Discussion · Adjournment Proceedings
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal
“The Conservatives are spreading false information to make people angry. Indigenous treaties do not take away private property. I challenge the member to name a single person who has lost their property because of a treaty. He cannot do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue. I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite. The Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it. There were debates for hours in the House. We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”. I say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon. The most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait. We get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis. I even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons. The member just spent four minutes explaining, or attempting to explain, and justify a Conservative position, but there is nothing they can say to justify it. I asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away. The members were challenged to do that. The member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Here is what she had to say in a response: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read. Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset. Mel Arnold: Perfect, love it. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You might love it, but it is the reality of it and the member knows that. Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place. I look forward to him providing a name, but we know he is not going to be able to do that. It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.”
-
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 37 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysis
Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue. I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite. The Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it. There were debates for hours in the House. We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”. I say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon. The most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait. We get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis. I even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons. The member just spent four minutes explaining, or attempting to explain, and justify a Conservative position, but there is nothing they can say to justify it. I asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away. The members were challenged to do that. The member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Here is what she had to say in a response: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read. Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset. Mel Arnold: Perfect, love it. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You might love it, but it is the reality of it and the member knows that. Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place. I look forward to him providing a name, but we know he is not going to be able to do that. It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.