Debates of May 7th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

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

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

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 Property assessments are now coming with waivers saying the property value only stands as long as it is not superceded by aboriginal title.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the hon. member not agree?

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

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

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

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time has expired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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