Debates of May 7th, 2026

Privacy Commissioner

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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

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

Procedure and House Affairs

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

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

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

Canadian Identity and Culture

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

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

Government Response to Petitions

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

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

Interparliamentary Delegations

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

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

Procedure and House Affairs

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

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

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

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

Foreign Affairs and International Development

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

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

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

Procedure and House Affairs

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

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

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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

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

(Motion agreed to)

Rail Transportation

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

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

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

Trans-Canada Highway

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

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

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

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

Food Security

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

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

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

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

Foreign Affairs

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

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

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

Questions on the Order Paper

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

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

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

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

moved:

That, given that,

(i) the Cowichan Tribes v Canada decision created massive uncertainty around fee simple property, the legal basis on which Canadians and businesses alike own their homes and land,

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

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

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

the House:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to the questions ahead.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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