TranslatePolitics.ca

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:10 p.m.

“I want the Conservatives to stop criticizing. Let's just agree with everything the government wants. Reconciliation is good. Conservatives are bad. I don't like their positioning. It's very bad.”

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Liberal 3:35 p.m.

“The Prime Minister says he will defend property rights. Why are you trying to divide Canadians by suggesting otherwise? I don't want people to think we won't protect their rights.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:50 p.m.

“I want to ignore your actual point and just attack you for causing fear. Debate is scary. Stop talking. I'll repeat nice words from the Prime Minister so I sound important.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the motion is to promote and encourage fear among Canadians and ultimately, I would argue, spread misinformation. We listened to the members opposite, who even tried to misquote or misrepresent what the Prime Minister was saying. I would like to quote the Prime Minister directly. He stated: The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent. As we continue to defend those property rights, which is something that will continue well into the future, we have the Conservatives on the other hand trying to plant the seed—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:55 p.m.

“I don't like that you accused the government of spreading misinformation. The Prime Minister and minister talked a lot. That shows the government is handling this well. The government is working with many people. Do you think working together is important? What is your party's position? Will you vote yes?”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:10 p.m.

“The way I see it, the government has never taken away private property rights in any of these treaties. I'm calling out the Conservatives to give me an example where that's happened. Does the Green Party leader know of any examples?”

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Liberal 4:25 p.m.

“I want people to see the Conservatives as dividing Canada. I won't say how I would solve the Cowichan problem. I will talk about my family's military service to look like a patriot.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have the incredible pleasure of serving as MP for a northern Saskatchewan seat. As an indigenous person within the House of Commons, I feel compelled to make sure we correct the record, in terms of what the opposition motion is suggesting. I want to point out I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. Before I get into my presentation, I want to say that somewhere along the lines of discussion, it is important to call upon all our intentions when we talk about the country of Canada. I want to briefly expand on that notion before I do my critique of the Conservatives' presentation. First of all, to clarify to all of Canada, and to the folks who might be paying attention to this particular debate, on May 5 the Prime Minister said, "The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.” That is the Prime Minister of Canada being very clear as to the whole notion around private property rights as the Cowichan decision impacts some of those statements. I listened to the presentation by the Leader of the Opposition, and I reject the premise of his presentation because it is not intended to provide solutions to the problems. It is really intended to divide Canadians, in my opinion, for cheap political theatrics, and that is something that should never happen in the House of Commons. I want to point out that, from the whole perspective of Canada as a country, those who helped build this nation were the first nations, the Métis people, the Innu and many other indigenous groups throughout the land. We stood side by side through centuries of conflict and through centuries of negotiations but more so through centuries of sharing the land. From our perspective, I ask, “What is our responsibility to the country as a whole?” as we grapple through some of these issues that impact not only B.C. but Saskatchewan and Alberta. We see many good examples of how Canadians, first nations Canadians, non-indigenous Canadians, Innu Canadians, Inuit Canadians, Métis Canadians and non-status Canadians, many from my own communities, are trying to keep this country together. All of the discussions we are having here are about strengthening and uniting Canada, and that is an important point that I want to raise during this discussion. I listened to the presentation by the Leader of the Opposition, and all I see is division from some of the points he raised. On one hand, he is suggesting that we do not look at any other agreements of this sort. That is what I understood from his presentation. On the other hand, the member for Edmonton Northwest said we need to strengthen the treaties. How does that work? They cannot give the same speech with a contrasting view like that, trying to be everything to everybody, because, quite frankly, they will be nothing to nobody if they do not make up their minds on which perspective they want to support. I see a huge divide within the Conservative caucus. They say one thing on one hand, and they say something extremely different on the other hand. Sooner or later, Canadians are going to catch on to that. As I stand here today, I ask Canadians, who is looking after Canada's interests, and why is it important to me as an indigenous person and to indigenous folks, whether we are from B.C., Saskatchewan or Alberta? It is very clear, as the member from B.C. mentioned earlier, that there is no threat to private property ownership in this bill. Why do the Conservatives want to make it out to be a threat to Canadians? It is because it is in their political interests. We can look at the Canadian perspective, as I mentioned before. I was raised in a household with a father who was a World War II veteran. He was Métis, and his mom was an indigenous woman. Every day when my dad came home from his service to Canada during the Second World War, he spoke about the value of Canada as a whole. As an indigenous person, he was proud to serve his country. Somewhere along the line, Canada's interests need to be maintained in all of these discussions, through respectful dialogue and discussions among the many provinces that are impacted. I look at modern examples today of who is strengthening Canada. I reject the member for Edmonton Northwest's notion that we are creating division. We absolutely are not. This government is working very hard to deal with economic reconciliation and to engage the indigenous community on many fronts. I dare say that I would compare our record on any day of the week to the Conservative record when it comes to indigenous rights, indigenous opportunities and the indigenous right to sit with us as partners in developing this great country. At the end of the day, there are many indigenous people across this country who are trying to strengthen our country in all kinds of ways. Many times I talk to the people in my riding about social and economic justice for the indigenous people, and we will achieve that as long as we have respectful dialogue between all parties engaged. In the Cowichan decision, as I mentioned, we will respect private property ownership. Now, I will go back to my father's service to this country. It is a beautiful country. We had a number of family members serve in the military. They include my older brother who served as a warrant officer in the air force and my younger brother who served as a warrant officer in the army. I had a sister who also served in the air force, and my daughter almost joined the navy until her mother talked her out of it. The fact of the matter is that we come from a proud military history within my family. How did we get that service-to-Canada perspective? It came from our father, who was a World War II veteran who spoke about the value of keeping Canada together. He was one solid, strong patriot, and yet he was indigenous. If he saw the discussion here today, and the talk about dividing the country over indigenous rights versus private property rights, he would say to us that it is important to keep our country strong and together. Again, our Prime Minister has been very clear. For the record, I am going to read to the opposition his quote: “The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.” Those are the exact same words that I think my father would say to us all. Let us make Canada stronger, let us make Canada fairer, and let us make Canada more independent.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Liberal 4:35 p.m.

“I want new Snowbirds. People I know flew planes. I want to spend money to make them safe.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about the value of Canada, and of course I spoke about my family's service to Canada in the Snowbird response. With my brother having been a flight engineer with the Royal Canadian Air Force for 26 years, I think we should never put any pilots or any of our service members in older aircraft that may not be safe. I would also dare say, with all the information that we have agreed to in terms of strengthening and protecting Canada more, to pay attention to that perspective as well. The Snowbirds have the opportunity to showcase more of what they can do. The minister is absolutely correct. They have a great history, and they are going to always make sure they do Canada proud in many ways, shapes and forms. Modernizing—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Liberal 4:40 p.m.

“I don't think members should fight this in the House. I'm just trying to keep Canadians calm and on the government's side.”

Caroline Desrochers

Liberal 4:40 p.m.

“I want the opposition to stop asking the same question. The government already answered. Move on.”

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Liberal 4:40 p.m.

“I want the opposition to stop asking questions that make the government look bad. We should talk about other things that make us look good instead. I'm filling time with kind words about other people.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:40 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. Why are we even talking about this motion? It won't help anything.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the secretary of state responsible for rural development. I think he sends a very powerful message that it is time we recognize the need for and the importance of collaboration, working together to try to build that stronger Canada and listening to what his father would have said in giving him advice about Canada, building it together and building it stronger. I think it was good, sound advice. It is something we can apply today in the House of Commons. We need to understand the motivation behind the motion that the Conservatives have put on the floor today, and what it is about, what its real purpose is. As the secretary of state for rural development said, we want to have a team Canada approach of working together, in collaboration. The motion would actually do the absolute opposite. The Conservatives are using the terms “private property” and “protection of private property”. They are trying to wrap things around that and then implant in the minds of Canadians, in particular the residents of B.C., that they are going to lose their home, that the potential is there and that it could happen. They are promoting fear where there is no need to promote fear, because it is just not true. The Conservatives know that. The Conservatives, the far right today, understand the issue of private property rights. It has not changed. It has been happening for generations now. They cannot cite one example, one case, where a negotiated agreement, a modern treaty or a federal agreement between Canada and first nations forced a homeowner to sell their property. The Prime Minister has been very clear. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations articulated it exceptionally well, and I would like to provide a couple of quotes, as the Conservatives try to give misinformation and misquote what the Prime Minister has said. I just did a very quick search for examples over the last few days. On May 5, the Prime Minister said, “The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.” Here is another quote from May 5: “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights.” In April, the Prime Minister stated, “We will always advance viable legal arguments to protect private property. Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property.” The Prime Minister has been very clear, as has the government. We need to listen to what the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said earlier today: “It is already Government of Canada policy to only make rights and title agreements that protect the private property of Canadians. I can assure this House, and all Canadians, that we will not, nor would we ever, entertain or even consider an agreement where Canadians lose their private property.” I do not know how much more clear the Government of Canada can be on the issue. It begs the question, why is there this type of emotion before us today, at a time when we are trying to build a stronger, healthier nation? In order to achieve the potential that Canada has, we have to recognize that we have to work in collaboration with the many different stakeholders and governments with whom we are obligated to do so, whether that is municipalities, first nations, indigenous communities, the provinces and so forth. It is not an option. The Government of Canada needs to. It is an obligation. We are talking about billions upon billions of dollars of investment in major projects. There is a great deal of consultation and work taking place. Put it in the perspective of the importance of reconciliation and the 94 calls to action, on which the government over the last number of years has been proactively moving forward. We have a Prime Minister, elected just over a year ago, who is determined, as is every Liberal member of Parliament, to deliver for Canadians an economy and society that we can all be very proud of. What would the motion actually do? Would it add value to what we are trying to accomplish as parliamentarians? I would say no, it would not, because it actually promotes misinformation. It causes Canadians to become worried where they do not need to be worried. In many ways, it would put us a step back in terms of the issue of reconciliation. When divisive motions of this nature are being debated in the House, it might be good for the far-right Conservatives to do some fundraising with, and it might fit their far-right agenda, but I would argue it does not fit Canadians' agenda, based on the values we have. We understand the importance of reconciliation. We understand the importance of private property rights. We can actually have both at the same time. With respect to the collaboration that we have been very successful at over the last number of months since a new Prime Minister was elected, all one needs to do is look at the results. On the one hand, we have the government that is prepared to do the collaboration that is necessary, and where there is a need for legal action, the Government of Canada will be ready for that. However, we are not going to abandon our responsibilities, nor are we going to allow for Conservative misinformation to be let out and ultimately cause fear among the population. With respect to reconciliation and when we talk about indigenous and non-indigenous relationships, the motion would not help. The attitudes in many of the comments we hear coming from the far-right Conservative Party today do not support the idea of reconciliation and working in a collaborative way in resolving the issues that are so important to our nation. If we want to build a stronger, healthier nation, we have to recognize the role of first nations, of provinces and of others. If we do not do that, we will never hit the potential that Canada can hit. That is why it is so critically important that we continue to look at ways in which we can improve the conditions and that we continue to look at the ways the Prime Minister has set an agenda that will raise the level of support and economic and social benefit for all Canadians in all regions of the country. I would ask the Conservatives—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:50 p.m.

“I don't like that you accused us of hiding. BC MPs talked about this. It affects everyone. We should do what Canadians want. Conservatives cause division.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as we know, it is against the rules for me to say whether the member has been in the House or not, but I can guarantee that he has not been listening because there have been many members of Parliament from the government caucus addressing this issue today. If he would have been listening, he would have seen good representation from B.C. However, I can tell the member opposite that this is more than just a British Columbia issue. This is an issue for which, from coast to coast to coast, Canadians as a whole want to see reconciliation. They want to see us move forward in making sure that, unlike what the Conservatives want, there is more unity in the country as opposed to the division they promote.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“The Liberals have been collaborative. We passed a Conservative bill when we had a majority. We sent another Conservative bill to committee yesterday. We may not always agree with the Conservatives and Bloc, but we can collaborate when needed.”

Hon. Rebecca Alty

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“I want to know if the member thinks it's risky for the House to get involved in directing lawsuits. I'm concerned it might blur the lines between what's parliament's job and what's the courts' job.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“I don't want the committee to do the court's job. I think that would be bizarre and damaging. I wish the Conservatives had asked for different advice before they made this motion. I want it to be changed or broadened. I won't support it like this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the rule of law and respect for judicial independence are so critically important in Canada. If we take a look at the motion, it is suggesting that we have a standing committee do what our courts are in the process of doing. It is somewhat bizarre, if we really want to stop to think about it. Maybe what might have been more appropriate is if the official opposition were to consider raising the issue as a possible agenda item, and maybe changed the topic somewhat, maybe broadened it. I think the Conservatives should have gotten better advice before even introducing the motion. As I say, it causes more damage, and it is more divisive. It is a motion that should not be supported, quite frankly.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“I want to defend the Prime Minister. When we talk about the economy, he often brings up indigenous issues. I want people to think the Prime Minister really cares.”

Hon. Rebecca Alty

Liberal 5:05 p.m.

“I don't like what you said. But I won't say if I disagree with it. Instead I'll just ask if you read the agreement. Maybe that will make people doubt you. I'd rather not actually debate this.”

Hon. Rebecca Alty

Liberal 5:20 p.m.

“You're scaring people for no reason. There's no big threat to private property. The courts are handling this. The Conservatives don't even understand what the agreements say.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that, yes, I also speak to many residents who are concerned and have questions, but the important thing is to talk with residents and to explain the issue and not to stoke fear and confusion. In December 2025, the New Brunswick Court issued a decision on aboriginal title that ruled differently. Therefore, we have two court cases and two different decisions. We have appealed the Cowichan decision because there is a need for further clarity. I have not met a Conservative yet who has read the Musqueam agreement. Section 5.1 of the Musqueam agreement specifically states that it is not a land claims agreement. Can the member opposite please explain? If this is not explicit enough, what would it take?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:25 p.m.

“I want to end this debate and move on to the next item on the agenda.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Business of Supply

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Caroline Desrochers

Hon. Buckley Belanger

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Rebecca Alty

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Rebecca Alty

Hon. Rebecca Alty

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux