“Our government protects private property rights. We appealed the court ruling in the Cowichan case because we disagree with it. Agreements with First Nations have never taken away anyone's privately owned land, and they never will.”

“Mr. Speaker, private property rights are fundamental and our government will always defend them. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Cowichan case, and we appealed it back in September. Any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has always and will always protect private property. The federal government has been signing agreements with first nations since the 1970s. No agreement between the federal government and first nations has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Our government will continue to advance reconciliation and protect the private property rights of Canadians.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×5

  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 →

“We support private property owners in this court case. We can respect Indigenous rights and protect private property at the same time. We disagree with the court's decision, so we are appealing it.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important that we correct the factual record. Since 2017, the federal government has been asking the court to notify private landowners of the case so that they may participate. More recently, we have decided to support the Montrose application, which is all about the rights of private property owners and would allow them to potentially advance arguments that they were not able to make at trial. We are able to walk down the path of reconciliation and protect the rights of private property owners at the same time. Our next argument will be presented when we appeal the decision, because we disagree with the superior courts. I hope all members of the House can move forward with the full appreciation of the federal government’s position when it comes to the protection of property rights in British Columbia and across the country.”

“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.”

• Vague
  ?

  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 →
• Echo ×5

  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 →