“The Conservatives are spreading fear and false information instead of facts. How does their position help make Canada stronger when it ignores Indigenous people, provinces, cities, and reconciliation?”

“Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself disappointed in the Conservative Party of Canada, as the far right has taken a position of stirring the pot and promoting fear over facts. It is indeed unfortunate, because there is a substantial cost to that when misinformation is promoted. How does the member feel that the Conservative positioning on this file helps in terms of building a stronger Canada, when in fact indigenous people, the provinces and municipalities all play an important role, as does reconciliation? This is a major aspect being hit by the Conservative Party today.”

“The Leader of the Opposition is wrong about our position. Our government will always protect private property rights and Indigenous rights, which is why we appealed the Cowichan court decision.”

“Mr. Speaker, we absolutely reject the premise of the Leader of the Opposition’s argument. I want to quote what the Prime Minister said several days ago: “The government will always defend private property rights.” I will say it again: “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.” Why does the Leader of the Opposition try to divide Canadians and misrepresent our Prime Minister?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 76 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Why does the Leader of the Opposition try to divide Canadians and misrepresent our Prime Minister?”.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives are trying to scare Canadians and spread false information about what the Prime Minister said. The government will always protect private property rights and Indigenous rights.”

“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—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 32 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 →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “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.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 5.

  Every time it was said →

“The government is telling the truth. The Prime Minister and the minister have answered these questions clearly, and we are working with First Nations and the provinces. I want to know if the NDP supports working together, and if they will vote for this motion.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do take some exception to the member’s belief that the government is somehow feeding misinformation, I believe that the government has been very straightforward, whether it has been the Prime Minister, in the statements that he made earlier this week, or the minister responsible, who stood up today and articulated, in great detail, a number of points that the member opposite just raised. I believe that the government is working in collaboration with other jurisdictions, first nations and the provinces. What does the hon. member believe about the importance of working in collaboration? What is the NDP’s position on the motion itself? Will they be voting in favour of it?”

“The federal government has never taken away private property rights in its agreements with First Nations. I challenge the Conservatives and the Green Party leader to name one time that happened.”

“Mr. Speaker, when we think of the modern treaties or agreements between the federal government and first nations and so forth, there has never been an example where the federal government has forfeited private property rights. That is a challenge I would put to Conservatives. I would ask them to give me an example of where that has taken place. Is the leader of the Green Party aware of any?”

“The Conservatives are trying to divide Canadians by saying this bill threatens private property. It does not. The government will protect private property rights and Indigenous rights at the same time.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Signal 32 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 →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “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.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 5.

  Every time it was said →

“We should never make our military members fly in old airplanes that might be unsafe. We need to upgrade our military planes to keep our service members safe and protect Canada.”

“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—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The courts should handle this issue, not the House of Commons. The opposition needs to stop twisting the Prime Minister's words about private property rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, the court system, not the House of Commons, should be dealing with this matter. All I am saying today, as a result of some of the discussions we are having, is to not misrepresent what the Prime Minister has stated in the House of Commons. That is why I have read, very slowly, three or four times, his exact quote about private property rights. It is not fair for the opposition members to start off their presentations trying to divide Canadians, misrepresenting what the Prime Minister is saying and not listening to nor defending Canadian interests over all.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 9 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We have already answered this same question many times. The Prime Minister has made our position clear. Asking it again does not help Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his truly important speech. How many times does he think this issue has been raised, and how many times has it been addressed in the House over the past few months? The same question is asked day after day, and we answer it every time. As my colleague just mentioned, the Prime Minister has clearly set out the government’s position on this matter. I would like my colleague to explain to us why asking the same question and getting the same answer does not help to move the debate forward. That is not what Canadians expect.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives need to stop trying to divide our country. We should work to bring Canadians together instead. Many First Nations leaders are already working to strengthen Canada, and we should follow their lead.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. Why do the Conservatives bring up the issue in their effort to divide Canadians? I think it is more crucial at this time that we unite our country in as many ways as we possibly can. Somewhere along the line, somebody has to start talking about Canada’s interests, and I notice, as an example, with the Alberta northern chiefs, that first nations leaders have come forward and are defending Canada as a country. That is another example I would share with the assembly, because they are doing their part to strengthen Canada through treaties. There are a lot of great champions. The opposition should stop trying to divide Canada.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 29 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 →

“I oppose this Conservative motion. Conservatives are scaring Canadians into thinking they will lose their private property because of agreements with First Nations. That has never happened and will never happen. The government protects private property while also working with Indigenous peoples.”

“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—”

“The member has not been listening. Many government members, including from British Columbia, have spoken on this today. This is not just a British Columbia issue. Canadians across the country want reconciliation and unity, but the Conservatives want division.”

“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.”

“We should all work for Canadians first. We have supported Conservative bills before, and we will work together when needed, even if we do not always agree with the other parties.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I disagree with what the member is implying in terms of a conclusion. I would suggest that we all need to be humble and working for Canadians first and foremost. The very first action we did when new members were introduced and we had the majority was that we passed Bailey’s law. Bailey’s law was a Conservative bill. Yesterday, again, we talked about a Conservative bill and are seeing it go to committee. I think we will get collaboration where there is a need, and at times, we might not agree with the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the Bloc on issues. It is possible.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 44 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 →

“I want the member to explain the danger of politicians getting involved in court cases. I also want them to speak to the risk of confusing the roles of Parliament and the courts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can speak to the risk of directing litigation through the House of Commons and the risk of blurring the line between judicial and parliamentary.”

“I want the House to vote against this motion. It asks a committee to do work that the courts are already doing, which interferes with our legal system.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 38 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 →

“Whenever I talk about the economy with the Prime Minister, he always brings up Indigenous issues and making sure we support them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to think I am always truthful. I can tell the member that, any time I have had any form of discussion or been part of a discussion with the Prime Minister about anything dealing with economic development, he is one of the individuals who constantly raises the issue of indigenous peoples’ concerns and making sure that we advance the—”

“The member opposite clearly has not read the Musqueam agreement. It does not mention private property because it does not deal with private property. Agreements only talk about the things they cover.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about that statement, but I am wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement does not reference private property because it does not deal with private property. Agreements do not reference everything they do not deal with. We only talk about things that the agreement is about. I am just wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement.”

“We should talk to residents to explain Indigenous land rights instead of scaring them. Two different courts made opposite rulings on land title, which is why we appealed one of them for clarity. Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, which clearly says it is not a land claim. What more would it take for them to understand that?”

“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?”

“I am asking the House to agree to move to private members' business now.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin Private Members’ Business.”