Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech made significant mention of aboriginal rights and title without actually talking about aboriginal rights and title. There are so many clauses in this bill that affect rights and title and affect the promises made under UNDRIP by the government. One in particular is about enabling the designation of regions of national interest in areas such as energy corridors, transportation corridors and industrial corridors for the purposes of pre-approval. This is an interesting dilemma, because the courts have already said that we cannot have a pre-approval if we are aware of a decision that might infringe on rights and title. We must consult and accommodate. In this equation, we are asking two questions of rights and title: designation of land and the activity. How will the government proceed if it does not get consent on either of these activities?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sudbury. We are here talking about Bill C-39. It is another announcement, another 250-page bill to talk about what we already announced last year, basically rewrapped in a more complicated bill. We are trying to talk about building Canada strong when we really should be talking about how to rebuild Canada strong, because we were a country that was growing before 10 years ago, when the Liberal government decided to stall and stifle our economy with Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. To undo the damage done by these bills and the stifling of the economy, all we are getting now is announcements, whether we are talking about the Major Projects Office or Bill C-39. I was an MLA and was a chief councillor back in the days of LNG development 20 years ago, so this is where I come from. More specifically, I come from the processes of how to get projects approved, whether we are talking about environmental assessments provincially in B.C. or federally in Canada, and the regulations that go underneath them. Parallel to that is the consultation accommodation that must happen with aboriginal peoples. It is great to see the conversation that we need an economy being so universal. After 10 years, we need an economy, but the government is not admitting that it did not like the economy growing. It did not like LNG development. It did not like LNG exports. In fact, it was the Liberal government that said that there was no business case for LNG development. It was this government that let Germany, when it came knocking on the door of Canada to secure an LNG deal, go away with a hydrogen deal. I travelled to Ottawa to try to fix the record based on my experience of project development, whether we are talking about forestry, mining or LNG. The government did not take my request for a meeting. A member of the opposition did, and all I was here to say was that they were talking to the wrong people. The federal government has no idea what it is talking about. There is a huge business case for LNG. There is a huge demand, and if someone wants proof, they should come talk to the first nation leaders in B.C. They are the ones who put together the LNG export plan. They are the ones who fought for it and lobbied for it. In fact, a lot of the leaders who fought for it did so with no praise or recognition, which is a shame. These are people like Elmer Derrick and the people of Nisga'a. The leadership at the time, who were supporting my band in getting LNG off the ground, never got recognition. Now LNG is pursuing its own LNG facility, but all of that was with all the opposition from the provincial government in B.C. and the federal government. I did everything I could to understand environmental assessments, regulations and case law, and the only thing I can say now is that I wish I knew then what I know now in terms of how this place operates. We could have gotten it done quicker. It is a shame that Canada is in the position it is in now as a weak country, just because of the ideology of saying “no” to LNG development and exports. There were 18 major LNG projects in B.C. at a time when we just got started. All of them left. One major project from my territory, the only one that survived, was LNG Canada, and there are some minor floating LNG projects. If there had been no opposition to development back then, we would not be here having this conversation. We would not be talking about affordability, jobs or our young people leaving the country. We would not be talking about the need to cut taxes, because the economy would have been keeping up. Unfortunately, the damage that has been done in 10 years has brought us to a place where the most we can do now is try to send signals to the world about announcements: Let us repack what we announced last year into a 250-page bill and call it Bill C-39. However, I am glad that at a high level, the opinion of the Liberal government seems to be changing. It is a Festivus miracle, but will that translate into something of substance? Right now, it is going to take some time to understand how this 250-page bill fits with the fast-track approval of a project, given that we already had an announcement of a Major Projects Office that was supposed to do the same thing. That buzz over the Major Projects Office is now a fizzle. Now, partially, Bill C-39 is talking about the existing powers of the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency and how it is going to be amended but also how some is going to be transferred over to the energy regulator and some might be fast-tracked to the Major Projects Office. I have just one fundamental question that the government cannot answer. At the end of the day, who signs the environmental assessment certificate? Is it going to be the regulator, the Major Projects Office or the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency? Whoever does it is going to take responsibility for that signature going forward. The government cannot answer that. How is industry supposed to have the certainty to invest in Canada if the legislation and regulations are all over the map? Corporations, and first nations for that matter, are going to have to hire lawyers and consultants to pore over these new bills to find out exactly what the process is. By the way, I heard a number of the government members talking about indigenous consultation. There is a contradiction in terms of what they are saying about consultative duties to first nations people affected by major projects. I am talking about that pre-decision, pre-approval, to approve it in one year, but the courts have said it cannot do that. When the Crown is aware of a decision that might affect rights and title, the government has to consult and accommodate first nations before it makes the decision.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's own policy says that. Even though I am getting heckled by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I am just reciting what Canada's policy says. How is the government going to square that? I have seen what has been done in the B.C. treaty process. The government makes the decision and then promises to continue consulting and accommodating. That is not what the court case said. Interestingly enough, though, back in the day, as first nations, we could only dream of planning our future. We had no money and no resources, and we were under the Indian Act. We could not plan a future under the Indian Act. It is a very punitive system for first nations, so it was very hard to plan a future. There are entities out there now, though, and I think the government should seriously consider this, that could help, not with the process itself of environmental assessments, rights and title, but could help a region, town or first nation plan for the future in light of what might be major project development in Canada. Specifically, I am talking about the Canadian Institute of Planners. I know they are here lobbying the government and members of the opposition. I can see my past, my history, in what they are talking about. It partly relates to what I wish I knew then as opposed to what I know now. It could have made life a lot easier not only for my first nations people but for the surrounding area. At the end of the day, as a judge said back in the day, “Let's face it, none of us are going anywhere. We're all in this together.”

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his confusion because I am confused as well. I know the existing process under the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency, but I do not understand the correlation to the Major Projects Office, and now we have a new bill that talks about a regulator being in charge. As far as I can see, it is a three-ring circus. If people do not understand the process, which should be a clear-cut process for investors, first nations and Canadians, then how are we going to build Canada strong? I understand your confusion.

Mr. Speaker, that is great question, and it is an important issue. I mean, the labour is what actually builds Canada. It provides the jobs, the contracts and the subcontracts. Those are the people who build the bridges, the buildings and the LNG plants. Really, this issue is so important that it has to go to committee. It cannot just stay the way it is. That is what committees were built for, and that is what I will be hoping the government does: send this issue to committee.

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, we should not be here. We should be building on past successes. We should have been building 18 LNG projects out of B.C. We should not be having this discussion about Canada being Canada strong in terms of breaking down the barriers. I mean, after that big announcement of one Canada, one economy, we still cannot sell wine from one province to another province. It has just been announcement after announcement. I agree that 10 years of damage to our economy trying to be undone by the people who actually did the damage is actually putting us far down the ladder in terms of economics.

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, yes, I agree with one year, as long as the process is followed and is described clearly and, by the way, as long as the case law is followed that has been laid out by the courts on how to address rights and title. We cannot put an arbitrary time limit on the rights and title of first nations people. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the contradiction in Bill C-39. There is no answer to that.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are back in Ottawa with a plan to save Canadians money and make life more affordable. We have identified more than $150 billion in savings by cutting wasteful bureaucracy, unnecessary consultants, foreign aid, handouts to fraudulent asylum claimants, corporate welfare and money-losing boondoggles like Alto rail. These savings would bring down debt, taxes and inflation and put more money back in the pockets of Canadians. We would save Canadians money on housing by scrapping taxes on home construction and pressing local governments to speed up permits, free up land and reduce fees. Conservatives would save us money on fuel and groceries by scrapping all taxes on gas until at least Canada Day and save people money on vehicles while supporting the auto workers by removing the GST on vehicles made in Canada. I know families across Skeena—Bulkley Valley are hurting right now. That is why my Conservative colleagues and I are fighting hard to cut wasteful spending, lower costs and make life more affordable for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair. It is an honour for me to get up to talk about affordability on behalf of the constituents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, specifically with respect to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. By the way, I am sharing my time with a member forFort McMurray—Cold Lake. The government has framed Bill C-38 as a collaboration among the parties and members within the House, which is not entirely accurate, because long before I came here, the leader of the Conservative Party, and the Conservatives as well, were talking about affordability and the pressures Canadians were under. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party was actually pushing for this tax break at the pumps long before I came along, specifically through the campaign. It has just dawned on the Liberals this past year that, yes, maybe Canadians are having a tough time and that maybe they should save them some money at the gas pumps. Then they had the revelation that affordability has not gotten better in Canada but has gotten worse, and that they should extend the tax break to help Canadians. That was a Conservative idea, among many other Conservative ideas that the Liberals took. We applauded the idea of getting rid of the carbon tax, because that was a Conservative idea. Then the Liberals said they were taking away only the consumer carbon tax and keeping the industrial carbon tax, but that we should not worry as it is not going to affect affordability. Anybody will tell us that any kind of business that gets additional expenses, including taxes, will not absorb it. They eventually pass it on to the consumer. I agree there are a lot of different components that add to inflation and the cost of living. This is just one small component. Therefore, if anything, while I do applaud this measure because it is a Conservative measure, I will be asking the government to take more of our Conservative ideas to save Canadians money, not just at the pump but also to deliver the promise of actually making groceries affordable so we have something, as the Prime Minister requested, to judge him on: the prices at the grocery store. Overall, this one measure is not going to fix affordability, but it would help. It is assistance for families and especially for our young people when fuelling up at the gas pumps. I also agree with the members of the Liberal government who said that feeding children in schools is not a new initiative. My own band, for instance, started doing that not only for children in schools but also for seniors, because we had own-source revenue by engaging the economy. It is not new, but having to feed children in schools is at record levels in Canada, a first world country. Record levels of people are visiting food banks in Canada in a single month, over two million, of which approximately 30% are children. Given where I come from, I can understand that. I understand the hardship and heartbreak of a middle-class family. One in five of the people who are visiting a food bank has a job. This is what I noticed as an MLA in Victoria, when I used to walk to work. I walked past the food bank. Once a week it would have a food distribution. Slowly I started seeing minivans parking outside and people eating the food they had taken from the food bank. It was hard to ignore. This affordability issue is not what it was 20 years ago. The middle class is now affected. They are now struggling to the point where even our young, educated professionals are looking to leave Canada because of the cost of living. There is a lack of opportunity. There are no projects getting approved. Nothing is moving in Canada. In terms of our young people and our future, I do not know about the rest of the people here, but where I come from, we always looked to see what the future of our country is going to be, what our province is going to be, what our region is going to be and what our community is going to be, for the benefit of ourselves and, more importantly, for the benefit of our kids and our grandkids, especially in a place like Canada. What was the Liberal proposal at a convention? It was for those young people to try to find a better life elsewhere, abroad, maybe in the United States. The proposal was to think about a $500,000 exit tax. If they cannot afford life as it is in Canada, how are they going to afford $500,000 to leave Canada? That is cruel. It is not investing in the future. How can we invest in the future when we are not looking at how Canadians are struggling? The Liberals are praising their dental plan and are asking how come the Conservatives keep criticizing it. When I go back to my riding, seniors approach me and tell me how they do not qualify. They make too much money under their pension. I actually stopped a senior citizen in Kitimat, who was shopping. She had one item in her cart. It was bread at 50% off because it was old bread. She did not even go to the store for bread. She goes there regularly for the opportunity to find something on sale. She had one item. There are a lot more measures the Conservatives have proposed that the Liberal government should entertain and that should pass. The four or five proposals that the Liberals borrowed from the Conservatives and implemented in the last campaign were a good sign that the Liberals are finally waking up to how Canadians are struggling. The suspension of the fuel tax is one small measure that can help, but it is not going to be enough. We agree that there are global situations that are making this situation worse, things that we cannot control, but there are things in Canada that we can control, including what we are talking about here today: extending the fuel tax break. The government could stop the inflationary borrowing and budgets that are being proposed. It could stop some of the projects that will increase inflation, such as the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail project. That is $90 billion that we do not have. This is a great announcement, but it is certainly not enough. Will it affect affordability, especially for people who do not even have cars? This just keeps piling up. As we go through the debate, and I am sure a lot of members can see this, costs are continuing to go up, based on the Liberal government's own debates and based on global pressures. Can the government focus on affordability for Canadians? Within our own circle of what is Canada, can we focus on things we can do here now to help, such as what the Conservatives have been talking about since long before I got here? We will continue to fight for affordability for Canadians, fight for young people and fight for a better Canada, but the Liberal government has to take more of the direction that is coming from this side, not just the four or five ideas it has taken from the Conservatives over the last year.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to ask that senior why they do not qualify and why the government keeps getting up and trumpeting, as if this program were the best thing in the world, when a lot of the seniors, especially in my riding, do not even qualify in the first place. Why are there two signals, two messages? When we are really talking affordability, why is the senior so confused that they cannot get the dental plan that the Liberals are championing as the best thing in the world since sliced bread? Just be honest with Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is as if every young person across Canada does not see a future here, not only in terms of the affordability of a house and the cost of living but also where their future is in a profession. We are talking around the issue of Canada's becoming an energy superpower, but there is no action. We have so many different issues with Canada, but the economy and affordability are probably number one in terms of how we move forward as a strong, independent country, because the last 10 years have actually put us in a situation where Canadians are struggling, and we are trying to figure out how we move into the new global geopolitical world we are moving into when we really do not have the strength to do it.

Mr. Speaker, that question is actually very relevant. In terms of what the governments are doing, not only federally but provincially as well, we are not adapting. We have all these measures that propose to lessen the risk, but they are not doing anything about adapting to what happening in our regions. There is no measure of activity for the provincial government of B.C., for instance, to talk about forestry management in terms of forest fire risk, but Canada should be setting an example. Canada has federal lands it is responsible for, and the Indian Act lands as well. We should be setting an example, and hopefully the Conservatives will be coming up with exactly that idea.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are acting like they discovered plutonium here and like this is the first time the idea has been brought up to actually suspend a tax that would reduce the cost of fuel. However, when I look at the debate record, Conservatives have been asking this for well over a year. It came from listening to the stories of people who just could not afford life. However, this tax we are talking about is just one component of what it means to have an affordable life. Can I ask the member to talk about why the Conservatives came up with this idea to suspend taxes and cut them out altogether?

Mr. Speaker, it was just mentioned by one of the Liberal government members that it does not matter where the idea comes from. Yes, it does for the Liberal government, because this idea was brought up in April, and previous to that other measures were presented by the Conservatives. They were all voted down by a majority of the House. This is exactly what we are talking about today. To the member, if the Conservative proposal put on the floor back in April was actually approved in April, how much savings could that have brought to families and citizens across Canada?

Madam Speaker, I was a treaty chairman for eight years for my band. In all those years I was there, and even after my time being an MLA, these issues kept coming up in B.C. Given the chaos in B.C. for the last 10 years or 15 years, Canada has blown an opportunity to have a true partnership with the first nations that signed treaties. From what we understand, the government is going to create another bureaucratic body that is going to cost tens of millions of dollars, with no obligation to follow up on any of the reports coming out of this new office. Am I correct?

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in Ottawa to represent the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. As mentioned earlier, I was a first nations leader. I was a councillor for eight years and a chief councillor for six years, and then I moved on to be an MLA. I am very proud to say that I am representing Skeena—Bulkley Valley in the House today. During those eight years, I was the treaty chairman, which means that I was in charge of day-to-day negotiations for my band. We were at stage four, by the way. We were nowhere close to signing a treaty. In fact, we pulled ourselves out of treaty negotiations because economic development agreements were actually outpacing treaty negotiations at the time. However, all the issues we talked about in terms of treaty implementation are still there today. During the discussion we had at the summit in Vancouver, we talked about Canada's failure to show up to the table to implement modern day treaties. When I became an MLA, I was surprised to hear that all the reports over the last 15 to 20 years, all the letters, all the lobbying, had made their way to Ottawa but nothing was done. I was surprised to hear that an independent body such as the Auditor General actually reported to the House annually on the failure of the government to implement modern day treaties. As my work as an MP has unfolded, it has come out that those reports had no teeth to them. They had no backbone. There was no reason for the government to follow the Auditor General's report to follow up on implementing what should be a priority in B.C., if not in Canada. We are looking at the chaos in B.C. right now. We have heard the debate in the B.C. legislature. We have heard the debate in the House of Commons in Ottawa, talking about the need for certainty. We need the economy to be back on track. After 10 years of stifling the economy, the priority now is to get the economy moving, but for that we need first nations participation, as cited in the Haida court case of 2004 that laid out the framework on how to reconcile aboriginal rights and title with Crown statutory decision-making. It was working. From 2004 to 2017, it was working on a few points. Number one is that we had to resolve rights and title interests. On specific projects, that was working out okay. It was not in all cases, of course, but in most cases, especially if we are talking about the LNG development in Kitimat and especially if we are talking about the pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver, the Trans Mountain pipeline, and countless mining agreements. The majority of these agreements were done with first nations that had asserted aboriginal rights and title, not defined title such as we are talking about here today. By defined title, I mean there is a first nation that sat down and said, “We want to put down for the record our rights and title, and we want to coexist in the economy of Canada today and the society of today. We're going to reconcile our interests under the laws of Canada and B.C., under the regulations of Canada and B.C.” That is essentially what a treaty is. When we talk about Bill C-10, through which the government wants to create a commissioner for modern day treaty implementation, again it is just another announcement. It would be millions of dollars or more going towards a title, an office, not only to compile the list of complaints over the last 20 years but also to possibly amend those complaints with the complaints of today, which are basically the same complaints as the last 20 years. The last time I got up to speak to this, I told the House that everything is already there for the government to co-operate and partner with treaty first nations. Read the treaty. It talks about the Crown's obligations, department by department, on how to implement the treaty. More than ever before, the reason for that is what we talk about here every day, whether we are talking about tariffs, the economy or the cost of living. It is there. The government just needs to read the treaty and enforce it. The accountability is not only for the government, but every ministry under the government has an obligation to look at that treaty and find out exactly what their duties are to breathe life into it. The first nations are there. They want co-operation. They want to help build Canada. The complaint is that Canada just does not want to implement it. If the government does not want to read the treaty and understand its own obligations under the treaty, then it should look to its own website. There is a comprehensive set of guidelines and principles on the government website that talk about how to implement modern day treaties. It is already there. The government wrote it and amended it over the years. Just one publication is the “Guide for Federal Implementers of Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements”. It is on the Canadian government website. It has an executive summary and eight different clauses talking about treaty implementation. It gives the background of how we came to these treaties in the first place, coming from comprehensive land claims agreements and self-government agreements to modern day treaties in B.C. It talks about how to implement the treaties, the phases of implementation, how to plan for implementation, the committees that are set up for implementation, the implementing bodies and the obligations of all the parties. It also includes funding obligations, which we all know continue from Ottawa after a first nation signs a treaty. It is there. It talks about the roles and responsibilities of federal implementers. It talks about the principles of federal collaboration. The government does not need a new treaty commissioner to tell it its own principles of collaborating with first nations treaties. This is already written in its own document. If the Auditor General already told government annually, in their reports, how the government is failing at implementation, what good would a multi-million-dollar new office and budget do? There are also federal structures and processes, coordination, decision-making, information sharing, monitoring and reporting. There are annexes supporting these principles under treaty. It is a shame if government is just buying more time so more reports and more summaries can be presented to the House and shelved. The plan is there. The treaty is there. The government has its own guides to follow. It has the recommendations of the Auditor General. I assume the government's lead bureaucrats are telling it about the failures and how to fix them. More than ever, we need action, not another office, not another title and not more money being spent. The treaty first nations are there. They want to assist in building Canada. They want to do everything they can to make this economy stronger. The only one missing is the federal government. If the government does truly believe that we can build Canada strong, then it should get back to some of the fundamental partners that can help it, the first nations that have signed modern day treaties.

Madam Speaker, there are so many processes put in place already to achieve the exact same goal. I think first nations should be made well aware of the time wasted talking about this, when really the simple answer is that the government should have actually fulfilled its obligations when it signed the treaties five years, 10 years or 15 years ago. That was the number one promise made by the government.

Madam Speaker, that is exactly it. Everybody is failing to talk about the outcomes. Do we really need another report after 20 years of reports saying the exact same thing? If there is no accountability and no follow-up, then what are we getting in return? It is crucial now that Canada start building. Everybody agrees with that, but the partners on the ground are actually begging and screaming for something. I think those first nations should come here to see the other side of this and see how this place works, because the announcements are really not doing anybody any good, whether we are talking about first nations or non-first nations. I think this is a great time for government to actually fulfill its obligations and authority, and to fulfill the promises of the treaty.

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians think of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, they think of LNG and the port of Prince Rupert. These projects are important, but they are only part of the story. Our region is home to tremendous economic potential, from the port of Stewart to the industrial lands being developed around Kitselas and Terrace and emerging opportunities in mineral processing and refining in communities like Houston. Resource development is also creating new opportunities across the northwest, with projects such as the reopening of coal operations near Telkwa, helping to support jobs and local economies. The people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley are ready to build, invest and grow. What we need is recognition and support from the government, not more barriers or delays. Our region has the resources, the workforce and the determination to help drive Canada's economic future. If we unleash the full potential of communities across the northwest, we can get Canada building again, growing again and back on track.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very passionate speech. As opposition members, we propose to improve these types of bills with amendments. The Liberals characterize these amendments at committee stage as obstructions, yet all we are trying to do is make the bills better. Could the member tell us if there are amendments that can be implemented to achieve the objectives while still protecting privacy and civil rights?

Madam Speaker, the member gave a knowledgeable speech in terms of democracy and the way this place is supposed to work. In fact, when I came here, the Liberal government had a minority government, and things were working. It was getting comments from all the MPs in this place, and there was compromise and amendments in committee. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they stacked their majority and now they do not allow debate on any amendments from any party. By my numbers, there are 174 Liberal members who want to force this bill through, but there are 169 MPs from every party who want to fix part 2. Does the member see the fault in this? Can she see how this is wrong and how it is working against the democratic system?

Mr. Speaker, it is basically democracy that translates from the House to committee. The Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP all agree with part 1 of this bill. There is no question about that. It is 9:30 at night, and after this, the committee will sit again. It will be one more attempt for MPs in the House to protect civil liberties and privacy. Does the member think the Liberal government will listen to the debate and actually consider the amendments put together by all the members of the House outside of the Liberal majority government?

Mr. Speaker, the member was knowledgeable in his comments and his speech on Bill C-9. I spoke to this bill. As an indigenous person, coming from the Indian Act and knowing that natives did not have rights until the last 50 years, I was shocked at this. The issue is the potential attack not only against faith leaders but also against the fundamental principle of freedom of all manners. I cannot understand why the House has not taken the charter seriously. We are actually playing politics with it. With respect to the motion that my colleague has put on the floor, is there any chance the Liberal government will come to its senses and support it? If not, what are the options for us as Conservatives on behalf of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, there are important life-saving drugs that Canadians might not be able to access in a timely manner. Some Canadians are suffering from serious conditions and cannot access proven life-saving drugs. We know the risks, and we know the science behind these drugs is sound. Those are not the problems. The problems facing Canadians trying to access life-saving drugs are too much paperwork and too much bureaucracy. That is why we are debating Bill C-265 today, so we can get life-saving drugs to Canadians who need them in a timely and efficient manner. This is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. To be more clear, it is meant to provide a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. “Pre-approved” is the key word. Pre-approved drugs cut down on time and bureaucracy. Canada already has a program designed for Canadians with serious or rare conditions when no other treatments exist. It is called the special access program. The problem is that there are no provisions for pre-approved drugs that are based on precedent. The special access program was meant to open a door to therapies already proven to be effective elsewhere. The intent was there, the intent was good, but the implementation failed. In 2025 alone, over 11,000 requests were processed, but each request was treated as a new request. Repeated requests were treated as new requests, instead of a consistent and efficient system that recognized the suffering and complications that some Canadians were experiencing. These are drugs requested before by Canadian doctors, drugs approved by jurisdictions that we consider to be our peers and drugs with real-world data behind them, yet each application started from scratch. Not only do doctors have to go through this process time and time again, but the patients also have to apply time and time again. My own brother, who suffers from a rare spinal disease, had to go through this for years. When his medications ran out, he would have to wait for his application to be approved so he could resume pain management. This left a gap. This left him to self-medicate with non-prescription drugs, which he hated to do, but he could not bear the pain, and I do not blame him. How many other people have considered this option? If the special access program was streamlined for well-established use cases, people like my brother would have less pain and definitely less stress, especially when the drug is referred to as “life-saving”. The paperwork and bureaucracy do not produce or generate new data. They do not generate new knowledge, but they take up time. For patients with serious conditions, time is a valuable commodity. There is no doubt that the Conservatives support this bill, but there are problems with it. My time is limited, so I will not go through them, but many of my colleagues have pointed out the problems with the bill. It is our wish that this bill go to committee. One of the problems is that the bill, as presented, would open the door for dangerous drugs to make it onto the pre-approved list and would effectively create a loophole that would make it easy for people suffering from drug use to be prescribed methamphetamine as liquid caffeine. This is far from being hypothetical. Through the special access program, requests for drugs like LSD and MDMA have in fact been made. Members may also recall that restrictions on the special access program existed to limit opioid diversion under the Harper government. In 2013, then health minister Rona Ambrose amended the program after learning that Health Canada had approved a request granting 21 patients with chronic addictions access to prescription heroin. However, the Trudeau Liberal government later lifted the restrictions that Conservatives had imposed on illegal and harmful substances, such as LSD, heroin and cocaine. Conservatives had put those restrictions in there for a reason. We look forward to seeing this go to committee for more amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was passionate, and I agree. Coming from where I do, the north coast of British Columbia, I have experienced that most of my life. The government wants to portray this side of the House as not being supportive of this type of bill or protecting vulnerable people. The Conservative member for York Centre moved an amendment, CPC-13, that was defeated by the Liberal government. It would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under section 7 and section 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause, while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve. Why did the government not protect victims in this equation?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to talk about Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. Before I get into the substance of the bill itself, I want to explain the term “safety valve”, because just about every speaker has spoken to this term. It is a mechanism that allows judges to give lesser sentences, as opposed to a strict mandatory minimum sentence. If we are going to give weaker sentences instead of imposing a strict mandatory minimum sentence for some of these crimes, then what is the point of using the term “mandatory minimum sentence”, especially when we are talking about protecting women and vulnerable victims? Even when the government members themselves get up and debate, they admit that the bill is long overdue. In fact, when I was an MLA, we were talking about crimes and how there should be punishment. At the time, the NDP government actually blamed Ottawa for not amending or introducing more legislation. I agree. This is a long time coming. It just so happens that a “southern Alberta man faces criminal charges after police say they found more than half a million child sexual exploitation photos and videos in his possession.... More than 500,000 child sexual exploitation photos and videos were discovered, [making it] one of the largest collections the unit has ever encountered”. Like every other case that has been in the media in the last year or so, this just makes me sick. A lot of other leaders have said the same thing. It makes them sick. I know some premiers who have made some pretty inflammatory comments about what should be done with these kinds of people. It is good that the legislation is up. Is it groundbreaking? Does it go to the full extent of protecting victims? We have to give credit to the Conservatives, who have been asking for the legislation for years. Finally, it is being recognized in Bill C-16, not just in terms of debate but also in terms of some of the content that we are talking about that is in Bill C-16. Making the murder of an intimate partner first-degree actually came from the Conservative MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of sexual deepfakes, digitally manipulated pictures or video using artificial intelligence, came from the Conservative MP for Calgary Nose Hill. Updating mandatory requirements for child exploitation material came from previous Conservative governments. We are pleased to see that the government took its lead from Conservative MPs. To try to frame it now, politically, that Conservatives do not support this or that, somehow, we do not agree with protecting victims is misleading Canadians. That is not the truth. If anything, Conservatives have been leading the charge to actually punish offenders for years. It is now here, but one of the best tools of this institution is committee work. I did not realize that until I got to Ottawa, because committees in the B.C. legislature are different. The Liberal government stacked the committees to, basically, get its own way in terms of votes. Not only is it now a slim margin of votes so that the Liberal government can get everything it wants in a committee, but it actually stacked it even further so that there is no chance of any amendments proposed by any opposition parties. I am talking about the Bloc. I am talking about the Conservatives. The committee is there for a purpose. It is to collaborate. It is to represent the interests and needs of Canadians, the interests and needs of the constituents we represent. The Liberal government is framing this as one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation that has come down the pike in a long time. That is not true. It could have been better. In terms of amendments regarding safety valves, there were six put forward by Conservatives that were all voted down by the Liberal committee members. There was one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have narrowed the mandatory minimum safety valves to only apply to offenders with no prior criminal record. There was one from the member for York Centre, another Conservative, that would have required courts to consider only offenders' actual circumstances, not hypothetical scenarios such as what the court is saying, when assessing the constitutionality of mandatory minimums. It was voted down by the Liberals. There was another one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have excluded serious offences, including child sexual offences and major drug trafficking offences, from accessing the mandatory minimum safety valve. This means that we wanted the full extent of the law applied to these offenders, especially drug traffickers, sex traffickers and those having anything to do with violent crime. We should give them not a lesser penalty but the full mandatory sentence. We should keep the full mandatory sentence in play. If we really want to protect women, vulnerable victims and children, we should keep that mandatory sentence. If anyone wants to challenge it, they can challenge it in the courts. The Liberal government is so afraid of being challenged through the charter. If victims or Canadians cannot depend on us as lawmakers to stand up and fight for them, and they cannot depend on the courts, who are they going to depend on? There is nobody left. The Liberals should take on the challenge. The Supreme Court can use a challenge, especially when we are talking about a lesser, weaker sentence for some of the worst offenders in our society. It is getting worse. There were six amendments put together for that safety valve, and each one was voted down. There were two amendments for victims' rights put together by my Conservative colleagues, and they were voted down by the Liberal committee members. One was put together by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South that would have ensured victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control are notified without delay of release orders or recognizance. It was voted down. There was another one from the same member that would have required the Parole Board chairperson to disclose offender information without delay to the victims of intimate partner violence or coercive control offences. It was voted down. The bill could have been stronger. We could have sent a strong message to the women and vulnerable victims in Canada, saying that we are going to fight for them. We are going to take on the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court rules against us, we will think of another fight. Each and every MP could have taken that pledge together, but we did not. The Liberal government backed down at committee through majority votes on each one of these amendments. There were six other defeated amendments. The one put together by the member for York Centre would have protected against charter challenges to child pornography, possession and access offences under sections 7 and 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve. It was voted down. Four pages of amendments were voted down by the Liberal committee members. There were also amendments ruled out of scope, and each one of these amendments was just trying to further strengthen the bill so offenders could not get away. I know there are going to be lawyers arguing this and fighting for lesser sentences or no sentence at all. I know that. However, as legislators, we are the last stop. We are the last hope. Given that the Liberal government actually took recommendations from Conservatives and implemented them in this bill is commendable. To be truly ambitious, the Liberals should not have voted out the rest of the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the gun buyback or confiscation plan is actually going after law-abiding citizens who have PALS and get training. For those who have restricted firearms, the bar is even higher. They are not going to get safety valves. They are going to get a mandatory sentencing. Anything under this is going to get reduced sentences, and that is including firearms offences. The Conservatives have been saying that we have to start tightening the controls and the laws around firearms, especially connected to crimes, but not law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government calls concerns about private property rights fearmongering, yet the Liberals, as the number one defendant, are appealing the Cowichan decision. The Liberal government is depending entirely on Montrose Properties, a private business, to defend private property on behalf of Canadians. On top of this, the Liberals voted against a Conservative motion that would protect private property rights. Canadian homeowners deserve certainty and clarity. Will the Liberal Prime Minister secure the private property rights of Canadians and provide economic certainty while creating respectful partnerships with first nations?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and more of an honour to go back over the 20 years of experience I have in project development. In 2003, we really did not know what environmental assessment, permitting or aboriginal rights and title were. The Haida court case of 2004 still had not come out yet. By 2004-05, we had to piece it all together and try to understand it. We were living in a condemned residential school building that only had one computer and faxes, but we did it. To understand the process to achieve our objectives was the goal, because nothing else worked for us to get our people out of poverty and to get us out from the paternalistic Indian Act. We tried tourism, forestry and programs, but nothing worked, so we changed our strategy after a while and started engaging the economy. That is how Peace in the Forest, LNG and our deliberations on oil came about. It was all based on process, not on ideology or politics. What is the process in place here? How is the government going to ensure that it is going to engage first nations, as per section 35 of the Constitution? I see that the Prime Minister made an announcement in Vancouver a few days ago saying that it was non-negotiable to deal with aboriginal rights and title. Somehow, people clapped like he invented sliced bread. That has been in place since 2004. The processes that we developed, first nations along with the Crown, the communication processes to breathe life into the Haida court case of 2004, are well established. That ship has sailed. Now the question is whether the Liberal government is going to override all those processes and all that case law to fast-track a project, meaning a pipeline to the west coast of B.C. We have to remember where this came from. The Prime Minister sold himself as the person who could get control of Trump. That was it. Then, from then on, we started to hear all the doublespeak. Back then, the quote was, from the Prime Minister, “We will win this trade war and build the strongest economy in the G7.” He gave up on that. Then, he changed the narrative to “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become weaknesses—weaknesses that we must correct.” That has not gone over so well. There was the slogan of “elbows up”, but I guess Trump did not get the idea of what elbows up meant. Then the Prime Minister said, “Canada...has the best trade deal with the United States. While it's different from what we had before, it is still better than that of any other country.” I think that by now, Canadians understand that tariffs are here to stay. It does not matter if someone is a Republican or Democrat down in the United States, tariffs are here to stay. It got so bad for the Liberals that they hired a former Conservative leader to be part of the negotiation team to see if they could salvage something, but it is not looking so great. The promise during the campaign was to invoke the Emergencies Act to get projects built, but that was scratched. Then, it was the Building Canada Act. When people come to me and ask what it is all about, I have to tell them that I do not know; I have no idea. I get process, but this is now such a scattered plan. We just heard the Liberals debating against tanker traffic. It is their MOU with Alberta, not ours. They have the gall to mention that there was no consultation on this bill. There was no consultation on the MOU or the co-operation agreement. Even with Pathways, they made the announcement of carbon sequestration and then they went over to the first nation and said, "Okay, now we are going to consult with you," even though they had made the decision. It was an afterthought. There was no respect for section 35 of the Constitution. Then the government brought in the doublespeak again. To save face, it was going to talk about consent. It had already made a deal to fast-track a project within one year, with shovels in the ground and all that stuff. Then the Prime Minister said that he would not do anything without consent, not only the consent of the first nations, which would have to be an elaborate plan, but also the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The government was fighting against its own MOU. It was fighting against its own co-operation agreement. It was fighting against its own Building Canada Act. All this mixed messaging is failing Canadians. The biggest announcement in the last year to diversify our oil exports was to revive Keystone to bring more oil to the United States. That is not even ironic. The idea was to get away from or at least diversify the markets away from America, not build up more dependence. When we are talking about the tanker ban itself, we have to know what it is. The ban prohibits oil tankers from stopping, unloading or loading in any port in a designated area. That is it because currently people are allowed to import or export, or even load or unload, 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products. The Liberals talked about diesel spills on the west coast, which have been happening for the last 100 years. Tugboats go down. Seine boats go down. Gillnetters go down. It does not matter what one's background or ethnicity is. Everybody who owns a boat that sank has contributed to that diesel or gasoline spill. That is not new. In fact, the first nations that still depend on diesel for electricity have had spills at their docks. Now we are trying to eradicate that, of course, but it is going to take time. We are talking about a voluntary exclusion zone, a buffer zone between tankers and much of B.C.'s coast extending further offshore. We saw the story of an oil tanker going up Hecate Strait between the mainland of B.C. and Haida Gwaii, but we did not get an explanation as to why. I thought it was because of the International Maritime Organization's laws, which Canada is a signatory to. We are talking about safety. There was a rumour saying that it is a shorter distance for an oil tanker to come up from Burnaby, B.C., to go up the strait and then head over to China. That is not much of a tanker ban. The risk is still there. The Liberal government likes to talk about risk, but fails to mention all the tankers coming from Alaska to Washington state. What does Washington state do with that crude oil? It turns it into aviation jet fuel, gas and diesel, and we buy it from Washington state. We do not have a domestic energy policy. We are vulnerable. We saw the flooding that happened on the Coquihalla Highway in B.C. It got to a point where the Americans came to B.C.'s rescue. B.C. residents were rationed to 30 litres at a time for a fill-up at a gas station. What did Washington state do? It supplemented B.C.'s supply of gasoline and diesel by barging up more gas and diesel. At that time, the NDP premier mused about expanding the refinery capacity at Burnaby, trying to get away from this vulnerability that Canadians face. There is also a penalty for violating this voluntary tanker moratorium. It can include fines of up to $5 million for each instance of non-compliance. It does not mention anything about Americans. It does not mention anything about the tankers coming from Burnaby.

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions and speeches, it is more cost, more carbon taxes and more of the same. In Skeena—Bulkley Valley, gas prices are up to two dollars a litre. The Liberals claim that gas prices are due to world oil prices being $100 a barrel, but in 2014, under the Conservative government, gas prices were around 45¢ cheaper, and the price of oil at the time was $100 a barrel. It is Liberal policies that are hurting the hard-working people of northwest B.C. It is high Liberal taxes and our weak dollar, because of our weak economy. The loonie is down 20% compared to 2014. When we have a weak dollar, every internationally priced commodity, like energy and food, costs more. Why is our dollar weak? It is because Liberal policies blocking resource development are scaring away investment. The Prime Minister should take our common-sense plan to remove all taxes on all gas all year, unblock our oil and gas production, and make Canada affordable and strong.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case. The judge then ruled that private property was defective and invalid. Canada must pursue reconciliation with indigenous peoples, but these decisions are moving in the wrong direction. Canadians need the certainty that comes with knowing that their homes and property are theirs. With appeals and other court cases coming, why is the Liberal Prime Minister telling his lawyers not to defend private property?

Mr. Speaker, that speech covered a lot of area, I must admit. A number of the member's colleagues have gotten up and talked about how the Conservatives should get on board, work with them and just agree with the sovereign wealth fund, because it is good for the country. Actually, that is not how this model is set up. The Westminster model is set up with the official opposition, and normally we would go to committee, but committee has been stacked to the point now where we really cannot get debate without the government's votes stacked in its favour. On top of that, most of our committees are now going in camera, so we cannot even discuss what is being discussed in committees. Does the member have any opinions on how we can actually collaborate, outside of the committees, which have been hamstrung by the new appointments?

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Kitchener Centre. I am very proud to get up on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to speak to the motion, which is on the federal Canada student grant for full-time students. This brings me back to 20 years ago when my small first nation, the Haisla Nation, was trying to integrate our people into the economy, specifically into the workforce. Basically, what we are debating here is a motion about the federal government restricting student grants for public institutions and not-for-profit private institutions. While we are talking about this, I have to talk about the Kitimat Valley Institute, a private post-secondary institute in my riding, in the town of Kitimat, that was bankrupt. We could see the value in saving the Kitimat Valley Institute. As a small first nation band under the Indian Act, we had no money, but we could see its value because coming down the pike were forestry, LNG and mining jobs, so we did what we could to scratch together the dollars to purchase this private post-secondary institute and save it. Did we get any government help? No, we did not. It was the private sector that came to our rescue, the corporations. Those first few years were a struggle without government support, provincial or federal. Our people back then were facing the same situation that young people in Canada are facing right now. There is no opportunity or future for young people in Canada, so they are trying to leave. They are trying to go to the United States for a better opportunity to build a life. What was proposed at the Liberal convention just recently for these young people who want to leave is a $500,000 exit tax. If anybody wants to leave Canada for employment or to build a business outside of Canada, there could be an exit tax, which the Liberals debated at their convention. Not only are they stifling the economy so that young people cannot build a life, but they want to punish them with this proposed exit tax. This is not the way to build Canada into the best performing country in the G7, let alone an energy superpower. To do either of those things we need a workforce, preferably a Canadian workforce that is trained and created in Canada, within our borders. Without that, we are basically supporting the economies of other countries, especially when we are talking about labour shortages in skilled and technical fields. Now, many students rely on those grants to afford their career programs, including first nations students. First nations have no real opportunity to engage with respect to what we are talking about here today. If the average aboriginal person who has never left and does not want to leave the reserve has to leave for training or employment, they will want to return to their community or their territory at some point. This is a real struggle. Not only are we telling that person to go out there and find their way in the outside world, but we are basically telling them that they are going to have to struggle with affordability issues under the Indian Act because they will not get 100% of the funding. For a first nation that does not have own-source revenue, it becomes a budgetary exercise and puts limits on what it can do with its younger generation. That is why we bought the Kitimat Valley Institute. We scratched together the dollars to accomplish that. This proposal excludes the Kitimat Valley Institute, which my band operates on private land, by the way. We bought the land from the provincial government, kept it in fee-simple status and keep paying the taxes on it because we understand that the economy is a lot bigger than what we are thinking about. I do not think the government is truly thinking about all the aspects that go into a private post-secondary institution, which includes taxes and employment of instructors and custodians. Everybody who works at a facility contributes to the economy, locally, provincially and federally. However, it is the next generation of workers who are going to feel this crunch, because they cannot get the training in public institutions alone. For first nations trying to be creative, trying to chart out their own futures for their young people based on the circumstances they have been given under the Indian Act, it is a tough slog. We cannot think about the idea of the chicken and egg when we are talking about economy versus education. I learned pretty quickly that everything we did for training, for education, actually returned to me in anger, because there was no economy in our region. There was a job expected after this training. At that point I understood that training and education go hand in hand with economic development. They have to, otherwise we have people leaving our community. We have a brain drain, and that is what is happening right now in Canada with our best and brightest, whether they go to a public institution or not, going to the United States. This motion does not help. It punishes young people, it punishes Canadians, and why? Is it a budgetary question? If it is, just say it. However, if we want Canada to be running on all cylinders, we have to consider all the components that go into training, especially when we are talking about what we do as small first nations communities all across B.C. and Canada that want to contribute to the economy and want to get our people into the workforce. If not for the Kitimat Valley Institute, KVI, we would not have the number of people entering the workforce to build LNG Canada. When we think about LNG Canada, there are 50,000 construction workers. I am sad to say that not all of those construction workers came from Canada. They came from all over the place. They came from the United States. They came from all across Canada, from different provinces. I see it as a specialized industry. I get it, but we do not build the Canadian workforce by limiting our options. Canada is in a really tough spot with the trade war from the United States and the trade talks coming up. I agree, we have to be independent as a country. We have to diversify our trade, and we have to rebuild our economy after 10 years of stifled policies, regulations and legislation. However, to omit a certain educational entity is wrong. It is not building our workforce. It is not building the future. If we are going to be the energy superpower in the same vein as LNG Canada, or maybe Chevron, which left Canada, a $30-billion investment, and if we want to rebuild this, we have to rebuild the people. We have to show them hope. This motion does not do it.

Mr. Speaker, what is the point of this motion then, if not to restrict federal student grants and exclude for-profit institutions like my band has? Why should we have that? This member got up earlier. I heard him say that somehow we are playing a game. This is not gamesmanship. This is about rebuilding Canada. This is about rebuilding a future for young people. Why have this restriction, especially for a lot of first nations communities all across Canada, which are doing exactly the same thing as my community? This would actually discount all those first nations' efforts to not employ just their own people, like an institution like ours, and employ native and non-native alike. It has benefited everybody. It has made Canada stronger. I do not see the point of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, we have a living example of that in my community, Haisla first nation. We could not get government support for our for-profit institution, Kitimat Valley Institute. We fixed it, not through government support, but through the corporations. I believe that this motion we are talking about is going to be discriminatory. Do colleagues know who it is going to affect the most? It will be those people with a low income. Who are the most low-income people in Canada? It is those people from first nations. I cannot accept this motion the way it is worded.

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt that is exactly what we learned pretty quickly when we purchased KVI. We opened that up to everybody, native and non-native alike, including first nations from other communities because we knew we could not fulfill the workforce for LNG Canada for 50,000 workers. With Chevron coming down, that was going to be another 40,000 workers. We get the grand announcements. We get the rhetoric of building Canada strong, of being an energy superpower and all that. I do not believe any of it, but if we are going to try to get there, one of the key components is to build the workforce and make sure that the workforce, the majority of it, is Canadian.

moved: That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting the short title. Mr. Speaker, before I get to my comments, I would like to draw members' attention to Cancer Awareness Month in honour of my younger sister, my mother and all those fighting this horrible disease; and the support teams who help out those who are trying to fight cancer. We are talking today about the government trying to create a new position of treaty commissioner. The rationale is that somehow this would give accountability to the government's implementing and honouring the modern-day treaties that have been signed, mainly in B.C. They were negotiated in B.C. for the last 30 or 40 years. I have the honour of having one treaty in my riding, the Nisg̱a'a Treaty. The treaty is 20 years old and yet the people still cannot get the federal government to co-operate as a treaty partner as outlined in the treaty itself. I also have in my riding two first nations that are up for ratification, the Kitselas First Nation and Kitsumkalum. They are going through the ratification stage right now in B.C. However, they are going to face the same problems that Nisg̱a'a, Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and other first nations are experiencing right now with modern-day treaties, in that they cannot get Canada to participate in a modern-day treaty in partnership with Canada. The current Liberal government wants the world to think that if it creates a treaty commissioner there will be accountability and Canada would then get to the table and co-operate with these first nations that have signed modern-day treaties. However, what government members will forget to tell them is that this issue is 20 years old. It comes back annually. There have been endless reports, even to the point where the Government of Canada created a document called the “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”. It has headings: “Roles and Responsibilities...Deputy Ministers' Oversight Committee...Modern Treaty Implementation Office [and] Evaluation of the Directive”. On top of that is the expected rhetoric that the government will “ensure that they are aware of, understand, and fulfill their departments' obligations pursuant to all modern treaties in effect.” It sounds good, except it does not do it. The treaty itself is supposed to be a document that says Canada, B.C. and a first nation shall work together in key areas. A first nation gives up its asserted rights and title and comes into a constitutionally protected document agreement in good faith, in the spirit that the first nation that signs the treaty will walk beside Canada and B.C. and help build Canada together. The first nations are there. They want to implement and they want to build, not just for their own first nation but for Canada overall, but Canada is missing. In fact, the document, “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”, came from another document, “Canada's Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy”. This has more headings than the first document I named. It goes on at length ad nauseam in terms of how Canada this year will commit to implementing the treaties that it signed with first nations. It has the regular rhetoric: “Message from the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations...Purpose...Context...Interpretation and application of this policy...Principles guiding the timely, effective and full implementation of modern treaties...Advancing objectives of modern treaties...[and] Direction to public servants”. That means that every single ministry under the federal government that is tasked with working with its counterparts in treaty first nations has been directed to do a job. There are headings on legislative, policy and program design considerations; monitoring, evaluation and review; and commitments to further work on essential components of the policy. Then there are the annexes. One is intergovernmental relationships, with the intergovernmental leaders' forum and the intergovernmental policy circle. The next is accountability and oversight. All these documents and all these announcements that have come up year after year over the past 30 years are simply to state one thing: Canada is not living up to the obligations that it signed on to with the modern day treaties. Is it any wonder that the first nations will take anything that shows accountability to the first nations that have already signed them? There are already mechanisms in the House that speak to the accountability. There are already entities outside the House that speak to the accountability that should be there but is not. There is the Auditor General's report on whether or not the government is living up to its commitments and obligations under the treaty. In B.C., we have the BC Treaty Commission, “the keeper of the process”, as it is referred to. There is also every single department under the federal government that is supposed to be held accountable and should be sending reports to the government and to cabinet on why they are or are not living up to these commitments. We have logged, cut down, a massive amount of forest to produce all the paperwork simply to say we want to work with first nations that have signed a treaty, that have given up their aboriginal rights and title. The biggest example that comes to mind is the Nisg̱a'a, in my territory. They wanted to be respected as a treaty partner. They take pride in their treaty. Not only is it a form of independence they are still working on, but they also thought they would be walking side by side with the federal and provincial governments. That is not so, according to the Nisg̱a'a. On Bill C-48, the tanker ban, the Nisg̱a'a urged the government that the moratorium, the tanker ban, must not be introduced before the implications for their nation and their treaty were well understood. More important, they said that the moratorium should not cover Nisg̱a'a treaty territory. The Nisg̱a'a, to be clear, were not supporting a tanker ban. They were not for it. They were not against it. They just felt that they were owed the duty of a higher level of consultation when Canada was proposing it. They did not get it. This brings me back to the days of the B.C. legislature. I warned the B.C. legislature not to play games with aboriginal issues, whether we were talking about case law or UNDRIP, and now B.C. is chaos. I give the same warning to the House. We should not play games with aboriginal issues, or else the chaos and the confusion are going to get built on, in terms of what we are seeing in B.C. right now.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, you are playing games with aboriginal issues. The Speaker is not, but through the Speaker to the member of the Liberal government, I say that you are playing games. You have 20 years of reports. There is Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy that you have not implemented. Out of that, there is the cabinet directive on the federal approach to modern day treaty implementation that you have not implemented, so you are—

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is any amendment that could be proposed that would actually breathe life into the agreements. The announcements are all there in black and white. They are detailed right down to the last letter. Creating another position to implement what the government should have been doing right from day one would just give first nations and the Canadian public a false sense of security, even of accomplishment for that matter.

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think the Liberal government is sincere. Otherwise, why would we need a treaty commissioner, when it is already laid out in a number of agreements and announcements and the treaty itself says that it has to be partnering up on the clauses in each treaty? There were the games in the B.C. legislature as well. An ex-minister from the House was actually hired by the B.C. NDP to settle the pipeline blockade issue. We could not see the report, because the report was deemed an oral report, so we still do not know what the consequences of that were.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Indian Act, I have a special concern when it comes to civil liberties and the freedoms and rights of Canadians. However, when we are talking about protecting civil liberties, the Liberal government says that is based on conspiracies when, really, all we are trying to do is protect the freedom of Canadians. Can my colleague give some examples of the Liberal government trying to promote the overreach of government, which nobody wants in this House or in Canada?