Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I believe the recommendation is fairly clear. It is recommendation number five from the Arbour report. I recommend that the member opposite read the recommendation. I do believe that military police, in dealing with the issue outside of Canada, have a level of expertise in collecting and protecting the integrity of evidence and securing the situation so that we can ultimately see justice served. Not all communities or theatres in which the Canadian Forces might participate have the same rule of law or the same court system or justice system that would match the Canadian system. I think the way it has been recommended—”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question because I think it goes two ways. The government has a responsibility. We are living up to that responsibility. Again, I will reinforce that, after this bill passes, the 48 recommendations will in fact be put in place. They are respectful, inclusive and absolutely critical. We need to continue to support our forces in the manner in which we have over the last 12 months. Second to no other Prime Minister in generations, we have a solid commitment. I also want to make reference to this. The member mentioned my time in the Armed Forces. I had the honour to serve for just over three years, which was an absolute privilege. It is the skill sets that are gained by members of the forces that turn out to be such a wonderful asset in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I addressed the issue of collaboration at the very beginning of my comments. I talked about how, at the first opportunity we had when we had a majority of members on the floor of the House of Commons, the first action that was taken was the passage of Bailey's law, which was a Conservative private member's bill. We have the silver alert legislation, which is again another Conservative piece of legislation, and we indicated we wanted to see it go to committee. Just yesterday we passed at third reading, amendments to a bill that deals with the CRA. The government has been very clear, and the Prime Minister has indicated very clearly, outside and inside this chamber, that we want to work collaboratively with opposition members, provincial governments, municipalities and indigenous communities. That is the right thing to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have confidence, given the direction from Madam Arbour, that for offences that take place outside Canada there is a role for the military police, and that they are more than capable of fulfilling that role, such as the gathering of evidence and working with civilian authorities back in Canada. I think that is the right direction, as has been instructed by Madam Arbour's report, which has my full support.”
“The Prime Minister has made it very clear that whether it is bringing our military to the 2% GDP, supporting our members of the Canadian Forces financially or providing a modernization of the industrialization of Canada's military supplies, we are going to be there to reinforce a strong and secure Canada. The Canadian Forces play an absolutely critical role, and this legislation is very important. I would suggest that the Conservative Party recognize that the last 12 months have demonstrated very clearly that the government is on the right track, and we need to continue to move forward. I will not vote for the amendment that the Conservatives want. The Conservatives are suggesting that it go back to committee and that they do not support Bill C-11 . I believe that is a mistake and they should be revisiting it and changing their position.”
“How does that counter the full report and the 48 recommendations? To what degree was that seriously taken into consideration within the Conservative caucus? Our newly appointed Governor General, who has to be apolitical, had a report. She had incredible credentials. We took a look at recruitment today. The numbers are high, a 30-year high in terms of people wanting to become a part of the regular forces, and the reserve numbers are also going up. We are changing the attitude. There is a more respectful culture within our Canadian Forces. We need to continue to move forward on this legislation, as it will pass.”
“I have a deep respect for what takes place in our standing committees. I understand the pros and cons, the filibusters, the things that come before standing committees, the difference in personalities, how personalities can make a difference and even how a chair can make a difference, but let there be no doubt that there are opportunities for us to see wonderful things come out of the standing committees. I do not want to take away from the standing committee, but I am confident that Madam Arbour would have been aware of the issues raised at the standing committee. There is no indecision in her recommendation. People will say that things change in time. Well, what was the Conservative Party of Canada's position a month ago? What they are saying, in essence, is that they have changed their position. Based on what?”
“Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. This should include: Sexual offences found in Part V of the Criminal Code ; Sexual offences found in Part VII of the Criminal Code , including but not limited to sexual assaults; and Any “designated offence” as defined in subsections 490.011(1)(a), (c), (c.1), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Criminal Code , to the extent not already captured above. That is the only recommendation, from what I understand, that has not been implemented of the 48 recommendations. It is a very clear and concise recommendation, I would suggest to members opposite. That is why I appreciate how the Bloc is positioning itself on the bill.”
“If we look at the report, we see that there are 48 recommendations, and 47 of them have actually been implemented. Here is the one that has not been implemented. It says: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. I want to highlight the word “exclusively”. I suspect that many of the arguments committee members would have heard at the last committee meeting, Madam Arbour would have also heard in the representations that were made to her. (1255) It continues: Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity.”
“When we take a look at the timeline, we see that in October 2021, Madam Arbour submitted the interim recommendations to immediately refer sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature under the Criminal Code to civilian authorities. On June 3, 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal issued a statement regarding the transfer and referral of cases alleged to have been committed by CAF members from the military police to federal, provincial and municipal police services. In August 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal amplified the original direction that came from December 2021 to state that all military police investigations into allegations of criminal offences of a sexual nature were now to be processed through civilian courts. There has already been a major shift in that direction.”
“However, it is encouraging to see the response to that appointment, and how exceptionally well she is being received into that position. It does not surprise me, because when I was talking about Madam Arbour, I talked about her credentials. In doing this report, there was no doubt a great deal of thought in making sure we got the right person to do it. One can do a quick Google search and get a good sense of who Madam Arbour is, as a jurist or an advocate, here in Canada and internationally. She is very familiar with the issues at hand, which put her in a great position to do the study and provide it to the government so that the government could ultimately straighten things out and build a more respectful, inclusive Canadian Forces.”
“(1250) If we flash back to the time when Madam Arbour was hired to take on that position and come up with the report, there was no lack of interest from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from first-hand victims of sexual abuse, which would include rape and others, to individual stakeholders who were on the periphery but wanted to provide direct input. These are the individuals I have mentioned; we are not talking about a dozen or so. Whether directly or indirectly, there were 100 going up to 1,000 contributions to the “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans” report by Madam Arbour. I cannot recall anyone being critical of that particular appointment. The last time we were debating this legislation, and I was talking about Madam Arbour, I had no idea that she was going to be Canada's Governor General.”
“When we look at Bill C-11 , what we need to really appreciate and understand, for those who are following the debate, is what Justice Arbour put on paper and the amount of effort she put into providing a report to the House of Commons. I believe that her report was right on. The recommendations she provided were right on. I made reference earlier to the recommendations that have been implemented, that I believed it was three dozen out of 48. I was really out. It is actually 47 of 48 recommendations that have been put into place. With the passage of Bill C-11, it would mean 48 of the 48 recommendations would be in place.”
“We all have, if not directly within our constituencies then close to our constituencies, reserve regiments or military armouries. It is wonderful to see first-hand those individuals who have committed to be part-time members of the Canadian Forces. Again, we see that growth. A combination of things has enabled that to take place. It was not that many years ago, eight or nine years ago, when the serious issue of sexual exploitation, harassment and abuse was making headline news in media throughout the country. A decision was made that we needed to act upon that. How could we build the Canadian Forces without making sure the people who are prepared to make the sacrifice to participate feel they will be respected?”
“The recruitment, in terms of numbers, and the level of interest today are far greater than they were a year ago because, I believe, people are understanding and appreciating that this is a government and a Prime Minister that are committed to building a stronger Canadian Forces. There are many benefits to doing that. If we look at the industries that support our military, our industrial industries, there are many different opportunities for businesses with the growth we are bringing to our Canadian Forces. It is an excellent opportunity. For example, in Winnipeg, I believe we will see growth in our aerospace industry as a direct result of the commitment to grow our Canadian Forces. We can look at the important role that our reserves play in our forces.”
“We had a president of the United States speak on the floor of the House about the importance of Canada contributing its fair share toward our forces and the United Nations. We were at an all-time low 18 years ago; I think it was just under 1% of Canada's GDP. Our Prime Minister today, during the last federal election, made a commitment to get it to 2%. Not only have we achieved it, but we literally achieved it months ago. For the first time in generations, Canada is back up to 2% of our GDP in supporting our Canadian Forces. When we talk about the importance of building Canada strong and secure, our Canadian Forces play a critical role in that.”
“I like to think all members want to see that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I must say, you look great in that chair. I believe all members would like to have that sort of an environment in our forces. We have made significant gains to that point. Last year, there were around 7,000 new members going into the regular force. Thousands more applications are being received. The size of our reserve forces is also growing. I believe the Prime Minister has helped changed the mindset that people have when looking at the Canadian Forces today. (1245) Over the years, I have witnessed first-hand how governments have talked about increasing the overall funding, compared to GDP, to the Canadian Forces.”
“The government has a healthy, strong legislative agenda as we try to look at ways we could develop, promote and make public policy that Canadians from coast to coast to coast would benefit from. That is the driving factor behind the government, and I believe we have demonstrated that. There is a reason that the amendments to this bill were ultimately rejected at report stage, and I will go into that shortly. Before I do that, I want to say I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. Even though it was just over three years, it helped shape who I am today. I love my country, I love the community in which I live, and I want to make our Canadian Forces stronger and healthier and to build an environment that is respectful and encourages involvement by those who want to be members of our regular force or our reserves.”
“In fact, the very first action of the government since having a majority in the House of Commons was to pass a Conservative private member's bill, Bailey's law. Then, just the other day, I was speaking on silver alerts, another Conservative private member's bill. We are seeing that bill go to committee. Yesterday, I was speaking about how corporations are not necessarily paying their taxes, because of bankruptcy, and how we could get more information about that through the CRA. Again, that legislation passed third reading yesterday. That, in itself, speaks volumes in terms of the government's willingness to continue to work collaboratively with opposition parties. I would encourage the member to continue to look at ways we could improve legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C‑11 and to share a few thoughts. I would like to address both the previous speakers from the Bloc, who talked about the government since it has become a majority. I want to be very respectful. The last member spoke about when a bill goes to committee and whether she should prepare amendments, as she is not sure whether the amendments would actually be listened to by the government. The government has demonstrated, in a very clear fashion, its desire, and in particular that of the Prime Minister , to work collaboratively with opposition members, with all members. If members have good ideas, we want to hear about them. That is a message that the Prime Minister has been very clear on. We actually have some very good, tangible examples that have taken place in the last week.”
“Mr. Speaker, in one sense, I am encouraged that the Bloc members are going to be supporting the legislation, recognizing that we do need to take cases of sexual assaults and abuse out of the military system and put them into the civilian justice system. That is encouraging. I hope to address the concerns of the member and of the previous speaker in my comments shortly. I would reinforce that the bill would be based on the Arbour report and its findings. She came up with a number of recommendations. Personally, I am very comfortable with those recommendations and hope to be able to substantiate it. It is more of a comment than a question, in case the member has anything else she would like to add.”
“Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot about the consultations that have taken place. I would refer the member to Justice Arbour's report and the amount of work involved in the presentation of that report. I have made reference to the 48 recommendations in total, of which I believe three dozen have been implemented. The essence of this bill deals with one specific recommendation that is based on literally hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, CAF members and others. I believe it is the right recommendation. What are the member's thoughts with regard to that specific recommendation where we would transfer cases from the military to the civilian court?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 974 , 975 , 976 , 977 , 979 , 980 , 981 , 982 , 983 , 984 , 985 , 986 , 987 , 988 , 989 , 990 , 991 , 992 , 993 , 994 , 995 , 996 , 997 , 998 , 999 , 1000 and 1001 , and a response to Starred Question No. 978 , could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives talk about jobs, but in reality, they do not want us to do anything. Listen to what the Conservatives say. Their policies, in one word, suck. Let me tell members something. When we look at what this government has done over the last year, we see that we have been building major projects, looking to expand export opportunities and bringing billions of dollars in investment. Those things are going to create the jobs that Canadians want, not only today, but also into the future. It is time the Conservative Party wake up, get on side and be a little more—”
“Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, the Prime Minister and the government understand the real value of our public health care system. One of the wonderful initiatives we are taking is investing $5 billion over three years to improve the infrastructure of our health care systems. These are things such as improvements to emergency services, hospital capital and other health care facilities, so provinces can prioritize what they believe is important. Personally, I am plugging for the Seven Oaks General Hospital re-establishing its emergency services. The bottom line is that, as a government, we understand and appreciate the needs of our health care system. As a government, we will continue to support our health care because we believe in Canadians, and Canadians want public health care.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised, but I am disappointed in the Conservatives for their position on Bill C-11 . I think they undervalue the tremendous work that former Justice Arbour did in providing the recommendations that the essence of the legislation is all about. There were 48 recommendations. I believe 36 of them have already been implemented. At the core is the transfer of cases from military authorities to civil justice authorities. That is the very core. Arbour met with hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, everyone from victims to advocates. She herself, who is going to be our next governor general, is recognized around the world as someone who has incredible credentials. Why is the Conservative Party not agreeing with those recommendations and the essence of the Arbour report?”
“It is something I personally would not want, but I applaud the efforts that, I would argue, 90% plus put in day in and day out so that governments at different levels are able to have the monies necessary to provide absolutely essential services, like health care, or supports to grow the economy, all of which are absolutely critical and the reason taxes are so important. At the end of the day, we want transparency and accountability. We want the taxpayers to know they have a system they can have confidence in. This government will always push for people paying their fair share.”
“However, we have standing committees that can contribute in a very positive way by going through the types of documents we would be able to draw out, which can improve the system. I realize my time is coming to an end, but I want to emphasize one other thing, which is the incredible people who work for the CRA. The Canada Revenue Agency is second to no other agency in the world, I would argue, in terms of the degree to which it supports private individuals, the people we represent, and the businesses and so forth. It is an incredible task its workers have.”
“A better understanding of where that is coming from, as it could be the types of companies or all sorts of things, can be drawn out if that information is made available, while at the same time privacy laws are respected. We would all benefit from that. For the Government of Canada and particularly our new Prime Minister , the issue of accountability and transparency applies to government expenditures and the collection of the finances we get in many different forms. It is being responsible with tax dollars. It is ensuring that smart decisions are in fact being made on behalf of the taxpayer. It is recognizing that when the registry is fully operational there is likely going to be a great deal of attention drawn to it. That attention is not going to be all good. We recognize that in government.”
“I am not 100% sure, but I think it is around the $2-million mark. That means having that registry, having that data. Information is so critically important not only from a government perspective but also from an opposition perspective. If it is done the way it could be done, the real winners are actually the taxpayers because they should have that sense of taxation policy and where it is that we are falling short. When we think of corporations and small businesses in general, a vast majority pay their taxes at the appropriate time. They pay their debts and make sure, through those contributions, that we all benefit as a society. In regard to accountability and transparency, there is a percentage there, a very real and tangible percentage, where a significant amount of revenue is in fact lost.”
“Canadians want parliamentarians of different political stripes to work together, recognize where we can make a social policy change, shift or modification, whatever it might be, and act on it. That is exactly what is happening here this evening. We now have before us legislation that would ensure more accountability for corporations that write off money owed to the CRA. Uncollected money owed to the CRA impacts our general revenues. There is an obligation for government to show transparency where it can and, at the same time, respect privacy law concerns. (1750) We need to be sensitive to the privacy laws we have. The legislation before us deals with that. It would allow the CRA, and the government ultimately, to provide more information. I believe there was an amendment brought forward with respect to the threshold.”
“We have the GST rebate being converted to the groceries and essentials benefit program. Eleven million Canadians are going to benefit from that. Taxation policy makes a difference and matters. That is not possible unless we have the confidence of Canadians that the system is fair, accountable and transparent. This is what the government has focused a great deal of attention on. Bill C-230 would add value to that. I had the opportunity, over the last week or so, to amplify the word “collaboration”. The government is very focused on recognizing where there is value in private members' bills, and we look to the Conservatives recognizing the same thing in government bills. Where there is value, we should try to get bills through the House and into committee, allow them to get through third reading and, ultimately, pass the legislation.”
“The principles behind it are very sound. At the end of the day, Canadians do not mind paying taxes, as long as there is a sense of integrity within the system and, most importantly, a sense of fairness. People are prepared to pay taxes as long as they feel they are fair and equitable. We often talk about taxes. People are very much concerned nowadays about how the government might be able to assist with affordability. The importance of taxation policy is absolutely critical during different types of business cycles that a nation goes through. That is one of the reasons we have to have the confidence of the citizenry regarding taxation policy. In this case, just over a year ago, the Prime Minister , for example, gave tax relief on the carbon tax. That was followed by a substantial tax cut that provided support for 22 million people.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-230 . I referred to the efforts by the member opposite in bringing forward the legislation. The government sees the legislation, as amended, as very much part of what the government wants to see happen: more accountability, more transparency and protecting the integrity of the CRA and the system, because it is of the utmost importance. The issue of collaboration was referred to, in the form of a question. I like to think that in the last week or so, we have debated private members' bills. Today, we are talking about Bill C-230 . Bailey's law was passed. We had another Conservative piece of legislation, just yesterday, that we were okay with going to committee, and that was with regard to silver alerts. Today, we are talking about another important piece of legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for his general approach in dealing with Bill C-230 . He has identified an issue that has been a priority for the government, and he has put forward something, working in a collaborative fashion. Some changes were made at the committee stage. He might have like to have added a little more value from his perspective, but he put forward the idea of working in collaboration delivers for Canadians, and I applaud him for taking that initiative. This is more of a comment than a question: Hopefully we will see more collaboration on private members' bills and government bills in general for the benefit of all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to think I am always truthful. I can tell the member that, any time I have had any form of discussion or been part of a discussion with the Prime Minister about anything dealing with economic development, he is one of the individuals who constantly raises the issue of indigenous peoples' concerns and making sure that we advance the—”
“Mr. Speaker, the rule of law and respect for judicial independence are so critically important in Canada. If we take a look at the motion, it is suggesting that we have a standing committee do what our courts are in the process of doing. It is somewhat bizarre, if we really want to stop to think about it. Maybe what might have been more appropriate is if the official opposition were to consider raising the issue as a possible agenda item, and maybe changed the topic somewhat, maybe broadened it. I think the Conservatives should have gotten better advice before even introducing the motion. As I say, it causes more damage, and it is more divisive. It is a motion that should not be supported, quite frankly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I disagree with what the member is implying in terms of a conclusion. I would suggest that we all need to be humble and working for Canadians first and foremost. The very first action we did when new members were introduced and we had the majority was that we passed Bailey's law. Bailey's law was a Conservative bill. Yesterday, again, we talked about a Conservative bill and are seeing it go to committee. I think we will get collaboration where there is a need, and at times, we might not agree with the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the Bloc on issues. It is possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we know, it is against the rules for me to say whether the member has been in the House or not, but I can guarantee that he has not been listening because there have been many members of Parliament from the government caucus addressing this issue today. If he would have been listening, he would have seen good representation from B.C. However, I can tell the member opposite that this is more than just a British Columbia issue. This is an issue for which, from coast to coast to coast, Canadians as a whole want to see reconciliation. They want to see us move forward in making sure that, unlike what the Conservatives want, there is more unity in the country as opposed to the division they promote.”
“The attitudes in many of the comments we hear coming from the far-right Conservative Party today do not support the idea of reconciliation and working in a collaborative way in resolving the issues that are so important to our nation. If we want to build a stronger, healthier nation, we have to recognize the role of first nations, of provinces and of others. If we do not do that, we will never hit the potential that Canada can hit. That is why it is so critically important that we continue to look at ways in which we can improve the conditions and that we continue to look at the ways the Prime Minister has set an agenda that will raise the level of support and economic and social benefit for all Canadians in all regions of the country. I would ask the Conservatives—”
“We understand the importance of reconciliation. We understand the importance of private property rights. We can actually have both at the same time. With respect to the collaboration that we have been very successful at over the last number of months since a new Prime Minister was elected, all one needs to do is look at the results. On the one hand, we have the government that is prepared to do the collaboration that is necessary, and where there is a need for legal action, the Government of Canada will be ready for that. However, we are not going to abandon our responsibilities, nor are we going to allow for Conservative misinformation to be let out and ultimately cause fear among the population. With respect to reconciliation and when we talk about indigenous and non-indigenous relationships, the motion would not help.”
“We have a Prime Minister , elected just over a year ago, who is determined, as is every Liberal member of Parliament, to deliver for Canadians an economy and society that we can all be very proud of. What would the motion actually do? Would it add value to what we are trying to accomplish as parliamentarians? I would say no, it would not, because it actually promotes misinformation. It causes Canadians to become worried where they do not need to be worried. In many ways, it would put us a step back in terms of the issue of reconciliation. When divisive motions of this nature are being debated in the House, it might be good for the far-right Conservatives to do some fundraising with, and it might fit their far-right agenda, but I would argue it does not fit Canadians' agenda, based on the values we have.”
“(1645) In order to achieve the potential that Canada has, we have to recognize that we have to work in collaboration with the many different stakeholders and governments with whom we are obligated to do so, whether that is municipalities, first nations, indigenous communities, the provinces and so forth. It is not an option. The Government of Canada needs to. It is an obligation. We are talking about billions upon billions of dollars of investment in major projects. There is a great deal of consultation and work taking place. Put it in the perspective of the importance of reconciliation and the 94 calls to action, on which the government over the last number of years has been proactively moving forward.”
“We need to listen to what the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said earlier today: “It is already Government of Canada policy to only make rights and title agreements that protect the private property of Canadians. I can assure this House, and all Canadians, that we will not, nor would we ever, entertain or even consider an agreement where Canadians lose their private property.” I do not know how much more clear the Government of Canada can be on the issue. It begs the question, why is there this type of emotion before us today, at a time when we are trying to build a stronger, healthier nation?”
“We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.” Here is another quote from May 5: “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights.” In April, the Prime Minister stated, “We will always advance viable legal arguments to protect private property. Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property.” The Prime Minister has been very clear, as has the government.”
“The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations articulated it exceptionally well, and I would like to provide a couple of quotes, as the Conservatives try to give misinformation and misquote what the Prime Minister has said. I just did a very quick search for examples over the last few days. On May 5, the Prime Minister said, “The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision.”
“The Conservatives are using the terms “private property” and “protection of private property”. They are trying to wrap things around that and then implant in the minds of Canadians, in particular the residents of B.C., that they are going to lose their home, that the potential is there and that it could happen. They are promoting fear where there is no need to promote fear, because it is just not true. The Conservatives know that. The Conservatives, the far right today, understand the issue of private property rights. It has not changed. It has been happening for generations now. They cannot cite one example, one case, where a negotiated agreement, a modern treaty or a federal agreement between Canada and first nations forced a homeowner to sell their property. The Prime Minister has been very clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the secretary of state responsible for rural development . I think he sends a very powerful message that it is time we recognize the need for and the importance of collaboration, working together to try to build that stronger Canada and listening to what his father would have said in giving him advice about Canada, building it together and building it stronger. I think it was good, sound advice. It is something we can apply today in the House of Commons. We need to understand the motivation behind the motion that the Conservatives have put on the floor today, and what it is about, what its real purpose is. As the secretary of state for rural development said, we want to have a team Canada approach of working together, in collaboration. The motion would actually do the absolute opposite.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we think of the modern treaties or agreements between the federal government and first nations and so forth, there has never been an example where the federal government has forfeited private property rights. That is a challenge I would put to Conservatives. I would ask them to give me an example of where that has taken place. Is the leader of the Green Party aware of any?”