“The Conservative motion from yesterday is full of false information about the Musqueam agreement. The agreement is online, and it clearly says it is not a treaty or a land claim. The Conservatives should actually read it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the motion that was presented yesterday was full of false information, including when they talked about the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement is available online, but I know the Conservatives have not read it. I will feel free to read section 5.1: “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements”. I will also read section 5.2: “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam’s Rights and Title.” The whole agreement is available online, and I encourage the Conservatives to read it.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are appealing the Cowichan court decision. Two Canadian courts have ruled differently on this issue, so we need a clear answer. We will protect private property.”

“Mr. Speaker, the federal government, the province, the City of Richmond, Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Cowichan are all appealing the Cowichan decision. There is also another court case. It is in New Brunswick. The Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion than what was reached in Cowichan. We now have two courts in Canada taking very different approaches. This divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity we are seeking in the Cowichan case. The Cowichan case is in active litigation, including today. We will defend private property.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the 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 →

“We want to work with First Nations through talks instead of court. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court ruling on Cowichan, so we are appealing it. We will always protect private property.”

“Mr. Speaker, our government knows that the path of reconciliation with first nations is how Canada moves forward as a country. Negotiated agreements, like that with Tsawwassen in my riding of Delta, are one solution. With Cowichan, negotiations failed, and the case went to the courts. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court decision and have filed our appeal. Our government has always defended and will always defend private property ownership.”