Jamie Schmale

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 [more]

Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member opposite on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. The member used the comment that we have heard a lot. He was talking about disinformation. I do not think at any point in the debate today implied that the Cowichan band would be kicking people off their land. I do not think anyone on this side has said that in all the time we have been [more]

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded division.

Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, just a few moments ago, implied that this is only a provincial matter. Well, I would say to the member opposite, it is so much of a provincial matter that, just a few days ago, he asked thea lobbed question about this very issue, to which the Prime Minister had to respond. The member says it is clearly a provincial issue, yet he had the Prime [more]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we saw in the Cowichan case was that nobody informed the property owners that their property could be affected if a decision by the courts was released, which we see now. Nobody let them know. The only reason the property owners in Richmond found out was because of the media or the city itself. The federal government was silent. In the Musqueam agreement, there were no [more]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole's speech was amazing. He is very passionate about the issue, given that the Cowichan decision affects a portion of his riding. He deals every day with people who are worried about the future of their homes and businesses. Maybe we can talk about the government, in 2018, deciding that its lawyers would stop arguing for fee simple property. I [more]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are increasingly concerned about the security of private property rights. Following the Cowichan decision, many Canadians were looking for clear assurances from the federal government about the stability of fee simple ownership and the implications for homeowners across British Columbia. Instead, questions remain about the government's approach in court and about [more]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think the hon. member was paying attention to what we were saying on this side of the House. At no time has anyone on this side even implied that the Cowichan Tribes would be forcing people off their land. At no time did anyone on this side say that. She continues to repeat that, unfortunately. We have said that it has created massive uncertainty because the [more]

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 [more]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything the member for Edmonton Northwest has done on the indigenous northern affairs committee. I have learned a lot from him, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this very important file. Winnipeg North The member for, just a few moments ago, read a statement; in normal circumstances, this would be a good thing. However, everything repeated in that [more]

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 [more]

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 [more]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the minister, but I have some deep concerns with what she was saying. The minister implied that the opposition is fearmongering. I would invite her to speak to the property owners and business owners affected by this, who are watching their properties drop amid the continued questions about whether they are able to refinance their house or business. The [more]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my Bloc counterpart. While I do usually get along and agree with a lot of what she has to say, especially in the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I do disagree with some of what she said in her speech, particularly around perception. I want to read to the House a headline from Global News dated December 11, 2025: “Cowichan case blamed for [more]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the argument of private property at court. The member opposite, being involved in the law, should know that if we do not make the argument in the lower court, we cannot use that argument at appeal or if it goes to the Supreme Court. The government cannot make that argument. The other thing the court decision did was that it eviscerated sections 23 and [more]