Discussion · Oral Questions
Rebecca Alty Liberal
“We are protecting private property rights. We appealed the court ruling in B.C. and helped a local property owner bring evidence to court. Under the Constitution, provinces handle private property, and it is left out of federal land claims talks.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it disingenuous that the members opposite continue to suggest that we are not protecting the private property rights of Canada. Here is what we have been doing: We disagreed with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling and appealed it; we supported Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial. Section 92 of the Constitution sets out that private property is provincial jurisdiction. It is excluded from all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level. For Cowichan, B.C. is acting within its jurisdiction to put measures in to support any implicated property owner—”
-
Government answer in Question Period
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.
See full analysis -
A repeated line
“A private property owner in the area.”
Said 3 times by 3 members since May 7.
Every time it was said
Mr. Speaker, I find it disingenuous that the members opposite continue to suggest that we are not protecting the private property rights of Canada. Here is what we have been doing: We disagreed with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling and appealed it; we supported Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial. Section 92 of the Constitution sets out that private property is provincial jurisdiction. It is excluded from all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level. For Cowichan, B.C. is acting within its jurisdiction to put measures in to support any implicated property owner—