, if the member took the cotton out of his ears, he would have heard there was a pipeline being built from Taylor to Gordondale. He would have heard there was an expansion of the largest pipeline system in British Columbia. He would have heard there was $8 billion being spent in Goose Bay. He would have heard there was $500 million being spent on a new wind farm in Nova Scotia. He would have heard about the new transmission line between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I could keep going. They should listen a little more carefully.

Youth

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years at the helm, the Liberals would have us believe that it is normal to run deficits in excess of $60 billion a year. While the Liberals are spending billions of dollars, Quebeckers are counting every penny. A new Fraser Institute report confirms that Canada is facing a real youth unemployment crisis. In 2022, the youth unemployment rate was 12.3%. Now it is close to 19%. This is unprecedented outside of a recession.

Will the very Liberal Prime Minister finally start putting our young people and their future at the heart of this country's decisions?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleague will support us with the fall economic update, which provides for an investment of $6 billion over five years specifically for training, to give our young people opportunities in the construction trades, given that we know the demand will be huge. This government is focused on delivering major projects, building a future for our country and ensuring we have one of the strongest economies among the G7 nations.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps talking about building major projects, but the Major Projects Office has spent $41 million without starting a single project. The cost of living is skyrocketing, home ownership is increasingly out of reach and jobs for young people are now scarce. There are no jobs in retail, no jobs in restaurants and no jobs in hospitality. After 11 years of raising taxes, adding bureaucracy and driving our country into debt, the Prime Minister has the gall to tell our young people that they have to make sacrifices and to tell Canadians that life has never been so affordable.

When will the Liberals put down the national credit card and start making decisions that will secure our young people's future?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just talked about training initiatives to ensure that our youth in skilled trades have access to really good jobs. Nevertheless, the Conservatives, including the member, are against all these major projects. They are against the the Alto high-speed train we will be building in Quebec, which will create 51,000 jobs. They are against yesterday's announcement about the sale of 18 billion dollars' worth of aircraft made in Mirabel, designed and built in Quebec. They are against expanding the Port of Montreal in Contrecoeur. The Conservatives should—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Saint‑Jean.

Climate Change

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Liberals have decided to speed up pipeline construction by cutting red tape: too many rules, too much hemming and hawing, too much focus on reducing greenhouse gases and social acceptance. Canada has oil, so we are going to make a fortune, and to heck with the regulations. The Conservatives are losing the battle for the hearts of oil lovers. Soon enough, the Liberals will be the ones wearing “I love oil and gas” pins.

If there is a single Liberal left who believes in the environment, what on earth are they doing in this party?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I must say this again, as I do every time: Our government is committed to continuing the fight against climate change and to protecting the environment. We have a nature strategy. It is a major investment in our country's future. We have introduced methane regulations. This is something that people in other countries are looking at and admiring; they are saying that Canada is ahead of the curve and is a leader. We will continue doing our job. I hope our colleagues will look at this and support us.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there must be some Conservatives who are itching to cross the floor. They see themselves in a Prime Minister who promotes the monarchy and the oil sands. We now understand the Liberals' vision. Canada's future is based on dirty 19th‑century fossil fuels. Now at least we know where we stand.

My question is simple: Why do the members in that party who still believe in the fight against climate change not just leave? What are they waiting for?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that this government is committed to fighting climate change. We are getting the job done and we will stay the course. Just look at our auto strategy. We are going to reduce greenhouse gases while creating jobs and building cars. Just look at what we are doing to protect nature. We have methane regulations, which are going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 400 megatonnes. We are getting the job done and we will keep going.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals passed Bill C-5 to expedite so-called projects of national interest. That allows the government to get around laws that could hinder the construction of pipelines. Now, the government has a new solution: To speed up its pipelines, it is simply going to tear up the regulations. If the regulatory framework is slowing down the construction of oil pipelines, then the government is just going to scrap the regulatory framework.

The Liberals are the ones who set the target of achieving net zero by 2050. Do they realize that it is their own fault that they are going to fail miserably?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers understand that major projects, energy projects, transform economies. Robert Bourassa understood that and so do we, and that is true whether we are talking about nuclear energy, wind energy, solar energy, renewable energy of any kind and yes, even conventional energy.

The government plans to move forward with major projects, but we will not stop there. We are also working on logistics projects, like the Contrecoeur port. I also want to mention that the port of Saguenay is part of that, since it is in my colleague's riding.

Youth

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a shocking new report found that nearly 500,000 young Canadians were unemployed in 2025. That is a 57% increase in three years, and that is worse than the recessions of 1981, 1990 and 2008 for young people. The Liberals ran an over $1‑trillion debt, and they priced Canadians out of the housing market. We have the highest housing costs in the G7. They then loosened the foreign work restrictions and flooded the labour market. It has been a decade of their support, and somehow every single door is closed for young Canadians.

How is the government locking young Canadians out of both the housing market and the labour market at the same time?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is fiscally responsible. We have reduced the deficit by $11 billion. We are in the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We are making major infrastructure investments that will transform and connect our economy. Our workers know this. Let us hear from our workers. Let us hear from the UA in the member's riding.

This update would deliver investments to expand training and for a multitude of apprenticeship needs. It would increase youth, indigenous and diverse participation in the trades for upcoming projects of national interest. That is how we build a Canada strong for all.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite all of the rhetoric and despite the trillion dollars in Liberal debt, young Canadians now make up over a quarter of all unemployed workers. That is double their share of the workforce. They still cannot afford a home; they still cannot afford groceries, and they still cannot afford to get ahead. The Liberals have record borrowing, with billions on the national credit card, to stimulate the same economy they are cooling with record immigration, and they handed the bill to Canadians for all of it.

At what point does any Liberal take responsibility for an entire generation that is priced out, crowded out and left holding the bag for their incompetence?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, again, this new government is fiscally responsible. We reduced the deficit by $11 billion and we are in the strongest fiscal position in the G7. The Conservatives cannot stand up and say they support Canadians while voting against all the supports that Canadians rely on, including youth. The Conservatives oppose tax relief. They oppose child care. They oppose dental care and the national school food program. Who could be against that?

The Conservatives cannot oppose all of those programs and then claim they support them. They cannot have it both ways. When will they table a list of inflationary spending items they are going to cut?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are working hard, getting an education and trying to build a future. However, after 11 years of costly Liberal policies, they are still struggling to find good jobs. The Fraser Institute reports youth unemployment has surged to almost 19%, with young Canadians unemployed longer than at any other point since the records began.

When will the Prime Minister stop being just another costly Liberal and end his credit card budgeting so young people in Oshawa and across Canada can afford to work, eat and get ahead?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being at the BCIT, the B.C. Institute of Technology, earlier this week to talk about 100,000 jobs for young Canadians to build homes and infrastructure. The members opposite have an opportunity to support the spring economic update, which would dedicate $6 billion to training young Canadians to be part of our economy and to build the affordable housing that we need to house young Canadians. It is a great opportunity for us to build Canada strong.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when will the Liberals realize that they keep having to create these support programs because they created the crisis in the first place? Even with these programs, young people are still worse off than ever before. Clearly, the programs do not work. Under the Prime Minister, Canadians are seeing the same old Liberal agenda we saw under Justin Trudeau, only worse. There are more costs, more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card and more of the same.

Why are Liberals forcing young Canadians to pay the price for their failure?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member opposite's concern for our youth, and I empathize with our youth.

What I cannot understand is this. The member from Oshawa can go visit Ontario Power Generation and see the jobs that are being created in our region with the new nuclear project at Darlington. That is 21,700 jobs and a $2 billion investment through the government's efforts that she voted against. How can that member stand here and lecture us about youth jobs in our region and in our country yet vote against the very supports that are creating good, skilled trades jobs across our region?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of costly Liberal credit card budgeting, young Canadians are facing more costs, more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card, and more of the same.

The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal who has surged youth unemployment beyond recessionary levels. Since 2022, youth unemployment has surged from 12.3% to 18.9%, and young Canadians are remaining unemployed longer than at any point since records began in 1976. Liberal labour and immigration policies are driving up the cost of rent, groceries and homes for young Canadians.

When will the Liberal Prime Minister end his costly credit card budgeting, so young Canadians can afford to eat, work and live?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, our plan is investing in jobs and is supporting those private sector innovators that are bringing jobs, including to places like York Region in the member's region, where AMD has a major facility and is centralizing its innovation supports in York Region, in Markham, bringing thousands of jobs.

I recently visited the University of Toronto's Master of Science in applied computing program, and every single one of its graduates now has a job in that program. It is because of the work our government is doing in supporting the post-secondary system, and supporting not only the industrial side but the technology side. We are very proud of our record.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, objectively, the Liberals' so-called plan is simply not working. Conditions are extremely difficult in this country for youth and for young families.

The Liberals' trillion dollars of debt means less growth and fewer jobs, especially for people just starting out. Credit card budgeting, high taxes and poor immigration policy have all contributed. We see more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card, more of the same. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal with no results to show for this waste.

When will Liberals reverse policies that are objectively not working, so young people can get back to work?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund has affirmed, as we know, the sound fiscal framework that the government has embraced. That is also true of the key rating agencies.

My colleagues keep talking about a credit card. Yes, there are Canadians, young Canadians included, who do have credit card debt. Conservatives want to make it worse by forcing Canadians to not receive the Canada child benefit, to not receive support for child care and to not receive support for the school food program. Conservatives want Canadians to pay for these.

In this country, we believe that government has a role in fundamentally making sure that Canadians have a chance. That is exactly what these programs do.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has $1 trillion dollars in credit card debt, and the Liberals keep telling us that everything is fine. Everything is not fine.

In the midst of this environment, Conservatives are offering constructive proposals to support youth and young families that are struggling. In the fall, we announced the Conservative youth jobs plan. Just today, we announced big, new ideas to reform parental leave to make it easier to start and grow a family.

Instead of doubling down on more of the same failure, will the Liberals must listen to and support the big ideas that we are putting forward to help young people and families finally succeed?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, here is a big idea: Do not vote against child care that is saving families in Saskatchewan thousands of dollars a month per child, one of the most effective measures to make sure that young families get ahead, that women can participate in the workforce, that women's productivity and wages grow along with their career and that CPP enhancements are there for women at the end of their career.

Instead of their big ideas, maybe the Conservatives should stop voting against the big ideas that Canadians have fought so hard for.

Climate Change

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada reports that the Liberals are set to dismantle the entire regulatory framework governing pipelines. They had already passed Bill C-5, which suspends nearly all existing laws, but that was not enough. Now, they are going to limit environmental assessments to a single federal review, which always says yes. Now, they are going to restrict consultations as well. We are saying goodbye to BAPE, Quebec's office of public hearings on the environment, goodbye to citizens, but above all, hello to climate change.

Are there really Quebec liberals who entered politics for this?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, again, our government is actively committed to fighting climate change and protecting the environment.

Internationally, we are a global leader in financing international climate action. Domestically, we are investing in a critical power grid as we move toward a carbon-free future.

We are doing the work while he is complaining. We will continue to fight climate change.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous that the Liberals are using pipelines to fight climate change.

According to Radio-Canada, later this week, the Liberals will be announcing that they intend to scrap the regulatory framework for pipelines. That is good timing, given that Danielle Smith will be in town tomorrow for a far-right convention. Who would have thought that the Liberals would get a standing ovation from a think tank founded by Preston Manning?

Strangely enough, for months now, the Liberals have been trying to cobble together a majority, one floor crosser at a time. Would it not have been easier for them all to just cross over to the Conservative side?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we know that transportation accounts for a large share of our greenhouse gas emissions, at 20%.

However, the government is proposing a high-speed rail project that will cross Quebec. The train will travel 1,000 km in four hours, from Quebec City to Toronto. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to this project. They are opposed to this major environmental project.

Why is the Bloc against one of the best things we can do for the environment and for helping Quebeckers get around? Why is the Bloc Québécois so stubbornly against the environment?

The Economy

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always the same story with the Prime Minister's costly illusion: everything is more expensive. It is higher costs, higher taxes, more debt, and the national credit card is maxed out. It costs the average Canadian family $4,000 net per month just for the right to breathe under Liberal rule. What used to be a decent wage is now barely enough to survive on.

How can people make ends meet with the Prime Minister's costly illusion?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, what would be more expensive for 19,563 of his constituents is going to the dentist, because he is against the Canadian dental care plan, which helps Canadians who, all too often, have put off a visit to the dentist because they could not afford it.

Do members know what would be more expensive if the member's proposal were adopted? It would be more expensive to raise children because he would deny the Canada child benefit to more than 12,000 families.

That is $70 million a year in his riding to help his constituents. He should reconsider.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is not worth much. What is worth a lot is gas at $2 a litre, a two-bedroom apartment at $2,000 a month, on top of an annual bill of $17,000 for a family of four's weekly grocery run.

We saw just how distressed Canadians are when a new liquidation store opened in Granby this morning. The police had to direct traffic because a queue of people had turned up as early as 5 a.m. to buy discounted food. The situation is desperate. The credit card is maxed out.

When will the Liberal Prime Minister take the situation seriously?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, dental care for 20,000 of his constituents is apparently not worth much. Assistance for 12,500 families in his constituency is not worth much. He should go and tell that to the people in his riding who depend on these things. He should go and tell that to the two million Quebeckers who, on June 5, will receive the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will help the most vulnerable people who need it most.

On this side of the House, we believe that prosperity must be inclusive across the country.

Finance

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have $1.475 trillion on the national credit card.

Because of the Liberal debt, seniors have to choose between groceries and medication, and young families cannot afford a home.

Despite this Liberal Prime Minister's illusions, it is always the same thing. He is just another costly Liberal.

When will he stop governing for bankers and start governing for Canadians?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. The word “illusions” has been used a number of times now. It is not an illusion that Canadians in my riding are benefiting from multiple programs. It is a reality.

The Canada groceries and essentials benefit is not an illusion. It provides $1,890 per year for a family of four. Canadians will be receiving it in a few days. They will see that it is concrete and that it is helping them. That is what we are doing right now: helping Canadians in the short term and investing for the long term.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. If the Liberals truly want to help families and seniors, then they should start by closing the open bar in Ottawa. The Prime Minister is being irresponsible with Canadians' money. The interest on the Liberal debt will cost more than $53 billion this year. That is money that is not going to seniors, that is not helping families and that is not going to the public service.

While Canadians have to trim their budgets just to get by, why is the Prime Minister refusing to cut back on bureaucracy and unnecessary spending?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will continue to talk about what is not an illusion for Canadians.

The child benefit provides $8,000 per child per year. It is important. It is useful. Canadians are seeing the results, because we are going through a tough time. I just talked about groceries. With the Canadian dental care plan, nearly 18,500 people are saving $800 a year. That is the reality. That does not even include everything we are doing with major projects because we have to invest for the long term.

Veterans Affairs

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all veterans get from the Liberal government are excuses and cuts. The Liberals slashed billions from veterans services, leaving veterans facing longer wait times and fewer supports, and now they are covering up the fact that the housing minister hid $3 million they cut from homeless veterans, claiming they could not find any. Unfortunately there are thousands of homeless veterans in this country.

Rather than covering up these cuts, why did the Liberals not spend their time trying to find veterans they could help, and why does the Liberal government always seem to find money for Liberal insiders but never for veterans who fought for our country?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for the opportunity to clarify that there have been no cuts to services and benefits offered to veterans. We continue to ensure that veterans have access to the services and benefits that allow them to be successful in their post-service life.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to defending Canadian trade and ensuring that our businesses are not overly reliant on any single market. By opening doors for exporters and supporting small businesses to reach customers around the world, we are strengthening our economy and creating more opportunities in my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong and across the country.

Could the Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State for Small Business and Tourism update the House on the historic progress we have made to diversify Canadian trade?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Sarnia for her small business advocacy.

I have good news. We have not just one but two new trade agreements that have been made law, with the United Kingdom and Indonesia. Together these agreements are going to boost our trade ties and give Canadian businesses access to markets and more than 340 million people. That means new customers for our exporters, new opportunities for our small businesses and more good-paying jobs in this country. That is how we build Canada strong.

Aerospace Industry

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence signed a $200‑million contract for access to a spaceport that the company itself leases for just $14,000 a year. That is $20 million a year for a decade. Worse, the contract is backdated by a full year when no lease was being negotiated and while the company's own auditor warned it may be bankrupt. After the deal was signed, the company's stock surged and a well-connected Liberal insider cashed out for millions.

Will the minister explain how this is not another multi-million-dollar boondoggle rewarding friends while taxpayers carry all the risk?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the premise of the question is frankly stupid. Establishing Canadian sovereign space launch capabilities will drive billions in investments. It is going to create good-paying jobs. It will increase Canada's sovereignty. It will reduce our reliance on the United States. It is going to support a commercial space launch and re-entry industry that could be worth up to $40 billion.

That is what we are investing in. These are the essential capabilities that protect Canada and create massive economic benefits for Canadians, coast to coast to coast.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me explain "stupid" to the minister. He gifted $20 million, backdated to a company on the brink of bankruptcy. The company's chairman, someone with a history of securities infractions, made millions on a quick pump-and-dump sale of shares. The lease that taxpayers are paying for is nowhere in the company's previous regulatory filings. The company's Liberal insiders met with officials 158 times.

Someone is going to face the music here. Will it be the Liberal insiders who were stuffing money into their jeans or the minister who signed this God-awful document?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing about all this commentary coming from the other side of the floor is this. Every single measure put forward to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces, every single investment in housing, in equipment, in munitions, in our bases, in our housing stock; every single one, including pay increases, was opposed.

I am not sure what these people stand for anymore, and it is becoming very apparent to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Health

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government spent $300 million on the failed PrescribeIT program that had less than 5% uptake. Now that it is being scrapped, we have learned that the CEO responsible for this failed scandal-plagued program was being paid $900,000 per year. When Conservatives looked to have the minister testify at committee, Liberals blocked it.

Will the minister stand today and explain to this House the justification for paying the CEO $900,000 while Canadians are lined up at food banks?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the situation with the CEO of that company is unacceptable. As members know, that company does not report directly to Health Canada. However, I spoke with its board of directors, and corrective measures were applied. I can assure the opposition member that I am working on this and that I will do everything in my power to clarify all of the problems.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify some of the problems for the minister. The Liberals spent $300 million on a program that did not work and was not used. They oversaw the CEO being paid $900,000. They do not seem to want to agree to have the Auditor General review this scandal-plagued program and the minister does not seem to want to come to committee to face questions about it.

Will the minister stand up today and commit to have the Auditor General review this program in detail and report findings to this House, and to come before committee to testify about this failure?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I take the work of the Standing Committee on Health very seriously, and I will certainly return to testify before the committee at some point. As I said, we took action. We spoke with the board of directors, and they took steps to remove the CEO. I will continue to work on this issue and will take the necessary steps.

National Defence

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, air show organizers across North America are quietly being told that this is the final season of the iconic Snowbirds. I wrote the Minister of National Defence almost six months ago, asking about the future of the Snowbirds. There was no reply. Senator Batters did the same in the Senate. Crickets.

Tomorrow is the Snowbirds “acceptance show” in Comox.

Why will the Liberals not come clean about their decision to cancel the iconic Snowbirds and when will they reverse this terrible decision?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the RCAF's fleet of Tutor aircraft was first introduced in the 1960s. The fleet will reach its end of life in the coming years. The member knows this.

The Snowbirds will continue air demonstrations with the Tutor fleet for as long as it is feasible and safe. The member knows that as well. The Snowbirds remain committed to their performances.

As we have stated, we are beginning the process of examining potential aircraft options for the Snowbirds' mission once the CT‑114 Tutor fleet reaches its end of life.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, jet noise is the sound of freedom, not white noise. Canadians want to be inspired by other Canadians.

Do members know how we got the second female Snowbird pilot? It is because a flame was planted in her heart at the age of 12 when she saw the first female Snowbird pilot.

Why are the Liberals hiding the fact that they plan to cancel the Snowbirds after the season, and why will they not immediately reverse this terrible decision?

It is SOS time: Save our Snowbirds.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concerns about the future of the fleet. It is an iconic part of Canadian culture. He and I would agree. However, here is the difference. This member surely cannot be suggesting that he is going to put the pilots, the women and men of that fleet, in harm's way. Have him stand up and make it plain that he intends to have pilots flying planes that should not be flown, which are under mechanical watch today. Have him explain that.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, our Canadian Forces' morale has been attacked, traditions have been erased and attrition has become highly damaging to our capability to defend Canada.

The Canadian Forces' Snowbirds must continue to be the souls of our Canadian military. They exude Canadian pride and international reputation for expertise, precision and high standards that have given our allies confidence in us in the past.

Will the Liberals do the right thing and save our souls, save our Snowbirds?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has spoken very eloquently about our need to be the adults, to be responsible and keep our pilots safe, and that is exactly what we are going to continue to do.

However, it is the temerity, the gall of the Conservatives to stand in this House, the 0.99% of GDP crew here, giving lectures. We will take no lessons on defence spending, on defence investments, on investments in our veterans, on investments in our armed forces and equipping our men and women in uniform. Those Conservatives—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Saskatoon South.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, SOS: Save our Snowbirds.

The Snowbirds are a proud Canadian institution based in the land of the living skies, Saskatchewan. We now hear that the Liberals are going to cancel the Snowbird program. It is unthinkable that we could see the end of this precision squadron that proudly represents this country at home and abroad.

Will the Liberals reverse this mistake and keep our Snowbirds in the sky?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Surely, these members—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I really want to hear this.

The minister can start over.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, surely the members on the opposite side, including those who have distinguished service in the Canadian Armed Forces, are not suggesting that we continue to put the pilots of these aircraft, frankly, in harm's way.

They know these planes have to be replaced. They know this assessment is ongoing—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is still too noisy.

Now that it is a little quieter, the hon. Minister of National Defence may continue.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my House leader colleague was saying just a moment ago, it is a bit rich for a party that had funding for the Canadian Armed Forces and defence below 1% of GDP. Honestly, they should stand up and join us as we reinvest in the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one symbol that unites all Canadians from coast to coast to coast is the Snowbirds, but my colleagues from Saskatchewan have now asked the Minister of National Defence four questions, and his only answer is that to suggest the program should not be cancelled is to put pilots' lives in danger.

What have the Liberals been doing for the past 11 years? They have known for quite some time that something needed to be done, and now the Snowbirds are in danger.

Does the minister have anything to tell us other than this nonsense?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The RCAF's fleet of Tutor aircraft was first introduced in the 1960s. The fleet will reach its end of life in the coming years. The member knows that and he has known that for a long time. The Snowbirds will continue air demonstrations with the Tutor fleet for as long as it is feasible and safe to do so. The Snowbirds remain committed to their performances. The member knows that. We are continuing to carry out our good work.

International Trade

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked a historic moment. For the first time, two international trade bills received royal assent on the same day. These two agreements with Indonesia and the United Kingdom provide for the gradual reduction of numerous tariffs in order to improve market access and the competitiveness of our businesses.

As the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I know that diversification is essential for SMEs and workers in Quebec City. Can the Quebec lieutenant explain how these agreements will help SMEs in Quebec City and across the country grow, export more and create good jobs here at home?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would first like to thank my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for the work he is doing on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

The trend is clear: Our non-U.S. goods and services exports have increased by $33 billion over the past year, but we are not done yet. As my colleague mentioned, two historic agreements with Indonesia and the United Kingdom came into force yesterday. These countries represent 350 million new customers and billions of dollars in opportunities for our businesses.

For Quebec, this means a $5.5-billion Indonesian market for our forestry industry and new markets for our aerospace and pharmaceutical industries. That is good news.

Indigenous Affairs

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia land title certainty is foundational. Families buy homes, secure mortgages and plan their futures on the strength of our land registry. Today, homeowners in Richmond are being told that certainty no longer exists because of the Cowichan decision. That ruling followed a federal choice. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14, telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today.

Why is the Prime Minister choosing Liberal ideology over British Columbian homeowners by continuing to tell federal lawyers not to defend their private property rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is still in active litigation and we are not going to talk about our legal strategy on the floor.

However, what we can talk about are public agreements, which the Conservatives have called “secret”, the Musqueam agreements. They are available online. I encourage my Conservative colleagues to read them.

These agreements did not appear overnight. In 2017, Musqueam and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding. In February 2026, that work evolved into a framework agreement. However, it is not a title agreement, it is not a land claim. Let me be absolutely clear. The agreement does not affect Canadian—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Abbotsford—South Langley.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims he will defend property rights, but his Liberal government's own website still shows that litigation directive number 14, which was announced as a directive back in 2019, still remains in effect today. The directive instructs federal lawyers not to defend private property rights in court.

While the Prime Minister makes promises publicly, his government policies have not changed. Will he reverse his directive today so British Columbians can have certainty of home ownership?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. What is happening with the opposition is that they are creating uncertainty and fear. They are intentionally scaring Canadians, they are making investors scared, and they are making reconciliation out to be a bad thing.

Our government has appealed. We will continue to defend private property rights in Canada.

Real leadership means working together to address problems, not creating more fear in the world. Real leadership is respecting the Constitution, respecting the courts and respecting the work of advancing reconciliation.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 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.

In 2019, the Liberal government issued a directive called litigation guideline number 14, which discourages federal lawyers from defending property rights in court. The Liberal Prime Minister has kept that guideline in place. In fact, it is still on the government's website today.

Why do the Liberals continue to tell lawyers not to defend homeowners?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The federal government is defending the property rights. The property rights are not at risk. The only people who are saying the property rights are at risk are the Conservatives over here and their counterparts in the province of British Columbia. They know it and we know it.

The Canadian government will always defend private property rights. None of the treaty agreements take away those rights. We will defend the rights of Canadians.

They are just disseminating fear in the hearts of British Columbians and Canadians for the wrong reasons.

Youth

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we know young people are the foundation of Canada's future.

Can the Secretary of State for Labour tell the House what our government is doing through the spring economic update to invest in the next generation, ensuring they have both the opportunities to stay active and the pathway to build meaningful careers across this country?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all of his hard work on behalf of his constituents in Nova Scotia. He is an excellent member.

Our spring economic update is investing in the next generation. We are creating paid pathways for 100,000 Canadians to get into the skilled trades with a $6-billion investment, helping young people build good careers right here at home, and we are making the largest investment in sport in Canadian history so kids have the ability, across this country, to stay active and thrive.

These are some of the things we are doing to support Canadian youth and to build Canada strong for all.

Foreign Affairs

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently recalled MPs from a trip, a delegation, to Taiwan. He has been sitting on, for over a year, an updated and finalized trade co-operation framework arrangement with Taiwan. It is just awaiting his signature. Also, Taiwan has been patiently waiting for additional flights to operate to Canada, only to see the government recently fast-track and announce new flights with China.

What does it say to our democratic allies around the world when the Liberal government stonewalls Taiwan in favour of getting closer to an autocratic Beijing?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is not accurately reflecting the importance we place on the Indo-Pacific region in general, including Taiwan, which is an important economic partner.

We enjoy strong people-to-people ties with Taiwan, and we will continue to ensure that Taiwan continues to be an important economic partner for this country as we diversify trade and double non-U.S. trade over the next 10 years.

Air Transportation

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' privatization agenda is disturbing and dangerous. They are planning to sell off Canada's ports and airports, strategic assets that will end up in the hands of foreign buyers, compromising our security.

When Heathrow was privatized in the U.K., it resulted in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and China controlling major stakes in that airport. Passengers paid more and services declined.

Will the Prime Minister commit to keeping Canada's ports and airports in public hands, or will he sell our sovereignty to the highest bidder?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is exploring all possibilities, but one thing we will not compromise on is that we want to actually improve the travel experience and keep air travel in this vast and beautiful land accessible to all. We want to make sure that pricing continues to favour Canadians' ability to move around the country. We want to explore all possibilities in terms of safety, accessibility and making travel a responsive, comfortable, good and positive experience for all Canadians.

Climate Change

[Alexandre Boulerice, Independent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the earth is 13,000 km in diameter and that will not change. We have limited resources. That is not up for debate. It is just physics. Unfortunately, capitalism does not get that. We have already blown past seven of the nine planetary boundaries. Here, the Liberals are missing their climate targets and they want a new pipeline, which is nuts. On top of that, they promised to take action on the industrial carbon tax by April 1. It has been crickets since then.

The Prime Minister says that climate action is not only a moral duty, but also an economic imperative. Does he listen to himself when he speaks?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are very clear. We must continue to fight climate change, from an economic perspective and also from a moral perspective for future generations. We are doing that. As I already said, we strengthened our methane regulations, and that is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 400 megatonnes.

We are making investments to protect nature while investing abroad to help other countries also fight climate change. We are getting the job done.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons made remarks that cast doubt on the word of certain members of the official opposition. That is why I would like to seek unanimous consent to table the list of cuts—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, it is time for the Thursday question. Maybe we should all pause and allow a bit of time for the millions of Canadians to run over to their televisions and turn on CPAC so they can catch the Thursday question here in the House of Commons.

I would like to ask the hon. House leader for the government what the business for the rest of the week will be and, after our two constituency work weeks, when we will celebrate Victoria Day and hopefully spend some time with our constituents and families, if the leader of the government in the House can inform us what the business will be when we come back.

I note that there is a lot of chatter in the public about energy regulations and impediments to natural resource development. We have the actual people who do the investments and do the developments and build the projects saying that the Liberal government is shackling them with unnecessary costs and regulation. The Prime Minister, who has had a year with his powers of Bill C-5, the Major Projects Office powers, has gotten absolutely nothing approved through that office.

Will the government bring in bills to repeal the antidevelopment legislation that the Trudeau government implemented and that the current government, with the current Liberal Prime Minister, has kept on the books? Can we please start seeing legislation entitled “an act to repeal”?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the two constituency work weeks that my hon. friend described. Every good season must end with a cliffhanger. That is why the member will have to come back, to stay tuned, and we will have legislative plans on a number of things that will respond urgently to the needs and desires of Canadians as we conclude the spring session of Parliament.

For the time being, here is the schedule. Tomorrow, we will move on to the third reading of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

When the House resumes on Monday, May 25, we will continue second reading debate on Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act.

Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, which was introduced yesterday.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), I would like to designate Tuesday, May 26, for consideration in a committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Finance.

Furthermore, debate on the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will take place on the evening of Thursday, May 28.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a very real and local example of this growing uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls, whose narrow vote last year to incorporate as a municipality is now being re-evaluated as a whole community. From the decision-making powers of the town council to the municipality's actual name, uncertainty persists because of the title changes brought about by the B.C. government, which now risk serious consequences across the nation.

When people of the community of Okanagan Falls, which is 100 years old, no longer know and are waiting to be told what the name of their community they voted to incorporate will be, that is a sign of poor consultation brought on by an error-ridden provincial government. While our motion today is focused on the federal government, I join with my local and provincial representatives in encouraging Victoria to engage fully with every resident and neighbour in the beautiful community of Okanagan Falls with respect to the future of the community.

As for the government across from me, Conservatives are calling for a common-sense approach that keeps the federal government involved with British Columbians throughout the entire legal process. We are calling on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case at the Department of Justice. Statements by Liberal MPs in the House are not the same as the direction they have provided to their public lawyers, who argued and lost in the Cowichan decision because of that.

Litigation guideline number 14 from “Attorney General of Canada's Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples” prevented the federal government from defending property rights in the Cowichan case, as many Canadian lawyers have pointed out. This is what the Cowichan decision itself said at paragraph 2096: “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.”

What is called the “principle of extinguishment”, that the Crown's creation of fee simple title supersedes historical indigenous title, was the legal argument on which Canadian governments rested their defence of private property historically, under both Liberal and Conservative attorneys general. It does not cancel any existing treaties. It simply upholds the property rights created through Canadian history, particularly in the last century of property division in British Columbia. It was our best line of defence for property rights, but the Attorney General's guidelines limited its use.

The federal government itself has also created confusion on the intersection of title claims with its own Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement, which fails to say anything definitive about fee simple property rights, a dangerous precedent going into its appeal. Until the Cowichan case is resolved, it is clear that the federal government should be negotiating the defence of private property rights into its agreements with our first nations.

It is not that first nations are trying to take private property. They are not. It is that legal agreements create precedents that could cause greater problems in the decades ahead. This creation of legal grey areas is how we got to the Cowichan decision. It should not be continued in agreements like the Musqueam agreement. Legal matters are never simply aspirational. They are law.

That is why we on this side of the House are also calling for the Liberal government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement, and appoint a special committee with the mandate to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect property rights in Canada.

This should be a multi-party committee that would hold multiple meetings over the next several weeks to hear from legal experts and to develop advice to be published in an interim report by the summer, with a full report to follow later. Both sides of the House feature people of great legal talent, many of whom are indigenous and many more who are familiar with indigenous law. There is no reason they cannot provide the government with clear advice before we rise for the summer.

Canada is not required in international law to pursue reconciliation. We have our own law, and our own lawmakers in the House who wish to find common ground, equal rights and shared prosperity. Section 35 of our Constitution already recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada.

No one pretends this framework is perfect, but it is our framework, built and improved by all Canadians. Few nations around the world maintain this kind of legal framework with indigenous peoples. It is a process of ever-greater improvement, but to maintain it we need all parties, such as the Crown, first nation leaders and everyday Canadians, who are extremely worried right now, to sit in a common understanding of how we will proceed and how we will recognize the rights of land, property and consultation.

Let us maintain it as legislators of Canadian law. Setting aspirational goals aligned with UN resolutions in our laws does not serve anyone. Real Canadian law and real Canadian reconciliation can serve everyone fairly.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself disappointed in the Conservative Party of Canada, as the far right has taken a position of stirring the pot and promoting fear over facts. It is indeed unfortunate, because there is a substantial cost to that when misinformation is promoted.

How does the member feel that the Conservative positioning on this file helps in terms of building a stronger Canada, when in fact indigenous people, the provinces and municipalities all play an important role, as does reconciliation? This is a major aspect being hit by the Conservative Party today.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, first nation leaders, the Crown and everyday Canadians all need to sit at a table in order to proceed. What I do not understand is how the member can say there is not a problem. I know that I am getting calls and emails, and I am getting people knocking on our door wondering if they are still going to own their property in the next little while. I know that the member who just spoke is not from British Columbia, but this is a Canadian issue that needs to be addressed immediately.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this issue was not brought up in parliamentary committee, where it could have been discussed. Instead, it was brought directly here to the House. Could my hon. colleague explain why no steps were taken to address the matter in committee?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question. Liberals have shut down all communication. Everything we have tried to bring forward to committee has been shut down. I know it is not a good idea to keep pretending the issue is minor, or that somehow Conservatives are stirring the pot and making people scared. Again, how is it that the government does not realize people are scared about the future of their property rights? They are scared to develop. They are scared to invest in Canada right now.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my colleague a question, because the questions coming at her all the time from the Liberal side are about how we should not be talking about this in the House of Commons because Canadians are uninformed.

I want to ask my colleague if it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to raise issues, discuss the issues and get the facts on the table about how we deal with the issues, rather than bury our head in the sand like ostriches.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what my colleague said. The government members are burying their head in the sand, pretending this is not something that could grow into something we will not be able to address farther down the road. We need to get together, as I mentioned in my speech. There are a lot of people on all sides of the House who have great experience, legal experience and indigenous experience. We have lawyers on both sides who can look at this and make sure. We need to be leaders. We need to show people they do not need to be frightened, because we are going to do something about this.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the court documents say, “the plaintiffs [the Cowichan] seek declarations that the fee simple titles and interests in the Federal [claim].... They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private [property] owners.”

There is no risk to private property. This has been indicated by the plaintiffs. Does the member opposite understand that?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question just confirms the fact that we all need to sit together. This is what the motion says. We need to sit together and talk about what our next steps are. This is a very complicated issue, and we cannot continue to pretend that it is not serious.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, before starting my speech, I just want to mention the media reports saying that the Liberal Prime Minister is once again promising a new law to speed up projects, a year after he promised the very same thing. It is déjà vu all over again.

We passed Bill C‑5 in five days almost a year ago. The Prime Minister said he was going to build at speeds not seen in generations. A year later, he has not used his powers once to approve a single new project in Canada. Now, he is repeating the same promise. Five hundred projects are waiting for federal approval. The only thing he needs to do for them to move ahead is to get out of the way.

The Prime Minister needs to get out of the way by getting rid of the carbon tax. He needs to get out of the way by granting permits. He needs to get out of the way by legalizing oil and gas shipping off the West Coast. He needs to get out of the way by allowing a pipeline. That is the way to start letting builders build, investors invest and businesses create.

Before starting, I just want to address that the Liberal Prime Minister is again spreading illusions. CBC ran a big headline that he is going to introduce a new law to get projects built. Where have we heard that before? Eleven months ago, the House gave him unprecedented legal powers under Bill C-5 to approve projects quickly. He said these powers would allow him to build at unimaginable speeds. Eleven months later, he has not used them once to approve a single solitary project. There are 500 of them waiting for his approval.

There is only one thing in the way, and that is the Prime Minister. We do not need an announcement, a symbolic signing ceremony or any other illusions. We need him to get out of the way, get rid of the industrial carbon tax, approve the 500 projects waiting, grant a permit for a pipeline to the Pacific and legalize shipping oil off the West Coast. We need him to let builders build, workers work and investors invest.

To do that, though, we also need to protect private property, which is the foundation of any economic civilization. Last August, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in the Cowichan case that aboriginal title had prior and senior status over private property rights, what is called “fee simple.” Fee simple is the legal term for the title one has to own their home. This is an unprecedented ruling, and it changes everything.

We have to acknowledge how this ruling came to pass. It was the result of the Liberal government refusing to defend property rights in court. The federal government is the defendant in this case. It is named, and frankly, it is the only defendant. The Liberal government passed litigation guideline 14, an instruction from the Liberal cabinet that federal lawyers were not to argue for the seniority of fee simple property rights. The judge noted in her 800-page ruling that this is one of the reasons she could not protect property rights in her decision. That guideline is still on the Liberal government's website, meaning the Prime Minister has kept it in place.

Eight months went by after this ruling, which affects 800 acres and over $1 billion of private land, and the Prime Minister, who is the head of the government that is the defendant in the case, said absolutely nothing. He said nothing; he did nothing. Then the other day, he stood up and spread the illusion that he suddenly supports property rights, all while instructing his lawyers, through an explicit guideline still on the government website, not to defend those same property rights. Already there are reports of over $100 million in investment being cancelled because land title cannot be secured, as a result of the fact that there is no guaranteed collateral for the investors and the lenders.

To make matters worse, the Prime Minister directed his Liberal government to sign the Musqueam agreement, which began the process of granting title to the Musqueam over lands that include metro Vancouver, Delta and even the same Richmond lands that the Cowichan decision granted to the Cowichan people, causing an even greater mess.

The Liberals claim that their framework agreement with the Musqueam has no legal force and it does not matter, which raises the question of why they signed it at all, but what is clear and what legal experts say is that there is no protection for private property rights in that agreement either.

All of this raises big concerns not just for Richmond and the Lower Mainland but right across British Columbia, because there are claims on almost the entire province. British Columbia is not a province where land cession has happened through the treaty process. There are going to be countless other claims that will come forward from other nations using the same precedent that came from the Cowichan ruling, which could literally threaten millions of homeowners. In the meantime, investment is paralyzed and suspended.

Liberals across the way are trying to downplay the concern, but let me quote Mayor Malcolm Brodie of the City of Richmond, who said, “Property owners in Richmond and throughout the province can no longer rely on their title confirming a fee simple interest as conclusive evidence of absolute ownership of their land. The Court’s untenable decision cannot remain unchallenged.”

Clearly, the mayor of the City of Richmond would not be raising the prospect that his own residents do not have clear title over the homes they bought if it were not truly a concern. Frankly, I do not know how the Liberals can deny the consequential impact of a court ruling that says there is one form of title that takes precedence over home ownership fee simple land title. Of course, that is a revolutionary change and an unprecedented change. It threatens the very economic foundations of our entire land-owning system.

Without property rights, there are no economic rights. There is no country in the world where people are able to feed themselves, to house themselves, to prosper and to start businesses without having secure title. It is literally the single biggest determinant of economic prosperity. The great economist de Soto even pointed out that there are literally trillions of dollars of wealth that is deprived of people in third world countries simply because the people who live on the land do not have title of that land and, therefore, cannot build anything, including a home for themselves, on that land. To have a property-owning, free-market democracy, we need to have secure land title.

That is why Conservatives have come forward with a solution to clean up the mess the Liberal Prime Minister has made. This motion today calls for the following action.

One, it calls for the Prime Minister to cancel litigation guideline 14, the guideline that bans federal lawyers from defending property rights, and replace that guideline with a new one that requires they defend property rights in all such disputes.

Two, it calls for a policy that the federal government will not sign anymore agreements with any first nations that do not explicitly protect fee simple property rights as having seniority over all other claims.

Three, it calls for the Liberal Prime Minister, within 30 days, to present his plan to protect the property rights of British Columbians. It has been a month since this ruling. This is a federal issue where he is the federal defendant. He is the head of the federal government. He, by now, should have come up with a plan to defend the property rights of the people of British Columbia.

Four, it calls for immediately convening a parliamentary committee to begin studying how we can save the property rights and the home ownership of the people of British Columbia and all of Canada.

It is a four-step action plan that will immediately allow us to step up, do our jobs and defend homeowners. These are people who, in good faith, bought the land, paid down the mortgages and followed the rules. They deserve to have the security and the certainty that they own the homes they live in.

Conservatives will fight for them. We will fight for their home, for their land, for their property and for all Canadians.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely reject the premise of the Leader of the Opposition's argument. I want to quote what the Prime Minister said several days ago: “The government will always defend private property rights.”

I will say it again: “The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.”

Why does the Leader of the Opposition try to divide Canadians and misrepresent our Prime Minister?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is all an illusion. The Prime Minister says one thing while doing precisely the opposite. That has been the signature trait of his entire prime ministership. He does precisely the opposite of what he says.

While he was making those comments in the House of Commons, on his own federal government website was litigation guideline 14, which forbids federal lawyers from defending fee simple property rights in challenges by first nations. It is another example of the Prime Minister providing an illusion of one thing while doing precisely the opposite.

If he will actually defend property rights everywhere and always, then he can simply vote for our motion, which requires we defend property rights in court.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the official opposition for his contribution to the debate.

My question is the following. Given that the decision is based on an interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that the courts must therefore interpret that section of the Constitution, how could the government possibly provide a solution today without allowing the judicial process to run its course?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bad interpretation of section 35. This interpretation came to pass because the Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend private property rights.

The judge herself noted that the federal Liberal government and the provincial NDP government of British Columbia had not raised arguments for the seniority of homeowners.

By deciding not to present these arguments, they lost in court, so now homeowners are at risk of losing their homes. That is what we are trying to rectify today.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians are afraid and they do not have certainty right now. In 2019, the Liberals adopted litigation guideline number 14 telling federal lawyers to avoid defending property rights. That directive is still in force today.

The Prime Minister likes to talk about things that we can control and focusing on them. Would the leader of the official opposition maybe tell the Prime Minister what is under our control here in Parliament and what the leader of the official opposition tends to do about it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can control the directives he gives his lawyers. We have a very simple system when it comes to lawyers and clients in our legal system. The lawyer advises and the client instructs. The Prime Minister is the client. He has absolute authority to instruct his lawyers however he wants, and right now, the instruction he has given them, as published in litigation guideline 14 on the Government of Canada website, is that they should not defend private property rights.

The Prime Minister stands in the House of Commons, puts his hand on his heart and claims he is for property rights. Why is it that he is saying one thing to the Canadian people and the opposite to his lawyers?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker on the motion spoke of putting international law aside and sitting down together about a Canadian version of reconciliation. Does the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition know and agree that the legislation we adopt in this place is presumed to be consistent with our international obligations, yes or no?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we pass laws in this country for our people in Canada. We do not pass laws based on what some multinational bureaucracy tells us to pass. We work for Canadians in this country. We are Canadians first and Canadians always.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why is it that when Albertans feel frustrated and feel that they are being held from reaching their full potential to share their energy with Canada and the rest of the world, there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Why is it that Alberta's separatism is at an all-time high today, and there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Why is it that throughout history when a Quebec separation referendum happens, there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Whose was the government in Ottawa over the last decade as separation sentiment in Quebec reached heights not seen in generations? It was the Liberals' government. The Liberal record shows a lack of leadership, the villainization of provinces for political benefit and the causing of divisions among the people of Canada.

Today in British Columbia, we see a lack of leadership. We see the villainization of those asking for certainty and clarity around property rights, and we see an all-time high in division between British Columbians and first nations. Whose is the government in Ottawa today during the lead-up to this in British Columbia? It is the Liberals' government. This is not just a provincial government issue. First nations are a federal jurisdiction under section 35 of the Constitution. Treaty-making, agreements and court action involving first nations require federal government leadership, vision, clarity and the desire for unity, but all we have from the government for the current challenges in B.C. is avoidance, a lack of transparency, contradictions and reconciliation rhetoric.

The situation regarding Cowichan is not an isolated failure. It reflects a broader and more troubling pattern under the Prime Minister and his Liberal government. As a first-term member of Parliament, I have seen trust repeatedly broken with indigenous peoples, political negligence at the expense of lasting progress and an inability to take full responsibility when things continually go wrong. The Prime Minister says he is all about reconciliation, but he and his government have reduced reconciliation to a cheap political talking point. His record over one year shows a complete lack of respect and neglect for indigenous peoples.

In 2015, the government promised to end boiled water advisories in six years. Now the Liberals are six years past that promise, with no end in sight. After the last election, the Prime Minister's government promised new water legislation for fall 2025. Fall came and went with no legislation. He then told AFN chiefs at the winter assembly that there would be water legislation in the spring of 2026. There has been no water legislation tabled this spring, and there are only weeks left until the summer break for the Liberals to keep their word instead of breaking another promise regarding water.

The government creates uncertainty and stress by not keeping its word, and it is doing that in B.C. at this moment. A core source of uncertainty in B.C. under the Musqueam agreement, treaties and other such initiatives, is the application of UNDRIP. I note the Prime Minister said several times that he will uphold free, prior and informed consent, a key piece of UNDRIP, but we know when he says this, it is just political rhetoric as his party has said it now for years.

The Liberals' strategy seems to be to exploit first nations when it suits their political purposes, even creating and sowing division and chaos among indigenous peoples themselves. Recently, first nations wrote to this government as it tried to expedite the Manitoba Métis Federation bill. Their question for the Liberal government was whether it has the free, prior and informed consent of first nations to sign a new modern treaty when it has yet to honour the historical ones that lay claim to the same territory.

The government has several public letters now from Treaty 6, Treaty 8, Manitoba first nations, the AFN and more, citing their concerns over a lack of consultation and a lack of consideration on historical treaty rights. Conservatives make it clear, and so have first nations leaders, that nobody is against Métis self-government and self-determination, but answers remain outstanding that need to be had before moving ahead with modern treaties that overlap with historical rights. Surely the government considered this, because its silence to first nations' concerns on this matter is deafening.

Furthermore, the United States tribes are now attempting to leverage DRIPA and UNDRIP to cause chaos in our country's developmental affairs. Where are the Liberals on this issue? They are silent. Conservatives know to put Canada first on such things and raise them in this House so that the government might do its job to stand up for this country.

What about other modern treaties? Currently, the government is not serious about UNDRIP's free, prior and informed consent when it comes to modern treaty processes in B.C. Several of the recent agreements in B.C. have raised threats of blockades and protests among the first nations themselves.

While the provincial government has a big role to play, the federal government is ultimately responsible for these treaties and agreements. To pretend otherwise and to use the excuse that things should wait until the process comes to this Parliament formally is neglectful and reactive, and it will only sow more division in the future. So far it really seems as though the Liberal strategy is to sow division and chaos and water down the spirit and intent of treaties to avoid the rights of those who sacrificed to help build this country.

Did the government have free, prior and informed consent of other tribes in the area when it signed its Musqueam agreement, an agreement negotiated in secrecy and sprung on the people of Vancouver and other first nations in the Lower Mainland? The answer is no.

The government is hypocritical when it comes to free, prior and informed consent, as evidenced by the Squamish, who had to release a public statement saying they were “not consulted or meaningfully engaged by the federal government prior to the announcement of these agreements.” The people of Vancouver were not consulted, nor were the other local tribes, such as the Tsawwassen, when it comes to the Musqueam agreement.

Speaking of consultations, first nations are asking the government right now at committee why it is weaponizing consultations against first nations women and families by creating a four-year delay sham process for S2 legislation, which would end discrimination against women and families. Women are now saying the government uses consultation as an excuse to delay human rights legislation through a four-year sham process, but it rams through other bills that have implications for first nations' rights. Clearly, this is, again, the Liberal government being hypocritical, because it knows the Mikisew court case protects Parliament when it comes to a lack of consultation in legislation development.

The vice-president of Justice for Girls said just days ago, regarding the government's lack of urgency to change discrimination, “To resist doing that under the guise of consultation and supporting [the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples] is absolutely flabbergasting to me”.

We see such hypocrisy and political games by the Liberal leadership to exploit our people. They are just stalling to keep the Indian Act discrimination going against women and families. For what reason, nobody really knows.

The government talks, avoids, lacks transparency, vilifies fair questions and shows a complete lack of leadership. It is no wonder we have this situation in B.C., as well as separation in Alberta and Quebec.

Conservatives are ready to lead. We are ready not to just talk about balancing property rights and section 35 rights; we are acting. We are challenging the government to lead, to bring clarity and certainty to homeowners, first nations and investors. We call upon the government to put private property first. We need to start analyzing how to do this while respecting all perspectives.

When my nation settled a land claim over the west side of Edmonton that had residential and commercial property on it, we never went after private property; we worked with negotiators for solutions. We call upon the government to aggressively defend property rights in all litigation. To do otherwise would prove that it wants to see chaos and division. It must stop watering down the treaty process and bring the structures necessary to protect private property in all future agreements, negotiations and modern treaties so that we can have certainty for both first nations and Canadians.

Our Treaty No. 6 brings certainty to first nations in Canada. “As long as the sun shines, grass grows and the rivers flow”, this treaty cannot be changed.

The government's signing these modern treaties with easy back-out clauses and using performative language, such as living agreements, is not a true treaty process and only delegitimizes all treaties. We call upon the government to put aside differences in this House, to strike a cross-party committee to address this, to show real leadership from this House and to be proactive in first nation and Canadian relationships. Otherwise, if the House does not act, courts, division and conflict will define where we go next.

While the government claims to be a party of reconciliation, it only acts for true change when challenged in court. In areas such as Indian Act discrimination, child family services, water and more, the government is only forced to the table through court. There is an opportunity to be better and to do the role of leadership, not just more reconciliation rhetoric, in this House.

Canada must do better. The government, under the Liberals, must do better. Real reconciliation does not come from rhetoric but from a responsible government, honest engagement and the resolve to follow through. It requires a government that says what it means, does what it says and is willing to be held accountable every step of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the motion is to promote and encourage fear among Canadians and ultimately, I would argue, spread misinformation. We listened to the members opposite, who even tried to misquote or misrepresent what the Prime Minister was saying.

I would like to quote the Prime Minister directly. He stated:

The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.

As we continue to defend those property rights, which is something that will continue well into the future, we have the Conservatives on the other hand trying to plant the seed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member needs time to respond. The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here as a first-term member of Parliament for one year. Canadians were hoping for something different, but they got more of the same: just more Liberal rhetoric.

For my communities, it is really disappointing for me to say that the Liberals really have cheapened reconciliation to a political talking point. It is reconciliation rhetoric now. As much as the Prime Minister says something in this House, all of his actions outside of it prove otherwise. Actions speak louder than words, and he continues to fail in that regard.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that we in Quebec are really accustomed to this. I heard my colleague say that the referendums on independence took place under a Liberal government. I can assure him that the next one will also take place under a Liberal government in the coming years and that we are going to win this time. Then the Liberals can have their country, and they can decide how to govern it. We look forward to that. We will leave Canada to them, and we will take care of our own affairs.

I find this issue interesting. Not only am I a proud Quebecker, I am also a proud member of the Wendat nation. It is an important part of who I am. In Quebec, we have rights and legal systems that are quite different, particularly when it comes to property. It is a bit hard for us to wrap our heads around this situation.

Can my colleague elaborate on that aspect? Does he anticipate that this ruling from British Columbia could have an impact on Quebec later on?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the fear. It is disappointing when the Liberals deny Canadians' fear. That is a real emotion, at the end of the day.

Quebec or any other province needs to take a look at what is going on in B.C., because there is an aspect of federalism. First nations are in section 35, so this has federal implications. For Quebeckers and the people of the Wendat, there are mechanisms to work together, but continually, the Liberal government does not take full advantage or performs reconciliation rhetoric when it comes to creating real partnerships at the end of the day.

We are looking for leadership. People of the Wendat can provide that, in spite of what the Liberal government does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything the member for Edmonton Northwest has done on the indigenous northern affairs committee. I have learned a lot from him, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this very important file.

The member for Winnipeg North, just a few moments ago, read a statement; in normal circumstances, this would be a good thing. However, everything repeated in that script was the exact opposite of what the Liberals were doing. They decided in 2018, in a conscious decision, not to argue fee simple property rights in court. This means that if a party does not do it in the lower court, they cannot do it on appeal, and if it gets to the Supreme Court, they cannot do it there either.

How do the Liberals expect to use this argument when they are not allowed to?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to have humility. I am not a lawyer, so I stand to read what lawyers say in this regard, but I thank the member for his point. That is my understanding of it as well.

I hope the Liberals have more humility too. They admit that they got things wrong and things are not going in the right direction. They should not dismiss people's fears, because this is a real issue that British Columbians are facing, and ultimately, so is Canada. We need them to step up in that regard as well and not be fearful of addressing the issues.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, so here we are again, debating a court decision in the House of Commons, based on arguments that misrepresent and distort a ruling confirming the aboriginal title of the Cowichan nation.

This motion does not reflect the actual goals of the nation or the findings of the court. Instead, it attempts to pit individual property rights against indigenous rights protected under the Constitution. It manufactures fear about what this ruling supposedly means, rather than dealing with what the court actually said.

It is shameful that the Conservatives and Liberals are trying to score political points by spreading narratives not in fact, but in fiction, so obnoxiously that we can almost hear the gears turning in the fiction mill. When did this Parliament, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, decide that some rights matter more than others? This is a dangerous political game.

At a time when division is growing across the country, Conservatives and Liberals are shamefully pitting indigenous peoples against communities and homeowners. They are creating unnecessary fear among homeowners who are struggling more than ever just to make ends meet, while failing in their responsibility as legislators to uphold the Constitution and rule of law.

The facts are clear. In fact, the Cowichan nation stated in court, “They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private owners.”

The B.C. Supreme Court justice reinforced this directly. These are not my words, but from the court: “I also find that, as Aboriginal title and Crown title coexist, it follows that Aboriginal title and fee simple can coexist, as the latter is a derivative of Crown title.”

Moreover, the paranoia being fuelled by the Conservatives and Liberals around the threat this decision poses to homeowners in Richmond is unfounded. In reality, the decision affects land that is largely undeveloped and will not displace homeowners.

Just before I continue, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The court made it very clear. It stated, “The Richmond lands that fall within the Cowichan Title Lands are generally unoccupied and undeveloped, and there are no set plans for their occupation or development other than possible dike redevelopment.”

Let us be honest with Canadians: Homeowners are not at risk here. This decision is not about, and has never been about, individually owned private property. It has never been about that, as affirmed by the courts. Not only does the Cowichan decision not affect homeowners, but the Cowichan nation never even intended it to, as stated in court documents.

The Liberals and Conservatives need to get out of the business of deciding whether they will respect the rule of law based on political convenience, economic interests or for fundraising purposes. Rights do not become optional, depending on who is affected or whether acknowledging them is politically uncomfortable.

We already have clear legal guidance. Section 35 of the Constitution affirms indigenous and treaty rights. Section 25 of the charter protects those collective rights within Canada's constitutional framework. As legislators, we swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. This means respecting the Constitution in its entirety, which includes indigenous rights. It also means respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This Parliament affirmed its application through Bill C-15 in the 43rd Parliament.

Let me be clear: UNDRIP was never about placing indigenous rights above the rights of others. It was quite the opposite. It was about balance, fairness, coexistence and justice. Article 46, in fact, of the declaration makes this explicit. It states that all provisions of the declaration “shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.”

I am here to do some myth-busting today. Canadians deserve facts, not panic designed to divide people against indigenous nations and against reconciliation itself. The truth is simple. The court upheld the rule of law. It rejected the argument that unlawful Crown grants could erase indigenous title. That decision does not undermine property law. It, in fact, clarifies it within the framework of reconciliation and the Constitution.

In fact, the Cowichan nation and B.C.'s provincial government issued a joint statement that the ruling did not seek to invalidate privately held homes or fee simple title. The suggestion that homeowners could suddenly lose their homes is simply false. The court recognized that the Cowichan deliberately tailored its remedies to avoid impacts on third parties like homeowners.

The ruling leaves room for negotiated solutions, compensation, shared jurisdictions and agreements that protect existing homeowners while respecting indigenous rights. As a matter of fact, the B.C. court affirmed the Cowichan nation's position that aboriginal title and private ownership are not a “zero-sum game”. An aboriginal title and property ownership can coexist and reconcile.

Why are the Conservatives putting forward a motion today when people are dealing with the everyday emergency of just getting by? It is shameful. In Canadian history, in fact, there has been no record of a single case where an indigenous nation has displaced property owners. In reality, this whole debate is a complete oxymoron. The true struggle has been for indigenous people to prove aboriginal title on their own lands.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has already repeatedly affirmed pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples. For example, in 2004, the Haida Nation v. British Columbia court decision affirmed the need to reconcile the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown.

We have heard claims that this decision will unleash chaos and endless lawsuits, but indigenous rights and title have been recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court of Canada. Reconciliation through law is not new. Modern agreements across the country have already shown that indigenous rights and private ownership can coexist. Most claims are resolved through negotiation, not litigation. Court cases usually happen only when governments refuse to negotiate, like the Liberal government, in good faith.

The leader of the official opposition claimed that Crown lawyers pulled their punches because they would not deny indigenous rights in court, but section 35 rights are protected under the Constitution. The Crown has a legal obligation to act honourably and in good faith in its dealings with indigenous peoples.

Finally, last week in question period, the Prime Minister stated, “Private property rights are fundamental, and this government, indeed, this House, will always protect them.” Property rights are protected, in fact, but so are constitutional rights. Section 35 of the Constitution affirms and recognizes that aboriginal rights and title are not secondary rights. They are protected rights within Canada's constitutional framework. The Prime Minister is obliged to uphold our Constitution without qualification or question.

Reconciliation does not mean choosing one group's rights over the other. It means finding lawful, fair and balanced solutions that respect indigenous peoples, uphold and honour the Crown, and provide certainty for everyone. That is what this decision moves us toward, and we must reject attempts to weaponize fear and misinformation for political gain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do take some exception to the member's belief that the government is somehow feeding misinformation, I believe that the government has been very straightforward, whether it has been the Prime Minister, in the statements that he made earlier this week, or the minister responsible, who stood up today and articulated, in great detail, a number of points that the member opposite just raised.

I believe that the government is working in collaboration with other jurisdictions, first nations and the provinces.

What does the hon. member believe about the importance of working in collaboration? What is the NDP's position on the motion itself? Will they be voting in favour of it?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member opposite. Amnesty International confirmed the backsliding of indigenous rights by the Liberal government.

I want to know if he agrees with me that the Prime Minister should do his duty and uphold the Constitution.

Why is his government choosing to put forward litigation against constitutionally enshrined rights in section 35? That is not respecting the Constitution or the rule of law.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think the hon. member was paying attention to what we were saying on this side of the House. At no time has anyone on this side even implied that the Cowichan Tribes would be forcing people off their land. At no time did anyone on this side say that. She continues to repeat that, unfortunately. We have said that it has created massive uncertainty because the government did not do its job.

Do not take my word for it. According to David Eby, the NDP Premier of British Columbia, in a quote from the Canadian Bar Association, “Mr. Eby has repeatedly raised the alarm about the Cowichan decision, saying it threatens private property rights.” He goes on to say that the court decision was very unhelpful.

The member says that there are more important things to talk about. How about a $100-million project, a luxury hotel, that was cancelled?

How about widespread uncertainty, according to CBC News and the Vancouver Sun, affecting Richmond and elsewhere? This is very important and we need certainty.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the multi-million-dollar project in question that was raised by Councillor Alexa Loo. This is what the bank said about why the project did not go through:

National Bank initially said in a one-sentence response that “no specific directive has been given to our teams regarding this court ruling.”

In a second statement hours later, the bank said: “We cannot comment on specific cases for confidentiality purposes, but what we can confirm is that this is not a factor that is currently taken into account in our financing decisions, and no guidelines have been issued by the bank in this regard.”

What does this mean? It means that the fact that they did not receive financing is a separate matter. The bank confirmed it. It had nothing to do with the Cowichan decision.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate.

I do believe we need to work toward reconciliation. Part of our job as elected officials is to reconcile competing interests. We have try to see both sides.

My colleague seems to be severely downplaying the legal uncertainty resulting from the decision in the Cowichan case. While it does not resolve everything, it is true that the decision opens the door to negotiation. That is essentially what is being said. We understand that there is a legal process. However, I think we still need to consider the perspective of certain private property owners. Perhaps they have been influenced by certain political rhetoric and are more concerned than they need to be. Nevertheless, the key conclusion of the ruling is that aboriginal title can exist even on privately owned land.

Does my colleague not agree that there may be some legitimate concern over this?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the court ruled, it is not a zero-sum game, which means that we have real examples where both realities coexist: private property and the recognition of aboriginal rights and title.

I want to point out, though, that we are talking about this as if it is something new. That is actually false. In my discourse, I pointed to the Haida Nation case in 2004, where the court determined the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples, with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown.

There is no threat. There is no case in history where indigenous people have gone after a private property interest. They have just fought for their own recognition of aboriginal title.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do want to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre, and I am grateful to her for splitting her time with me.

In this day's debate, I do not want to attribute motivations and reasons for why we are doing it or to say which side is right or wrong, but the problem is that it is posing a question as if it is a live issue that needs to be addressed. That is largely due to misunderstandings and misinformation, so let me try to explain, because I am a British Columbia MP.

Another British Columbia MP said that the proof of the fact that the court decision has created real problems is that we are getting calls in our constituency office. I can say that, yes, I am getting calls in my constituency office and getting constituents emailing me. I take it as my responsibility to dig into what the court said and share with my constituents and reassure them that there is no threat to their fee simple ownership of their place. There is no threat to ownership of land by settler culture British Columbians at all from the Cowichan decision.

I want to go back to what it is about and what the court did. This is a declaration of the British Columbia Supreme Court. By the way, I think the Prime Minister was wrong to stand in this place and commit to appealing, and I think the British Columbia premier should be ashamed of his running away from DRIPA and of his decision to demonize this decision as if it puts anything into a state of confusion at all. I am more upset with the premier of B.C., because he is a lawyer, so he should know better. The Prime Minister is not, and the Leader of the Opposition is not.

I dig into these things because I think it is my job. I will never forget one of my favourite professors at law school. He used to thwack a cane across the desk right in front of us, like something out of The Paper Chase on TV, and he would say, “Develop the habit of thoroughness”, so I have dug in. I have learned more about what this is about, and I want to share it with people because I think it will help take away the notion that in any generalized way the Cowichan decision has anything to say about fee simple property rights in Canada.

What the court said was that British Columbia, the British Columbia government, has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Cowichan, now that the facts are clear, “in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown.” We use the term “honour of the Crown” quite loosely. There is a minister responsible for Crown-indigenous relations. It is not some anachronism that we still talk about the Crown; it is at the essence of indigenous nations' relationships with the country of Canada. It is something that happened before there was a country of Canada: the Crown, and the Crown's relationship with nations that were here before we got here.

In this case, what happened? It is an interesting story, and I hope other colleagues here will realize how specific this was to a specific historical injustice, not a generalized one. What happened here to the honour of the Crown? The first governor of British Columbia, appointed by the Crown, Governor James Douglas, was a very interesting person and a person of real integrity. I will not digress too much about James Douglas, but he was, interestingly enough, Black, and he married an indigenous woman when he came to B.C. His mother was Black and his father was Scottish. He was our first governor of British Columbia, and he set a moral tone that was fascinating.

With eight engineers at his side, not armed ones, he stood down a whole bunch of armed folks coming up from the U.S. I know we sometimes think about this now and hope it never happens, but he stood down a whole bunch of armed folks from the U.S. who, in the mid-1800s, were coming up to B.C. in the gold rush. They were armed to the teeth. They said they wanted to kill Indians and they wanted to get our gold. How the heck he did this, I do not know, but it is a great story. With eight engineers, Sir James Douglas stood them down and said to them, “You're entering British Empire now. Put your guns over there and queue up over here to buy your licence if you want to go pan for gold on the Fraser River.” This is astonishing.

Governor James Douglas also negotiated with the indigenous nations, particularly in the region I am honoured to represent here, the Saanich nation. There were a lot of individual nations that entered into negotiated agreements with the Crown through Sir James Douglas. They are called the Douglas treaties, and they are really fair and largely ignored over the generations.

This particular court decision is about one specific village site on Lulu Island that had been occupied for a very long time. By the way, the court case we are talking about is over 800 pages long, and much of it is about this story: What happened? What was the double-cross? Was there a double-cross?

To go back, Sir James Douglas, in 1853 and again in 1859, assured the Cowichan people that this particular village site on Lulu Island, called Tl’uqtinus, which had been heavily populated and was an important village site, would always be Cowichan lands. They set it aside in reserve. That is what Sir James Douglas did. He was an honourable man.

Unfortunately, a little later in our history, along comes Colonel Richard Moody, who was given the job of land commissioner for the province of B.C. The Cowichan had a specific commitment from the governor, “This is where you can stay. This is reserve land for you. We're basically taking everything else, but this is reserve land for you”, but then, about 10 years later, along comes Colonel Richard Moody as land commissioner and buys the land for himself as a land speculator. He dishonours the honour of the Crown. As the court described it, he “surreptitiously” purchased the land for himself to make himself rich while violating a commitment of the Crown to the people of the Cowichan nation.

Now, time goes on, but the Cowichan people do not forget that this is actually their land. They had a commitment from the Crown, from Sir James Douglas, and the skullduggery of Colonel Richard Moody cannot dishonour the Crown, so the Cowichan never gave up. They launched a court case in 1911, saying, “This is our land.” The chief of the Cowichan, in 1913, travelled to London, England, and met with King Edward VII to say, “This is our land. Can you please repair this injustice that's been done to us?” Well, as we can see, time marches on, and they are still trying to get a resolution to this. The gold rush of 1858 was, again, what triggered Colonel Richard Moody's double-cross. As I said, Sir James Douglas stood them down.

I find the history of British Columbia fascinating, but this case is not about any kind of generalized discussion of indigenous land title versus fee simple title. Not at all. Not ever. This is about a very specific injustice to a very specific nation over very specific land that was always theirs. That is what the court said. Then the court said that, because the land now is basically Crown land, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, and the B.C. government has no legal right to extinguish title, that is the honour of the Crown to these peoples.

My friend Adam Olsen, who was once the Green Party member of the B.C. legislature representing me, and who is a member of the Tsartlip First Nation, in response to this Cowichan decision tried to emphasize, “When First Nations win, the rest of society does not lose.” I would like my hon. colleagues in this place to think about how significant it is for us all that what may knit us together, our sovereignty as a nation, is better protected by the honour of the Crown and its relationship with indigenous nations than almost anything else if we are dealing with a U.S. President who thinks we could be the 51st state. Lots of luck. Section 35 of our Constitution says indigenous lands are inherently held and are indigenous title.

It is very important, and some of us in this place have gone to law school, like the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, so I know she knows this stuff, that we cannot conflate indigenous title with fee simple title. Crown land is in a different kind of category, and in that sense, indigenous title is more akin to that. As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg said, we have the Haida decision, and there is the Delgamuukw decision, but really the Tsilhqot’in decision of the Supreme Court of Canada made it really clear. Fee simple title is held specifically and personally and can be bought and sold. Indigenous title, as the court said in the Tsilhqot’in decision, is collective and intergenerational.

To all concerned, let us please not allow people to believe something that is not true. This Cowichan decision does not threaten fee simple land or property rights. Let us wait for the courts to conclude, and let us stay calm.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very interesting speech and recap of some of British Columbia's history. I am also a history fan, so I have read the whole case and would confirm some of the things she said.

The member is saying that Cowichan does not stand for the proposition that aboriginal title threatens fee simple title. The problem with that, of course, is that the Delgamuukw case said aboriginal title gives the holder thereof exclusive rights to possession, and fee simple does the same, so there cannot be the same thing on the same piece of land.

I will also note that the Cowichan case was the first time in Canadian history, as far as I know, that a plaintiff first nation group claimed aboriginal title over privately held lands. The Tsilqhot'in case the member cited was only about public lands, so I would challenge her on saying that aboriginal title has no effect.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has already been quoted by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre that the court confirmed that the Cowichan nation did not seek to invalidate or render ineffective fee simple lands. It is true there are some fee simple lands within the area that used to be the village. It is primarily federal land, it is City of Richmond land, and it is the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. However, the declaration by the court does not affect one iota the fee simple property rights of those people.

The burden is on the Province of British Columbia, which for 100 years ignored its duty to properly negotiate this dispute and to pay attention to the rights of the Cowichan nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we think of the modern treaties or agreements between the federal government and first nations and so forth, there has never been an example where the federal government has forfeited private property rights. That is a challenge I would put to Conservatives. I would ask them to give me an example of where that has taken place. Is the leader of the Green Party aware of any?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of my Conservative friends are wondering about the expropriations built into Bill C-15 for Alto. That is basing it on what kind of title rights we have in this country. Nobody's title rights in fee simple are absolute vis-à-vis our own government, but they are absolute vis-à-vis potential indigenous title, which has not in any way been put forward.

As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre says, there has been no case ever where indigenous title has resulted in fee simple title rights being lost for settler culture Canadians. Fee simple rights are only taken when a government expropriates for something big, like the Mirabel airport or what have you.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just mentioned Alto's high-speed train project. The government has given itself the power to disregard expropriation laws, which is clearly a big problem. People are being threatened with expropriation. The issue we are talking about today, the court decision at least, seems to touch on home values and project funding.

Can my hon. colleague go into more detail about why she seems to say that, from what I understand, there are really no issues in this respect?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Repentigny. It is a bit difficult because various issues are being conflated. From this confusion, untruths may grow.

We are in a situation where, for natural resource projects, we need to establish honest and thorough consultation mechanisms before the projects are implemented. At the same time, the decision from the B.C. Supreme Court in the Cowichan case has no impact on issues like major natural resource projects.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but reflect that if the circumstances were different, this would have been a very interesting discussion. I thank all of my colleagues for their commentary on case law and for all of the legal arguments that have been made.

I am just wondering if, in the short time that we have left, my colleague might reflect a little on the fact that it is such a tragedy that the government did not actually negotiate a treaty that would have allowed us to avoid all this uncertainty.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that Richard Moody was a thief. It is a shame the Government of British Columbia did not long ago negotiate in good faith with the Cowichan. It is a shame the Government of Canada did not long ago negotiate with the Cowichan.

With this degree of shame, we must not let the honour of the Crown be dishonoured now.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I have the incredible pleasure of serving as MP for a northern Saskatchewan seat. As an indigenous person within the House of Commons, I feel compelled to make sure we correct the record, in terms of what the opposition motion is suggesting.

I want to point out I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

Before I get into my presentation, I want to say that somewhere along the lines of discussion, it is important to call upon all our intentions when we talk about the country of Canada. I want to briefly expand on that notion before I do my critique of the Conservatives' presentation.

First of all, to clarify to all of Canada, and to the folks who might be paying attention to this particular debate, on May 5 the Prime Minister said, "The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.” That is the Prime Minister of Canada being very clear as to the whole notion around private property rights as the Cowichan decision impacts some of those statements.

I listened to the presentation by the Leader of the Opposition, and I reject the premise of his presentation because it is not intended to provide solutions to the problems. It is really intended to divide Canadians, in my opinion, for cheap political theatrics, and that is something that should never happen in the House of Commons.

I want to point out that, from the whole perspective of Canada as a country, those who helped build this nation were the first nations, the Métis people, the Innu and many other indigenous groups throughout the land. We stood side by side through centuries of conflict and through centuries of negotiations but more so through centuries of sharing the land.

From our perspective, I ask, “What is our responsibility to the country as a whole?” as we grapple through some of these issues that impact not only B.C. but Saskatchewan and Alberta. We see many good examples of how Canadians, first nations Canadians, non-indigenous Canadians, Innu Canadians, Inuit Canadians, Métis Canadians and non-status Canadians, many from my own communities, are trying to keep this country together. All of the discussions we are having here are about strengthening and uniting Canada, and that is an important point that I want to raise during this discussion.

I listened to the presentation by the Leader of the Opposition, and all I see is division from some of the points he raised. On one hand, he is suggesting that we do not look at any other agreements of this sort. That is what I understood from his presentation. On the other hand, the member for Edmonton Northwest said we need to strengthen the treaties. How does that work? They cannot give the same speech with a contrasting view like that, trying to be everything to everybody, because, quite frankly, they will be nothing to nobody if they do not make up their minds on which perspective they want to support. I see a huge divide within the Conservative caucus. They say one thing on one hand, and they say something extremely different on the other hand. Sooner or later, Canadians are going to catch on to that.

As I stand here today, I ask Canadians, who is looking after Canada's interests, and why is it important to me as an indigenous person and to indigenous folks, whether we are from B.C., Saskatchewan or Alberta? It is very clear, as the member from B.C. mentioned earlier, that there is no threat to private property ownership in this bill. Why do the Conservatives want to make it out to be a threat to Canadians? It is because it is in their political interests.

We can look at the Canadian perspective, as I mentioned before. I was raised in a household with a father who was a World War II veteran. He was Métis, and his mom was an indigenous woman. Every day when my dad came home from his service to Canada during the Second World War, he spoke about the value of Canada as a whole. As an indigenous person, he was proud to serve his country.

Somewhere along the line, Canada's interests need to be maintained in all of these discussions, through respectful dialogue and discussions among the many provinces that are impacted. I look at modern examples today of who is strengthening Canada.

I reject the member for Edmonton Northwest's notion that we are creating division. We absolutely are not. This government is working very hard to deal with economic reconciliation and to engage the indigenous community on many fronts. I dare say that I would compare our record on any day of the week to the Conservative record when it comes to indigenous rights, indigenous opportunities and the indigenous right to sit with us as partners in developing this great country.

At the end of the day, there are many indigenous people across this country who are trying to strengthen our country in all kinds of ways. Many times I talk to the people in my riding about social and economic justice for the indigenous people, and we will achieve that as long as we have respectful dialogue between all parties engaged.

In the Cowichan decision, as I mentioned, we will respect private property ownership.

Now, I will go back to my father's service to this country. It is a beautiful country. We had a number of family members serve in the military. They include my older brother who served as a warrant officer in the air force and my younger brother who served as a warrant officer in the army. I had a sister who also served in the air force, and my daughter almost joined the navy until her mother talked her out of it. The fact of the matter is that we come from a proud military history within my family.

How did we get that service-to-Canada perspective? It came from our father, who was a World War II veteran who spoke about the value of keeping Canada together. He was one solid, strong patriot, and yet he was indigenous. If he saw the discussion here today, and the talk about dividing the country over indigenous rights versus private property rights, he would say to us that it is important to keep our country strong and together.

Again, our Prime Minister has been very clear. For the record, I am going to read to the opposition his quote: “The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.”

Those are the exact same words that I think my father would say to us all. Let us make Canada stronger, let us make Canada fairer, and let us make Canada more independent.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am really curious about the member's brother who served in the air force. I would love to have a conversation with him around the Snowbirds and encourage the Liberals' support. They are such a wonderful representation to young people who would also like to join the air force.

I want to note one thing from the British Columbia Supreme Court when it released its decision. It concluded that the Cowichan Tribes hold aboriginal title to a portion of their lands, including private lands held in fee simple. Justice Young made a number of findings and issued a series of declarations that, according to—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Sir. I am speaking to the member. He is not even listening.

[An hon. member]

Yes, he is.

[An hon. member]

No, you're talking to him.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We have a question, and we will have an answer.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville will quickly wrap up her question.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here is the part that I would like him to respond to because they are blaming us on this side of the House for causing the angst.

Justice Young made a number of findings and issued a series of declarations that, according to aboriginal legal experts and academics, create significant uncertainty for fee simple title holders in the province of British Columbia—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will have to leave it there in order to let the hon. member respond.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about the value of Canada, and of course I spoke about my family's service to Canada in the Snowbird response. With my brother having been a flight engineer with the Royal Canadian Air Force for 26 years, I think we should never put any pilots or any of our service members in older aircraft that may not be safe. I would also dare say, with all the information that we have agreed to in terms of strengthening and protecting Canada more, to pay attention to that perspective as well.

The Snowbirds have the opportunity to showcase more of what they can do. The minister is absolutely correct. They have a great history, and they are going to always make sure they do Canada proud in many ways, shapes and forms. Modernizing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate.

I thought my colleague's tone had a hint of reassurance in it, but the question I would like to ask him is this: Why has the government decided to appeal this case?

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the court system, not the House of Commons, should be dealing with this matter. All I am saying today, as a result of some of the discussions we are having, is to not misrepresent what the Prime Minister has stated in the House of Commons. That is why I have read, very slowly, three or four times, his exact quote about private property rights.

It is not fair for the opposition members to start off their presentations trying to divide Canadians, misrepresenting what the Prime Minister is saying and not listening to nor defending Canadian interests over all.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his truly important speech.

How many times does he think this issue has been raised, and how many times has it been addressed in the House over the past few months? The same question is asked day after day, and we answer it every time. As my colleague just mentioned, the Prime Minister has clearly set out the government's position on this matter.

I would like my colleague to explain to us why asking the same question and getting the same answer does not help to move the debate forward. That is not what Canadians expect.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. Why do the Conservatives bring up the issue in their effort to divide Canadians? I think it is more crucial at this time that we unite our country in as many ways as we possibly can. Somewhere along the line, somebody has to start talking about Canada's interests, and I notice, as an example, with the Alberta northern chiefs, that first nations leaders have come forward and are defending Canada as a country. That is another example I would share with the assembly, because they are doing their part to strengthen Canada through treaties.

There are a lot of great champions. The opposition should stop trying to divide Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Labour; the hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, Taxation; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the secretary of state responsible for rural development. I think he sends a very powerful message that it is time we recognize the need for and the importance of collaboration, working together to try to build that stronger Canada and listening to what his father would have said in giving him advice about Canada, building it together and building it stronger. I think it was good, sound advice. It is something we can apply today in the House of Commons.

We need to understand the motivation behind the motion that the Conservatives have put on the floor today, and what it is about, what its real purpose is. As the secretary of state for rural development said, we want to have a team Canada approach of working together, in collaboration. The motion would actually do the absolute opposite.

The Conservatives are using the terms “private property” and “protection of private property”. They are trying to wrap things around that and then implant in the minds of Canadians, in particular the residents of B.C., that they are going to lose their home, that the potential is there and that it could happen. They are promoting fear where there is no need to promote fear, because it is just not true.

The Conservatives know that. The Conservatives, the far right today, understand the issue of private property rights. It has not changed. It has been happening for generations now. They cannot cite one example, one case, where a negotiated agreement, a modern treaty or a federal agreement between Canada and first nations forced a homeowner to sell their property.

The Prime Minister has been very clear. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations articulated it exceptionally well, and I would like to provide a couple of quotes, as the Conservatives try to give misinformation and misquote what the Prime Minister has said. I just did a very quick search for examples over the last few days.

On May 5, the Prime Minister said, “The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.” Here is another quote from May 5: “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights.”

In April, the Prime Minister stated, “We will always advance viable legal arguments to protect private property. Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property.”

The Prime Minister has been very clear, as has the government.

We need to listen to what the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said earlier today: “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.”

I do not know how much more clear the Government of Canada can be on the issue. It begs the question, why is there this type of emotion before us today, at a time when we are trying to build a stronger, healthier nation?

In order to achieve the potential that Canada has, we have to recognize that we have to work in collaboration with the many different stakeholders and governments with whom we are obligated to do so, whether that is municipalities, first nations, indigenous communities, the provinces and so forth. It is not an option. The Government of Canada needs to. It is an obligation.

We are talking about billions upon billions of dollars of investment in major projects. There is a great deal of consultation and work taking place. Put it in the perspective of the importance of reconciliation and the 94 calls to action, on which the government over the last number of years has been proactively moving forward.

We have a Prime Minister, elected just over a year ago, who is determined, as is every Liberal member of Parliament, to deliver for Canadians an economy and society that we can all be very proud of.

What would the motion actually do? Would it add value to what we are trying to accomplish as parliamentarians? I would say no, it would not, because it actually promotes misinformation. It causes Canadians to become worried where they do not need to be worried. In many ways, it would put us a step back in terms of the issue of reconciliation.

When divisive motions of this nature are being debated in the House, it might be good for the far-right Conservatives to do some fundraising with, and it might fit their far-right agenda, but I would argue it does not fit Canadians' agenda, based on the values we have. We understand the importance of reconciliation. We understand the importance of private property rights. We can actually have both at the same time.

With respect to the collaboration that we have been very successful at over the last number of months since a new Prime Minister was elected, all one needs to do is look at the results. On the one hand, we have the government that is prepared to do the collaboration that is necessary, and where there is a need for legal action, the Government of Canada will be ready for that. However, we are not going to abandon our responsibilities, nor are we going to allow for Conservative misinformation to be let out and ultimately cause fear among the population.

With respect to reconciliation and when we talk about indigenous and non-indigenous relationships, the motion would not help. The attitudes in many of the comments we hear coming from the far-right Conservative Party today do not support the idea of reconciliation and working in a collaborative way in resolving the issues that are so important to our nation. If we want to build a stronger, healthier nation, we have to recognize the role of first nations, of provinces and of others. If we do not do that, we will never hit the potential that Canada can hit.

That is why it is so critically important that we continue to look at ways in which we can improve the conditions and that we continue to look at the ways the Prime Minister has set an agenda that will raise the level of support and economic and social benefit for all Canadians in all regions of the country.

I would ask the Conservatives—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the only result of the last two Liberal speakers who gave those speeches is, unfortunately, that any Canadian who had to listen to them will likely have a hard time tying their shoes tonight, but I digress.

I just wonder where the B.C. Liberal caucus is. The last speaker was from Manitoba. The one before that was from Saskatchewan. They are under the numbered treaties. It is a very different legal context when it comes to land claims and fee simple property. Our Conservative B.C. MPs have been out speaking about this issue, which matters to British Columbians.

Why are the B.C. Liberal MPs in hiding? Where are they? Why will they not get up and defend the disastrous Liberal record on this issue?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, it is against the rules for me to say whether the member has been in the House or not, but I can guarantee that he has not been listening because there have been many members of Parliament from the government caucus addressing this issue today. If he would have been listening, he would have seen good representation from B.C.

However, I can tell the member opposite that this is more than just a British Columbia issue. This is an issue for which, from coast to coast to coast, Canadians as a whole want to see reconciliation. They want to see us move forward in making sure that, unlike what the Conservatives want, there is more unity in the country as opposed to the division they promote.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Liberals secured a new majority, thanks in part to Conservative floor crossers, their attitude has changed in committee. They have been holding in camera meetings, shutting down debate and refusing to allow for a thorough study of the issues. This is truly the antithesis of the parliamentary co-operation that our constituents expect.

Our Conservative colleagues have mentioned that the Liberals refused to even discuss this issue in committee. The two parties clearly have very different positions on this matter. I am by no means an expert, and B.C. is far from Quebec, but could my colleague explain why the Liberals did not want to bring this matter before the committee to examine it in depth, shed light on it and have a genuine debate on the matter?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I disagree with what the member is implying in terms of a conclusion. I would suggest that we all need to be humble and working for Canadians first and foremost.

The very first action we did when new members were introduced and we had the majority was that we passed Bailey's law. Bailey's law was a Conservative bill. Yesterday, again, we talked about a Conservative bill and are seeing it go to committee.

I think we will get collaboration where there is a need, and at times, we might not agree with the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the Bloc on issues. It is possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can speak to the risk of directing litigation through the House of Commons and the risk of blurring the line between judicial and parliamentary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the rule of law and respect for judicial independence are so critically important in Canada. If we take a look at the motion, it is suggesting that we have a standing committee do what our courts are in the process of doing. It is somewhat bizarre, if we really want to stop to think about it.

Maybe what might have been more appropriate is if the official opposition were to consider raising the issue as a possible agenda item, and maybe changed the topic somewhat, maybe broadened it. I think the Conservatives should have gotten better advice before even introducing the motion. As I say, it causes more damage, and it is more divisive. It is a motion that should not be supported, quite frankly.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about how committed the government is to reconciliation while Amnesty International is being quoted as saying, “when it relates to Indigenous rights...we are stepping back”.

The member talks about how great the Liberals are at consulting. Bill C-5, which was passed in record time, violates the constitutionally enshrined rights of indigenous people, yet for Bill S-2, which will take out discrimination against indigenous women and first nation women in Canadian law, their excuse is that they need to consult more, in spite of the fact that this has been going on for years.

I wonder if my hon. colleague can be a bit more truthful about their record. Certainly, researchers and legal experts are noticing their failures.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think I am always truthful.

I can tell the member that, any time I have had any form of discussion or been part of a discussion with the Prime Minister about anything dealing with economic development, he is one of the individuals who constantly raises the issue of indigenous peoples' concerns and making sure that we advance the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, members can imagine waking up one morning in beautiful British Columbia. The sun is out. The birds are chirping. We can see the mountains, the forest and, if we are lucky, maybe even the ocean from our home. Life on the surface is actually pretty good, but that scenic reality masks a much deeper and darker anxiety. The title to that home, that deed that was signed however long ago, may no longer mean what we thought it meant. The financial investment that we built our entire life around, our home that we spent our entire life savings toward, may no longer belong to us, at least not in the same way we thought it did.

I wish I could say this was just some sort of reoccurring bad dream for many B.C. homeowners. However, the truth is that this uncertainty is already their reality today. This past August, the B.C. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that has since reverberated across the province and, in time, will undoubtedly reverberate across the entire country. The ruling recognizes aboriginal title over 800 acres of riverfront property in Richmond, B.C., including over the personal homes of individual citizens, declaring fee simple title invalid and ruling aboriginal title as prior and senior title to the land.

What does all this mean? No one really knows, which is a big part of the problem. However, the ruling, which is now known as the Cowichan decision, has shaken B.C. politics to its core. Because around 95% of B.C. was settled without formal treaties, the consequences of this decision are not limited to 800 acres in Richmond, but potentially impact nearly the entire province itself. While the decision is, of course, being appealed, and while the result of that appeal remains unclear, the consequences of the ruling are already being felt today. Homeowners are now being taxed on property the legal status of which is uncertain. Some are having difficulty selling their home, while businesses and industry groups have pulled billions of dollars of investment out of British Columbia as one of the key guardrails of the rule of law begins to break down.

When a citizen pays their taxes, follows the law, maintains their property and still cannot be certain that they own their own home, something has gone profoundly wrong. Private property rights are not a luxury, not an appendage to our system of government, not some kind of optional add-on to our society, to our democracy. They are quite literally the foundation on which western civilization, capitalism and our economy are built. They form the basis for our savings, our security, our independence and our autonomy as a human being. Without them, we own nothing. We are a slave to our government or whatever other powers there may be. To have them infringed upon so suddenly, so brazenly, so harshly without compensation flies in the face of everything that it means to be Canadian.

It also wakes up a very important fact, which is that Canada is one of the few democracies in the world today without property rights enshrined in our Constitution. That was left out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 by our old prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and decades later, we are now living with the consequences.

As a member of Parliament for a riding in British Columbia that itself comprises entire communities with homeowners facing similar legal uncertainty, it is my duty to speak out for my constituents and articulate my position and my views on this issue.

For me, the defence of private property is and always will be a red line. It is not and should never be up for negotiation. It is in every way a fundamental human right, and we must never submit to trade it away to simply appease or placate the latest ideological fad or in the name of political convenience. Every citizen must know that their government will do whatever it takes to ensure that Canadians can trust that what they own is truly theirs without exception. Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of what the Liberal government in Ottawa and the NDP government in B.C. have actually done.

First, in 2018, the Liberal government instructed its lawyers, Crown counsel, to abandon their own citizens, ordering them to discard the long-held legal argument that the granting of fee simple private property took precedence over or extinguished any aboriginal title claim. That directive remains Liberal party policy to this day.

Second, after the bombshell Cowichan ruling, the Liberals should have immediately halted any further agreements or treaty negotiations with first nations unless explicit protections for private property were included. Instead, again, they did the exact opposite, pushing ahead with the controversial Musqueam agreement, which essentially recognized aboriginal title over much of metro Vancouver and nearly one million Canadian homes with zero explicit protections for private property.

It should be noted that a member of Parliament from within the Liberal caucus called for, in his words, the return of unceded land. Then the Liberals went ahead and negotiated three new, unprecedented quasi treaties, otherwise referred to as living agreements, all of which involved huge transfers of land, money and resources to individual first nations, again with no explicit protections for private property included.

When the Liberals and the NDP are pressed on their contradicting claims that they too support the private property rights of Canadians and will defend them at all costs, their rhetorical defence is that they claim they are appealing the Cowichan decision and hope that they will win.

Hope is not a strategy and prayers are not a plan. The uncertainty created by their actions is already having real-world effects today. The Liberal government must act to restore certainty to homeowners now. It must act to restore confidence to businesses and industry and reverse the billions of dollars in investment that is fleeing British Columbia. Just as importantly, the government must act to prevent the further fraying of the social fabric between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians that its policies have caused.

Before writing this speech, I actually looked up a dictionary definition of “reconciliation”, and it is the act of causing two people or two groups of people to become friendly again after a falling out, an argument or a disagreement. In other words, it is about bridging divides and moving forward together. This is precisely the opposite of what the Liberal Party and the NDP have managed to accomplish over the last 10 years. It is exactly the opposite, as they are driving a wedge between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, playing identity politics and prioritizing virtue signalling and rhetoric over tangible, real-world results. I see that, instead of creating a framework that would bring Canadians together as one, they created an agenda that has driven them further apart. It is breeding resentment and frustration between communities instead of bridging divides and moving together as one country, Canada.

The vision behind our nation, from the very beginning, has always been one of working together toward a common goal and of achieving together what we could not accomplish on our own. We need to once again harness that vision to bring back and realize that mythology of Canada. That includes, as an essential component, the mutually beneficial partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, from the fur trade to the War of 1812, but for that partnership to truly flourish, private property rights must remain sacrosanct.

There must be no equivocation on the part of the government. It must never allow fee simple title and the rights of private property owners to be abridged or up for debate. In each new agreement with first nations, these rights must be enshrined. In each and every court defence, the case to defend these rights must be made, and if absolutely necessary, if the courts continue to interpret legislation or the Constitution in ways that undermine Canada's sovereignty, our economic viability or the rights of individual citizens, then whatever changes that are needed in that legislation, or even the Constitution, however difficult, must be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about that statement, but I am wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement does not reference private property because it does not deal with private property. Agreements do not reference everything they do not deal with. We only talk about things that the agreement is about. I am just wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

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, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

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, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

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, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

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, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

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, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

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, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

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, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 5:25 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispense of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (debt forgiveness registry), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Financial Administration Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the motion be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to be here tonight with all of my friends from all sides of the House. It is an important day for taxpayers. It is an important day when one is a member of Parliament and has the honour and the opportunity to bring forward legislation that makes amendments to the statutes of Canada.

It is a lottery system. I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to be chosen early in that lottery. I wanted to pick an idea that I believed would have widespread support in the chamber. I would like to thank all of my colleagues from all sides of the House in getting the bill to this stage, which included sending the bill to committee, a lengthy committee study, some thoughtful amendments from all parties at the committee table and bringing it back to the House. It is my hope and sincere pleasure to see this bill carry forward here this evening.

I want to thank individual members, and I will return to this later. To put aside the partisan politics, we tangle in the chamber from time to time on some very controversial issues but, with respect to greater transparency for taxpayers, this is an issue that I think we will see unites all members of the chamber, no matter their political affiliation.

Bill C-230 would create a registry for the government to disclose every time it writes off a large debt. For corporations, not individual taxpayers, that have their debts waived, those amounts and the identities of those corporations would be published in a corporate registry. That would enhance the level of transparency that taxpayers receive from our tax-collecting authorities.

This bill is here before our chamber because we noticed in the public accounts large amounts, year after year, being written off. Members of Parliament from multiple parties, including the government side, probed the government for additional information. We were met with not great answers, a lack of transparency, and a suggestion that we, as parliamentarians, could not receive this information because of the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Given the opportunity, in drawing that high lottery number to bring forward a private member's bill, I thought that we should change the law, change the privacy provisions in the Income Tax Act and require the government to disclose this information. After all, I think it is a matter of public interest when large debts that are owed by corporations are written off by the government. In fact, just a few years ago, 10 corporations had a total of $1.1 billion written off.

A lot of people work hard every day. They pay their taxes honestly. They fret about filing their taxes on time and they worry that they might have made a mistake. They do so honestly and in good faith, because they know that paying taxes helps pay for this wonderful, beautiful country that we have and all the social services that we all enjoy.

They are frustrated because they learn that, while they are working hard to pay their taxes, the government is unable to collect millions and indeed billions of dollars each year that corporations owe the government. That is the real basis for this idea that has come to the floor of the House and was proposed as a private member's bill.

I would say that I learned my lesson in the last Parliament. I believed that I had a wonderful idea to increase the penalties for money-laundering offences, but I did not have as much time to work with all members of the chamber to make sure that it was in a position to receive broad-based support and pass.

This time, I wanted to do my homework. I consulted with my own team, my own colleagues, who encouraged me to continue. I consulted with members from other parties who thought it was a good idea, and so here we are. I appreciate the opportunity to address this very important issue. I appreciate the opportunity my colleagues have given me to recommend this bill that made it to committee and, as I said, had some thoughtful amendments along the way.

There was an amendment at committee about the threshold. The committee recommended increasing the threshold from $1 million to $2 million. While I do not believe we are at an ideal state, I think that in this environment, we can hold out for the perfect and get nothing, or we can make some compromises so that we can all have some level of say and influence over a bill and actually make progress on behalf of taxpayers. I am happy with where we landed, although I would have preferred to keep a lower threshold. In fact, some members on the committee wanted the threshold to be as low as $100,000. We have landed on an opportunity to start this registry in a way that would give taxpayers more transparency about how their money is being collected and used.

I would like to commend the work of Senator Percy Downe in the Senate. He not only has been encouraging me along the way but also has his own bill that would also increase transparency requirements at the CRA. It has passed three times from the Senate and will come to this chamber later next month before we break for the summer. This issue and these two bills go hand in hand. This chamber will have time to opine on Senator Downe's bill at a later date.

I think it is important to consider the process. I mentioned we saw the public accounts. We saw amounts going up. We asked for more information. We then submitted an Order Paper question. That question was not answered in the House and it was not answered at committee, but a friend in the other place, Senator Wells, was kind enough to submit a similar question, a more detailed question. From those answers was the genesis and the basis on which we designed this bill, because it outlined the number of corporations and the amounts that had been written off.

That is the way the process worked in order to get this bill. It was hard research, asking questions, collaboration and really an opportunity for us to use all of the tools in this chamber in order to find out more information and then propose a law to fix it for the benefit of taxpayers and indeed the country.

It is my great honour that I am standing here tonight with this opportunity to propose a change to the statutes of this country. When elected, as I mentioned before, many people could be here for years, indeed decades, and not have the opportunity because it is a lottery system. I took that opportunity very seriously. I wanted to put something forward I thought would have widespread support from all members in this chamber.

I cannot help but recognize that in the new environment we are in, with respect to the government now controlling a majority of the seats in this chamber, I have still felt good co-operation and collaboration from members of the government, including the parliamentary secretary and the House leadership team, in order to advance what I believe is a good piece of legislation that would make a positive contribution to public policy in this country.

I believe it is time that taxpayers have more transparency. We need to hold not just the government accountable, which I find to be an important part of my role here as an opposition member, but also the agencies that the government entrusts to carry out fundamental activities.

The Canada Revenue Agency's primary objective is to enforce the Income Tax Act and collect the monies owing to government. This bill would bring a level of transparency and accountability to those activities at the Canada Revenue Agency so that all members of Parliament from all parties, and indeed all Canadians, would have a greater line of sight and transparency into the activities of the Canada Revenue Agency.

We have to acknowledge that the agents and the employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, by and large, work very hard day in and day out to complete their duties. I will say, at the same time, that I think they have been unfairly burdened with additional activities and requests from the government that have asked them to do things that are far outside their core mandate. The bill would also help refocus resources at the Canada Revenue Agency so it can get back to fulfilling the objectives of its core mandate.

It would be inappropriate for me at this time to not recognize some individuals who helped me along the way.

I have to pay special tribute to our legislative drafters, who fielded many late-night questions and phone calls outside business hours because they were helping me get the bill into good shape before it had to be tabled in September: Marie-Claude Hébert and Marie Danik. They did fantastic work.

I do not think people understand that while many government ministers and departments have armies of lawyers at their service, members of Parliament also have wonderful resources that are able to support us in our role. Those resources are quite small in number, but they pack a mighty punch and have been very busy supplying members of the chamber with great ideas and legislative work on private members' bills that members introduce on a daily basis. That is done by a very capable and thoughtful team in the House of Commons.

The member for Calgary Midnapore has been fantastic to work with as our shadow critic. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk has been our shadow critic for CRA. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, who originally turned me on to this idea a few years ago, deserves a great round of applause because he has been an advocate for greater transparency at the CRA.

I mentioned the parliamentary secretary earlier. Although we have tangled many times on the finance committee, and I was actually moved off that committee, maybe because of those tangles, we did find a way to work well together. I joke, but we do end up working on things in collaboration that we think will enhance this country and do great things for taxpayers.

The Minister of Finance, for whom I also have many criticisms, was very gracious to set me up with his staff to work on the bill. We did receive some amendments, as I said, and I worked with them. I also very much appreciated Sean-Matthew O'Neill for his help during this process.

Another individual I would like to thank is Jay Gamma, from Edmonton, who has been on this idea as well. He has been talking about it for a couple of years.

I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the late Jim Flaherty, who was a close mentor of mine. I am wearing green today in his honour. If it were not for him, I would not be standing in this place.

I appreciate the opportunity to have the bill voted on. We will see where it goes tonight. I want to thank everyone in the chamber for their support and collaboration in doing something good, which I believe is in the public interest and in the best interests of the citizens of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for his general approach in dealing with Bill C-230. He has identified an issue that has been a priority for the government, and he has put forward something, working in a collaborative fashion. Some changes were made at the committee stage. He might have like to have added a little more value from his perspective, but he put forward the idea of working in collaboration delivers for Canadians, and I applaud him for taking that initiative.

This is more of a comment than a question: Hopefully we will see more collaboration on private members' bills and government bills in general for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comment from my hon. colleague, who is no stranger to standing up and speaking in the House. I appreciate that he took the time not just to meet with me about my bill but also to discuss an opportunity where we could maybe have it proceed. This is an example for all of us, that when we have an idea that is good for the country and has widespread support, we could toss aside some of the partisanship from time to time and work in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words when he identified me under my former riding name.

I am very pleased that the member has been able to move this legislation. It is important. The reason it is important is that we have actually seen a deterioration in the information available to parliamentarians over the last number of years. The Liberals disclose even less information than they once did when we make inquiries through questions on the Order Paper or through the access to information system. There is a real need for this legislation, and the problem is becoming more urgent, not less.

Would the member like to comment on the reason we need this legislation?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the wonderful member for Calgary Crowfoot did identify that.

At one point, the Canada Revenue Agency used to disclose what the single largest writeoff was in a particular fiscal year. That practice, all of a sudden, changed. However, from my understanding, the Income Tax Act privacy rules did not change and the Privacy Act rules did not change, so it did not make much sense that the government and the Canada Revenue Agency would provide less information to the public and to this chamber than they did previously. That really was a significant driving factor in why this bill is here before the House tonight.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague's contribution to this debate. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the idea of making our democratic system more transparent and ensuring that taxpayers have a way of finding out when the government decides to write off debts. I commend his initiative and his ability to gather support across party lines, which is not nothing.

Can he tell us more about the impact he thinks this registry would have? For example, there was the case of Chrysler, where the government forgave a $2‑billion debt all at once. If there had been a registry, what would he have thought about that? In the future, if other debts are written off, that information would become public.

How does he think that would alter public discourse?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member, as a first-term MP, is doing a wonderful job in his role and in bringing his expertise here.

Yes, if there are large writeoffs in the future that exceed the threshold, that information will become public, which then means parliamentarians and the public get more information about how their tax dollars are being used or not collected. It means we can then refocus the resources at the agency to ensure that we recover the money from corporations that is owed, or pass laws to make it more difficult for corporations to skip out on their tax bill.

I would also like to mention at this time that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue was a wonderful addition to our work on committee and helped this bill get here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-230. I referred to the efforts by the member opposite in bringing forward the legislation. The government sees the legislation, as amended, as very much part of what the government wants to see happen: more accountability, more transparency and protecting the integrity of the CRA and the system, because it is of the utmost importance. The issue of collaboration was referred to, in the form of a question. I like to think that in the last week or so, we have debated private members' bills. Today, we are talking about Bill C-230. Bailey's law was passed. We had another Conservative piece of legislation, just yesterday, that we were okay with going to committee, and that was with regard to silver alerts.

Today, we are talking about another important piece of legislation. The principles behind it are very sound. At the end of the day, Canadians do not mind paying taxes, as long as there is a sense of integrity within the system and, most importantly, a sense of fairness. People are prepared to pay taxes as long as they feel they are fair and equitable. We often talk about taxes. People are very much concerned nowadays about how the government might be able to assist with affordability. The importance of taxation policy is absolutely critical during different types of business cycles that a nation goes through. That is one of the reasons we have to have the confidence of the citizenry regarding taxation policy.

In this case, just over a year ago, the Prime Minister, for example, gave tax relief on the carbon tax. That was followed by a substantial tax cut that provided support for 22 million people. We have the GST rebate being converted to the groceries and essentials benefit program. Eleven million Canadians are going to benefit from that. Taxation policy makes a difference and matters. That is not possible unless we have the confidence of Canadians that the system is fair, accountable and transparent. This is what the government has focused a great deal of attention on. Bill C-230 would add value to that.

I had the opportunity, over the last week or so, to amplify the word “collaboration”. The government is very focused on recognizing where there is value in private members' bills, and we look to the Conservatives recognizing the same thing in government bills. Where there is value, we should try to get bills through the House and into committee, allow them to get through third reading and, ultimately, pass the legislation. Canadians want parliamentarians of different political stripes to work together, recognize where we can make a social policy change, shift or modification, whatever it might be, and act on it. That is exactly what is happening here this evening.

We now have before us legislation that would ensure more accountability for corporations that write off money owed to the CRA. Uncollected money owed to the CRA impacts our general revenues. There is an obligation for government to show transparency where it can and, at the same time, respect privacy law concerns.

We need to be sensitive to the privacy laws we have. The legislation before us deals with that. It would allow the CRA, and the government ultimately, to provide more information. I believe there was an amendment brought forward with respect to the threshold. I am not 100% sure, but I think it is around the $2-million mark. That means having that registry, having that data. Information is so critically important not only from a government perspective but also from an opposition perspective. If it is done the way it could be done, the real winners are actually the taxpayers because they should have that sense of taxation policy and where it is that we are falling short.

When we think of corporations and small businesses in general, a vast majority pay their taxes at the appropriate time. They pay their debts and make sure, through those contributions, that we all benefit as a society. In regard to accountability and transparency, there is a percentage there, a very real and tangible percentage, where a significant amount of revenue is in fact lost. A better understanding of where that is coming from, as it could be the types of companies or all sorts of things, can be drawn out if that information is made available, while at the same time privacy laws are respected. We would all benefit from that.

For the Government of Canada and particularly our new Prime Minister, the issue of accountability and transparency applies to government expenditures and the collection of the finances we get in many different forms. It is being responsible with tax dollars. It is ensuring that smart decisions are in fact being made on behalf of the taxpayer. It is recognizing that when the registry is fully operational there is likely going to be a great deal of attention drawn to it. That attention is not going to be all good. We recognize that in government. However, we have standing committees that can contribute in a very positive way by going through the types of documents we would be able to draw out, which can improve the system.

I realize my time is coming to an end, but I want to emphasize one other thing, which is the incredible people who work for the CRA. The Canada Revenue Agency is second to no other agency in the world, I would argue, in terms of the degree to which it supports private individuals, the people we represent, and the businesses and so forth. It is an incredible task its workers have. It is something I personally would not want, but I applaud the efforts that, I would argue, 90% plus put in day in and day out so that governments at different levels are able to have the monies necessary to provide absolutely essential services, like health care, or supports to grow the economy, all of which are absolutely critical and the reason taxes are so important.

At the end of the day, we want transparency and accountability. We want the taxpayers to know they have a system they can have confidence in. This government will always push for people paying their fair share.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to speak to this bill introduced by my colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We work very well together. I was there when the Minister of Industry appeared before the committee. My colleague pressed her on the issue and had a rather intense exchange with her regarding the Stellantis case. I imagine that had an impact on my colleague's determination to see this bill through the legislative process.

I also read an article from October 22, 2018. It is not exactly recent, but it does show that the practices this bill aims to eliminate have been happening for a long time. The Radio-Canada article is about the Liberal government writing off a more than $2-billion loan it had granted to Chrysler. Actually, it was published by CBC News. The subheadings in the article are “Similarly opaque” and “In the dark”. These are the subheadings found in the article. That says it all. The article revealed that a $2.6-billion loan that had been granted to Chrysler in 2009 during the economic crisis had quite simply been quietly written off. To find this out, someone had to dig deep, had to search, had to consult one of the volumes of the 2018 Public Accounts of Canada to learn about it. The government certainly cannot claim to have been exceptionally transparent.

Let me say straightaway that we will be voting in favour of Bill C‑230 at third reading.

The bill aims to increase transparency surrounding debts owed to the Government of Canada by creating a public registry in the form of an online, searchable database of debts of $2 million or more that were forgiven or written off in whole or in part. The Government of Canada has an unfortunate tendency to be opaque when it comes to waiving debts, as we saw in the Chrysler case. The bill was amended in committee to clarify a number of things. For example, the minimum amount required for inclusion in the registry was raised. Other types of write-offs or benefits were also added, such as remissions and waivers. The bill was improved in committee. Although it was perfectly acceptable to begin with, it is even better now.

Additional amendments would force the government to create the registry within 18 months of royal assent and to exclude certain information for reasons related to the protection of personal, confidential or sensitive information. The President of Treasury Board will be required to provide reasons if information is excluded.

To summarize, the bill “amends the Financial Administration Act to require that the President of the Treasury Board establish and maintain a public registry of large debts and obligations owed by certain entities to His Majesty, as well as claims by His Majesty against such entities, that have been [written off or] forgiven”. It also makes “consequential amendments to other Acts”.

I will summarize the bill. It adds a section to the Financial Administration Act stating that the President of the Treasury Board must establish an online, searchable database containing information about a corporation, trust company or partnership once certain criteria are met. First, the value of the debt or obligation must be $2 million or more, as in the Chrysler case. Second, the debt, obligation or claim must be owing, meaning that an act of Parliament requires the state to demand repayment when the debt comes due. Third, the debt, obligation or claim must have been totally or partially written off, forgiven, remitted or waived.

A write-off, like the one granted to Chrysler in 2018, means that the government believes it will not be able to recover its money and therefore decides to remove the debt from its books, for example in the event of bankruptcy. A partial write-off would mean that the government agrees to write off part of the amount but still demands repayment of the difference. For example, if a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, the government may estimate that it can recover only a fraction of the debt. Forgiveness means that the government formally forgives a debt and legally releases the debtor, for example when the person who owes the money proves that the government made a mistake. This is perfectly normal.

The bill is good because it is fairly specific in this respect. For example, it states that the registry must include certain information, such as the name, as well as any business name, of the corporation, trust company or partnership. A numbered company must be included using its identifiable name, not just its actual number on the registry. The registry must also include the following: the amount that was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived; the period to which the amount relates; the legislation under which the debt, obligation or claim arose; and any other information that the President of the Treasury Board considers appropriate. The registry must be established within 18 months after the bill comes into force. The remainder of the bill makes consequential amendments to other acts. All of that is very sensible.

We know that the government already has all of the data required by the bill available in house. Some of that data is published in the public accounts, where we can find out the total amount of debt written off by department and the number of ministerial approvals, meaning the number of times the minister approved the write-off or forgiveness of a debt, obligation or claim, and the legislation under which the debt, obligation or claim arose. Other than that, there are no details that will enable us to identify the company or the amount lost. That is a lack of transparency.

For example, in the Public Accounts of Canada 2025, volume III, section 2, we can see which department approved the write-off or forgiveness of debts, obligations or claims. We see the total amounts. For 2024-25, for example, we know that the government gave up more than $7 billion, including $5.3 billion in write-offs and $1.2 billion in debt forgiveness. However, we know virtually nothing about the rest. That is a problem.

We also know, for example, that under the Old Age Security Act, the government wrote off more than $166 million in 2024-25. That is quite a lot of money, when we think about it. It is staggering that the public does not have access to this information, that they cannot find out any details about what happened, why it happened, which company was involved and under which law. We are talking about several billion dollars last year.

The upcoming bill is going to provide access to this information. Because of that, parliamentarians and journalists will be able to do a better job. The general public will be able to learn more. Experts will also have access to more information that they can use to understand the behaviour of certain companies and study solvency and other matters. This is a good thing, especially since Bill C‑230 is not going to create a mountain of work for public servants or cost a fortune to implement, considering that the government has already compiled all the information internally. The bill would simply make it all public. That is about it, just that.

In conclusion, I repeat that we enthusiastically support this bill and we will support it at third reading.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to rise on behalf of the wonderful citizens of Calgary Midnapore to speak on their behalf.

The citizens of Calgary Midnapore recently went through something all Canadians went through, and that is tax filing at the end of April. Of course, this is the time when we all must do our duty to society and pay our fair share of taxes. At least, this is what we are supposed to do. Of course, there are always those who make the decision to not file their taxes. There are those who perhaps cannot pay what they owe or are reluctant to pay what they owe.

Certainly, it is a problem that compounds over time, but the majority of Canadians, certainly more than a fair share of Canadians, want to do the right thing, and that is pay their part to society and contribute to this incredible nation that we live in. One way we do that is by paying our taxes.

I want to thank the member for Simcoe—Grey, who had the foresight to recognize that there was this lack of oversight in Canadian society and that there are corporate members who are not necessarily filing taxes for one reason or another. They owe an amount of tax to our society but are not paying it, and it is not being recognized that they have not kept their commitment to Canadian society in not having paid these amounts.

I just want to take a moment to thank the member for Simcoe—Grey, who went through so much effort and recognized this was a problem. He is an expert in finance. I have been in his office when he has CNBC on and is following the financial markets, so it is no surprise to me that he would have this type of thinking and that he would recognize this as something that needs to be fixed.

I also want to thank him for taking the time to work with the other parties to gain their collaboration in bringing the bill forward and seeing it successfully to this stage in our process at the House. That is something very rare and special to do. I have never drawn higher than 238th in the private member's bill draw, so I am very grateful that, first of all, he had this good fortune; second, that he was able to see this idea; and third, that he had the tenacity and the persistence to work through the bill with the government. I would also like to recognize the government's piece in this collaboration.

Of course, as sitting members of the public accounts committee, we went through the bill in detail. We thought about all of the different aspects that would have to be considered. There was compromise on all sides, and again I want to thank the member for his compromise in that regard as well, because it is very easy to get very stubborn when it comes to one's own legislation. There could be something that they think should be a part of the bill, that they think is more accurate or that they do not want to include, but the member went beyond that.

Of course, we know that the Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for collecting debts owing to the government, but in recent years, the CRA has been waiving debts owing to the government in record numbers. Last year, the government wrote off $4.7 billion. It forgave $10.9 billion. In remissions it had $0.4 billion, and in waivers it had $2.6 billion. This is a total of $18.4 billion, which at this point would actually be close to 25% of the deficit we have, not only this year, but also last year.

At a time when we are encroaching upon $1.63 trillion in national debt, which we will get to by 2030, every single dollar counts, so I am grateful that the member saw this as the right thing to do for society. It is important for corporations to pay their fair share. At this time when we are in need of such fiscal prudence and responsibility, everyone is required to pay their fair share at this time, and that includes corporations.

The member for Simcoe—Grey is not the only one who recognized this lack of oversight, this lack of acknowledgement, of people who are not paying their fair share. There are media outlets such as The Globe and Mail, and Bill Curry of course has done an excellent job of following the public accounts committee and the Treasury Board. Speaking of which, I am going to do a little promotion. On June 2, I am looking very much forward to taping, with the ArriveCAN team, the ArriveCAN second-year anniversary, and we will be distributing that at the end of June.

Bill Curry has been fantastic in terms of following stories such as these. CBC News also did a story on the $133 million written off that was owed by a single taxpayer, so this definitely is something that needed to be addressed. Write-offs and waivers for taxes owing to the government were done in secret because of privacy provisions in the Income Tax Act, and the member wanted to bring these numbers to light.

Historically, while the CRA spends a lot of time pursuing small businesses and ordinary Canadians who owe minor amounts to the CRA and to Canada, some major corporations have gone unaccountable and unnamed. The legislation would create a public registry that would require the Treasury Board to annually publish a list of corporate entities that had debts owing to the government waived, forgiven or written off.

The amount we put forward originally, the member was thinking, was somewhere from $1 million to $5 million. The number that was landed upon was $2 million, which is certainly a substantial amount, but I think it is a good amount that would really provide corporations with an incentive to pay their taxes so they do not end up on this list as well.

The contents of the public registry would have to include the following information in relation to each debt: the name, including any business name of the corporation, trust company or partnership that owes the debt or obligation to which His Majesty has a claim; the specific amount that was waived, written off or forgiven; the period to which the amount relates; the act under which the debt, obligation or claim arose; and any other information that the president of the Treasury Board may require.

The enactment would amend the Financial Administration Act to require the president of the Treasury Board to establish and maintain this public registry of certain large debts and obligations owed by businesses to His Majesty, as well as claims by His Majesty against businesses that have been waived, written off or forgiven. It would also make consequential amendments to other acts.

Here are some observations in relation to this. In 2023-2024, 11 companies received $1.2 billion in combined write-offs for tax debt and other obligations, and 11 companies accounted for nearly one-quarter of the $4.9 billion in write-offs in fiscal year 2023-2024. We are talking about a small number of bad players.

The bill's being passed would be a huge step in the direction of transparency. Certainly, on this side, we have always attempted to fight for transparency, such as in the appointment of a parliamentary budget officer who will always stand up for transparency and call the government out on things that do not appear to be accounted for.

Of course, we advocate against tax increases and new tax measures for everyday Canadians. Why should corporations get enormous debt write-offs when they target the little guy for significantly smaller amounts?

In summary, I want to again thank the member for Simcoe—Grey for bringing forward the legislation. The right thing to do in society is to pay one's fair share that is owed to Canada and to one's fellow citizens. In addition, we are unfortunately in a terrible fiscal position, with significant debt as well as deficits, including $65 billion this year alone, and deficits for the last 15 years. The piece of legislation that is before us looks to remedy this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member for Simcoe North has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair tonight, and I want to thank you for your hard work as well and your counsel along the way on this bill.

It is my pleasure to have listened to some very thoughtful speeches from my colleagues in this place, including my friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, who shares a committee spot with me on the international trade committee. I certainly appreciate his advice and counsel on that committee. He himself has a private member's bill he has introduced with respect to forced labour, which we are looking forward to supporting so it can get through the chamber and come to a vote.

With respect to the overall objectives of the bill, I would just mention that bringing integrity back to the system so Canadians have trust in it is important. As mentioned by my hon. colleague from Calgary Midnapore, there have been many journalists who have also helped keep this issue front and centre, including Mr. Bill Curry from The Globe and Mail, who has had a specific focus on this issue.

There are a number of great members on the public accounts committee. I am not able to mention whether they are here tonight, but I was very thankful that they brought their thoughtful questions to committee to help the bill get here. In fact, this was the first bill that went to the public accounts committee in almost 25 years, as I am told by the researchers at the Library of Parliament. We were not quite sure what we were doing there, but we were guided very well by the analysts, the clerk and the great chair, the hon. member for Saint John—St. Croix, who did a great job and even had an amendment of his own that helped get this bill over the line.

I would be remiss not to mention my staff: Roman Chelyuk and Kyla Canzanese, who is no longer in my office and now works at the mother ship in the whip's office, controlling all of the things we do in this place. I want to thank them for their wise counsel along the way.

As mentioned by the member for Calgary Midnapore, yes, the deficits are large, but we are here to help. I am here to help. This bill is here to help. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to bring it forward here this evening.

Of course, one can never forget to thank the most important people in our lives, our families. I want to thank my wife and children, Davie and Cooper, who are probably not watching this at home, but I will share the clip with them later.

I appreciate the opportunity, again, to stand here. It is an honour to have a chance to propose changing the statutes of this country. I certainly appreciate this and take this issue with great respect, and I hope we have moved the ball forward in progressing on this very important issue on behalf of taxpayers. It is, indeed, a matter of the public interest.

With that, I was always told to quit while I am ahead and take the win when I can have it. At this point, I believe I will ask that the House adopt this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill be carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Labour

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend from Simcoe North. Those who started watching at late show will not know what just happened. In any case, that was a good moment.

I am speaking tonight to a question that I asked in question period on January 28, related to what the government had announced as intended cuts to the civil service. I was particularly concerned because within my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands and elsewhere on Vancouver Island we were getting news that people involved in the critical work of emergency response in the case of oil spills were already receiving their pink slips. They were being told that they were to be removed from their position. It appeared to be everyone in that department. On the same day, the Public Service Alliance of Canada held its own press conference to say that it was informed that about 8,000 workers of the federal civil service were to be terminated.

Since the time I asked the question, it is now confirmed that about 800 of those people are from Parks Canada. Today, I heard from concerned constituents that an interpreter position within Gulf Islands National Park Reserve is being terminated, an essential connection for the visiting public on Saturna Island. The list goes on, including many workers within Environment and Climate Change Canada, particularly those who do critical work in understanding and tracking what we are doing to respond to climate change, which is less by the day so there is less to track. However, there is no question that we are seeing significant cuts to the civil service.

We are seeing some reduction in an area where I am very concerned. We could see cuts in federal spending, which is in the billions of dollars, on outside consultants. We have civil service workers with expertise and if they are put in the role of delivery, they are a lot less expensive than asking Deloitte or McKinsey or other billion-dollar management consultants all around the world that have been getting too much of the public purse in Canada to do the work that we should be doing internally with our own public sector workers. I saw a recent statement that the Government of Canada, in budget 2026, was going to cut by 20% the amount it is spending. That still, by my calculation, leaves us spending about $4 billion on outside consultants, which are for-profit agencies from outside Canada for the most part.

What are we cutting here? Again, there are cuts in science, agricultural research stations across Canada and the oceans protection plan, which appears to no longer exist. We are looking at significant cuts across the board. As I said, the Public Service Alliance of Canada representatives are estimating 8,000 workers.

The answer I got on January 28 was from the minister himself, which is somewhat unusual. The President of the Treasury Board did stand to answer my question and did say that there were going to be cuts through voluntary measures. However, I rather think, as ever, that when a government is putting through significant cuts that affect the services that Canadians want, it does tend to downplay it and say that it will do it by attrition, that it will find some people it could give a buyout package to and encourage them to leave now, knowing that their job is hanging by a thread anyway.

I never did get a clear answer to my specific concern about the workers who are supposed to be ready, although we know that, if ever there were ever a spill of diluted bitumen, we do not have the technology to clean it up. I hope that tonight we can get a clear answer.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, as members may recall, the government made a clear commitment to Canadians to be fiscally responsible and bring discipline to the federal budget.

We were also elected with the mandate to spend less on government operations so that we can invest more in workers, businesses, defence and nation-building infrastructure that will grow our economy and strengthen the country. As part of this effort, the government launched the comprehensive expenditure review to meet its commitment to responsible, cost-effective spending that delivers results for Canadians.

This review required federal organizations to bring forward savings proposals, to spend less on the day-to-day running of government by targeting programs and activities that are not core to their federal mandate, that are duplicative or that are not aligned with government priorities. Organizations also considered ways to work more efficiently, leveraging existing and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, where it makes sense.

Budget 2025, tabled last November, presented the results of this review, which identified savings across government of $13 billion annually by 2028-29. This will include decreasing the size of the public service by approximately 16,000 full-time equivalents. It will also look to reduce 1,000 executive positions over the next two years. The reductions are being managed with fairness and compassion, relying on attrition and voluntary departures to the greatest extent possible. That is why we have the early retirement incentive.

Organizations are required to follow established workforce adjustment policies outlined in collective agreements or, in the case of executives, career transition measures. Both set out clear processes and supports for employees who may be affected.

In a workforce adjustment situation, there are specific provisions governing how this is done that are co-developed or negotiated with bargaining agents. Indeed, the government is leveraging all available tools to limit involuntary departures. This includes the proposed early retirement incentive, a program that would provide an opportunity for eligible employees to retire without a penalty for early departure.

These reductions are being carried out fairly and responsibly, in line with the government's obligations as an employer. They are part of a necessary and major “recalibration” in government spending that will redirect funds to investing in Canada. They are what this moment calls for and an investment in our future.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I am not impressed with the government's attempt to run balanced budgets when we now have a $66.9-billion deficit. We also know that where there are funds that could be accessed through reasonable shifts in taxation, such as a wealth tax, those opportunities are being avoided. So too is a financial transaction tax that would affect no one but multi-billionaires.

We also see a boost in subsidies to fossil fuels, and there is a real cost in the climate impacts that will happen across Canada, not to mention specifically the one I keep trying to find an answer for: cuts to the workers who should be ready in the case of oil spill emergencies. In fact, we do not have people to maintain the vessels that were purchased for oil spill emergencies, in what I would call the greenwashing of saying, “We are prepared,” and with no oceans protection plan.

Where are we now for the impacts of the build Canada strong major projects?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that as the government goes through this process in a fair and compassionate way, we are also committed to ensuring the services that Canadians rely on and that Canadians will get.

We are absolutely committed to Canadians, to providing better services for Canadians but also being fiscally responsible.

Taxation

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 17, I asked the government a question, and the response provided by the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada was unacceptable, which is why we are here now for this debate this evening.

I stated the following:

...after more than a decade of Liberal policies, life is unaffordable. The latest MNP consumer debt index report states that 70% of British Columbians say rising food prices and gas prices are straining their finances. The Liberals voted against reducing taxes that increase the cost of gas by 25¢ a litre. They voted against removing taxes on food that drive up the cost of groceries.

Then I asked the government:

Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians some relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut taxes on gas and food, and make life more affordable for Canadians?

My question was on fuel and grocery costs, things Canadians need and purchase every day. In response, the Liberals decided to put up a housing minister, who parroted preprocessed Liberal talking points about housing. By refusing to deliver reliefs that are within its reach, the Liberal government is refusing to recognize the problem, refusing to make life more affordable, and forcing more Canadians to be reliant on government rebates just to put food on the table.

When I had a group of students in my office this week, they were genuinely concerned for their future because of the massive increases not just in the cost of their education but also in the cost of daily living. They have almost given up on the dream of owning a home that their parents were able to achieve. I do not know what it will take for the Liberal government to realize that its inflationary policies are part of the problem these students and other Canadians are facing.

The Liberal government could remove the fuel standard tax and the industrial carbon tax to instantly reduce the cost of fuel and groceries for Canadians, but it continues to make things worse with inflationary spending that Canadians are forced to repay with interest. Speaking of interest, the debt the government has piled up will that mean roughly $3,400 per Canadian family will go toward serving the federal debt's interest this year alone. That is just interest, not repayment of the debt.

I will repeat my question from April 17 once more, this time in hopes that the government will give Canadians an answer they really need and deserve, instead of preprocessed talking points from the minister's office: Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians some relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut taxes on gas and food to make life more affordable for Canadians?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, government is well aware that affordability is the single most pressing issue for Canadians, which is why we focused on delivering targeted support where it matters most.

The world is changing rapidly, and not always for the best. It is increasingly fragmented, complex and unstable, and for far too many, it is also more expensive. We cannot control the conflict in the Middle East, the war in the Ukraine or the tariffs that are transforming global trade, but what we can choose to respond to is building the strongest economy in the G7 and providing targeted supports to those who need it most.

Over the past number of months, we have supported Canadians with concrete measures to make everyday life more affordable. To make essentials, such as groceries, more affordable, we introduced the Canadian groceries and essentials benefit. This measure builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians, starting with a one-time top-up on June 5. Combined with a 25% increase to the benefit over five years, as of July, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 a year and a single individual will receive up to $950.

To lower costs for Canadians, we have suspended the federal fuel tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels until Labour Day. This measure is expected to reduce the cost of filling up at the pump by more than $5 on a 50-litre tank. Benefiting more than 25 million Canadians, it will reduce operating costs for truckers and businesses in the food, agriculture, housing and construction industries.

We have also lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%, providing tax relief for 22 million Canadians. In 2026, this change means savings of up to $420 a person or $840 for a two-income family.

More than 6.5 million Canadians can now access affordable dental through the Canadian dental plan. We have also made the national school food program permanent to provide meals for up to 400,000 children each year. This program saves families with two children participating in school up to $800 on groceries.

First-time homebuyers are saving up to $50,000 through the removal or reduction of the goods and services tax on eligible new homes. Canadians are now paying less in banking fees as well with the changes that we have made to banking fees in this year's budget. We have also expanded access to low-cost and no-cost bank accounts for Canadians, with up to 50% more debit transactions at a cost of no more than $4 a month.

These measures are making life more affordable for Canadians.

In the spring economic update, we announced the intention to reduce the contribution rate to the Canadian pension plan base rate from 9.9% to 9.5%, effective January 1 of next year. This was achieved due to the co-operation of all provinces.

We look forward to introducing more measures and making life more affordable for Canadians.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was more preprocessed talking points from the minister's office and no real answers for Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary said that they are aware of the affordability issue, but are they aware that the government is responsible for it? There are the ever-increasing deficits, and this year's deficit is two times what former prime minister Justin Trudeau would have had. Billions of dollars are now being paid out in debt payments.

The member mentioned what they cannot control, the war in the Middle East and external issues, but they can control Liberal taxation and Liberal deficit spending. Why will the Liberals not take the steps that they can take? The Liberal government could take steps to relieve the pressure on Canadians. Why will it not take them?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition party can control certain things. We know what they would do if they ever formed government. They would get rid of the $10 a day child care. We know this because they voted against it. We know that they would get rid of the dental plan, increases to old age security and the school food program because they voted against them. They also voted against reducing taxes for first-time homebuyers.

On this side of the House, we are working to make life more affordable for Canadians. We hear a lot of talk from the Conservative party, but we do not see action. The only action we see is voting against programs that would make life more affordable for Canadians.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am following up on a question that I asked about the crisis in youth unemployment.

Life is very challenging right now in this country, especially for youth and for young families. People who are struggling to get their start in life struggle to access employment. They struggle with housing affordability. This makes it difficult and leads to delays in family formation.

We know, statistically, that if we ask women how many children they want to have and compare that to our current fertility rate, there is a gap of almost one child per woman. Many Canadian families are not having as many children as they would like to have. I think that has a lot to do with challenges in employment and challenges in housing affordability, these basic challenges in getting started in life here in Canada because of how difficult those start-up costs are.

The youth unemployment crisis is a big part of it. It is very clear that what the government is doing or says it is doing in this regard is just not working. Listening to question period today, I heard that the government wants to celebrate, allegedly, this initiative or that initiative, but the overall numbers paint a clear picture, which is a metastasizing, unprecedented youth unemployment crisis that is connected to and contributes to challenges that families are facing as well.

Conservatives have taken a very constructive approach to the employment file. We have developed and offered the government concrete solutions to these problems. Obviously, the government is the government. It has the power to implement these things and we do not, but we have put constructive solutions on the table and asked the government to implement all or part of what we put forward.

This fall, we put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan, a clear plan addressing the youth unemployment crisis, with proposals to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.

Just today, we announced another suite of policy initiatives, this time targeting the challenges that young families are facing. We are proposing substantial parental leave reform that would make life easier for those who are trying to start a family. These policy proposals involve flexible parental leave, allowing a person on parental leave to pause and resume that leave.

We proposed learning on leave, allowing anyone to take courses of study while they are on parental leave so that they can upgrade their skills and strengthen their ability to meet the labour market again once their leave is over.

We also proposed a caregiving exception to EI parental leave benefit clawbacks. This would allow somebody who is caring for their own children to also do paid caregiving work on the side. Perhaps while they are watching their own child, their neighbour pays them to watch their child as well. Removing the clawbacks associated with earning in this situation would increase the availability of child care, which, in many cases, notwithstanding the exaggerated promises of the government, simply is not available to many parents.

We are working hard to propose constructive solutions to the very real and practical challenges facing youth and young families today.

I would like to know why the government has not taken the opportunity to embrace these solutions. I think it would be a political win for them and it would be a win for youth and families.

Will the government take on these good ideas that we have proposed?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to look at good ideas, but we are also acting and putting in place measures that really make a difference for Canadians.

We could not agree more that Canadians are looking for hope and real solutions. Preparing Canadians for good jobs is a top priority of ours, especially during these challenging times. We are renewing Canada's workforce strong, team Canada strong. It is a $6-billion promise to protect our workforce and our capacity to grow the workforce, because without skilled workers, we cannot meet the moment.

That is why, under team Canada strong, we will recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal workers in the next five years. This is critical, because within seven years there will be more than 410,000 vacant skilled trades positions across Canada. There is no time to waste. Team Canada strong will expand our union training and innovation program, so that union-run training centres can upgrade their facilities and invest in modern equipment.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be supported when they hire new first-year apprentices. The build Canada apprenticeship program will help employers hire and train apprentices, providing them with up to $10,000. Once certified as a Red Seal tradesperson, they will receive a $5,000 completion bonus. The new apprenticeship training grant means that apprentices can receive an income top-up of $400 per week while they are getting technical training. This comes out of a total payment of $16,000 per apprentice.

We know that there is more that needs to be done to weather the current storm. That is where the labour market development agreements and the workforce development agreements come in. These represent a $2.9-billion annual investment in training and employment assistance services to help hundreds of thousands of Canadians upgrade their skills and find employment. Our programs help workers complete their studies, build their skills and access opportunities that lead to successful careers.

Since 2019, Canada summer jobs has helped more than 600,000 young people find summer employment. This summer, the program will support up to 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 15 and 30.

All told, we are supporting over 175,000 opportunities for youth and students this year under the student work placement program, the youth employment and skills strategy, and the Canada summer jobs. In 2026-27, the student work placement program will support up to 55,000 work-integrated learning opportunities with employers for post-secondary students. Over 34,000 employers and 420 post-secondary institutions have participated in this program.

We are focused on delivering the results that Canadians need and creating the opportunities that will strengthen the economy.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was not really an answer to what I asked.

Here are the facts. We have a metastasizing youth unemployment crisis in this country. There are various factors and many factors of government policy that are contributing to it. We have put forward constructive solutions in the area of supporting families that I talked about today, reforming parental leave, and also in the area of addressing youth unemployment. We have been very constructive and clear with the government. The Liberals say they are willing to listen, but they do not really listen or respond to these constructive proposals we put forward.

The member spoke about changes that the government has made in training. Here is what the government did in the last budget. It rendered ineligible vocational institutions to receive student grants. If someone studies at a university, they can get a student grant, but if they study at a vocational institution, preparing them for a specific vocational career where there are shortages, the government has cut that out.

What we suggest is that the government not discriminate against students at vocational institutions. Would the Liberals at least listen to that constructive idea?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member talk about people who do not listen and who are not tuned into the Canadian public and the needs of Canadians.

It was the Conservative Party that voted against reducing the tax for first-time homebuyers, making it easier for young Canadians. It was the Conservative Party that voted against $10-a-day child care, making it easier for Canadians. It was the Conservative Party that voted against a reduction in income tax, helping 22 million Canadians. It was the Conservative Party that voted against the Canada child benefit.

It is interesting to hear the member talk about people who do not listen. The Conservatives have not listened to the Canadian public on what Canadians need, and vote against every opportunity in this House to make life easier for young Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:47 p.m.)