The House debated the impact on private property of the legal uncertainty created by the Cowichan Tribes v Canada court decision. Conservatives accused the Liberals of failing to swiftly and robustly appeal the ruling, contributing to public anxiety and economic disruption in B.C. Liberals argued they have taken appropriate steps to defend private property rights and accused Conservatives of sowing misinformation. Much of this debate was taken up by efforts to clarify and distinguish the positions of the two main parties on the issue, rather than concretely advancing the topic.
“We won't defend your home unless a court says so. This klausaq motion is irresponsible and we're above all that. The public has nothing to worry about; all land claims protect private property. It's all just a misunderstanding.”
“You're calling us fearmongers. I'd like to see you tell that to the people who can't refinance their homes and businesses. You think we're making this up? The province had to step in because of you people. You pulled arguments out of the Cowichan case. You signed an agreement without protecting fee simple property. Which part of that is fake news?”
“You want to know why we don't put fee simple property in every little agreement? Not every deal needs that. We're talking education and health here. Anyway, the framework was years in the making. It lays out next steps. Happy reading on the website.”
“I want to look good in front of Quebec by asking the minister to send this to committee. I want to set the record straight because someone said the committee shut down the motion, but they didn't. We should send this to committee so everyone can discuss it.”
“I want to send this to committee. The committee should talk more about treaties and residential schools. I want Canadians to be educated better on this topic.”
“I'm filling time by agreeing with my colleague. I also want Canadians to hear the Liberal government's perspective on misinformation. Misinformation is bad and hurts the country.”
“I don't like misinformation. It scares away investment. Canada is a leader in reconciliation. We need to keep working on treaties and aboriginal title. Private property is important.”
“I don't like it when you call my criticism misinformation. I think you're wrong. I have an example. They were ready to go. Now it's not working. That's not misinformation. I want you to admit your actions hurt investment.”
“I want to say the legal process is creating uncertainty and that's why we need more negotiations. I have an example where negotiations worked. I think we should keep telling people the facts of the legal case while we negotiate.”
“You say we failed Canadians. But our principle 14 says we can use all defenses as long as there's a principled basis and evidence. We're in litigation. We're reviewing all legal arguments. Read the whole directive before you accuse us.”
“This is a complex issue. I have 20 minutes to speak but that's not enough time to say everything. I could talk about many things but I don't have time. I'm just going to talk in circles without saying anything substantive. I'm filling time by stating the obvious: this issue is important and merits further discussion. I'm glad the Conservatives brought this up so I can spend 20 minutes speaking without taking a clear position.”
“The provinces and the federal government should stay in their own lanes. I'm concerned there could be overreach into provincial jurisdiction over private property.”
“I'm surprised you brought up jurisdiction. I planned to cheer for Quebec being different. I wanted to imply Quebec's signature is missing from the Constitution. I think everyone else should talk to us more.”
“I want to disagree with my Bloc colleague. I think she's wrong about perception. I want to read some headlines about money lost on projects. I met people who say their property values went down. I think it's because the government didn't do its job. I'm mad the Liberals won't let us debate my motion.”
“I want to correct two things my colleague said. First, I did talk about impacts. But without conclusive data, we can't know for sure. I wish we had better data. That doesn't mean I don't want to act fast though. Second, about what my colleague claimed I refused to consider in committee - the committee never actually voted on that. We had meetings today and nobody brought it up. I'm happy to talk about it. Maybe the government said no, but my colleague never told me about that.”
“I want to cheer for my colleague's knowledge. I asked about the motion we're debating. I heard wrong - it wasn't actually defeated in committee like they told me. Can my colleague please explain the changes the Conservatives want to make? And how they want to create this committee?”
“I want to drag this out. We should take a long time to understand and consult. Why make a special committee when another committee can do the job? I don't want to look partisan.”
