House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was decision.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada Members debate a Conservative motion addressing legal uncertainty regarding property rights following the *Cowichan* decision. Conservatives allege failed litigation strategies threaten homeownership. Liberals dismiss these claims as misinformation intended to incite fear, asserting that property rights remain secure through the appeals process. While the Bloc supports the motion in principle to foster greater transparency, the NDP dismisses concerns about threats to property as unfounded, citing established legal precedent for reconciliation. 47900 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives condemn the government for record youth unemployment and national debt, arguing that "credit card budgeting" worsens the cost of living. They criticize a failed gun grab and alleged insider boondoggles. Additionally, they demand the removal of gas taxes, better protections for property rights, and the preservation of the Snowbirds.
The Liberals emphasize their fiscally responsible record and affordability measures like dental care and the grocery benefit. They highlight green energy projects and new methane regulations to combat climate change. Additionally, they champion youth training for skilled trades, diversifying trade agreements, and military modernization.
The NDP opposes privatizing ports and airports, warning that foreign ownership compromises security and Canadian sovereignty.

Financial Administration Act Report stage of Bill C-230. The bill (C-230) requires the government to establish a public registry disclosing individual corporate debt write-offs of $2 million or more. Proposed by Adam Chambers (Conservative), the legislation aims to increase CRA transparency and accountability regarding uncollected taxes. Having garnered cross-party collaboration, the House passed the bill at third reading, mandating that the Treasury Board publish details of forgiven, waived, or written-off corporate liabilities. 6800 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Public service workforce reductions Elizabeth May criticizes the government's reduction in public service roles, particularly in environmental research and oil spill response, arguing that consultant spending remains high. Tom Osborne defends the cuts as a necessary fiscal reconciliation strategy, emphasizing that the government aims to manage departures fairly through voluntary measures and attrition.
Addressing the cost of living Mel Arnold criticizes Liberal policies and deficit spending for making life unaffordable, calling for tax cuts on fuel and groceries. Tom Osborne defends the government's approach, citing targeted measures like grocery benefits, temporary fuel tax relief, and social programs, while questioning the opposition’s commitment to supporting those in need.
Addressing youth unemployment and training Garnett Genuis argues the government is failing youth with high unemployment and ignores Conservative proposals for parental leave reform and vocational support. Tom Osborne defends the Liberals' $6 billion workforce training investment and youth employment programs, while accusing the Conservatives of obstructing policies that have assisted young families.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Climate ChangeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Independent

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?

Climate ChangeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Toronto—Danforth Ontario

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin LiberalMinister 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.

Climate ChangeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

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—

Climate ChangeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

Climate ChangeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

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”?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister 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 CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

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?

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

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?

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Battle River—Crowfoot Alberta

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader 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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River Saskatchewan

Liberal

Buckley Belanger LiberalSecretary 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?

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

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?

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

May 7th, 2026 / 3:40 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

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?

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

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?