All sittings← 2026-05-062026-05-08 →
Thursday, May 7, 2026 · sitting No. 119
House debates private property rights after Cowichan ruling
The House spent most of the day on a Conservative opposition motion that called for action to resolve uncertainty over fee simple property rights created by the Cowichan Tribes v Canada decision and the subsequent Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement. Jamie Schmale moved the motion and said the federal government had directed its lawyers in 2018 not to argue for fee simple rights, leaving the City of Richmond as the only party to do so in the original trial. Pat Kelly and Connie Cody pressed the same point in questions to Schmale.
Question period featured repeated Conservative attacks on Liberal spending, youth unemployment and resource policy. Carol Anstey and Jacob Mantle said Liberal taxes and regulations were driving up costs and deterring investment, while Steven MacKinnon and Tim Hodgson replied that major projects and benefits such as the groceries and essentials benefit were already delivering relief. Gabriel Hardy and Melissa Lantsman raised youth joblessness figures, and Joël Lightbound and John Zerucelli cited training investments and deficit reduction.
Decided that day
- Bill C-230 advanced one stage
From the Hansard record of the sitting. Full Hansard
Question Period – May 7, 2026. Video from CPAC. Watch on YouTube
Who held the floor · 2026-05-07
AI-rated The sitting score and the rating of each answer come from a language model reading Hansard. How the AI rates this
Other moments
The Economy
Wayne Long said the dental care plan and child benefit would be lost under Conservative proposals, while Jacques Gourde said Liberal policies left families paying $4,000 a month just to survive.
Read the exchangeClimate Change
Christine Normandin accused the Liberals of scrapping environmental rules to speed pipelines, and Julie Dabrusin replied that methane regulations and nature protection remained in place.
Read the exchangeNational Defence
Fraser Tolmie asked why the government would cancel the Snowbirds air demonstration team, and David McGuinty said the Tutor fleet was reaching end of life and safety would not be compromised.
Read the exchangeInternational Trade
Marilyn Gladu welcomed new trade deals with the United Kingdom and Indonesia that open markets for 340 million people, and Rechie Valdez said the pacts would create jobs across the country.
Read the exchangeVeterans Affairs
Blake Richards said the government had cut billions from veterans programs and hidden $3 million meant for homeless veterans, while Jill McKnight said no services or benefits had been reduced.
Read the exchangeQuestion Period, exchange by exchange
AI-rated Each answer’s rating (answered, partly answered, deflected, answered something else) is a model’s reading of the exchange. How the AI rates this
- deflectedThe EconomyCarol Anstey (Conservative) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). loaded question.The answer notes a gas tax cut but immediately pivots to demanding a Conservative spending list instead of addressing waste or further cuts.
We have no idea what the Conservatives consider to be inflationary spending.
- deflectedThe EconomyCarol Anstey (Conservative) asked Wayne Long (Liberal). loaded question.The answer lists government benefits and cuts then dismisses the question as rhetoric rather than addressing full tax removal.
That side can continue with the rhetoric and the riddles.
- deflectedNatural ResourcesJacob Mantle (Conservative) asked Tim Hodgson (Liberal). loaded question.The answer counters with positive CEO quotes instead of addressing Liberal policies or tax cuts.
The CEO of Shell said that Canada is the best place in the world to invest, and he just put $20 billion behind that statement.
- misdirectedNatural ResourcesJacob Mantle (Conservative) asked Tim Hodgson (Liberal). loaded question.The answer lists existing projects and insults the asker rather than stating when the next pipeline will be approved.
if the member took the cotton out of his ears, he would have heard there was a pipeline being built from Taylor to Gordondale.
- partly answeredYouthGabriel Hardy (Conservative) asked Joël Lightbound (Liberal). loaded question.The answer directly references youth training investments tied to the unemployment concern raised.
I sincerely hope that my colleague will support us with the fall economic update, which provides for an investment of $6 billion over five years specifically for training, to give our young people opportunities in the construction trades
- deflectedYouthGabriel Hardy (Conservative) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). loaded question.The answer mentions training then attacks Conservatives for opposing projects instead of addressing youth job scarcity or debt.
They are against the the Alto high-speed train we will be building in Quebec, which will create 51,000 jobs.
- partly answeredClimate ChangeChristine Normandin (Bloc) asked Julie Dabrusin (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer lists climate actions in response to the implied question about what the government is doing on the environment.
We have introduced methane regulations.
- deflectedClimate ChangeChristine Normandin (Bloc) asked Julie Dabrusin (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer restates commitment to climate action and lists policies rather than addressing why members should leave the party.
We are getting the job done and we will stay the course.
- deflectedClimate ChangeMario Simard (Bloc) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). loaded question.The answer promotes energy projects without addressing Bill C-5, regulations, or net-zero failure.
The government plans to move forward with major projects, but we will not stop there.
- deflectedYouthMelissa Lantsman (Conservative) asked John Zerucelli (Liberal). loaded question.The answer highlights fiscal responsibility and infrastructure but ignores the youth unemployment statistics and causes raised.
Canada's new government is fiscally responsible.
- misdirectedYouthMelissa Lantsman (Conservative) asked John Zerucelli (Liberal). loaded question.The answer attacks Conservatives for opposing programs instead of addressing youth unemployment or debt responsibility.
The Conservatives cannot stand up and say they support Canadians while voting against all the supports that Canadians rely on, including youth.
- partly answeredYouthRhonda Kirkland (Conservative) asked Gregor Robertson (Liberal). substantive question.The answer references job training investments but does not address the youth unemployment surge or credit card budgeting.
The members opposite have an opportunity to support the spring economic update, which would dedicate $6 billion to training young Canadians
- misdirectedYouthRhonda Kirkland (Conservative) asked Ryan Turnbull (Liberal). loaded question.The answer attacks the member's voting record on nuclear projects rather than addressing the crisis created by Liberal policies.
How can that member stand here and lecture us about youth jobs in our region and in our country yet vote against the very supports that are creating good, skilled trades jobs across our region?
- deflectedYouthVincent Ho (Conservative) asked Karim Bardeesy (Liberal). loaded question.The answer promotes private sector jobs and education programs without addressing youth unemployment rates or immigration policies.
our plan is investing in jobs and is supporting those private sector innovators that are bringing jobs, including to places like York Region in the member's region
- misdirectedYouthGarnett Genuis (Conservative) asked Peter Fragiskatos (Liberal). loaded question.The answer defends fiscal framework and attacks Conservative cuts instead of addressing youth unemployment or debt impacts.
Conservatives want to make it worse by forcing Canadians to not receive the Canada child benefit, to not receive support for child care and to not receive support for the school food program.
- misdirectedYouthGarnett Genuis (Conservative) asked Patty Hajdu (Liberal). substantive question.The answer attacks Conservative votes on child care instead of engaging with the youth jobs plan or policy reversals proposed.
Do not vote against child care that is saving families in Saskatchewan thousands of dollars a month per child, one of the most effective measures to make sure that young families get ahead
- deflectedClimate ChangePatrick Bonin (Bloc) asked Julie Dabrusin (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer ignores the specific claim about dismantling pipeline regulations and instead attacks the asker while restating general climate talking points.
We are doing the work while he is complaining.
- misdirectedClimate ChangePatrick Bonin (Bloc) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). loaded question.The answer pivots to attacking the Bloc on high-speed rail rather than addressing the pipeline regulatory framework question.
Why is the Bloc Québécois so stubbornly against the environment?
- misdirectedThe EconomyJacques Gourde (Conservative) asked Joël Lightbound (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer avoids the cost-of-living question and instead attacks the member for opposing unrelated Liberal programs.
what would be more expensive for 19,563 of his constituents is going to the dentist
- deflectedFinanceRichard Martel (Conservative) asked Nathalie Provost (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer sidesteps the debt and affordability question to list existing benefit programs without addressing the premise.
The Canada groceries and essentials benefit is not an illusion.
- partly answeredVeterans AffairsBlake Richards (Conservative) asked Jill McKnight (Liberal). loaded question.The answer directly denies cuts to veterans services but does not address the specific allegation about hiding funding for homeless veterans.
there have been no cuts to services and benefits offered to veterans
- deflectedAerospace IndustryGreg McLean (Conservative) asked David McGuinty (Liberal). loaded question.The answer dismisses the premise as stupid and pivots to broad economic benefits without addressing the contract details or insider allegations.
the premise of the question is frankly stupid
- misdirectedAerospace IndustryGreg McLean (Conservative) asked David McGuinty (Liberal). loaded question.Answer attacks opposition record on defence instead of addressing specific allegations about the contract.
Every single measure put forward to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces, every single investment in housing, in equipment, in munitions, in our bases, in our housing stock; every single one, including pay increases, was opposed.
- partly answeredHealthMichael Barrett (Conservative) asked Marjorie Michel (Liberal). loaded question.Answer acknowledges CEO pay issue and states corrective action was taken but does not justify the payment itself.
I agree that the situation with the CEO of that company is unacceptable.
- deflectedHealthMichael Barrett (Conservative) asked Marjorie Michel (Liberal). substantive question.Answer commits to future committee appearance but avoids any commitment on Auditor General review.
I will certainly return to testify before the committee at some point.
- answeredNational DefenceFraser Tolmie (Conservative) asked David McGuinty (Liberal). substantive question.Answer directly explains Tutor fleet end-of-life timeline and Snowbirds continuation plans.
The Snowbirds will continue air demonstrations with the Tutor fleet for as long as it is feasible and safe.
- misdirectedNational DefenceFraser Tolmie (Conservative) asked David McGuinty (Liberal). rhetorical question.Answer shifts to accusing member of endangering pilots rather than addressing cancellation plans.
Have him stand up and make it plain that he intends to have pilots flying planes that should not be flown
- misdirectedNational DefenceCathay Wagantall (Conservative) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). rhetorical question.Answer pivots to attacking Conservative defence spending record instead of addressing Snowbirds future.
We will take no lessons on defence spending, on defence investments, on investments in our veterans
- deflectedNational DefenceKevin Waugh (Conservative) asked David McGuinty (Liberal). substantive question.Answer is cut off but begins by restating the question without providing new information.
- deflectedNational DefencePierre Paul-Hus (Conservative) asked David McGuinty (Liberal). loaded question.Answer repeats prior fleet-end-of-life points without addressing the 11-year delay claim or new action.
The RCAF's fleet of Tutor aircraft was first introduced in the 1960s.
- deflectedIndigenous AffairsDan Albas (Conservative) asked Rebecca Alty (Liberal). loaded question.The answer refuses to address the directive or litigation choice and instead discusses unrelated public agreements.
the Cowichan case is still in active litigation and we are not going to talk about our legal strategy on the floor.
- misdirectedIndigenous AffairsSukhman Gill (Conservative) asked Jill McKnight (Liberal). loaded question.The answer attacks the opposition for creating fear rather than confirming or reversing the directive.
What is happening with the opposition is that they are creating uncertainty and fear.
- deflectedIndigenous AffairsMarc Dalton (Conservative) asked Randeep Sarai (Liberal). loaded question.The answer asserts defense of rights without addressing the ongoing directive or Cowichan case.
The only people who are saying the property rights are at risk are the Conservatives over here
- partly answeredForeign AffairsAdam Chambers (Conservative) asked Anita Anand (Liberal). substantive question.The answer addresses Taiwan ties but ignores the specific trade framework and flight decisions.
We enjoy strong people-to-people ties with Taiwan, and we will continue to ensure that Taiwan continues to be an important economic partner for this country
- deflectedAir TransportationDon Davies (NDP) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). loaded question.The answer avoids committing on privatization and instead discusses general travel goals.
one thing we will not compromise on is that we want to actually improve the travel experience
- partly answeredClimate ChangeAlexandre Boulerice (Independent) asked Julie Dabrusin (Liberal). rhetorical question.The answer affirms climate action but does not address the missed targets, pipeline, or carbon tax timeline.
we strengthened our methane regulations, and that is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 400 megatonnes.
- answeredBusiness of the HouseAndrew Scheer (Conservative) asked Steven MacKinnon (Liberal). substantive question.The answer directly outlines the upcoming legislative schedule for the week and after the break.