Rebecca Alty

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, the province, the City of Richmond, Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Cowichan are all appealing the Cowichan decision. There is also another court case. It is in New Brunswick. The Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion than what was reached in Cowichan. We now have two courts in Canada taking very different approaches. This divergence is exactly why [more]

Mr. Speaker, the motion that was presented yesterday was full of false information, including when they talked about the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement is available online, but I know the Conservatives have not read it. I will feel free to read section 5.1: “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements”. I will also read section 5.2: “This Agreement does not [more]

Mr. Speaker, at trial, Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown, and we will continue to do so on appeal. That 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 supported Montrose's application to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial, which is occurring [more]

Mr. Speaker, our government will always raise legally viable arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Litigation guideline number 14 does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a [more]

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]

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 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 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 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, 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]

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]