Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, there are already accountability measures and mechanisms within this House. The Auditor General, for example, puts out multiple reports. In 2021, there was a report on the shortcomings and missed promises when it came to water legislation. Only years later, on something so fundamental to human life, as everybody needs water, are the Liberals acting on legislation they promised a long time ago. They are still fighting in courts on this issue too. What would be different with a new commissioner's office in comparison to how the Liberals have failed to live up to reports the Auditor General cites against the government?

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. I rise today to speak on Bill C-10 and the important question of how Canada honours its modern treaties and self-government agreements with indigenous peoples. Let me begin by making something very clear. Conservatives support modern treaties and self-government agreements. We believe these agreements can provide certainty, establish clear legal relationships, recognize indigenous jurisdiction and create stronger foundations for economic development and self-determination. For generations, the relationship between first nations and the federal government has been shaped by the Indian Act. It has created dependency, bureaucracy and a system in which too many decisions affecting indigenous communities remain concentrated in Ottawa. Modern treaties and self-government agreements offer a different path. They can establish defined rights and responsibilities between indigenous governments and the Crown. They can provide greater certainty for communities, governments, investors and Canadians. They can support indigenous nations in exercising greater control over their own affairs. From our perspective, that is the direction we should be working toward: less dependency on federal bureaucracy, greater Indigenous self-government and legally defined relationships that deliver results. The question before us is whether Bill C-10, as designed, would meaningfully advance those objectives, or would it create another federal office, another reporting structure and another process that does not adequately address the root causes of the problems? In my opinion, this legislation does nothing more than create more ineffective processes posed as solutions in Ottawa, away from the communities that have been waiting for the government to fulfill the spirit and intent of treaty-making. The government has told us that the legislation is intended to create a credible, effective, sustainable and independent oversight mechanism. This is an important objective, but Parliament has a responsibility to ask whether the proposed powers will be sufficient to achieve it. The bill would give the commissioner the discretion to conduct reviews and performance audits, establish priorities and prepare reports. The commissioner would have to submit final reports to the Speakers of both Houses, and those reports would be referred to a parliamentary committee. As a first-time MP, I have now witnessed multiple Auditor General reports on the shortcomings of indigenous relations with government. The government response is the same: minuscule and meaningless. That raises a serious question. Will this office have the power to drive results, or will it primarily document failures and report them to Parliament? Reporting is important, and transparency matters, but reporting alone does not guarantee that a treaty obligation will be fulfilled. The historic treaties that are over 150 years old can attest to this. We have seen this challenge in other areas of indigenous services. Consider the Auditor General's work on access to safe drinking water in first nations communities. In 2021, the Auditor General reported that Indigenous Services Canada was not on track to eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021, which is another failed Liberal promise. The audit identified concerns involving support to communities; funding for infrastructure, operations and maintenance; and the non-existence of an appropriate regulatory framework. Only five years later, after striking out on Bill C-61 because they called an election, are the Liberals addressing these concerns with legislation that is “watered down,” according to chiefs. These are clearly not the actions of a government that takes accountability reports seriously. In 2025, the Auditor General's follow-up examined the implementation of recommendations from six earlier audits covering programs including primary health care, emergency management and safe drinking water. The follow-up found that Indigenous Services Canada made poor progress on many recommendations, even getting worse on some measurements. These reports demonstrate why Parliament must distinguish between accountability processes and the achievement of outcomes. The lesson is not that audits have no value but that audits must lead to action. When a government department receives recommendations, Canadian and indigenous communities deserve to know what will change, who is responsible and when the work will be completed. The same principle should apply to modern treaty implementation. If the commissioner identifies a recurring failure, what happens next? Will the responsible department be required to produce a corrective action plan? Will the minister be expected to explain delays? Will Parliament be able to follow up on unresolved findings? These are not abstract questions. They go directly to the credibility of the proposed institution. This raises more questions on how this legislation lacks real teeth. How would this legislation and the commissioner's office deal with the diversity and complexity of modern treaties? I seriously fear that the legislation would set up a parliamentary institution to fail because it lacks the foresight and legitimacy to deal with the root issues. The government has indicated that the co-development process involved all 30 indigenous modern treaty partners. That is good, but that demonstrates the breadth of the relationships that the proposed office would need to understand. Modern treaties are not identical documents. They reflect different histories, negotiations, geographical circumstances, governance structures and arrangements between indigenous governments and the Crown. Some contain detailed provisions regarding lands and resources. Others include self-government arrangements and distinct institutional responsibilities. The bill gives the commissioner discretion to establish their own priorities and determine the number and frequency of reviews, performance audits and briefings conducted annually. This would create a practical challenge. How could one commissioner meaningfully determine the priorities across such a wide range of treaty obligations and indigenous governments? Which treaty partner would receive attention first? How would competing concerns be evaluated? What would happen when a matter is urgent to one indigenous government but is not identified as a priority by the commissioner? What would happen when overlapping interests in land between indigenous communities comes into conflict? Would the commissioner's office be able to intervene on such things? Modern treaties operate on the principle of cross-ministry implementation. How can one ill-defined commissioner's office meaningfully navigate a 345,000-member public service system across dozens of ministries and hundreds of departments? That is a recipe for failure. The legislation would do little to to ensure that this discretion does not undermine treaty-specific arrangements or leave important implementation problems without timely attention. A strong oversight framework needs transparent criteria for establishing priorities. It should also provide meaningful opportunities for treaty partners to identify concerns and request reviews. Conservatives believe in a strong future for first nations and indigenous peoples. We believe in self-government. We believe in modern treaties. We believe that clear legal relationships between indigenous governments and the Crown can provide certainty, support economic development and strengthen self-determination. We believe that the Indian Act should not be the permanent foundation of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. The goal should be to support indigenous nations in exercising greater control over their own affairs with legally defined relationships and practical mechanisms for resolving disputes and fulfilling obligations. Bill C-10 should be evaluated against those objectives. If Parliament is going to establish an oversight office, it should ensure that the office has a clear and effective mandate. That includes transparent criteria for selecting review priorities, meaningful involvement of modern treaty partners, public reporting on unresolved implementation problems, clear expectations for the government's responsive and corrective action, and regular review of the office's effectiveness and costs. These are measures that could help strengthen accountability while respecting the distinct legal arrangements established by modern treaties. Let me conclude by returning to the principle that should guide this debate. Modern treaties are about relationships, rights, responsibilities and the future of indigenous nations and Canada. They are not simply administrative agreements to be reviewed by federal officials. They are legal commitments that require serious implementation. Support for modern treaties must also mean demanding that the federal government honour its obligations. Bill C-10 provides insufficient accountability on whether its proposed commissioner could effectively address the diversity of modern treaties and whether the office would produce meaningful results for treaty partners. Let us in this House continue to work toward a relationship between indigenous nations and Canada built on respect, certainty, responsibility and self-government, not one based on, arguably, the bare minimum in legislation that actually takes time and energy away from doing the work of building up the implementation of treaties. We cannot measure success simply by the number of audits completed or reports tabled. We must measure success by whether the treaty commitments are fulfilled by the government and treaty negotiators themselves.

Certainly, Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the years of work from those nations that have gone into this. However, I think that after 11 years of Liberal government, they have been beaten down so much that the bare minimum actually sounds great to a lot of people. We can look at the water legislation. It has come back to the table, as was indicated earlier, and their latest complaint is that the legislation has completely ignored first nations' consultation over the last year. For this one, just to get it over the finish line, I get where the nations are coming from, but it could go further. It could go to a lot less meaningless bureaucracy at the end of the day.

Madam Speaker, today's discussion primarily revolves around modern treaties, but I actually come from the historic treaties. It is Treaty 6's 150th anniversary this year. In fact, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, they have treaty commissioners. I understand there was some minimal engagement with the design of those offices, but today those offices do nothing themselves to serve the treaty obligations in terms of meaningful impact. We are seeing historic record numbers of land claims, historic record numbers of lawsuits against the government, because of a lack of actual substance in these commissioners' offices. I do not see anything different with this one, despite a lot of the work that has gone into it.

Madam Speaker, the government's principal direction with this legislation is a little misguided, or a lot misguided. There are commissioners negotiating and treaty negotiators within the departments themselves. I just visited a nation this summer that said it was insulted by the government sending a young, first-time public servant, and I feel sorry for that public servant, but it was an insult to those nations. I think the government should be concentrating on the department negotiators themselves, rather than a mechanism it knows is set up for failure to ultimately hold it accountable, which is going to go nowhere.

Well, Madam Speaker, I would pose a question back. How would it actually lead to obligation in the action of the government to implement those treaties? Again, Auditor General reports and other reports have not led to that obligation, that action. We have record numbers of land claims and lawsuits against the government because of its lack of action, so I would flip the question back to the member.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting my first petition, petition e-6909, which has approximately 13,000 signatures. The petitioners call on the government to protect the records and testimony of residential school survivors. I know there is some ambiguity with respect to these records. There is a conversation still happening in Canada. Ultimately, reconciliation is most important when we talk about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. At the end of the day, the survivors and their families deserve justice. The conversation is still happening in Canada, but before we can have reconciliation, the truth needs to be kept and upheld. There is some great work that has been done by the truth and reconciliation centre out of Winnipeg, but this ambiguity needs to be addressed by the House of Commons so that it can be a forthright and respectful conversation going forward with Canadians, and we can all, Canadians and indigenous peoples, move forward in a country that is focused on a bright future together.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been good at announcing programs, dollars and funds, but it is really blank on the details. I am wondering if the minister knows what codes are on the first nations themselves and if he is going to invest from the public purse into first nation homes. There is a shortage of 157,000 homes, and the national building codes and provincial codes do not apply on first nations. What codes will he be building to when investing this money from the public purse in first nations?

Mr. Speaker, in 2020, the Liberals told chiefs they would make first nations policing an essential service, with new legislation and expanded service and number of communities served. Six years later, nothing has been done, and we hear every week from first nations of how their people are dying because of these broken promises when it comes to safety. On what date will the Liberals table that policing bill and keep their promises for once?

Mr. Speaker, the Older, Bolder, Better event, Alberta's largest Seniors' Week event, was recently hosted by the WE Seniors at my home of Enoch Cree Nation's River Cree Resort. I am proud that the Westend Seniors Activity Centre, which is the gathering place for thousands of Edmonton seniors, is located in my community of Edmonton Northwest. Congratulations to the CEO, Dr. Haidong Liang, and his whole team for their hard work in welcoming over 1,200 elders and over 120 vendors specializing in serving the silver economy. As the local member of Parliament, I had the honour of being the keynote speaker, and I was proud to take our Conservative Party of Canada's message back to Edmonton that an empowered Alberta belongs in a united Canada. I encourage all Albertans to remember the sacrifices that our parents, our grandmothers, our grandfathers and our ancestors made to build our province in our country that we call home. In their honour, take action to keep Alberta in a united Canada this fall.

Madam Speaker, the AFN estimates that there are 157,000 new homes needed to address the severe housing crisis on first nation reserves in addition to the 81,000 existing units needing major renovations. The minister announced some indigenous incentives in this, but the numbers add up to about 3,400 homes across 600‑plus first nations. Can the minister address more systematic fixes when it comes to first nations housing crises, rather than just band‑aids?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for her advocacy. She mentioned the infrastructure needed even before we build homes, for things like water. I note that the Liberals have 11 years of broken promises when it comes to the promises they made about indigenous water, in addition to breaking their promise in this Parliament on water legislation two times. Let us grant them leniency on that just for now and say they are going to build homes for indigenous communities. There is a shortage of 157,000 homes on first nations reserves alone. What dent would Build Canada Homes put in that? What is the specific number of homes it would build on reserve?

Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured to share my time with the member for London—Fanshawe. Today residents in Edmonton Northwest are feeling the increasing pressure of unaffordability. Yes, there is global uncertainty, but global uncertainty is not an excuse to delay implementing the necessary relief Canadians need today. As the PM rhetorically says, “We need to focus on what we can control,” and what his government controls is taxes. For Canadian families, high gas and food prices are not a new reality exacerbated by global conflict. For many, this comes after a decade of rising costs, higher taxes and inflationary spending from a government that recklessly tries to convince Canadians that the government is not the problem. Canadians know better. Families in Edmonton Northwest tell me that rising costs at the gas pump are forcing impossible choices. They are deciding between filling their tanks and paying for essentials like groceries or rent. For many families, driving is not a luxury. It is not optional. It is how they get to work, take their children to school activities, attend appointments and remain connected to their communities. Just last week, I spent some time with seniors in Edmonton Northwest, and they shared with me how much their lives have changed. They told me they are seeing their loved ones less often because their already stretched pensions simply do not go far enough. Something as simple as driving across the city to spend time with family is becoming harder to afford. Think about that: Canadians who have worked their entire lives and contributed to their communities are now being forced to think twice before driving to visit the people they love the most. This is not just a financial issue. It is a quality of life issue. The same applies to accessing health services and social activities. These rising fuel costs do not just affect families. Businesses in Edmonton Northwest, like K-Bro Linen, face growing operating costs. Organizations such as Chrysalis, which serves persons with disabilities, the YMCA, Play On!, Special Olympics Alberta, the Westend Seniors Activity Centre, Islamic Family and the Beulah Alliance Church, all depend on transportation to deliver services and support their communities. When fuel costs rise, this impacts everyone. It affects volunteers driving to programs, parents taking their children to activities, workers commuting to their jobs and organizations trying to meet the needs of the people they serve. When people cannot afford to fill up their tanks, families, businesses and communities suffer. These are the people who need relief from Liberal fuel taxes the most. Edmonton has the most refinery capacity in our country and is proud to supply everyone as much as possible with essential fuel and energy to sustain their lives. We should not feel the stress of high prices caused by government taxes for our own resources, but the impact does not stop there. Rising fuel prices increase the cost of transporting goods across our country. Groceries do not appear on store shelves on their own. Materials do not arrive at construction sites without transportation. Small businesses do not receive their supplies without trucks on the road. Every increase at the gas pump creates a chain reaction throughout the economy. Businesses face higher transportation costs. Those costs are passed along to consumers, and Canadians end up paying more for the necessities they need every day. Higher gas prices also impact public services. K-Bro Linen in Edmonton Northwest faces higher costs to deliver uniforms and other items to health care providers and other service providers across Edmonton. This impact is felt in indigenous communities and local governments as well. Communities such as Ermineskin Cree Nation face increasing costs to operate essential services like water delivery and utilities. Communities such as James Smith Cree Nation feel additional strain in operating community safety, policing services, security services and administration. Rising fuel costs place greater pressure on services that people rely on every day. For many rural and indigenous communities, transportation costs carry an even greater burden. Distances are longer, options are fewer and services are often spread out. Rising fuel costs can mean even higher operating expenses for communities already working hard to deliver services and support their members. The community members often most affected are children, seniors and women, many of whom already face limited and expensive transportation. Canada should be in one of the strongest positions in the world. We are a country rich in natural resources, especially oil and gas, with the potential to strengthen our economy and contribute to global energy needs. For years, our resource sector has raised concerns about the regulatory barriers, permit delays and uncertainty that have slowed development and investment. More than a decade ago, global oil prices were at similar levels, yet Canadians paid 50¢ less at the pump. Canadians are asking a reasonable question: Why are they paying more today? When governments burden our resource sector with additional bureaucracy and taxes, every person feels the impact. Investment slows, opportunities are delayed and costs continue to rise for Canadian families. In a time when Canadian families are already facing economic challenges, we should be doing everything in our power to help them get ahead, yet many professionals in Edmonton Northwest are struggling to keep up with the pressures they face. The motion before us highlights another reality. Gas prices in Canada are 13% higher than in the United States, 22¢ per litre more here in Canada. For families filling up their tanks every week, these differences matter. Canadians do not want excuses. They do not want to hear that enough has already been done while they continue to struggle with the rising cost of living. A half attempt to a temporary measure is not relief. Canadians want action that lowers costs and restores confidence. They want to know that the government understands the challenges that they are facing. Conservatives are asking the government to put an end to all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and to permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. These are measures intended to provide relief that Canadians would see directly at the gas pumps. Canadians do not want to hear that the Brookfield class is being used as an excuse to not help the majority of Canadians who need this relief the most today. Canadians are working hard. They should not feel punished for driving to work, taking their children to activities, visiting loved ones or keeping essential services running. They are not asking for a government to take care of them through subsidies or socialist programs that lead to being taxed more. Canadians are asking for a government to finally get out of the way. Canadians deserve answers as to why the current government has created a system where gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than in the United States and they are spending 22¢ on the dollar more per litre than the Americans. Canadians are right to question how the current Liberal government justifies gas costing 50¢ more per litre today than when global prices were at the same level in 2014. Canadians deserve policies that make life more affordable, opportunities that allow them to get ahead and a government that recognizes the reality they face every day.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Quebec was talking about equitability in how this is applied. I have heard that question throughout the House today, and I find it perplexing that the excuse being used not to do this is the Brookfield class. The rich people across this country are hindering getting things done for the majority of Canadians who are feeling this pinch at the pumps and with respect to affordability. It is the same principle that the Liberals use when they focus on criminals rather than the victims. It is the government that is messing everything up, and that is what I would reflect in respect to her question.

Mr. Speaker, this is about Canada, whether it is the east coast, the northern reaches of our country, the west coast or where I am from, in Edmonton, Alberta. He is from Ontario. In Alberta, I heard the same thing. Last week, doing town halls and going to the Westend Seniors Activity Centre, I heard from seniors that they are picking and choosing when to go see their grandkids, when to get out of the house and when to engage with their community. What I learned from the elders and the seniors back in my own home community is that if one does not use it, one loses it. These are members who are stuck at home and slowly going the way that they did not wish for their retirement, being shut in. Gas prices can affect that. Gas prices can make life more affordable for seniors, the most important people who deserve an affordable life across our country.

Mr. Speaker, why is it that when Albertans feel frustrated and feel that they are being held from reaching their full potential to share their energy with Canada and the rest of the world, there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Why is it that Alberta's separatism is at an all-time high today, and there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Why is it that throughout history when a Quebec separation referendum happens, there is a Liberal government in Ottawa? Whose was the government in Ottawa over the last decade as separation sentiment in Quebec reached heights not seen in generations? It was the Liberals' government. The Liberal record shows a lack of leadership, the villainization of provinces for political benefit and the causing of divisions among the people of Canada. Today in British Columbia, we see a lack of leadership. We see the villainization of those asking for certainty and clarity around property rights, and we see an all-time high in division between British Columbians and first nations. Whose is the government in Ottawa today during the lead-up to this in British Columbia? It is the Liberals' government. This is not just a provincial government issue. First nations are a federal jurisdiction under section 35 of the Constitution. Treaty-making, agreements and court action involving first nations require federal government leadership, vision, clarity and the desire for unity, but all we have from the government for the current challenges in B.C. is avoidance, a lack of transparency, contradictions and reconciliation rhetoric. The situation regarding Cowichan is not an isolated failure. It reflects a broader and more troubling pattern under the Prime Minister and his Liberal government. As a first-term member of Parliament, I have seen trust repeatedly broken with indigenous peoples, political negligence at the expense of lasting progress and an inability to take full responsibility when things continually go wrong. The Prime Minister says he is all about reconciliation, but he and his government have reduced reconciliation to a cheap political talking point. His record over one year shows a complete lack of respect and neglect for indigenous peoples. In 2015, the government promised to end boiled water advisories in six years. Now the Liberals are six years past that promise, with no end in sight. After the last election, the Prime Minister's government promised new water legislation for fall 2025. Fall came and went with no legislation. He then told AFN chiefs at the winter assembly that there would be water legislation in the spring of 2026. There has been no water legislation tabled this spring, and there are only weeks left until the summer break for the Liberals to keep their word instead of breaking another promise regarding water. The government creates uncertainty and stress by not keeping its word, and it is doing that in B.C. at this moment. A core source of uncertainty in B.C. under the Musqueam agreement, treaties and other such initiatives, is the application of UNDRIP. I note the Prime Minister said several times that he will uphold free, prior and informed consent, a key piece of UNDRIP, but we know when he says this, it is just political rhetoric as his party has said it now for years. The Liberals' strategy seems to be to exploit first nations when it suits their political purposes, even creating and sowing division and chaos among indigenous peoples themselves. Recently, first nations wrote to this government as it tried to expedite the Manitoba Métis Federation bill. Their question for the Liberal government was whether it has the free, prior and informed consent of first nations to sign a new modern treaty when it has yet to honour the historical ones that lay claim to the same territory. The government has several public letters now from Treaty 6, Treaty 8, Manitoba first nations, the AFN and more, citing their concerns over a lack of consultation and a lack of consideration on historical treaty rights. Conservatives make it clear, and so have first nations leaders, that nobody is against Métis self-government and self-determination, but answers remain outstanding that need to be had before moving ahead with modern treaties that overlap with historical rights. Surely the government considered this, because its silence to first nations' concerns on this matter is deafening. Furthermore, the United States tribes are now attempting to leverage DRIPA and UNDRIP to cause chaos in our country's developmental affairs. Where are the Liberals on this issue? They are silent. Conservatives know to put Canada first on such things and raise them in this House so that the government might do its job to stand up for this country. What about other modern treaties? Currently, the government is not serious about UNDRIP's free, prior and informed consent when it comes to modern treaty processes in B.C. Several of the recent agreements in B.C. have raised threats of blockades and protests among the first nations themselves. While the provincial government has a big role to play, the federal government is ultimately responsible for these treaties and agreements. To pretend otherwise and to use the excuse that things should wait until the process comes to this Parliament formally is neglectful and reactive, and it will only sow more division in the future. So far it really seems as though the Liberal strategy is to sow division and chaos and water down the spirit and intent of treaties to avoid the rights of those who sacrificed to help build this country. Did the government have free, prior and informed consent of other tribes in the area when it signed its Musqueam agreement, an agreement negotiated in secrecy and sprung on the people of Vancouver and other first nations in the Lower Mainland? The answer is no. The government is hypocritical when it comes to free, prior and informed consent, as evidenced by the Squamish, who had to release a public statement saying they were “not consulted or meaningfully engaged by the federal government prior to the announcement of these agreements.” The people of Vancouver were not consulted, nor were the other local tribes, such as the Tsawwassen, when it comes to the Musqueam agreement. Speaking of consultations, first nations are asking the government right now at committee why it is weaponizing consultations against first nations women and families by creating a four-year delay sham process for S2 legislation, which would end discrimination against women and families. Women are now saying the government uses consultation as an excuse to delay human rights legislation through a four-year sham process, but it rams through other bills that have implications for first nations' rights. Clearly, this is, again, the Liberal government being hypocritical, because it knows the Mikisew court case protects Parliament when it comes to a lack of consultation in legislation development. The vice-president of Justice for Girls said just days ago, regarding the government's lack of urgency to change discrimination, “To resist doing that under the guise of consultation and supporting [the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples] is absolutely flabbergasting to me”. We see such hypocrisy and political games by the Liberal leadership to exploit our people. They are just stalling to keep the Indian Act discrimination going against women and families. For what reason, nobody really knows. The government talks, avoids, lacks transparency, vilifies fair questions and shows a complete lack of leadership. It is no wonder we have this situation in B.C., as well as separation in Alberta and Quebec. Conservatives are ready to lead. We are ready not to just talk about balancing property rights and section 35 rights; we are acting. We are challenging the government to lead, to bring clarity and certainty to homeowners, first nations and investors. We call upon the government to put private property first. We need to start analyzing how to do this while respecting all perspectives. When my nation settled a land claim over the west side of Edmonton that had residential and commercial property on it, we never went after private property; we worked with negotiators for solutions. We call upon the government to aggressively defend property rights in all litigation. To do otherwise would prove that it wants to see chaos and division. It must stop watering down the treaty process and bring the structures necessary to protect private property in all future agreements, negotiations and modern treaties so that we can have certainty for both first nations and Canadians. Our Treaty No. 6 brings certainty to first nations in Canada. “As long as the sun shines, grass grows and the rivers flow”, this treaty cannot be changed. The government's signing these modern treaties with easy back-out clauses and using performative language, such as living agreements, is not a true treaty process and only delegitimizes all treaties. We call upon the government to put aside differences in this House, to strike a cross-party committee to address this, to show real leadership from this House and to be proactive in first nation and Canadian relationships. Otherwise, if the House does not act, courts, division and conflict will define where we go next. While the government claims to be a party of reconciliation, it only acts for true change when challenged in court. In areas such as Indian Act discrimination, child family services, water and more, the government is only forced to the table through court. There is an opportunity to be better and to do the role of leadership, not just more reconciliation rhetoric, in this House. Canada must do better. The government, under the Liberals, must do better. Real reconciliation does not come from rhetoric but from a responsible government, honest engagement and the resolve to follow through. It requires a government that says what it means, does what it says and is willing to be held accountable every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here as a first-term member of Parliament for one year. Canadians were hoping for something different, but they got more of the same: just more Liberal rhetoric. For my communities, it is really disappointing for me to say that the Liberals really have cheapened reconciliation to a political talking point. It is reconciliation rhetoric now. As much as the Prime Minister says something in this House, all of his actions outside of it prove otherwise. Actions speak louder than words, and he continues to fail in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, that is the fear. It is disappointing when the Liberals deny Canadians' fear. That is a real emotion, at the end of the day. Quebec or any other province needs to take a look at what is going on in B.C., because there is an aspect of federalism. First nations are in section 35, so this has federal implications. For Quebeckers and the people of the Wendat, there are mechanisms to work together, but continually, the Liberal government does not take full advantage or performs reconciliation rhetoric when it comes to creating real partnerships at the end of the day. We are looking for leadership. People of the Wendat can provide that, in spite of what the Liberal government does.

Mr. Speaker, I have to have humility. I am not a lawyer, so I stand to read what lawyers say in this regard, but I thank the member for his point. That is my understanding of it as well. I hope the Liberals have more humility too. They admit that they got things wrong and things are not going in the right direction. They should not dismiss people's fears, because this is a real issue that British Columbians are facing, and ultimately, so is Canada. We need them to step up in that regard as well and not be fearful of addressing the issues.

Mr. Speaker, Brian Kingston, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, took a moment to say, “There’s clearly a disconnect between statements and implementation. The longer this goes on, with no resolution on US tariffs, it will have real implications for investments in this country.” The only thing the Liberals have invested in is more costly bureaucracy. They are using Canadians' own taxpayer money to fuel deficits larger than Justin Trudeau's. When will the Liberal Prime Minister take a moment to end his costly credit card budgeting, so that Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, everyday Canadians do not have time to worry about what the G7 or IMF says. At this moment in time, we have record high unemployment for youth. At this moment in time, we have record lineups at food banks. At this moment in time, Liberals want to waste $1 billion on a gun grab that nobody wants. At this moment in time, Canadians have the highest household debt at over $3 trillion. At this moment, we are at year 11 of record Liberal deficits. When will the Liberal Prime Minister commit to capping the deficit at the reckless $31 billion left by Justin Trudeau?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing this forward. Certainly, we see self-determination on behalf of any indigenous community, any Métis community included, as being a good thing. The minister ended her last comments by talking about registration and identifying as a part of that community and that nation. The Liberal government took a different approach when it came to consultation regarding Bill S-2, which would ultimately define who first nations people are as part of the status in the Indian Act. They have undertaken significant consultations and delayed that bill. On this one, I have heard from first nations that they have had zero or very minimal consultation on this. I am wondering if the minister could explain the level of consultation taken with first nations on this bill versus Bill S-2.

Mr. Speaker, currently, the Canada Energy Regulator has confirmed that the Manitoba Métis Federation does some level of consultation in northern B.C. for major projects on the environmental effects of traditional section 35 rights. Should one day the Métis be in Quebec and want to acknowledge section 35 rights there, would my colleague from the Bloc Québécois be okay with that level of new jurisdiction in Quebec as well?

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise and speak to this bill on the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. I want to begin with respect for the Manitoba Métis Federation. The work we discussed today did not appear overnight. It reflects decades of organizing, advocacy, negotiations and constitutional work done by the Manitoba Métis Federation and the Red River Métis citizens. The Red River Métis people have fought for recognition and their place on the land since before Canada became a country in 1867. In most recent history, the agreement itself records a long path, a 2016 framework agreement, a 2018 incremental reconciliation plan, a 2000 interim fiscal financing agreement and a 2021 self-government recognition and implementation agreement, all leading up to today. The treaty also links itself to the unfinished reconciliation identified in the Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada action. I want to acknowledge President Chartrand and his leadership, which has led to the Manitoba Métis Federation becoming a socio-economic driving force in Winnipeg, Manitoba and beyond. I also want to show respect for those other indigenous governments for helping with the conversation about what could be improved within the treaty and for their courage for respectfully bringing their concerns to the broader discussion. I know from experience that indigenous critics can experience the most severe forms of abuse from outsiders and insiders via lateral violence, despite the shared goal of building solid foundations for future generations. As members of Parliament, we have a duty to combat such abuse and bring respectful dialogue to such important matters, and this is a very important matter. We need to take the time to make sure this bill that proposes to bring the agreement into Canadian law and constitutional law is well-built. This is why this debate should not be reduced to a false choice between reconciliation and scrutiny. Parliament can support reconciliation and still insist on precision. In fact, when legislation will constitutionalize a treaty under sections 25 and 35, precision is a part of reconciliation. Conservatives support treaty rights. We support Métis self-government. We support modern agreements that are durable, constitutional and workable. We even support the Manitoba Métis Federation's choice, as is their right, to negotiate and enter into an agreement that empowers them to move away from the Ottawa bureaucracy. As a first nations person, I would not personally support growing the ISC bureaucracy as a part of implementing this treaty. A key part of the Manitoba Métis Federation's self-governance is its freedom to choose its partners even if ISC has shown a long history of being unreliable and abusive to other indigenous communities. Supporting the Manitoba Métis Federation's self-determination and governance over its own people does not require us as legislators to ignore potential challenges with implementation. It requires us to confront them before they become drawn-out lawsuits, which can still happen despite the best efforts of drafters, and to anticipate and resolve disputes in more conciliatory ways. It requires us to ask whether consultation in other indigenous communities was sufficient to anticipate the potential challenges this treaty might face. The first reason for caution is that the treaty itself says that it is a treaty within the meaning of sections 25 and 35, that it has the force of law, is binding on all persons and bodies, and engages the honour of the Crown. Once Parliament gives effect to that, the courts, not the ministers, become the final interpreters of what this text means. If Parliament leaves ambiguity in a constitutional instrument, Parliament is not choosing flexibility, but risking future litigation. The implementation legislation before us would give the treaty and future Manitoba Métis Federation laws the force of federal law, which would prevail in many areas over inconsistent other federal laws. Among other features, it has the potential to give non-Manitoba Métis Federation police forces and provinces the power to enforce Manitoba Métis Federation laws on non-members of Manitoba Métis Federation, including the possibility of the power to prosecute and imprison accused individuals. Because the Manitoba Métis Federation is not definitively geographically bound or defined in the treaty, Manitoba Métis Federation laws could potentially apply anywhere inside western Canada and beyond. Several Métis groups have made the point that the Manitoba Métis Federation jurisdiction should not extend to other Métis traditional homelands and territories, and that it should be up to the Métis justice systems, not the Crown courts, to determine what Métis laws mean and how they apply. Modern treaties have the opportunity to place aboriginal and non-aboriginal relations in a shared legal system where we can build certainty, continuity, transparency and predictability. Ambiguous modern treaty drafting can produce years of conflict. It is not fearmongering to remember the decades of history when interpretation and poor relations resulted in unintended division. Canada still lives with that today. We see this playing out in British Columbia. Governments, federal and provincial, are learning hard lessons about focusing their work on reconciliation rhetoric rather than the hard work needed to bring as many people along as possible, indigenous Canadians and non-indigenous Canadians alike. There is much in the treaty that deserves acknowledgement. It recognizes Red River Métis self-determination and the inherent right of self-government. It recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis in paragraph 9. It provides concrete jurisdiction now over citizenship, leadership selection, internal operations, accountability, administration, enforcement and related matters. This is serious work, and it deserves respect, but respect for the work done by the Manitoba Métis Federation does not erase the duty of Parliament to ask what this text does, what it does not do and what it may be read to do later. The next area of concern is the definition of Red River Métis, relationships with other Métis governments and the question of constitutional space for others. The Red River Métis should be the ultimate authority on determining who is Red River Métis. Paragraph 1 defines the Red River Métis as an “Indigenous collectivity...originally established within the historic Northwest and centred in the Red River Valley,” distinct from any other indigenous collectivity and collectively holding section 35 rights, including the inherent right to self-government. Paragraph 10 then says the Red River Métis acts “exclusively” through the Manitoba Métis Federation in exercising collectively held rights, in pursuing scrip claims and in Crown consultation respecting potential adverse effects on Red River Métis section 35 rights. Paragraph 19 adds that any existing section 35 rights of self-government in respect of the definition of Red River Métis and the exclusive representation of the Red River Métis by the Manitoba Métis Federation continue and will be exercised in accordance with the treaty. To many Red River Métis citizens, these provisions are long overdue recognition and nation building. That perspective needs to be heard. However, to other Métis governments, these same provisions raise alarms. The treaty's definitions and scope are read as expansive and ambiguous. We have heard from other Métis nations the concern that the treaty may fail to leave constitutional space for other Métis groups. Once implemented, it will be binding on third parties, including other federally recognized Métis governments. Self-government agreements and treaties with different Métis and other indigenous governments must coexist with each other. There are strengths in drafting this agreement with flexibility and limiting language, but there is also too much ambiguity. Paragraph 13 says nothing in the treaty may be interpreted to determine the geographical location or the extent of the Red River Métis. There is also nothing in the treaty to imply that the Red River Métis is the only Métis collective under section 35. It also does not imply that the Manitoba Métis Federation represents any other Indigenous collectivity than the Red River Métis. It preserves the possibility that there are other Métis collective rights holders, which is a good thing, established before effective European control, that include individuals with Red River Métis ancestry and may hold distinct section 35 rights. Those are important safeguards, and any fair reading of the treaty should say so. There is respect from other Métis governments that have also worked for years at securing recognition of their own rights-bearing communities and self-government agreements. Their concern is not that the Manitoba Métis Federation should have no treaty. It is quite the opposite. Various Métis groups appreciate, celebrate and support Canada's modern treaty-making with Métis governments and recognize the Manitoba Métis Federation's right to pursue self-determination through this agreement. A second area of concern is land and aboriginal rights ambiguity. Supporters of the bill frame this as an internal governance treaty, not a land claims treaty. The treaty's immediate operative jurisdictions are about governance, citizenship, internal structures, accountability, adjudication and related institutional matters, not a direct land transfer. In recent months, disagreements about how treaties and other agreements about land-based rights should be interpreted have led to much uncertainty on the part of Canadians and much undeserved ignorance, interpretation and hatred directed toward indigenous peoples. Canada's failure to be precise and to communicate about several recent agreements in B.C. has caused harm to everyone. If Canada wants to say now that the Manitoba Métis Federation treaty does not recognize land-related rights, it has a duty to spell that out explicitly, inclusive of protecting fee simple property. Too often, it seems the current government wants to intentionally leave in that ambiguity so it can take credit but not responsibility for the decisions made. Why does this matter? Chapter 9 lays out the process for future supplementary self-government arrangements in areas including wildlife, migratory birds, and fish harvesting and management; environmental assessment and protection; administration of justice; and any other matters reasonably related to self-determination, self-government, or other rights and interests of the Red River Métis. For many first nations and other indigenous peoples, a traditional paradigm is that we are a part of the land, inclusive of wildlife and plant life. Paragraph 88 goes further and says that the treaty contemplates future negotiation or recognition of Manitoba Métis Federation jurisdiction over lands that may be held by the Red River Métis, and the preamble of the treaty itself refers to the unfulfilled land-grant provisions of the Manitoba Act, implying the potential for redress. For non-indigenous Canadians, especially those worried about their recreational or life-sustaining use of the land, it is important not to inflame fear. This treaty would not, on its face, threaten fee simple title. It does not contain a clause expropriating private home ownership. However, it would create a legal framework that could affect future consultation questions, future jurisdictional negotiations and future litigation over the scope of rights. The responsible position is neither alarm nor denial. It is clarity. For indigenous folks, especially Métis, first nations and Inuit people, the issue is equally serious but different. It is whether constitutionality can be protected via a treaty drafted in a way that leaves room for one indigenous government's hard-won recognition without crowding the constitutional room needed by others. It is whether reconciliation is being advanced through careful pluralism or through avoidable conflict. It is also about whether an indigenous community needs recognition in a treaty in order for its self-government rights to be exercised. The Liberal government must acknowledge the push-back it received on Bill C-53 in consideration of the bill before us, not because the Manitoba Métis Federation is in the same category as other Métis in question in Bill C-53 but because other indigenous concerns were expressed explicitly. A fundamental question must be answered by the government, a question that I have received and that I know the Liberal government has received as well: How would this treaty overlap with the historic numbered treaties in Canada? We cannot shy away from the fact that the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs in Alberta recently passed a resolution against the proposed treaty in question today. The chiefs of Treaty 3 in Ontario have said, in a submission to the Liberal government, that they have concerns about pre-approved modern treaties that will supersede historic Confederation-era treaties, practically making them second-class citizens. We have heard and we know that with the Liberal government, there has been little to no consultation with first nations across the numbered treaties in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba regarding the bill. The Liberal government has started a significant consultation on Bill S-2 while doing no consultation on things like Bill C-5, and now, again, first nations are questioning the inconsistent politics being played by the government on when consultation is used and when it is not used. These concerns are real, and I know the Manitoba Métis Federation is aware of these concerns from first nations as well. I do not hear any indigenous nation, Métis, Inuit or first nation, wanting to see other indigenous peoples fail, but the process and details must be addressed. All of these types of agreements and treaties must live together, and we as indigenous and non-indigenous peoples must coexist. A third area of concern is everyday predictability in governance and in how we grow the Canadian economy. The Canada Energy Regulator's process in British Columbia has seen the Manitoba Métis Federation relying on the treaty and the Red River Métis homeland claims to assert consultation rights far beyond the Red River, two provinces away. This can result in confusion, cost and delay in resource development. The impacts are not only political disputes but real, on-the-ground impacts that can hold back timely growth of Canada's economy for all treaty peoples. As Parliament constitutionalizes a treaty whose wording and surrounding narratives are already being used in regulatory settings, Parliament has a duty to consider how wording matters outside this chamber. The commitment to a financial arrangement that would meet the expenditure need of the Manitoba Métis Federation to exercise its defined self-government functions is good in concept but poorly spelled out. Those IOUs promise big buckets of potential rights and obligations and a bureaucratic framework to ensure that Ottawa would get plenty of say in how it wants to maintain control over such agreements and this indigenous nation. That brings me to my final point. The fairest and most constructive position is not to attack the Manitoba Métis Federation or deny legitimacy of the Red River Métis self-government. It is to say we honour the work that brought this treaty here, we recognize the unfinished business of reconciliation, and we accept that the Manitoba Métis Federation has spent years building toward this milestone. However, because this treaty would be constitutionally entrenched and binding on everyone, we owe it to the Manitoba Métis Federation, other Métis governments, first nations, provinces and everyday Canadians to draft the implementation legislation with maximum clarity. This means asking whether Bill C-21 should include explicit protections making it clear that this treaty would not negate other Métis agreements, would not make the Red River Métis the only Métis people under section 35, would not constrain future negotiations with other Métis groups, would not recognize land-related section 35 rights unless Parliament intends to say so explicitly, and would protect private property of everyday Canadians. These proposals are not antireconciliation. They make reconciliation more stable, more transparent and more durable at a time when many Canadians feel uncertain about where we are going. Modern treaties are too important to be carried out by implication when explicit language is available. Canada's own legal history teaches us that when treaty wording is uncertain, courts will spend years, sometimes generations, trying to reconstruct the common intention of the parties, while communities and Ottawa are left to deal with the unexpected consequences. Parliament still has time to reduce that uncertainty here, so let us proceed with respect: respect for the Manitoba Métis Federation, respect for other rights-bearing Métis communities, respect for indigenous rights, respect for legal certainty and respect for Canadians who deserve laws that are clear enough to understand and that promote unity, not down-the-road division. We look forward to discussing how to improve this bill, with consideration of any amendments, in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for all her hard work on the file. It is a very difficult file on which to find the balance and everything. I will say, though, that debate on every aspect is very important. To be very blunt, I have heard from first nations in the last 48 hours that have serious concerns. Every level of debate is important, but I do anticipate that the bill will move to committee so that those voices can also be heard in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to go back to basics. Too often when it comes to indigenous relations, Inuit, Métis, and first nations alike, a lot of things are complicated. They are vastly complicated. This is a nation of many Inuit communities, many Métis communities and 600-plus recognized first nations across the country, so it is a very complex process when we are negotiating new modern treaties. That said, going back to basics includes the respect of having other first nations and indigenous groups in the conversation right from the get-go. We hear the Liberals say this all the time. They are learning their lesson in that regard, but I think the first nations would want to be part of the conversation, in particular when it comes to historic treaties, maybe some of the modern treaties, but more the historic treaties on the Prairies, because that is where this will be interpreted to affect the most. I would like to have seen them engaged in the conversation from the get-go in a more structured way, rather than maybe a more government-defined way, a structured way defined by them.

Mr. Speaker, there are some good things about the bill, and there are some things that I think are a little too ambiguous. The first thing is that it would bring a level of certainty and new definitions to the section 35 rights of the Manitoba Métis Federation and the Red River Métis people. That is a very good thing because certainty, at the end of the day, is good for investors, good for business and good for things moving in a more structured way, in a more timely way. However, the ambiguous nature of this means there are concerns from other indigenous groups that it is encroaching on their territory, encroaching on their space or jurisdiction. We have to hear those concerns in consideration of implementing the bill. Creating division among indigenous groups is not something the Canadian government should be striving toward, in the interest of creating business and moving this country forward.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am first nation. I am a former chief from the Enoch Cree Nation. That is where my roots come from, but I also have Métis roots, to be frank. I have a Métis grandfather. It is very difficult as a member of Parliament to balance all the hats we wear and to be a Canadian, a member of Parliament, who represents everybody else beyond the distinction of indigenous peoples. This bill is very important. It is a precedent setter when it comes to Métis governments, and it is going to go up against scrutiny and historic treaties that have not been implemented, and the honour of the Crown has not been upheld. First nations, rightly so, are of the position that they would like to see that honour upheld in consideration before anything else comes to this space. I think that discussion can line a solution. We will move forward on that. I do think there is ambiguity in the term “collectivity”. I think it has to be better defined in consideration of other Métis groups.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that getting it to standing committee would be a good thing because those voices who felt they had been left out of the government processes in the lead up to this bill would have their opportunity to be heard. It is very important that we get there. I also want to, again, acknowledge the inconsistencies when it comes to engaging those voices in consultation with the Liberal government. Bill S-2 is going through a multi-year engagement. On things like this, we hear from communities that there has been no level of engagement and consultation, and the only room left for them is through things such as standing committees.

Mr. Speaker, there is language that attempts to create safeguards amongst jurisdictions. As mentioned in my speech, there is language in this treaty that acknowledges that there are other distinct collectivities and groups. Given some of the precedent that has been set, I am certainly aware that the Canadian Energy Regulator is doing consultations with the Manitoba Métis Federation and arguably the jurisdiction of the B.C. Métis Nation. Those things are ambiguous and clearly not spelled out. I think the space for that dialogue needs to happen and those things need to be overcome before taking a serious run at the next steps of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-236, or McCann's law. I want to thank my hon. colleague from Parkland for his relentless work in the mission for justice and closure and his support for those victims and their families who have not received a proper burial, which is something that all humans deserve. I acknowledge the spirit of Lyle and Marie McCann, their family and their never-ending journey to justice and closure. They, among many, have experienced the harshest crimes in our society still to this day. It is well known that indigenous women and girls also experience a disproportionate, unfair portion of these harsh crimes. Indigenous women and girls make up a small percentage of Canada's population, or roughly 2% to 4%, yet they represent a vastly disproportionate number of victims. Between 2009 and 2021, they accounted for 5% to 7% of all homicide victims. They are six times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women, and even more alarming, they are up to 12 times more likely to go missing or be murdered. These are not just numbers. These are mothers, daughters, sisters and loved ones whose absences leave permanent holes in families and communities across the country. The national inquiry heard from over 2,300 witnesses, including survivors and their families, whose courage in sharing their truths laid bare serious gaps in policing, justice and social supports. As Conservatives, we believe the first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens, especially the most vulnerable. This means ensuring that indigenous women and girls are safe in their homes, in their communities and across this country. It means supporting practical solutions, better coordination between law enforcement agencies, stronger accountability and improved access to social supports to ensure that families are never left in the dark when tragedy strikes. It also means respecting the calls for justice, not as symbolic gestures but as actionable steps that demand measurable results. That is what McCann's law would do. It would help take an actionable, meaningful step toward those families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls who live without closure. While women are disproportionately represented in the murders in this country, this bill would affect all ages and people who are victims. Just this past year, the murder of Samuel Bird captured the hearts and minds of first nations indigenous peoples and all Canadians around the Edmonton, Alberta, region. Samuel went missing, and his family was desperate, searching an area larger than the city of Toronto for his remains. It was during this search, in looking for actionable, tangible ways to support Samuel's family, that the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Alberta took notice of this bill and lent its support. Of course, its priority at the time was the immediate search for Samuel, but the foresight of the chiefs had them looking into a hard future and toward their treaty partner, the Crown and the federal government, for support. The chiefs took notice of McCann's law, and the 40-plus chiefs across Treaties 6, 7 and 8 passed a resolution that stated: We support strengthening accountability by requiring offenders convicted of serious crimes to disclose information about the location of victims' remains before parole or sentencing consideration, recognizing its potential to bring closure and healing to families of [missing and murdered indigenous peoples]. These are the chiefs of the families back home in Treaties 6, 7 and 8, and I am proud of my leaders back home for supporting the action that this bill would take. This bill originated in and was written in their home territory of Treaty 6. Ultimately, in this instance, Samuel's family was granted the small, gracious closure that we all hope for, for all victims: His body was found. In our culture, our elders teach us that those who are not sent to the spirit world through a proper funeral, protocols and ceremony cannot become our future ancestors to guide us from the spirit world in this life. To this day, there are still victims' families out there who have not received closure. Justice in Canada must put victims first. Circumstances surrounding murderers' paths through the justice system exposes serious flaws in our system, flaws that have left far too many Canadian families re-victimized by a system that often prioritizes offenders over those they harm. At the heart of this bill is critical reform ensuring that individuals convicted of the most serious violent crimes face tougher sentences and a stronger parole system when they continue to pose a clear risk to public safety. Canadians expect a justice system that is fair but also firm. They expect consequences for murder. They expect that when someone commits murder, they will not have an easy path through their time in the prison system at the victim's expense. We have seen too many instances of killers considered for parole too early. We have seen families forced to relive the trauma at repeated parole hearings, year after year, uncertain whether justice will truly be served. This is not justice. It is a failure of the system. Bill C-236 would address this by allowing for longer periods between parole hearings in the most serious cases. This is about giving victims and their families peace of mind. It is about ensuring that dangerous individuals are given the harshest sentences they deserve under Canadian law. It is about restoring confidence in our justice system. From a Conservative perspective, this is straightforward. First, public safety must always come first. A government's primary duty is to protect its citizens. When someone has demonstrated a pattern of violent behaviour, the risks they pose cannot be minimized or ignored. Strengthening parole criteria in those circumstances is not excessive. It is responsible. Second, accountability matters. Criminal acts, especially violent ones, must carry real consequences. If sentences are too lenient or parole is granted and considered too easily, we undermine the deterrence effects of our laws. We send the wrong message not only to offenders but to Canadians, who expect the justice system to uphold order and safety. Third, we must stand with victims. Too often in this country, victims and their families feel like an afterthought. They are asked to attend parole hearings to recount their pain and fight for the continued incarceration of the very individuals who shattered their lives. Bill C-236 recognizes that reality. Limiting unnecessary parole hearings and strengthening denial provisions would reduce the emotional toll placed on families and tell them they would not have to keep reliving this trauma year after year. Rehabilitation is an important goal, but it cannot come at the expense of safety and justice for victims. Where genuine rehabilitation has occurred, our system already has mechanisms to recognize it, but where it has not, the risk remains high. Parole must be strongly considered to be denied. Canadians understand this balance. They know compassion for victims and accountability for offenders are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Bill C-236 strikes that balance. It would ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes face consequences that reflect the gravity of their actions. It would ensure that parole is treated not as an entitlement but as a privilege that must be earned, and it would ensure that victims are not forgotten in the process. Our justice system must be worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. That trust is eroded when violent offenders are considered for release too soon. It is eroded when families feel unheard. It is eroded when accountability is replaced with leniency. Supporting Bill C-236 is an opportunity to begin restoring trust in our justice system. As Conservatives, we always stand for safer communities, meaningful consequences for crime and a justice system that puts victims first. As we enter the break as parliamentarians and go into Easter, too many families out there have an empty seat at their table. This bill, while not filling that spot at their table, would certainly help bring closure for those families. I support this bill. Help us pass it through this House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech and acknowledge the history that she spoke about and the history that she personally represents. I am very proud to see that happen in my lifetime. In this House, we have legislation that affects first nations on multiple issues. Earlier in this Parliament, we talked about things like Bill C-5. We debated an Alberta MOU. At that time, first nations were complaining that there was no consultation with them. On this one, the opposite is happening. First nations are saying they do not need any more consultation to do the right thing and end discrimination in the Indian Act. Could the minister address that double standard? Why is the government delaying things, such as to end sex discrimination, but on other things it does consultation?

Mr. Speaker, I chose to come to Ottawa to do right by my constituents, to do right by our country and all its people as defined by Treaty No. 6, and to do right by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, including Canada's first nations people. Bill S-2 would bring justice to first nations people by helping to end discrimination, discrimination that primarily affects first nations women and children. The Senate has rightfully challenged the 45th Parliament of Canada to make history with this bill by, one, addressing the Nicholas decision and, two, ending the second-generation cut-off now. After some reflection, my fellow Conservatives and I are prepared to meet the challenge of the Senate to address the Nicholas decision and end the second-generation cut-off rule now, during this Parliament. With respect, I hear the indecisiveness on the other side of the House when it comes to this bill, which was introduced by the Liberals themselves. I want to respond to some of the concerns they have raised and the notions presented. One is consultation. Of course consultation is important and is best practice, but first nations feel they have already been consulted on this for decades. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs recently stated: We cannot...support yet another consultation process on how to end the second-generation cut-off when, through decades of research, court cases, collaboration, engagement, and studies, you are aware that the sex- and race-based discrimination violates s. 15 of the Charter, s. 35 rights.... Sharon McIver, a kokum champion with the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group, recently wrote the government to say: In light of the Senate's amendments, the justification for further consultation is extremely unclear. It seems to be a delay tactic. But the consultation process is also conflating and confusing status, membership, citizenship, and self-government, which are all separate legal issues. I, myself, being a former chief, a status Indian and an MP, have heard time and time again from coast to coast to coast that the second-generation cut-off has been breaking families up since 1985 and it needs to end yesterday. I also challenge the Liberals to be more principled when it comes to consultation in their loose application of the Mikisew v. Canada 2018 decision principles. How is it that the Liberals can justify further delay through consultation in ending the second-generation cut-off on Bill S-2 but did not consult before passing bills in Parliament, such as Bill C-5, and signing the Alberta MOU? The minister has heard concerns expressed by chiefs and communities about how this affects membership and costs for first nations. I acknowledge the concerns of chiefs on shortcomings when it comes to housing, education, child welfare, water and infrastructure. Those issues also need systematic fixes, but outside of this legislation. We must not let perfect get in the way of progress. In addition, on the projected numbers for this bill, the government says that this bill would add approximately 22,000 people in the first year to the status Indian registry and approximately 7,000 to 8,000 net new people per year for the next 30 to 40 years. The direct costs are those basic social supports that ISC covers, which are projected to be approximately $50 million of a $25-billion budget. This pales in comparison to the billions spent and the numbers added by the Liberal mismanagement of immigration over the last decade. Finally, there are the legalities of this. It has never been the case that Canada has voluntarily amended the Indian registry provisions after conducting nationwide consultations. The Vriend v. Alberta 1998 decision says, “Groups that have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human dignity and equal rights while governments move toward reform one step at a time.” Failing to quickly act is a denial of charter rights. The decision continues, “If the infringement of the rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more than empty words.” Possibly out of a fear of risk, the government is choosing to focus on excuses, but the risk of doing nothing is greater. We have a chance now to change the narrative. The government can be proactive in reconciliation by doing the right thing now before going through long, costly litigation to end sex discrimination in the Indian Act. As Conservatives, we want to help lead a new chapter in reconciliation. We are proud to be an opposition that challenges the government to meet higher standards. That is the power of Parliament and its relationship with first nations peoples. It is a relationship that can be one of the defining aspects that shows that the House can work together rather than being defined by political differences. Mr. Speaker, I need to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I was proud to sit in the House and witness my Conservative colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes be supported with the unanimous consent of all parties to amend the Criminal Code to end coerced and forced sterilization, which unfortunately disproportionately affects indigenous women and girls. It was a powerful moment between all parties that will bring justice and hope for the future. Furthermore, the 45th Parliament is unique. In 2025, Canada helped elect the first indigenous woman to become Minister of Indigenous Services, and I am proud to have been asked by our Conservative leader to sit as the shadow ISC minister. I respectfully challenge the minister and offer my help and advice for the work necessary to help end discrimination against women and children and end the second-generation cut-off in that work. I give thanks to my fellow Conservatives for giving me the ability to issue that challenge, which is rooted in aligning first nation and Conservative values to end discrimination. It is also rooted in aligning values, such as self-determination and self-responsibility, lower government control of the people, the protection of traditions and the transmitting of those traditions down through generations, and the protection of the institution of family to keep families together. Conservative values and indigenous values can align. This is ultimately about keeping families together. Since the Senate initiated this challenge, I have heard some of the toughest stories. If the government is truly about nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation, it will have to act to respond to these stories by getting rid of the second-generation cut-off and honouring the Nicholas decision. There are stories such as that of a chief from Manitoba who raised her daughter with language, culture and ceremony, but because of the second-generation cut-off, the chief's daughter is systematically not a first nations person. Who is the government to uphold the law in telling the chief that her daughter is less than others in her own family? This is certainly not reconciliation, and it is not nation to nation. We have heard from an uncle who signed a nephew's birth certificate so that the child did not have to be ostracized from their own community and from a kokum who lives on reserve and is transitioning to her spirit journey who is not able to pass on her life's belongings and her home to her children and grandchildren. We heard from first nations entrepreneurs, including an owner who will be forced to sell his business to a band in order to keep it indigenous-owned because his daughter is non-status. We listened to the AFN youth council speak to how they are not leaders of tomorrow, but leaders of today, who are there to address the government on this issue because they will ultimately not be a part of seeing whole first nations communities and families go extinct in their lifetime. There is a longer-term, principled fix here. The ISC minister and my own community have found it. Membership and families should be defined by the first nations themselves, not by Ottawa. Nearly half of first nations have found the solution, and the government should focus its efforts on the capacity to facilitate first nations to move from section 11 to section 10 bands, or modern, self-government, self-determining agreements with the federal government. The first nations need to meet Canada halfway and make this a priority by putting in the work to define their own membership laws. That was my attitude when I was chief, and it is the attitude I still carry to this day as a Conservative member of Parliament. First nations are the masters of their own destiny, not Ottawa. Ottawa needs to focus less on political ISC programs and more on the systematic empowering of indigenous peoples. I am proud to say that this is also the guiding principle of our Conservative leader and the Conservative team when it comes to indigenous-Canada relationships. I think all members of the House know that to be true, but the House has to be better at acting on that principle. I am finding the balance of being an MP and a person with first nation status. When my time here is done, I cannot look back and say that I did nothing to speak to and act against the extinction of first nations people, which by some accounts will peak in approximately 30 years. I am here to honour the principle of treaty that Canadians and first nations people will work together as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow. I challenge the Liberals to not use delay tactics when it is politically convenient, to show leadership and to put in the work to pass Bill S-2, which honours the Nicholas decision and gets rid of the second-generation cut-off, expediently during this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, as I said, the decisions and the destiny of first nations and indigenous people lie in their own communities. I agree with that principle, but I also think that this is a delay tactic from the Liberals. Quite frankly, it is not consistent with their position when it came to not consulting on Bill C-5 and on Alberta's MOU. Right now, I think that first nations have that opportunity. The amendments contemplate a one-year transition period, but there is more than ample opportunity and resources for first nations to do the right thing, which they want to do, to move their own membership definitions.

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the Indian Act needs to be dispelled, but it is first nations that have to be the primary driver of that. I agree with my colleague in that regard. For this legislation, I accept the amendments the Senate made. Again, we cannot let perfect get in the way of progress. The Indian Act is still going to be generations and decades ahead at different paces for first nations communities, but ultimately what we are talking about here today is the federal government's relationship specifically to status individuals, and government being able to lead on that to get rid of it today and get rid of discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the original version of the bill is Bill C-38 through the Nicholas decision, and it affects primarily the Michel band in particular, of over 3,000 people approximately. I think the Liberals are phrasing this as one or the other. We can have both, and we can make history today. The government has traditionally gone through litigation to change the Indian Act. This time it can redefine reconciliation and be proactive to stay out of long, costly court cases and do both to honour the Michel band but also get rid of the second-generation cut-off for generations to come, today.

Mr. Speaker, since I have come here as a new member of Parliament, I have witnessed ISC over the last number of years go from 4,000 to 8,000 employees. I have seen ISC programs double and the results for first nations and indigenous peoples come down. Can the member reflect on how focusing on empowerment through root causes is better than focusing on expanding budgets for government bureaucracy and bloated programs?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can reflect on a report that came out today that says one in four Canadians now works for government, whether that be the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments or the public service. The member reflected upon the middle class getting weaker. While the government is bloating up and expending, none of these dollars seems to reach everyday Canadians. Can the member reflect upon that in this budget?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work of Chrysalis, an Alberta society for citizens with disabilities located in my riding of Edmonton Northwest. Chrysalis demonstrates a principle Albertans strongly believe in, which is that dignity is found in work, contribution and self-reliance. For nearly 60 years, Chrysalis has empowered thousands of people with disabilities to pursue meaningful employment and greater independence while contributing to Edmonton and Alberta economies. Through practical supports and strong partnerships with local employers, Chrysalis always delivers results for the families they serve. Led by executive director Melinda Noyes and her dedicated team, the society's innovation in art, culinary and cultural programming has helped set them apart. When we remove barriers and focus on ability, we strengthen our workforce and our country. As Conservatives, we will always champion policies that support opportunity, responsibility and the power of meaningful employment for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister announcing that China will reduce tariffs on canola by March 1, reports say the Chinese commerce ministry revealed that it only committed to making a decision by March 9. What kind of master negotiator is the Prime Minister when he refuses to acknowledge that the deals he promised with China and the U.S. are falling through? Canadian farmers are looking for the truth to be able to plan this year's crops, to ensure that Canadian households can afford to eat Canadian quality products. Did the Prime Minister mislead Canadian farmers into thinking he got a deal done on Canadian canola?

Madam Speaker, in Edmonton Northwest, too many warehouses, retail spaces and industrial yards sit empty as Canadians wait for the economy to get better. Stats Canada confirmed that Canada lost 25,000 jobs last month. However, one great organization in my riding is a champion for change. Tribal Chiefs Employment and Training Services, led by executive director Eva John-Gladue, has been a great example of how Albertans in public and private sectors work together to create pathways of prosperity in oil, gas, trades and beyond. Eva has worked for over 25 years with industry to build healthy families by creating innovative partnerships in culture, housing, sports and more. She and her industry partners have connected thousands of indigenous workers with the training and work placements they need to be self-sufficient. Recently, 52,000 private sector jobs have been lost across Canada. The government needs to listen to more leaders like Eva, to transform the way it thinks so as to help our economy reach its full potential.

Mr. Speaker, The International Monetary Fund reported today that Canada can grow GDP by 7%, $200 billion, by removing internal trade barriers that act like a 9% tariff. Photo-op MOU speeches and pizza parlour visits with premiers have not reduced interprovincial trade barriers. The Prime Minister's rhetoric does not match reality, and life is becoming less affordable for everyday Canadians. Will the government support a Canadian sovereignty act, which would incentivize and give bonuses to provinces that build across Canada and repeal federal measures that block and penalize the development of natural resources?

Madam Speaker, we do not. There is Canadian law, and there are treaties that have been signed, but I think, again, that Liberals typically play games with these to pit one region or people against another. Canadians and first nations people, indigenous people, are tired of this. When I was a kid, we used to do drumming in our classroom. We used to do singing in our classroom. We were taught our language, but we were also speaking and singing the Canadian national anthem at the end of the day. When I was a kid, things were different. Now it is first nations against Canadians. It is different Canadians against other Canadians, and this is the same thing Liberals do to keep power and control. I think first nations and Canadians want a treaty partnership, which was the original intent of 1867; they do not want a pitting of Canadians against Canadians anymore.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is talking out of both sides of his mouth on pipelines and tanker bans. Behind closed doors, he whispers to the Liberal “keep it in the ground“ caucus that the pipeline will never be built, while signing an MOU to build one for Canadians. The Liberals say they are for a tanker ban, but then the Prime Minister promised to override it in the MOU. The Prime Minister promises indigenous communities a seat at the table for a pipeline, but has ignored them for the last eight months and is cutting them out of the tripartite decision-making table. Will the Liberals stop obstructing the pipeline by voting for their own MOU?