Billy Morin

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 AFN exposed that the last decade of Liberal housing strategy has left first nations 157,000 homes short. Given that Build Canada Homes plans to build only 5,000 homes annually, by what year will the Liberals build 157,000 homes needed for first nations? I would like to know just the year.

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.

No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree. Why would we be having this conversation in the first place? It has been the same government for the last 11 years trying the same old things that it has always done. I believe that is insanity, at the end of the day. I would encourage that member to go back to the principles that brought her to the House.

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.