Tako Van Popta

Mr. Speaker, normally we would try to argue it in committee, but it got shut down. We have put forward a motion, a proposal, that the House form a committee to look at this issue. In the meantime, we need to argue it in the House. This is very important to Canadians. It is important to people in my riding and to people in metro Vancouver, because they are deeply concerned about the uncertainty [more]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard on a number of occasions that the Liberals appealed the decision as soon as they could. That is just not true. They waited until literally the last minute to appeal it. More importantly, the Liberals say they stand for private property rights. However, they did not use all the tools in their tool box to do that. Even though private property owners have not been named [more]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about misinformation as though the Conservatives, when we raise issues with or weaknesses in the Liberal Party, are spreading misinformation. All we are doing is shedding light on their incompetence. We have a real-life example in the Montrose application, which the minister has already mentioned. We talked to them. They had a project that was ready to go. [more]

Mr. Speaker, if I had a half-hour or an hour, I would have talked about all the interesting cases, but I had only 10 minutes. The Haida case is obviously a very important case. It talks about and expands on the principle of the duty to consult. I will not argue with that. There is a duty to consult. We agree with that. We agree that reconciliation is important, but to undermine the private [more]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the Conservative motion that is on the agenda today, which is calling on the Liberal government to put private property first in the Cowichan case, arguing that private property has priority over all other forms of title. We are saying this because the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision created massive uncertainty around fee simple property, the legal basis on which [more]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very interesting speech and recap of some of British Columbia's history. I am also a history fan, so I have read the whole case and would confirm some of the things she said. The member is saying that Cowichan does not stand for the proposition that aboriginal title threatens fee simple title. The problem with that, of [more]

Mr. Speaker, all morning, we on this side of the House have been raising some of the issues, some of the complexities, that have arisen from the Cowichan decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. It has been suggested by the Liberal side of the House that we are fearmongering or being misleading. I am very happy that the member opposite raised the issue of the Montrose application. He will be aware [more]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for her enlightening speech and for explaining the difference between “fee simple”, coming from British feudal law, and “absolute title”, coming from civil law. That was very enlightening. However, the same question still applies. Does the member think that absolute title and aboriginal title can coexist on the same piece of land at the [more]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Again, it was a short speech, and I did not have time to work everything into it. I have spoken to a number of the landowners, including a commercial landowner in the region who has a project under way. He had financing in place. He had tenants for the new warehouse complex he was going to build. All of it is on hold. The company is now making an [more]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment coming from a member who did not consult with the first nation communities in her riding when she asked to drop the indigenous name from the riding name. Yes, the Liberals today are saying that they will defend private property rights. However, they failed to do it before, and they have now worked themselves into a corner where they are not able to [more]