Debates of May 7th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

[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