Debates of May 7th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

[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.