“I will not talk about our legal strategy for the Cowichan court case here. The Conservatives keep asking about the Musqueam agreement, but they should just read it themselves. The agreement clearly says it is not a treaty or a land claims deal, and it does not change Musqueam rights or title.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we will not be discussing our legal strategy on the House of Commons floor. However, yesterday, the Conservatives had a lot of questions about something that is public and available for them to read, which is the Musqueam agreement. Let me read the Musqueam agreement since they will not read it themselves. Section 5.1 of the agreement states, “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements...”. Section 5.2 states, “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam’s Rights and Title.” There is more on the website for them.”

“I will not discuss our legal strategy for the Cowichan court case because it is still before the courts. We appealed the ruling, and we will use any legal argument that is supported by facts and principles.”

“Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we are not going to discuss our litigation strategy. The Conservatives have referenced the litigation direction, but they have read only one sentence out of principle number 14. Our government will always raise valid arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Litigation guideline number 14 does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada has appealed the Cowichan ruling, and all viable defence—”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives do not understand the rules or the Musqueam agreement. The agreement is not a secret. It is public, and they should read it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read.”

“Two different courts have made opposite decisions on this issue. That is why we and many other groups appealed the Cowichan case to get a clear answer from the courts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite flagging the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. They reached a very different conclusion from Cowichan. Therefore, we now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity that we are seeking in the Cowichan case, which we appealed, the Government of British Columbia appealed, the Cowichan appealed, the Musqueam appealed, the Tsawwassen appealed and the City of Richmond appealed. It is active litigation before the courts.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• 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 →

“The government has supported private landowners being heard in the Cowichan court case. We agreed to a request to reopen the trial so an affected property owner can take part, and we are waiting for the judge to decide.”

“Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to read all of litigation principle number 14. He has only read the first sentence. However, what I will talk about is the Cowichan case and the current status. As far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of litigation. However, the courts ruled against that. Since the ruling last summer, we consented to the Montrose application, and we are now awaiting a ruling from the judge on that. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. That will allow an impacted private property owner to be heard at trial.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →