“We support this self-government bill because the land claim was already settled in 1993. We can also support treaties that involve land, as long as they protect private property.”

“Mr. Speaker, that would be impossible to say, because most self-government agreements include a land claim, so those two things are not separate. They can have modern treaties that involve land in what we would be supporting. What I was going to say to supplement, and should have said during the first round, is that what makes this piece of legislation very easy to accept is that the land claim was done in 1993. The land claim was already settled. This one, however, is focused on government, but there are many treaties that have come forward that we have supported, one being that of Whitecap Dakota Nation, that actually involved land and that we supported and rushed through the House in just a few days. Therefore, there are opportunities for treaties that involve land, as long as they are not impacting private property, or they include protections for private property. That is a line we cannot cross.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The minister said this agreement is a model for future treaties. But another recent treaty relies on a United Nations declaration. I want my colleague to explain why Canadian treaties should be based on Canadian ideas instead of foreign ones.”

“Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate today, we heard the minister say that this agreement is a model to inform future treaties, yet the most recent treaty, the K’ómoks Treaty, which my colleague also mentioned, introduces the concept of UNDRIP, a foreign document. This is not made in Canada. Could my colleague comment on how important it is for Canada to stick to made-in-Canada solutions when we are drafting our treaties?”

“Indigenous tribes from the United States should not have a say in Canadian decisions about energy projects and resources. The government must make sure only Canada decides these matters.”

“Mr. Speaker, that also brings the point we were discussing earlier, and yesterday in committee, that there are U.S. tribes that are trying to seek legal standing in decisions to be made in Canada, specifically around consultation, whether about energy projects or otherwise. U.S. tribes should not be interfering in decisions made in Canada. These are our projects and our resources, and these are our benefits to achieve. We do not need interference from any outside sources, so the government should be doing everything it can to ensure that our decisions are made domestically, not internationally.”

• 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 →

“We support solving land claims and self-government. But we have a problem when the government leaves private property open to negotiations and creates uncertainty for landowners.”

“Mr. Speaker, we understand that solving land claims and self-governance are good things. They are not always mutually exclusive. They often intertwine and are the same. We are more than happy for land claims be resolved and for there to be self-government over those lands. We would be very supportive, but the government is mixing up the two. The land claim here, and I am talking about Bill C-27, not anything else at this moment, was already dealt with, so we are dealing only with the governance structure of it. Whitecap Dakota Nation had the self-governance and cleaned up the land claim as well, which was supported. They both can become one, and they both can be supported by us, except when the government creates something where it stops arguing for fee simple property, such as in the Cowichan decision, which allowed uncertainty to take hold in the city of Richmond. That is something we have an issue with. There is a Musqueam agreement that is like a menu, in which the government, knowing the uncertainty Cowichan created, did not ensure that private property was not available for negotiation. It may not include private property at the end of the day, but the fact that the government failed to take it off the table is a shortfall on its part.”

“I cannot say if we will support future agreements until the government shows us the details. Other agreements were handled poorly. The minister needs to give a specific example for me to give a clear answer.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this. It depends what the government is putting on the table. I think we have outlined what we will support and what we will not. If the minister, in the time available, would like to lay out a specific example, maybe I could give a better answer. She is throwing out, “Will Conservatives support this?”, but we do not know what would be in it. If the K’ómoks Treaty were done properly, I think we would have a better chance of pushing it through the House. If the Cowichan decision were argued properly, I think we would have a different outcome for the people of the city of Richmond. To answer this broad question that could include anything, when the government is not putting anything on the table, is very difficult.”

“Westbank First Nation in my riding has its own self-government agreement. What message does the member think people across British Columbia want to hear from the Conservatives about this?”

“Mr. Speaker, Westbank First Nation is one of the indigenous communities in my riding. It obviously has its own governance agreement. Would the member enlighten us and say what he believes is a good message for people, not just in the Okanagan but right across B.C.? What would they like to hear from the Conservative Party right now?”

“Economic growth helps both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. We need to build things faster to create jobs and wealth, but the government keeps getting in the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think what I laid out in my speech is that economic activity and economic reconciliation benefit all people, whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. We need to build quickly, and the government is not doing that. If we build quickly, we have jobs, opportunity and wealth, but the government is throwing every barrier in the way. In addition, I mentioned Tom Siddon and his wife, Pat, and the member will be happy to know that I mentioned the work they did on the land claim in 1993 to finalize it for those nations.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →