“Our legal system works by making strong arguments that hold up in court. The member should read the agreements with the Musqueam and the court decisions. If he did, he would see that our government is properly defending private property rights in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased the member opposite chose to hang his entire argument on the word “viable”. The whole premise of our legal system is based on viable argument, on the fact that we make arguments that can stand up in court and that we win or lose decisions on the basis of the quality of our arguments and our understanding of the law. I would invite the member opposite to look at the agreements with Musqueam that he claims were done in secret to understand the Cowichan decision and the basis of the appeals. What he would see is a government that is vigorously defending private property rights and doing the work that is required to run this through the systems designed by our Constitution, which are the courts.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservative plan hurts reconciliation with Indigenous people. I want the member to speak about the damage caused by this misleading information.”

“Mr. Speaker, I had a good discussion with the member for Vancouver Quadra. The concern that he raised, and I fully agree with him, about this attempt by the Conservative Party is the damage it would do to things like reconciliation between indigenous people and Canada. There is a very negative side to what the Conservatives are putting on the table. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts and concerns on the damage that could be done by misleading information at a time when we should be encouraging and promoting reconciliation.”

“The Conservatives are wrongly blaming Indigenous people. We should work toward reconciliation instead, while also protecting private property. The Conservatives refuse to work with us on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is sad that we have to rise in the House to even address this issue. I suppose when we are dealing with an opposition party whose leader once said that indigenous people needed a better work ethic, not support, this is what we get. There are members across the way who have made comments that have disparaged indigenous people, directly and indirectly. Their arguments about this case, which are being litigated with absolutely no basis in judgment, are causing people to look at indigenous people as the cause of a problem, to blame them and cast dispersions upon them, when in fact what we need to be doing is working through this toward reconciliation in a way that creates prosperity but also ensures private property is protected. If the Conservatives focused their attention on that, perhaps we would have committees in which we felt like we could work together, which is what the Conservatives simply have no interest in doing.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 22 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 26 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 support the new agreement with the Musqueam First Nation. It recognizes their rights and sets up a way to talk about land claims. It does not take away anyone's private property. Talking through these agreements is better and cheaper than fighting in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time today to speak about the recent agreements that Canada signed with the Musqueam nation. These agreements build on the Constitution Act, 1982, the direction provided by the courts over the last several decades and efforts of indigenous groups over many years to have their rights recognized and upheld by the Crown. To understand these agreements, it is helpful to begin with the Constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” It reflects Parliament’s recognition that indigenous nations will become partners in Confederation based on fair and just reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Crown. Existing aboriginal and treaty rights include rights defined under historical or modern treaties and the asserted aboriginal rights and title of indigenous nations with claims to land that remain unresolved. Indigenous nations have rights and title within their territory that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35 recognizes what first nations have always known, that they have aboriginal rights. However, acknowledging aboriginal rights is not the same as defining those rights. General recognition that a first nation has aboriginal title acknowledges a legal and historical fact. That recognition also creates an important and respectful starting point for the negotiation of agreements to address their claims. General recognition of aboriginal rights, including title, is often included in agreements negotiated between governments and indigenous nations, including both treaties and incremental non-treaty agreements. Agreements such as the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement contain general recognition and do not create a legal interest in any specific lands. Specific recognition of aboriginal title means that an indigenous group has aboriginal title to specific lands, including a legal ownership interest based on their historical use and occupation of those lands. This type of recognition can happen either as part of an agreement negotiated between governments and indigenous nations or as a result of a court decision in an aboriginal title case such as in the Cowichan and Tsilhqot’in cases. Quite simply, this agreement does not create aboriginal rights for Musqueam. It does not define the nature or scope of their aboriginal rights. It simply acknowledges that Musqueam have aboriginal rights including aboriginal title somewhere, not throughout, within their entire traditional territory. Most important, it sets out a process for discussion about how and where those rights might be implemented in the future. To use the analogy of a tool box, general recognition of aboriginal rights through the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement is like agreeing that a tool box exists. What it does not do is decide how the tools will be used or which tools will be needed. Those are questions that will be worked through later, together, through discussion and negotiation. Moreover, the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement does not impact third party interests, including private property. It does not impact the rights of other first nations. It does not impact or alter the jurisdiction of federal, provincial or local governments. No decision-making powers about lands, waters or resources are transferred through these agreements. The Musqueam agreement does not mention private property because private property was never on the negotiating table in the first place. There has been a lot of commentary regarding these agreements. Canadians place great value on private property and also recognize the importance of advancing reconciliation with indigenous people. Given the importance of advancing reconciliation with first nations and the need for clarity as Canada strengthens its economy, it is critical that we are clear about what these agreements are and what they are not. To that end, I would emphasize that private property is firmly under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. It cannot be negotiated away from provinces or Canadians without their consent and it is not something the federal government can alter through this type of agreement. The Government of Canada respects both existing private property interests and constitutionally protected indigenous rights within the federal government’s areas of responsibility. The Musqueam people have clearly stated that they have no intention of pursuing private property through this agreement. If I may quote Musqueam chief Wayne Sparrow, he said, ”Our approach to traditional unceded territory is one of partnership and relationship with our neighbours, not trying to take away our neighbours’ private property.” Treaties and other agreements, such as the one with Musqueam, allow government to advance reconciliation and address indigenous rights and title through dialogue and co-operation while protecting private property and providing certainty for all Canadians. The Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement provides a path forward to address Musqueam’s rights and title collaboratively and avoid the uncertainty and high costs of pursuing litigation in the courts. Canada has consistently stated that the best way to resolve outstanding claims is to work together in partnership through co-operative negotiations and respectful dialogue, not through litigation. The litigation of land claims often involves unpredictable outcomes and significant costs for provincial, territorial and federal governments, and Canadians. Negotiated agreements provide an alternative that supports clarity and stability around the exercise of aboriginal rights. Agreements like the Musqueam agreement are about creating certainty and predictability, predictability for investors, for major projects, for private landowners, for indigenous groups and for all Canadians. By negotiating agreements such as this one, Canada is taking a responsible approach to resolving outstanding claims, including through its work with Musqueam. In so doing, we are able to advance the resolution of long-standing disputes about land and rights in ways that respect the rights of indigenous peoples, uphold existing private property rights and reflect the best interests of all Canadians. This approach supports a stronger and more unified Canada, where private property and indigenous rights are respected together.”

“I oppose this motion because it spreads false information. Agreements with Indigenous groups will not make Canadians lose their homes. Our government protects private property in court, and we want to move forward with reconciliation.”

“Mr. Speaker, this motion misrepresents both the law and the government’s position. It suggests that Canadians could lose their homes because of agreements with indigenous partners, and that is simply not true. Our government has been clear. We support protecting private property rights and we are actively defending them through the courts. At the same time, we will not support a partisan process that supports and spreads fear and misinformation about reconciliation and indigenous partnerships. Our government has been clear that reconciliation is the way in which we want to move forward on these.”

“Can the member explain why we must protect private property rights while also respecting our courts, the Constitution, and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples?”

“Mr. Speaker, could my hon. colleague explain why it is important to protect private property rights while also reflecting the courts, the Constitution and our responsibility towards reconciliation?”

“Our government protects private property rights. We disagreed with the court decision in British Columbia, so we appealed it. This issue belongs in court, not in political arguments here.”

“Mr. Speaker, protecting the certainty and integrity of private property rights remains a fundamental priority for our government. That is precisely why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We do not agree with the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling, which is why the government appealed it back in September. Our government is fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while we advance reconciliation. This matter is before the courts, where it should properly be addressed, not reduced to partisan rhetoric in this chamber.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “That is why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“We will use the law to protect private property. Landowners deserve to be told about court cases that affect them and have a chance to be heard.”

“Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance. This is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We believed then and we continue to believe now that those potentially affected by a decision of this magnitude deserve to be informed and heard. This is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. This is why we have supported an application that would allow Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to present evidence that was not before—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “That is why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“I want to be clear about the agreements with the Musqueam First Nation. They do not affect private property. They recognize Indigenous rights to care for land and water, and they help Canada and the Musqueam work together.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is also important to be very clear about the Musqueam agreements. These agreements do not impact private property. The agreements recognize the Musqueam’s constitutionally protected aboriginal rights in the specific areas of stewardship and marine emergency management while creating a practical framework for collaboration between Canada and the first nations. These agreements respect the rights of indigenous peoples—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This Conservative motion wrongly suggests our government does not support private land rights. It misleads Canadians and hurts reconciliation. Why are the Conservatives trying to scare people?”

“Mr. Speaker, the essence of the motion that we have before us today is that it is trying to give the false impression that the government does not support private land rights, which is just not the case. Every Conservative member knows that. The damage of bringing forward motions of this nature, which significantly mislead Canadians, has a great cost. We talk a great deal about reconciliation, and this is a step backwards. The Prime Minister and the minister responsible have been very clear. The question I have for the member is, why does the Conservative Party want to promote fear when there is no need to do so?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 36 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 →

“Aboriginal title has been recognized in Canada for decades. Can the member name even one time someone lost their property because of it?”

“Mr. Speaker, I question some of the logic in the member’s speech. I understand that these are concerns that his constituents have brought up, but aboriginal title has been recognized in Canada since 1973. There was the Delgamuukw case in 1997, and three or four different aboriginal title cases have been recognized in British Columbia. Can the member opposite point to a single time when someone lost their property as a result of aboriginal title?”

“Canadians are worried about Indigenous land rights, but no one is losing their private property. Different court rulings have caused confusion, so we are appealing a decision in British Columbia to get clear legal answers. Our deals with First Nations protect private land and do not take away people's homes. The Conservatives are spreading false claims to make people afraid.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond East—Steveston. I want to take a few minutes today to separate fact from fiction. Right now, when it comes to aboriginal title in this country, there is a lot of confusion. That confusion fuels concern and, in some cases, misinformation is making it worse. Let me be very clear from the outset: Some of the anxiety Canadians are feeling right now is understandable and it is rooted in the fact that this area of law is not settled and is evolving. For many Canadians, this is not an abstract. It is about their homes, their businesses, their communities and their sense of security. When people hear conflicting information about something as fundamental as property rights, it is entirely reasonable that they ask questions and expect clear answers. For decades, Canadian courts have developed aboriginal title law carefully and incrementally since it was first recognized back in 1973. The decision in the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada case at the Supreme Court of British Columbia took a novel approach. It found that aboriginal title could exist in areas that include private fee simple lands and suggested that those interests could actually coexist. The court did not invalidate private property held titles. It did not remove land from individuals. What it did was introduce a new and complex legal question about precisely how continuing private property interests could coexist with what the court also declared was a superior aboriginal title interest. Our government has been clear. We do not agree with the court’s decision in Cowichan. We recognized that it creates uncertainty, and that is why it is being appealed. Canadians deserve clarity on something as fundamental as property rights. That is not just our view; it is reflected in the fact that the courts themselves are not aligned on this issue. I want to bring to members’ attention that in New Brunswick, the litigation involving the Wolastoqey Nations v. New Brunswick and Canada decision at the Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion. The court stated that it was open for courts to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that declaration of aboriginal title could not be made over private property. Therefore, we now have two court decisions in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why we need to have clarity from the courts, and that is why it is being appealed. This is an important point. When the law is unsettled, it creates space for speculation. It creates space for competing interpretations and, in that space, misinformation can take hold and facts can be twisted. This is where myth begins to enter the picture because while this legal uncertainty is real, it is being used and weaponized in some cases to suggest that negotiated agreements are putting private property at risk. That is simply not true. It is important that we say that clearly, but also respectfully, because many Canadians asking these questions are doing so in good faith. Therefore, let me address one example directly. There has been commentary about the Musqueam agreement and what it does and does not do. Here are the facts. It does not impact Canadians’ private property. This agreement does not grant new rights. It does not define or finalize the scope of any existing Musqueam aboriginal rights and it does not attach any such rights to specific parcels of land. What it does do is acknowledge that rights exist, which they do under section 35 of the Constitution, and it creates a structured process for Canada and Musqueam to work together to better understand how those rights may be addressed over time. That is it. It is a framework for negotiations. It is not a transfer of land or change in ownership and it does not affect private property. It does not override provincial jurisdiction and it does not give any decision-making authority over land or resources to Musqueam through this agreement. In other words, it is about creating a path forward for dialogue and clarity, not changing who owns what today. In fact, private property was never part of these negotiations and will never be part of any future negotiations. I would remind colleagues that in British Columbia, jurisdiction over private property rests with the province. It is not something that the federal government can simply negotiate away, and it has not done so. The Musqueam themselves have been clear that this agreement is not about pursuing privately owned land, so when Canadians hear claims that agreements like this somehow put their homes and businesses at risk, those claims are not grounded in fact. They are grounded in trying to create fear. The distinction is important. On the one hand, we have court decisions that are exploring new and unsettled legal territory. On the other hand, we have negotiated agreements that are designed to create clarity, not uncertainty. That distinction matters because litigation and negotiation do very different things. Litigation can clarify the law over time, but it often does so in a narrow, incremental way that can leave broader uncertainty in the meantime. Negotiation allows parties to sit down, address concerns directly and build solutions that reflect real-world impacts. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has resulted in Canadians losing privately owned land. This goes back to 1973 when aboriginal title was first recognized and discussed in the Calder case. In fact, negotiated agreements consistently do the opposite. They provide predictability and clarity and explicitly protect private interests while advancing reconciliation. We saw that recently in the agreement with the Haida Nation, which addressed aboriginal title while clearly providing for the protection of private fee simple lands. That is the value of negotiations. Negotiations allow complexity to be addressed directly and balanced outcomes to be reached. Courts answer legal questions. Negotiations build lasting solutions. We are committed to ensuring those negotiations go forward in a way that creates clarity. Yes, there is uncertainty right now. Canadians have legitimate questions, and we are acting to address that uncertainty by seeking clarity through the courts where the issue is already being raised. At the same time, that uncertainty cannot be used to misinterpret the facts. We will continue to engage Canadians with honesty and transparency and acknowledging what we know, what we do not know yet and what we are doing to get clarity. Fear must not replace facts. Reconciliation must move forward through respectful, balanced and negotiated agreements. At the end of the day, Canadians have confidence that their rights and interests are being protected and reconciliation is being advanced in a thoughtful, measured and fact-based way. That is how certainty is built and trust is strengthened and how we will move together. I want to dwell on this because there has been a lot of misinformation. Conservatives continue to act as if aboriginal title in Canada is a new thing. It has been recognized since 1973. We have seen multiple British Columbia tribes go to court and have their aboriginal titles recognized, from the Nisga’a to the Delgamuukw and the Tsilhqot’in. There is not one example where these court cases resulted in someone losing their fee simple property rights. It just has not happened. To suggest that for some reason or somehow these tribes are going to come after this title and take people’s homes and property is just irresponsible, not factual and meant to create fear and misinform Canadians. On this side of the House, we will continue to balance our efforts toward reconciliation with the interests of Canadians. We have done so in every single indigenous case that has ever gone to the Supreme Court where indigenous tribes have won, and we will continue to do so moving forward. For Canadians at home hearing this, our government is ready, prepared and willing to negotiate and ensure that we are protecting property rights at the same time as advancing reconciliation.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“Conservatives do not understand Indigenous law. When Indigenous nations prove their rights in court, we negotiate with them instead of causing fear and mistrust.”

“Mr. Speaker, I respect that member, and I want to respectfully say that I have heard a lot of Conservatives get up and pretend they know something about aboriginal litigation. As someone who taught aboriginal and treaty rights law at university, I have heard some of these arguments. When a court case comes to the Supreme Court of Canada, many intervenors will come in with many different arguments. For the members opposite to suggest that there was one opportunity to have an argument that might go to the Supreme Court of Canada is non-factual. It is not based in any kind of actual fact from anyone who has ever read an aboriginal title case or anyone who has actually looked at the court cases and said, here is what happens when indigenous nations have proved what their section 35 rights are. We sit down and negotiate with them. We protect the interests of Canadians, but we also do it in a way that does not create fear, mistrust and—”

“The courts need to decide this matter. Our court system is independent, and judges should apply the law without outside interference.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think that this determination needs to go through the court system. When we have things that are before the courts, we have an independent judiciary. It is really important that, when it comes to the law, we have the application of those facts in law done in independent ways.”

“Indigenous leaders have always said they do not want to take people's land. Has the parliamentary secretary ever heard any First Nations leader say they want to take away private property?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have memories of being in high school in the early 1990s when the B.C. treaty process was opened up because of the many title cases that my colleague has talked about. Fellow students asked, “Are you coming for our house? Are you coming for our land?” We had to have leadership come say absolutely not, we will never do that; we want to work in co-operation and we want to live in harmony with each and every person who lives in and around our territory. The hon. parliamentary secretary has been involved in first nations politics for a very long time across this country. Has he ever once heard a first nations person, a chief or anybody, say they want private property rights?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 14 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 →

“Indigenous leaders just want their fair share and the rights they are owed. The courts agree they have these rights. When governments and Indigenous nations negotiate together, everyone wins.”

“Mr. Speaker, truthfully, when I go across this country, I hear chiefs and leaders talking about justice. They talk about the rights that they had, the title and the resources, and they just want their fair share. They are not asking for anything over and above what Canadians receive. They want to be part of a system. They want to be a part of growing. They have these rights, recognized by section 35 and often upheld in the courts, and when those rights are upheld, they often negotiate with our federal government to figure out how we implement those rights. It has happened for the Mi’kmaq in 1990 with the Marshall decision. It happens in British Columbia with aboriginal title. The government, the nations and the province find ways to create dialogue, get to the negotiation table and ensure that we are representing all rights in a situation where all parties are winning and no one loses out.”

“The Conservatives think they know everything about Indigenous rights in court. They could try to join these cases, but the Supreme Court would reject them because their arguments are political and irresponsible.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to look at every single aboriginal title litigation or every section 35 case. There are things called intervenors. The Conservative Party of Canada could actually apply to be an intervenor, since it has all the answers when it comes to litigating first nations rights. I doubt it would be granted, because the Supreme Court looks at rational and reasonable arguments, not at political and irresponsible arguments. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“Our government disagrees with the court ruling that gave the Cowichan Nation title to land in Richmond, and we have appealed it. We are also supporting a private landowner's request to present new evidence to the court. Our government will always protect private property rights. No Canadian will lose their private land because of this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the matter of the Cowichan court decision, as it has understandably raised questions in the House; in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia; and across Canada. Let me first say that our government disagrees with the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision and that we immediately appealed the court decision. As the case is before the courts, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the ongoing aspects of the litigation itself. I will, however, provide background on the history of the case and speak about private property interests. It is helpful at the outset to understand the scope of the litigation and the number of parties involved. Besides the federal Crown, there are five other defendants in the litigation: the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the Government of British Columbia, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam first nation, and the Tsawwassen First Nation. The litigation began in November 2014. The Cowichans sought a declaration of aboriginal title to 1,846 acres of land located in the city of Richmond, along with a declaration of an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. The claimed lands include federal lands owned by Transport Canada and managed by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Richmond municipal lands, and some lands held by private landowners. Given the complexity of the issues and the number of parties involved, it is not surprising that the case unfolded over several years. On August 7, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court delivered its decision, ruling that the Cowichan hold aboriginal title over approximately 40% of the claimed area, as well as an aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. Soon after the release of the decision, all parties took further steps within the court process. The court’s decision is being appealed by all parties to the litigation, including Canada. Some of the court’s findings have potentially significant implications, including with respect to private property rights. Because the decision is not entirely clear on certain points, that clarity is being sought through the proper legal process. I have also been working to seek clarity, and I recognize that the decision has raised questions or concerns. We know that Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown at trial. Canada also defended the principle of transparency in this trial, particularly for parties that are not directly involved in this case but that may be affected by its outcome. In 2017, Canada brought an application seeking an order requiring the plaintiffs to notify private landowners within the claim area in this case. The court declined to exercise its discretion to require the Cowichan to give formal notice to private landowners. I should note that every aboriginal title claim is unique, and the reasoning in this decision will not necessarily apply to other cases. It depends on the facts of the case in question. With that background in mind, I will turn to more recent developments. Three related private real estate companies, which I will refer to as Montrose, operate in Richmond and claim they are the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial, be added as a party and file new evidence and argument. Its application would allow the company to present its perspective on how the declaration of aboriginal title impacts its legal and financial interests. Canada has filed a response to support Montrose’s application. It is important for all parties to be heard when they are directly and significantly affected by a court decision. Canada’s position is consistent with the application it brought in 2017 regarding the need to provide notice of the trial to private landowners. If successful, Montrose would become an official party to the litigation, and the record would be reopened so the court could receive Montrose’s evidence and submissions, including submissions related to the impacts of the ruling. The Montrose application is scheduled to be heard before the British Columbia Supreme Court on May 25 and May 26, 2026. The Government of Canada respects the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. Canada’s approach in this litigation reflects the use of appropriate court process to address legal uncertainty, while continuing to advance reconciliation in accordance with the Constitution. I will add that private property rights are fundamental and that our government will always protect them. For the Government of Canada, private property cannot and will not be negotiated. This is not only because our government would never negotiate Canadians’ private property but also because, as members all know, private land ownership and land deeds fall under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level protects private property. In fact, no modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has led to Canadians’ losing their privately owned land. As the member of Parliament for Richmond East—Steveston, I have been working and will continue to work with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to address residents’ concerns and share constituents’ perspectives with the government, and to advocate for the people of our city. At the same time, I will work with the Richmond city council and all levels of government to ensure that the residents of our city are engaged and informed on these matters as they proceed in the months and years to come.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Negotiated agreement or federal approach has led to people losing privately owned land.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 24.

  Every time it was said →

“The opposition is scaring people by saying private land will be taken away. The federal government cannot and will not negotiate private lands. This is a provincial issue, and questions should go to the premier of British Columbia.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think that if we listened to colleagues who spoke earlier, the fearmongering we are talking about has to do with what the members opposite are implying: that private property lands will be taken away. I come back to the issue at hand. This is a provincial matter. I have outlined how the federal government cannot and will not negotiate private lands. Most of these questions should be directed to the province and the Premier of British Columbia. A corresponding decision on a similar case happened in New Brunswick. That court of appeal issued a decision in the context of an aboriginal title claim on the issue of whether aboriginal title can coexist with fee simple title. The court found that it could make a finding of aboriginal title leading to compensation for an indigenous nation, but it went the other way. This is a provincial matter.”

“The local government, First Nations, British Columbia, and the federal government are all working together to appeal this decision. I want to ask my colleague what he is hearing from these groups about their joint appeal.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, has been very involved with the issue. He is very concerned as well, because he does take this very seriously with his residents and his constituents. I have seen him working on the ground, not only with them but also with the parties appealing the decision along with the federal government. There is the municipality. There are other first nations. There is the province of British Columbia. There is a unified approach to make sure the decision is appealed. I want to ask the member what he has been hearing from the other parties, so we know they are all working together to ensure that it is appealed.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 →