“We want to protect private property rights. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling, so we appealed it. We will handle this issue in court, not in the House of Commons, while we continue our work on reconciliation.”

“Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of the utmost importance. That is why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling and 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 we advance reconciliation. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs: in the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific 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 protect private property rights, and we also support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. We can do both at the same time.”

“Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, this government believes in private property rights and does not view them to be mutually exclusive to the notion that we can reconcile our challenging history with indigenous peoples who call these lands home. We have been advocating for the court to notify private property owners in this case since 2017. We have more recently supported the application by Montrose to be able to advance arguments to protect private property interests. In the meantime, we have made arguments to defend fee simple insofar as it impacts the federal government. We will defend private property rights. We will advance a path to reconciliation. We can do both at the same time.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The new agreements with the Musqueam do not affect private property. They recognize Musqueam rights in fishing, land care, and water emergencies. They also help Canada and the First Nation work together so we can solve issues without going to court. I want the member opposite to read the agreements.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that everybody remembers that the recently signed Musqueam agreements do not affect private property. The agreements recognize the Musqueam’s constitutionally protected aboriginal rights in the specific areas of fisheries, stewardship and marine emergency management, while establishing a clear framework for collaboration between the first nation and Canada. These agreements respect the rights of indigenous peoples and establish how Canada and the first nation should engage so we get our issues out of the courts and increase certainty for indigenous communities, businesses and all Canadians. I encourage the member opposite to read the agreements.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our government is protecting private property rights and appealing this court decision. The Conservatives are spreading fear and false information. That is what is causing uncertainty and hurting the housing market in British Columbia, not the facts.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what the facts are. The fact is that the Prime Minister has stood and said very clearly that our government is going to protect private property rights. Let us be clear about the facts. We have said that we are appealing the decision, which we are. Let us also be clear that the fearmongering and misinformation coming from the other side of the House is causing uncertainty in British Columbia, not what the facts on the ground say. The facts on the ground say that we are defending private property rights. The opposition is trying to drive uncertainty and is driving problems in the housing market in British Columbia.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 37 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →