“This issue was not brought to a committee where we could discuss it first. Why did the member bring it straight to the House instead?”

“Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this issue was not brought up in parliamentary committee, where it could have been discussed. Instead, it was brought directly here to the House. Could my hon. colleague explain why no steps were taken to address the matter in committee?”

“This issue depends on how the courts interpret the Constitution. How can the government solve it today without letting the court process finish first?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the official opposition for his contribution to the debate. My question is the following. Given that the decision is based on an interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that the courts must therefore interpret that section of the Constitution, how could the government possibly provide a solution today without allowing the judicial process to run its course?”

“Quebec will have another vote on independence soon, and we will win. Then we will run our own country. As a Quebecker and a member of the Wendat nation, I know our property laws are different. Could this British Columbia court ruling affect Quebec later?”

“Mr. Speaker, I admit that we in Quebec are really accustomed to this. I heard my colleague say that the referendums on independence took place under a Liberal government. I can assure him that the next one will also take place under a Liberal government in the coming years and that we are going to win this time. Then the Liberals can have their country, and they can decide how to govern it. We look forward to that. We will leave Canada to them, and we will take care of our own affairs. I find this issue interesting. Not only am I a proud Quebecker, I am also a proud member of the Wendat nation. It is an important part of who I am. In Quebec, we have rights and legal systems that are quite different, particularly when it comes to property. It is a bit hard for us to wrap our heads around this situation. Can my colleague elaborate on that aspect? Does he anticipate that this ruling from British Columbia could have an impact on Quebec later on?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 42 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 →

“We must see both sides of the Cowichan court decision. It allows for negotiations, but it also says Indigenous land rights can exist on private property. Landowners have real reasons to worry, and we need to understand their concerns.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate. I do believe we need to work toward reconciliation. Part of our job as elected officials is to reconcile competing interests. We have try to see both sides. My colleague seems to be severely downplaying the legal uncertainty resulting from the decision in the Cowichan case. While it does not resolve everything, it is true that the decision opens the door to negotiation. That is essentially what is being said. We understand that there is a legal process. However, I think we still need to consider the perspective of certain private property owners. Perhaps they have been influenced by certain political rhetoric and are more concerned than they need to be. Nevertheless, the key conclusion of the ruling is that aboriginal title can exist even on privately owned land. Does my colleague not agree that there may be some legitimate concern over this?”

“The government is ignoring rules to take people's land for a high-speed train project. People are worried about losing their homes, their property values, and the project's funding. Can the member explain why she thinks this is not a problem?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague just mentioned Alto’s high-speed train project. The government has given itself the power to disregard expropriation laws, which is clearly a big problem. People are being threatened with expropriation. The issue we are talking about today, the court decision at least, seems to touch on home values and project funding. Can my hon. colleague go into more detail about why she seems to say that, from what I understand, there are really no issues in this respect?”

“I want to know why the government decided to appeal this case.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate. I thought my colleague’s tone had a hint of reassurance in it, but the question I would like to ask him is this: Why has the government decided to appeal this case?”

“The Liberals now have a majority, and their attitude in committee has changed. They hold secret meetings, shut down debate, and refuse to study issues properly. Can my colleague explain why the Liberals refused to study this issue in committee?”

“Mr. Speaker, ever since the Liberals secured a new majority, thanks in part to Conservative floor crossers, their attitude has changed in committee. They have been holding in camera meetings, shutting down debate and refusing to allow for a thorough study of the issues. This is truly the antithesis of the parliamentary co-operation that our constituents expect. Our Conservative colleagues have mentioned that the Liberals refused to even discuss this issue in committee. The two parties clearly have very different positions on this matter. I am by no means an expert, and B.C. is far from Quebec, but could my colleague explain why the Liberals did not want to bring this matter before the committee to examine it in depth, shed light on it and have a genuine debate on the matter?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 11 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The member has been talking about protecting property rights. I want him to clarify if he is asking us to reopen the Constitution to add property rights to it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. As I listened to him, I wondered what he was actually proposing. What we are seeing here is the Conservative Party attacking guideline number 14, arguing that limitation defences were not argued. We see that it is possible for the attorney general to raise limitation arguments under common law simply by obtaining authorization from the assistant deputy attorney general. Now, my colleague has been talking a lot about the possibility of strengthening property rights and giving them constitutional status. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Is he proposing today that we reopen the Constitution so that property rights can be enshrined into it? I would like him to clarify that.”