Jaime Battiste

In response to a question from Billy Morin

“Indigenous rights do not get in the way of building Canada. They are an important part of it. Our government respects Indigenous rights and will keep working and consulting with Indigenous people.”

“Madam Speaker, let me reiterate what we are saying on this side of the board. Indigenous rights are not an obstacle for building Canada strong; they are part of the foundation on which we will build it. We will continue to work with first nations communities. We will continue to work with indigenous people. On this side of the House, we respect constitutional rights and we respect consultation. We will continue to do so.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Ellis Ross

“We will keep working with Indigenous communities. We want them to have real partnerships, a real voice, and an ownership stake as we build projects together.”

“Madam Speaker, we will continue to work with indigenous communities across Canada, and as part of the work moving forward to ensure that we get these projects over time, the key criteria in this is to ensure that we advance indigenous interests with meaningful participation, meaningful equity and meaningful partnership. We are going to continue to build with first nations communities, and we are going to continue to ensure that we are all moving forward together.”

• 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Clarity 0 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Ellis Ross

“Indigenous rights do not block Canadian projects. We have consulted more than 130 Indigenous communities in Alberta and B.C. about this pipeline, and we will make accommodations where needed. We will keep consulting and respecting Indigenous rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, indigenous rights are not an obstacle to building Canada strong. They are part of the foundation on which we will build it. As part of our duty to consult, we heard directly from more than 130 indigenous communities across Alberta and B.C. Where appropriate, accommodations will be made. Further consultations will inform conditions for Pacific link guided by UNDRIP and anchored in the principle of free, prior and informed consent. We will always respect the rights of indigenous people.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Clarity 26 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jim Bélanger

“Cutting the gas tax was needed, but it is only one part of what we do. We also help people who need it most with cheaper child care, dental care, food at school, and monthly money for families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can agree that our government’s response in ensuring that we remove the federal fuel excise tax was a necessary step, but I would also talk about all of the programs we have that add to that. Removing gas taxes is one part of it, but we also have to ensure that the most marginalized and the most disadvantaged are being supported. We can talk about the Canada child benefit, affordable day care, the national food program and dental care. We can talk about a lot of programs that our government, over the past number of years, has put in place to help and to target those who need it the most.”

In response to a question from Kristina Tesser Derksen

“When I was elected, 75 percent of the children in my community lived in poverty. Now, our government feeds them breakfast at school. We must keep supporting communities in need.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I became a member of Parliament in my community of Eskasoni, child poverty rates there were at 75%. If my son was going to school, that would be the majority of his classmates. One of the reasons I have been so proud is that our government, since 2024, has put a national school food program in place, and today I can say those children receive a healthy breakfast when they go to school in our communities. It is one of the things I am most proud of. We need to help Canadians. We need to continue to support marginalized communities. I am really proud of the efforts of our government to ensure that all of the families who need help in my community and many others across Canada are able to benefit.”

In response to a question from Tim Watchorn

“I want the House to pass this bill. It keeps the federal tax off gasoline and diesel until early 2027 to help Canadians with high fuel costs. Our government is also helping families by cutting income taxes, increasing grocery benefits, and funding school meals.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate and to discuss our government’s plan to ease financial pressures on households and help Canadians build a better future for their families and our country. Our government knows that Canada is strongest when we look after one another and ensure everyone has a fair chance to succeed. That is why we are taking action to make everyday life more affordable. In January, the government announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to put more money back in Canadians’ pockets. The benefit is helping more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians afford everyday essentials. It replaces the existing GST credit while providing more generous support. We increased it by 25% for five years, starting in July, and added a one-time payment this year. Together, these enhancements will provide substantial support to those most affected by rising food prices. For example, a person living alone who is eligible for the GST credit could previously only receive a maximum of $543 for 2026-27. With the one-time payment and the 2026-27 benefit combined, that person will receive approximately $950 in total. For a couple with two children, total support will increase from approximately $1,086 to $1,890. These increases will make meaningful differences for households facing higher food costs. The benefit is also indexed to inflation to ensure payments rise each year with the cost of living. We are taking these steps because helping Canadians afford everyday essentials is the right thing to do. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit is part of a broader package of measures to ease grocery cost pressures across Canada. Canada’s first-ever national food security strategy will address food insecurity, support producers and strengthen supply chains to help lower prices for Canadians. The strategy is backed by more than $3 billion in investments over 10 years. It includes a $1-billion investment in food infrastructure, including food terminals, to help independent grocers buy and move completely produced products. The strategy also includes a $1-billion investment through Farm Credit Canada and a $150-million food security fund to help Canadian businesses grow, produce and process more food in Canada. A further $750 million will go to expanding year-round Canadian fruit and vegetable production. These measures will address the root causes of food insecurity by strengthening domestic food production and improving access to affordable, nutritious food. We are not only putting more money in the pockets of those who need it the most. We are also helping Canadians keep more of what they earn through a middle-class tax cut. We have reduced the tax rate from 15% to 14%. As a result, nearly 22 million Canadians are receiving tax relief of up to $420 per person, while two-income families can save up to $840 this year. In 2026, the lower rate applies to taxable income of up to $58,523, providing meaningful relief during a period of economic uncertainty. Most of the tax relief will go to Canadians in the two lowest tax brackets, with nearly half directed to those in the first bracket. In other words, the measure is targeted to those who need support the most. Above all, we must consider our children, and that is why we made the national school food program permanent. It will provide healthy school meals to as many as 400,000 children and save families with two children about $800 a year on groceries. Working with provinces, territories and indigenous partners, we will continue to expand the program to more schools across Canada, ensuring that hunger is never a deterrent to getting one’s education. Our government also recognizes that recent global developments have made life more difficult for Canadians. Tariffs imposed by our largest trading partner have had a significant impact on Canadian workers and businesses from coast to coast to coast. Conflict and instability in the Middle East have also driven up fuel prices worldwide. In these circumstances, Canadians need relief, and our government has delivered it. Through carefully targeted measures, we are helping Canadians meet these challenges while strengthening Canada’s sovereignty and economic resilience. For example, last spring we acted to ease the impact of high fuel costs on Canadians. In April, after disruptions to crude oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz pushed fuel prices higher, our government temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax. The measure has saved Canadians and Canadian businesses up to 10¢ per litre on gasoline and unleaded aviation gasoline, up to 11¢ per litre on leaded aviation gasoline and up to four cents a litre on diesel and aviation fuel. The savings were immediate. On the first day the temporary suspensions took effect, gasoline prices fell by 11¢ per litre, providing direct relief to consumers. Through Bill C-38, we propose to continue providing relief at the pump by extending the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax through January 31, 2027, and then from February 1 to March 31, 2027, the tax would apply at 50% of its regular rate. The extension would lower everyday costs for Canadians, including truckers and businesses in the food, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors. In short, it would provide timely, meaningful relief when Canadians need it the most. By easing pressure on gasoline and diesel prices at the pump, we are lowering costs for Canadians today while building a stronger, more resilient and more independent economy for the future. To conclude, Canadians should feel the benefits of economic growth not only in the economic reports but also in their wallets and around the kitchen table. That starts with ensuring that everyone can afford to put good food on the table. We are building a stronger Canada, one where economic growth improves everyday life and gives every Canadian a fair opportunity to succeed. That is how we will build a more prosperous and inclusive future.”

• Echo ×14

  A repeated line

  “We have also made the national school food program permanent.”

  Said 14 times by 11 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Wade Grant

“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.”

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“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.”

“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—”

“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 →

“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?”