“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech on this self-government agreement, which she says could inform future agreements. There is the Musqueam recognition rights agreement in Vancouver, which has become very controversial. It says that it is not a land agreement, and it goes on to add some comfort that nothing in this agreement is going to impact any aboriginal rights. What is missing is some comfort for the other party, the three million people in Vancouver, who are worried about private property rights. Perhaps it could say something like, “the protection and inalienability of fee simple property rights for all Canadians”. Would that be an improvement?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 100 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 90%The ask 10%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 42 wordsin February, we did sign three Musqueam agreements.1One was a framework agreement, which is really outlining how we will work nation to nation.Included in that is section 5.1, which says that it is not a land claim, 2and section 5.2.The ask · 10 wordsAgain, I encourage the members opposite to look them up, Claims · 44 wordsas they are available online.For the other two agreements, one was about fisheries and one was about marine stewardship, 3but they are not about private property.Today, for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, this is a self-government agreement.The land claim was settled in 1993.4
