“The Conservatives are spreading false information about property rights. This uncertainty stops builders from making affordable homes and creating jobs. Our government does protect property rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for yet again, like his colleagues, making light of what is a very serious situation for folks in Vancouver and across British Columbia. There are people who listen to the debates in this Parliament and expect serious discussion and serious debate. What they hear is misinformation, which leads to market uncertainty. Market uncertainty leads to builders not wanting to build affordable homes and to jobs not being created. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. They should be asking themselves what they will tell their constituents when they ask if the government is going to stand for property rights or not when the answer is yes.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 22 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 18 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 →

“People are spreading false information about our legal rule. The rule just says government lawyers need evidence and a good reason to back up their arguments. Can the member give any example where the government should make an argument without evidence?”

“Mr. Speaker, my question relates to litigation directive number 14, which I, again, have heard a lot of misinformation about, claiming that somehow the directive would preclude counsel for the Government of Canada from making every argument necessary to defend property rights. My understanding is that all the directive does is, if I can find the right words, require “a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.” Could my hon. colleague tell me of any instance where the Government of Canada should advance an argument that does not meet that criteria?”

“The answer is no. The opposition should read the whole document and look at the facts, not just the first line or the headlines.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the simple answer is no. I would invite members opposite to read beyond the first line of the directive because they would see there is substantial depth there. They should choose to look at the facts. I know my hon. friend here, who is a lawyer, has read the entirety of the decision and would understand why we have to read the whole thing, not just the headlines.”

“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?”

“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 →