Discussion · Oral Questions
Rebecca Alty Liberal
“We want to protect private property. We disagree with the court decision in British Columbia, so we appealed it. We will fight this in court, not in the House of Commons, while we also work on reconciliation.”
“Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance. That is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling. That is why we appealed it back in September. We are fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while advancing reconciliation. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs, in the courts, not on the floor of the House of Commons.”
-
Government answer in Question Period
Clarity 32 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysis -
A repeated line
“We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling.”
Said 5 times by 3 members since April 24.
Every time it was said
Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance. That is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling. That is why we appealed it back in September. We are fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while advancing reconciliation. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs, in the courts, not on the floor of the House of Commons.