Rebecca Alty

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we are not going to discuss our litigation strategy. The Conservatives have referenced the litigation direction, but they have read only one sentence out of principle number 14. Our government will always raise valid arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Litigation guideline number [more]

C-30 Mr. Speaker, an agreement cannot be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to [more]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to read all of litigation principle number 14. He has only read the first sentence. However, what I will talk about is the Cowichan case and the current status. As far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of litigation. However, the courts ruled against that. Since the ruling last summer, we consented to the Montrose [more]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Justice Arbour for her report, as well as congratulate her on her recent appointment as Governor General. With the world more and more uncertain and divisive, I would like to ask my colleague if she can speak to the importance of passing this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we will not be discussing our legal strategy on the House of Commons floor. However, yesterday, the Conservatives had a lot of questions about something that is public and available for them to read, which is the Musqueam agreement. Let me read the Musqueam agreement since they will not read it themselves. Section 5.1 of the [more]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite flagging the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. They reached a very different conclusion from Cowichan. Therefore, we now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity that we are seeking in the Cowichan case, which we appealed, the Government of British [more]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the [more]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding section 92 of Canada's Constitution. Private property clearly falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Cowichan, British Columbia is backstopping the properties. My question for the member is as follows: Can she explain how important it is for the provincial and federal governments to respect each other's jurisdictions?

Mr. Speaker, tied to both of my colleagues' questions, I think about the opportunity for improved communications, but also the uncertainty and fear that can happen in the investment world when the education is lacking. When there is talk about the federal government giving away all this land, which is inaccurate, that is misinformation and it leads to that uncertainty the member is speaking of. [more]

Mr. Speaker, the case is being appealed, so I would like to ask my colleague a question. Does she think that getting Parliament to influence the outcome of a trial could blur the boundary between political debate and judicial independence?

Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about that statement, but I am wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement does not reference private property because it does not deal with private property. Agreements do not reference everything they do not deal with. We only talk about things that the agreement is about. I am just wondering if the member opposite [more]

Mr. Speaker, can the member opposite speak to principle number 14, which they disagree with? I am wondering what his interpretation of principle number 14 is.

Mr. Speaker, the courts and litigation create uncertainty. This case began in 2014. The ruling ended in 2025. All parties appealed the decision. Montrose has asked for the trial to be reopened. We are awaiting the decision from the judge. Litigation can create uncertainty while we are working through these steps, which is why we prefer to work through negotiations. Agreements like that with [more]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention litigation guideline number 14, which the Conservatives have referenced a number of times. I encourage them to read beyond the first sentence and actually read the whole principle. If they get to the second sentence, they will see that all defences are available. However, “defences must not be pleaded simply in the hope that through discoveries or investigation [more]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can speak to the risk of directing litigation through the House of Commons and the risk of blurring the line between judicial and parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that, yes, I also speak to many residents who are concerned and have questions, but the important thing is to talk with residents and to explain the issue and not to stoke fear and confusion. In December 2025, the New Brunswick Court issued a decision on aboriginal title that ruled differently. Therefore, we have two court cases and two different [more]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave a number of histories of aboriginal title. However, he missed the Haida aboriginal title, which includes private property and Crown land. I am just wondering why he omitted to discuss that. It has been in legislation for the past two years. I am wondering if it just does not support the argument the Conservatives are trying to make.

Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking directly to Canadians who may be watching this debate today and feeling anxious or uncertain. As thehas made clear, “private property rights are fundamental...[and our government] will always defend them.” Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. Before [more]

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is still in active litigation and we are not going to talk about our legal strategy on the floor. However, what we can talk about are public agreements, which the Conservatives have called “secret”, the Musqueam agreements. They are available online. I encourage my Conservative colleagues to read them. These agreements did not appear overnight. In 2017, Musqueam [more]

Mr. Speaker, could the member tell us about the importance of clarity and legal certainty in this case and could she speak to whether this motion actually helps to provide such guarantees?