Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear in the House that we acknowledge that constitutional rights are important. We acknowledge that consultation must take place, but we also must be able to get to answers in a quick and timely way. We know that what we are doing with Bill C-5 will advance indigenous interests, with meaningful equity, meaningful partnership and meaningful participation from indigenous communities. I ask the member opposite to take a look at the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month, and I want to acknowledge the history I witnessed on Saturday when Mi'kmaq rock icons The Relatives took to the stage to celebrate their 40th anniversary as a band. Tom Johnson, Stan Johnson, Derek Johnson, Darren Stevens, Robert Stevens and Tom Sylliboy have been playing crowd-pleasing get-up-and-dance music across Cape Breton and Mi'kma'ki for four decades. With great original songs like Nutepaqn, Kweji'juow and Perfect Love Song, The Relatives are pioneers in singing songs in the Mi'kmaq language. Not only are The Relatives talented musicians, but they have been exemplary members of the community, volunteering, mentoring, or performing for local causes. They have had deep and lasting impacts that reach far beyond their music. In some circles, the longevity of the band has earned them the moniker of the “Mi'kmaq Rolling Stones”. I am proud to recognize them. [Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text:] Welukweyoq aq weltaql. [Member provided the following translation:] You are doing great, and the music sounds great. [English] I thank them for their 40 years of excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I question some of the logic in the member's speech. I understand that these are concerns that his constituents have brought up, but aboriginal title has been recognized in Canada since 1973. There was the Delgamuukw case in 1997, and three or four different aboriginal title cases have been recognized in British Columbia. Can the member opposite point to a single time when someone lost their property as a result of aboriginal title?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond East—Steveston. I want to take a few minutes today to separate fact from fiction. Right now, when it comes to aboriginal title in this country, there is a lot of confusion. That confusion fuels concern and, in some cases, misinformation is making it worse. Let me be very clear from the outset: Some of the anxiety Canadians are feeling right now is understandable and it is rooted in the fact that this area of law is not settled and is evolving. For many Canadians, this is not an abstract. It is about their homes, their businesses, their communities and their sense of security. When people hear conflicting information about something as fundamental as property rights, it is entirely reasonable that they ask questions and expect clear answers. For decades, Canadian courts have developed aboriginal title law carefully and incrementally since it was first recognized back in 1973. The decision in the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada case at the Supreme Court of British Columbia took a novel approach. It found that aboriginal title could exist in areas that include private fee simple lands and suggested that those interests could actually coexist. The court did not invalidate private property held titles. It did not remove land from individuals. What it did was introduce a new and complex legal question about precisely how continuing private property interests could coexist with what the court also declared was a superior aboriginal title interest. Our government has been clear. We do not agree with the court's decision in Cowichan. We recognized that it creates uncertainty, and that is why it is being appealed. Canadians deserve clarity on something as fundamental as property rights. That is not just our view; it is reflected in the fact that the courts themselves are not aligned on this issue. I want to bring to members' attention that in New Brunswick, the litigation involving the Wolastoqey Nations v. New Brunswick and Canada decision at the Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion. The court stated that it was open for courts to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that declaration of aboriginal title could not be made over private property. Therefore, we now have two court decisions in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why we need to have clarity from the courts, and that is why it is being appealed. This is an important point. When the law is unsettled, it creates space for speculation. It creates space for competing interpretations and, in that space, misinformation can take hold and facts can be twisted. This is where myth begins to enter the picture because while this legal uncertainty is real, it is being used and weaponized in some cases to suggest that negotiated agreements are putting private property at risk. That is simply not true. It is important that we say that clearly, but also respectfully, because many Canadians asking these questions are doing so in good faith. Therefore, let me address one example directly. There has been commentary about the Musqueam agreement and what it does and does not do. Here are the facts. It does not impact Canadians' private property. This agreement does not grant new rights. It does not define or finalize the scope of any existing Musqueam aboriginal rights and it does not attach any such rights to specific parcels of land. What it does do is acknowledge that rights exist, which they do under section 35 of the Constitution, and it creates a structured process for Canada and Musqueam to work together to better understand how those rights may be addressed over time. That is it. It is a framework for negotiations. It is not a transfer of land or change in ownership and it does not affect private property. It does not override provincial jurisdiction and it does not give any decision-making authority over land or resources to Musqueam through this agreement. In other words, it is about creating a path forward for dialogue and clarity, not changing who owns what today. In fact, private property was never part of these negotiations and will never be part of any future negotiations. I would remind colleagues that in British Columbia, jurisdiction over private property rests with the province. It is not something that the federal government can simply negotiate away, and it has not done so. The Musqueam themselves have been clear that this agreement is not about pursuing privately owned land, so when Canadians hear claims that agreements like this somehow put their homes and businesses at risk, those claims are not grounded in fact. They are grounded in trying to create fear. The distinction is important. On the one hand, we have court decisions that are exploring new and unsettled legal territory. On the other hand, we have negotiated agreements that are designed to create clarity, not uncertainty. That distinction matters because litigation and negotiation do very different things. Litigation can clarify the law over time, but it often does so in a narrow, incremental way that can leave broader uncertainty in the meantime. Negotiation allows parties to sit down, address concerns directly and build solutions that reflect real-world impacts. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has resulted in Canadians losing privately owned land. This goes back to 1973 when aboriginal title was first recognized and discussed in the Calder case. In fact, negotiated agreements consistently do the opposite. They provide predictability and clarity and explicitly protect private interests while advancing reconciliation. We saw that recently in the agreement with the Haida Nation, which addressed aboriginal title while clearly providing for the protection of private fee simple lands. That is the value of negotiations. Negotiations allow complexity to be addressed directly and balanced outcomes to be reached. Courts answer legal questions. Negotiations build lasting solutions. We are committed to ensuring those negotiations go forward in a way that creates clarity. Yes, there is uncertainty right now. Canadians have legitimate questions, and we are acting to address that uncertainty by seeking clarity through the courts where the issue is already being raised. At the same time, that uncertainty cannot be used to misinterpret the facts. We will continue to engage Canadians with honesty and transparency and acknowledging what we know, what we do not know yet and what we are doing to get clarity. Fear must not replace facts. Reconciliation must move forward through respectful, balanced and negotiated agreements. At the end of the day, Canadians have confidence that their rights and interests are being protected and reconciliation is being advanced in a thoughtful, measured and fact-based way. That is how certainty is built and trust is strengthened and how we will move together. I want to dwell on this because there has been a lot of misinformation. Conservatives continue to act as if aboriginal title in Canada is a new thing. It has been recognized since 1973. We have seen multiple British Columbia tribes go to court and have their aboriginal titles recognized, from the Nisga'a to the Delgamuukw and the Tsilhqot’in. There is not one example where these court cases resulted in someone losing their fee simple property rights. It just has not happened. To suggest that for some reason or somehow these tribes are going to come after this title and take people's homes and property is just irresponsible, not factual and meant to create fear and misinform Canadians. On this side of the House, we will continue to balance our efforts toward reconciliation with the interests of Canadians. We have done so in every single indigenous case that has ever gone to the Supreme Court where indigenous tribes have won, and we will continue to do so moving forward. For Canadians at home hearing this, our government is ready, prepared and willing to negotiate and ensure that we are protecting property rights at the same time as advancing reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, I respect that member, and I want to respectfully say that I have heard a lot of Conservatives get up and pretend they know something about aboriginal litigation. As someone who taught aboriginal and treaty rights law at university, I have heard some of these arguments. When a court case comes to the Supreme Court of Canada, many intervenors will come in with many different arguments. For the members opposite to suggest that there was one opportunity to have an argument that might go to the Supreme Court of Canada is non-factual. It is not based in any kind of actual fact from anyone who has ever read an aboriginal title case or anyone who has actually looked at the court cases and said, here is what happens when indigenous nations have proved what their section 35 rights are. We sit down and negotiate with them. We protect the interests of Canadians, but we also do it in a way that does not create fear, mistrust and—

Mr. Speaker, truthfully, when I go across this country, I hear chiefs and leaders talking about justice. They talk about the rights that they had, the title and the resources, and they just want their fair share. They are not asking for anything over and above what Canadians receive. They want to be part of a system. They want to be a part of growing. They have these rights, recognized by section 35 and often upheld in the courts, and when those rights are upheld, they often negotiate with our federal government to figure out how we implement those rights. It has happened for the Mi'kmaq in 1990 with the Marshall decision. It happens in British Columbia with aboriginal title. The government, the nations and the province find ways to create dialogue, get to the negotiation table and ensure that we are representing all rights in a situation where all parties are winning and no one loses out.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to look at every single aboriginal title litigation or every section 35 case. There are things called intervenors. The Conservative Party of Canada could actually apply to be an intervenor, since it has all the answers when it comes to litigating first nations rights. I doubt it would be granted, because the Supreme Court looks at rational and reasonable arguments, not at political and irresponsible arguments.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. Today I rise in support of legislation that will drive a level of investment in Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish that has not been seen in generations. The future of the space industry in Canso holds tremendous potential for our riding and our province. Over the next few minutes, I will speak to the deeply positive impacts that Bill C-28 would have. First, I would like to start off with a little bit of gratitude for our government and for our federal government making a historic, $200-million investment in Nova Scotia, in my riding, to help establish a spaceport in Nova Scotia as a cornerstone of Canada's future satellite launches. This investment will create good jobs, support innovation and grow Atlantic Canada's role in a fast-growing global industry. It will also help us rely less on foreign launch sites and build a stronger, more sovereign role in getting satellites into space. From coast to coast to coast, Canadians are turning ambition into capability, developing launch vehicles and spaceports, refining the engines that will lift them and building the satellites that will strengthen our economy and protect our sovereignty. These innovators are ready. Their talent is world-class, but they are held back, not by a lack of vision or capability, but by the absence of a modern legal framework that allows them to launch from home. Today, with the Canadian space launch act, we hand them the key. Today, we unleash the innovation engine. Innovation is in our DNA, but innovators need the right conditions to thrive, a framework that matches the scale of their ambition, which is what this legislation would provide. The global space economy is projected to grow more than 200% by 2032. Here at home, Canada's space sector workforce grew by almost 6% in 2023, reaching an all-time high. Canadians are ready to compete and lead in this rapidly expanding market, and this legislation will give them the clear framework they need to do it. Without a domestic legal regime, Canadian companies face stark choices: wait indefinitely or take their innovation and jobs abroad. That is a choice this legislation ensures they would never face. Why does launch matter so much? Satellites are critical infrastructure woven into daily life. When a ship threads through fog in the St. Lawrence, when paramedics locate a caller in seconds, when communities in the north rely on satellite links for school and telehealth, when utilities and banks synchronize time across vast networks or when our armed forces secure communications, maintain situational awareness, navigate environments and collect intelligence, each of these everyday capabilities depends on space-based assets overhead. Satellites are only as reliable as our ability to launch, maintain, defend and replace them. Sovereign launch capability is not a luxury, but a strategic necessity. Let me speak directly about the innovators who are the human face of this act. NordSpace, headquartered in Ontario and operating in Newfoundland and Labrador, is advancing plans for a commercial spaceport that would create high-skilled jobs, attract investments and inspire the next generation of Canadian engineers and scientists to see rocket launch from Canadian soil. Based in Toronto, Canada Rocket Company is helping to reverse the brain drain by bringing skilled Canadians home to build cutting-edge light- and medium-lift rockets, advancing Canada's objective of securing reliable access to space. Reaction Dynamics, headquartered in Quebec, is developing advanced infrastructure-light launch vehicles that position Canada at the forefront of environmentally responsible access to space: nimble, sustainable and globally competitive. In my home riding, Maritime Launch Services is building one of Canada's first spaceports in Canso. Currently under construction and set to be built by 2028, it is expected to contribute $300 million to our GDP annually. Once fully operational, it will create 1,600 jobs in my riding. I want to repeat that: 1,600 jobs in rural Nova Scotia. That is an amazing thing, and I have so much gratitude for that. This project will deliver enormous economic opportunities for our communities and families. It will contribute to rural economic development, drive tourism and show the world that Nova Scotians can get big things done. That is why I am shocked that the Conservative leader took to Elon Musk's social media company to oppose this competing commercial spaceport project. It is not surprising that there are no Conservatives in Nova Scotia as MPs, because every time a company decides to invest in our province, the Conservatives launch a crusade to kill the jobs, investments and economic benefits for Nova Scotians. We saw it when they opposed legislation, supported by the Progressive Conservative government, to build offshore wind. Thankfully, we did not let them block billions in investment, thousands of jobs, economic opportunities for first nations and our ability to be a renewable energy superpower. We saw it when they opposed the Mersey River renewable project, which would allow Nova Scotians to switch off Nova Scotia power to a new provider. Now they are opposing Nova Scotia's ambitions to be a leader in Canada's commercial space industry, which is expected to be worth $40 billion. With spaceport Nova Scotia, when Nova Scotians look to the stars, they will know that our province contributed to the future of space, built and led right here in Canada. More than 20% of our current economy relies on satellites. In Nova Scotia, we want to continue to be at the forefront of building our economy and these satellites. These companies are proof that Canadian innovation is alive from coast to coast to coast and ready to compete if we give it the framework. This legislation is their launch pad. Atlantic Canada's competitive advantages for commercial space launches are enormous. Our northern geography provides direct access to several desirable orbits essential for earth observation, climate monitoring and defence. Long coastlines offer the ability to launch safely over water, and our border with the United States, the world's largest satellite producer, means seamless supply chain integration. As the global launch infrastructure approaches capacity, international companies are seeking stable alternatives. Canada is positioned to be that destination, but only with the legal framework to welcome them. This legislation is about unleashing Canadians' potential, telling the entrepreneurs across Canada that their government believes in them and is giving them the tools to succeed. Supporting this act means supporting engineers perfecting rocket engines in Sherbrooke, construction workers building launch pads in Nova Scotia, communities that will grow around Canada's spaceport, and every scientist, technician and innovator ready to write the next chapter of our space story. All that remains is for this House to say yes, to ignite the innovation engine, empower Canadian entrepreneurs and ensure that the next rocket to leave Canadian soil carries the full weight of Canadian law, Canadian ambition and Canadian pride. Canada's innovators and economy are ready for us to finally take to the stars, on our own terms, and I am happy to see that happening.

Mr. Speaker, what we really need to concentrate on is the fact that Canada is the only country in the G7 without sovereign space launch capabilities. It is really important for us to focus on our safety, our security and our sovereignty moving forward. For far too long, we have relied on our partners to help us in this area. It is time for Canada to lead. It is time for Canada to innovate, and I am proud that my riding is at the forefront of ensuring that this happens. Supporting this legislation ensures that we move forward with innovation and building big things in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that when we build, we are looking through not only a rural lens, but also one of indigenous participation. In moving forward, we not only expect projects that advance indigenous interests, but we expect meaningful equity, meaningful partnership and meaningful participation. We believe that with this spaceport, we would see 1,600 jobs in a rural area that has five first nations communities around it. We expect them to be full partners in the jobs and in the ability to move forward with partnership, with participation and with equity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to talk about what the capabilities would be in Nova Scotia in the future with this spaceport. As a big fan of Star Trek growing up, I always wanted to say that Canada is going to boldly go where no man has gone before. With this technology and with this investment, our riding and our province have the ability to lead, and I look forward to being a part of that. I look forward to all of the potential, the growth, the technology and the innovation that would come out of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish. It is a great time to be from that riding, and it is a great time to be a Nova Scotian.

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to indigenous people. With that said, our government disagrees with aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision. Preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance, and that is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. As this case is before the courts, I will be careful with my remarks. The principle of the validity of fee simple title is foundational to the certainty and stability of property rights in this country. It is a cornerstone of our legal system and of the confidence Canadians seek in land ownership. The decision of the court has potentially significant implications, including for private property rights. These implications are not limited to one province or one community. They could extend across the country. They touch on questions that go to the heart of how land is owned, transferred and managed in Canada. Let me emphasize in the strongest terms possible that the decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to indigenous people. We respect the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights and title, and we remain fully committed to reconciliation. That commitment is unwavering. We respect the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. Canada's concern with the decision focuses on specific legal questions. Other parties may seek to have other issues resolved. This is a complex matter, and the courts are the proper forum for resolving these questions. Canadians deserve a fair and impartial resolution. That is what the courts are designed to provide. This case goes beyond legal arguments; it concerns the framework that underpins our shared future. Canada's approach must be principled, respectful and clear. That is why we are pursuing this appeal, to seek legal clarity and legal certainty that rights are respected and that reconciliation continues to guide our actions. Our commitment is clear. We will work through the proper legal processes. We will uphold our obligations and we will continue to engage constructively with all parties. That is how we build certainty, stability and trust, values that are essential to Canada's future.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in my remarks, we understand that the decision may cause uncertainty and concern for private landowners. We hear those concerns, and we take them seriously. I reaffirm that our government disagrees with aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision, and that is why we are appealing it. The Government of Canada is committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability in land ownership while respecting aboriginal rights and title and the court process. That balance is essential, not only for property owners but for indigenous communities, municipalities and the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to elaborate on what the government is doing to help Canadians with their day-to-day costs. We know that Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering it. The government is providing help to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians to afford day-to-day necessities through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Specifically, we are providing a one-time top-up to be paid on June 5, which is equal to a 50% increase to the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit. This will deliver $3.1 billion in immediate assistance to 12 million Canadians who currently get the GST credit. We are also increasing the value of the benefit by 25% for five years, starting in July 2026. This will deliver $8.6 billion in additional support over the next five years. Combined, these measures mean that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 annually for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 annually for the next four years. The benefit is only one example of the many ways the government has the backs of Canadians. It is in addition to the existing benefits, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit and the guaranteed income supplement. We are fulfilling the pledge to make life even more affordable for families. Canada's new government is also using the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with the higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective today, April 20, until August 31, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief for Canadians. This temporary suspension of excise tax for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre fuel tank.

Mr. Speaker, by easing the financial strain on households, our government is empowering Canadians to shape a better future for their families and our country. This includes the $150-million food security fund through the regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized businesses and the organizations that support them. This measure will help businesses absorb the costs associated with supply chain disruptions without passing the burden on to Canadians. Our government is taking bold actions right now to support the many Canadians who are feeling the financial sting of everyday expenses. Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering.

Mr. Speaker, there is exciting news for the music industry in Cape Breton. Morgan Toney has just won his first Juno Award, for traditional roots album of the year. He was honoured for his album “Heal the Divide”, which showcases the signature Mi'kmaltic genre, a blend of Mi'kmaq stories and Celtic tunes. From the small community of Wagmatcook, Morgan Toney's fiddle gets people stomping their feet or doing the traditional Mi'kmaq ko'jua dance. Morgan Toney stated that his win is dedicated to his late mother and that he always keeps her in his heart while creating music. Morgan records at the Barn Bhreagh studio in Baddeck with Keith Mullins, a studio known for promoting the Mi'kmaq language. Morgan always finds time to collaborate with others, kindly lending his fiddle to help other recording artists. Morgan Toney continues to inspire and make his community, his nation and all of Cape Breton proud. [Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text:] Welaliek, Morgan. Welukwen aq siawi' keleukw telatike nitap. [Member provided the following translation:] “Thank you, Morgan. You're doing great. Keep up the good work.”

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone can agree that the Indian Act has challenges, that the Indian Act has created discrimination and that we need to move beyond the second-generation cut-off. However, there is no consensus out there on what the solution is. My question for the member opposite is this: If there is a community out there that does not want these amendments, if there is a community out there that wants something else, if there is a community that wants to do it themselves without Parliament and the Senate telling them how to run their communities, should we force this on them? Should they not be given the option to opt into something, as opposed to the Senate or Parliament saying they know what is best for that community?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing this very important issue to the House and making sure that he acknowledged those victims. I share with the member opposite the sense of urgency in getting this legislation through as quickly as possible. I have talked to Mi'kmaq people who have been impacted by this. They have asked that we move speedily to ensure we get this through. The member and I have had good conversations at the INAN committee. He is a respected member of that committee. I am wondering if the member sees any value in potentially seeking unanimous consent so that we can move this to the indigenous and northern affairs committee to ensure that we get this done within the next few weeks, potentially months, for these survivors, so this never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our government in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures. This important piece of legislation addresses coerced sterilization. The bill would address this abhorrent practice by clarifying how the existing law of assault applies when sterilization procedures are carried out without valid consent. Coerced sterilization constitutes a profound breach of bodily integrity with enduring effects on survivors, their families and their communities. Evidence has shown that these harms have been experienced in a disproportionate way by indigenous women and girls, and two-spirit and gender-diverse people in Canada, as well as by racialized and disabled women, which underscores the need for clear legal protections that affirm the centrality of consent in all medical decision-making. Bill S-228 would respond to that need by clarifying for greater certainty that a sterilization procedure constitutes a wounding or a maiming for the purposes of the offence of aggravated assault in section 268 of the Criminal Code. Aggravated assault is the most serious assault offence in Canadian criminal law. It applies where an assault “wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life” of the victim, and it carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. Because all surgeries, including sterilization procedures, necessarily involve wounding or maiming of the body, they already fall within the scope of aggravated assault when performed without legally effective consent. The bill would make explicit what is already implicit in the law. This clarification is critically important because it focuses the legal analysis where it properly belongs. The relevant legal question is whether a particular sterilization procedure amounted to a non-consensual application of force, that is, whether an assault occurred. Both the Criminal Code and long-standing jurisprudence provide an established framework for answering that question. Assault was originally a common-law offence, but it is now codified in subsection 265(1) of the Criminal Code. That provision establishes that an assault occurs where a person applies force to the body of another person, directly or indirectly, without a person's consent, or while being reckless as to whether the person consents. The concept of applying force is broad. It simply means bringing something into contact with another person's body. With that definition, any medical procedure performed on a person without their consent plainly constitutes an assault because it involves intentional application of force to the body. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1988 Morgentaler decision. The court clarified that the law of assault applies to any medical procedure carried out without the patient's legally effective consent, and because surgeries necessarily involve wounding or maiming the patient, they constitute aggravated assault if they are performed without legally effective consent. Bill S-228 therefore underscores the fact that sterilization procedures fall squarely within the established framework. This brings us to the core concept that governs the lawfulness of any medical procedure: legally effective consent. Under Canadian criminal law, the application of force does not constitute an assault where legally effective consent is present. However, consent in law has a precise meaning. Legally effective consent must meet three fundamental criteria: It must freely be given, it must go to the nature of the act and it must be given by a person with the ability to understand what is being done. These requirements have been developed through the common law, some of which are reflected in subsection 265(3) of the Criminal Code. That provision sets out circumstances in which the law will not recognize any consent given. Specifically, the provision states that consent is not obtained in law “where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of” violence, threats of violence, “fraud” or “the exercise of authority”. The requirement that consent be freely given means there must be no fraud or duress. If a patient agrees to a sterilization procedure because they have been misled about its purpose, pressured by authority figures or made to believe that they have no real choice, the law will not recognize that agreement as legally effective consent. Consent also must go to the nature of the act, and the requirement implies a foundation of knowledge. Courts have described this as knowledge of the purpose of the operation, knowledge of the events that will occur and an understanding of the character of what is about to take place. In the context of sterilization, this means that the patient must be informed that the procedure will permanently prevent reproduction. Without that information, there is no legally effective consent. Finally, consent must be given by a person who has the ability to understand. Any consent provided by a patient who is unable to appreciate the nature of the consequences of the act is not valid in law. This issue may arise where the patient is a child or where the patient has a cognitive impairment that affects their capacity to comprehend the procedure and its implication. These principles of voluntariness, knowledge and capacity are consistent with the consent standards applied in provincial and territorial health law across Canada, such that compliance with these standards protects health care providers from criminal liability. The Supreme Court of Canada further clarified the contours of consent for assault law purposes in its 1991 Jobidon decision. The court explained that the list of violating factors set out in subsection 265(3) is not exhaustive. The common law may continue to recognize additional circumstances in which consent will not be applied for public policy reasons. Depending on that fact, at the same time, the court affirmed that the assault law will recognize consent for application of force that has social value, such as appropriate in consensual, surgical interventions. This balance is essential. The criminal law does not criminalize medical care; it is freely chosen and properly consented to. Indeed, it expressly recognizes the social and therapeutic value of appropriate surgical procedures, including sterilization procedures performed with valid consent. Bill S-228 preserves that distinction. It does not restrict access to voluntary sterilization procedures. Rather, it clarifies that, when sterilization is performed without legally effective consent, that conduct constitutes our most serious form of assault. The bill also must be understood in the broadest context, which is that the disproportionate impact of coercion on indigenous women and diverse people has been documented and acknowledged. Clarifying the criminal law is therefore not only a matter of legal precision, but also part of Canada's broader efforts toward reconciliation. In respect to that, Bill S-228 is consistent with Canada's commitments under UNDRIP, which call for concrete measures to eliminate forced and coerced sterilization and to strengthen protections for productive autonomy and bodily integrity. By enforcing the central concept of consent in criminal law, this bill contributes to the objective in a concrete, legally meaningful way. Ultimately, Bill S-228 would ensure that our criminal law speaks clearly where clarity is required and reinforces that legally effective consent is the dividing line between lawful medical care and criminal violence. Where such consent is present, the law recognizes the procedure as legitimate. Where it is absent, the full protections of the Criminal Code will apply. Bill S-228 affirms the central role of consent in Canadian criminal law, clarifies the application of aggravated assault provisions, acknowledges the disproportionate harms experienced by indigenous women and girls, and supports Canada's commitment under the UNDRIP action plan. For these reasons, I urge all hon. members to support its swift passage.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, a community gathered to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Arnold Sylliboy, who passed away a year ago. Arnold enjoyed bringing people together for a good cause and good times. He competed with determination in any sport or contest, and at the same time, had the ability to bring joy and laughter to every situation. Arnold was a caring leader, a natural athlete and a committed volunteer, who will be fondly remembered for his great empathy and ability to listen to others. This naturally made him great at his work as a youth worker, a social worker, a barber and a staff member for this MP. A more loyal wingman in life one will not find. His loved ones held a bowling tournament in his honour to raise money for his community and a local high school scholarship to honour his legacy. There are no words for goodbye in the Mi'kmaq language, only “we will see you again”. [Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text:] N'multisnen ap Nitap. Kesalulek. [Member provided the following translation:] We will see you again, friend. We love you. [English]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her passion for this issue. It is absolutely clear that we must continue to do everything we can to eliminate discrimination in Canada. That is why our ministers are meeting with stakeholders and with partners. They are ensuring that they get this right. We will continue to be focused on ensuring reconciliation moving forward. I look forward to talking with the member opposite and explaining what the minister is doing over the next few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising this important topic and giving me the opportunity to speak to the issue. It is an important topic, and it is valuable to be having this discussion today in the House. However, as we have this conversation, it is also important to note that this matter is before the courts, and so it is incumbent upon all members to be judicious and responsible when discussing this case so as not to impact the legal process. Our government understands that the trial judge's decision in the Cowichan case has created uncertainty for potentially impacted landowners in the area over which title was found to exist. Since September, we have been clear: Canada disagrees with the B.C. Supreme Court ruling and appealed it on September 8. British Columbia, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam Indian Band and the Tsawwassen First Nation have also appealed. We are reviewing potential legal arguments and all options are on the table. This decision's potentially significant implications, including on private fee simple property rights, require greater legal certainty, and our government is committed to attaining that clarity through the proper legal process. To be clear, we are absolutely committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability for private landownership. That is why we defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown at trial, and we will continue to do so now as we go through the appeals process. We absolutely understand the frustration of some potentially impacted private property owners in Richmond over the fact that they did not receive official notice of the proceedings prior to the decision being released. Canada brought an application in 2017 seeking an order requiring the plaintiffs to notify the private landowners in this case. At that time, the court declined our request to have plaintiffs give formal notice to the private landowners. Just a couple of weeks ago, Canada filed its consent with the court regarding the application by Montrose Industries and Ecowaste Industries to be added to the litigation and have a limited reopening of the trial. This would allow the company to provide its perspective on how the declaration of aboriginal title impacts its legal and financial interests, evidence that was not before the court during the trial. We are now awaiting the decision from the court regarding the application. However, through it all, I want the House to know we absolutely respect the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights and title, and we maintain a firm commitment to advancing reconciliation. We will continue to work collaboratively with all parties to uphold the principles of reconciliation, transparency and legal responsibility throughout this process.

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely committed to maintaining the legal clarity and stability of private fee simple landownership. The decision's potentially significant implications, including on private fee simple property rights, require greater legal certainty and clarity, which we are asking the courts to do. In our country, the Supreme Court of Canada makes rulings. As politicians, and as a government, we respect that. However, our government is committed to attaining that clarity through the proper legal process, not a political process. To further support potentially impacted private property owners, B.C. has also taken the lead on moving forward with the provincial loan guarantee program, given that landownership and title fall within provincial jurisdiction. We are absolutely committed to maintaining the legal clarity and stability of private fee simple landownership, and we will continue to work with all parties to find a solution.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite listed a lot of the things he stood for. I was honoured to sit with that member when we were on the fisheries committee together many years ago. I know him to be a genuine leader and a friend of reconciliation in the House. I am really happy to be here on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries. I would like to talk a bit about how Pacific salmon populations are experiencing long-term and historic declines due to the impacts of climate change, pollutants and changes in land and water use. To address these challenges, the government has invested $686 million since 2021 to implement decisive actions under the Pacific salmon strategy initiative. We have restored over 18.5 million square metres of Pacific salmon habitat and advanced watershed-scale salmon rebuilding planning with partners, including for west coast Vancouver Island chinook salmon. During the summer of 2024, Fisheries and Oceans worked with 60 partners in 75 areas across British Columbia to respond to immediate drought-related issues, fund emergency projects and support fish passage to spawning areas with critical restoration projects. We have provided a further $90 million for 73 projects through phase two of the British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation fund to protect and restore Pacific salmon habitat and other priority wild fish stocks. Under the salmon enhancement pillar of the Pacific salmon strategy initiative, we are expanding our hatchery infrastructure and upgrading 47 hatcheries to boost at-risk salmon in priority areas. We are developing new hatchery management tools to optimize sustainable harvest and rebuilding outcomes for more than 250 Pacific salmon stocks. Through the harvest transformation pillar of the Pacific salmon strategy initiative, we have retired 473 commercial Pacific salmon licences, reducing the total number of eligible salmon licence-holders by 35.7%. In terms of indigenous fisheries, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has collaborated with more than 40 first nations and indigenous fisheries organizations on over 60 indigenous harvest transformation partnership projects to transition fisheries to more selective fishery methods and improved monitoring while reducing impacts on vulnerable salmon stocks. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has also piloted six mark-selective fisheries. We have heard in committees and we have heard across the country that the salmon mean so much more to first nations all across Canada, especially in B.C. It is not just about fishing; it is about their culture, lessons and their stories. Therefore, in June 2024, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, first nations in British Columbia and the Province of British Columbia signed a new trilateral accord to coordinate and align conservation and restoration efforts to improve outcomes for salmon over the long term. We are advancing targeted efforts in the Yukon, including investments in first nations salmon fisheries transition, stewardship and monitoring activities, and integrated rebuilding planning. Pacific salmon holds a deep social and cultural significance for the people of the west coast of Canada. The government remains committed to the long-term health and sustainability of these vital fishery resources. Through Fisheries and Oceans Canada's work under the Pacific salmon strategy initiative, including our continued collaboration with first nations harvesters, stakeholders and the governments of British Columbia and Yukon, meaningful progress is being made to address conservation challenges and support sustainable salmon harvesting over the long term.

Madam Speaker, I hear the urgency in my colleague's voice. I just want him to know that we are urgently discussing this. We are making sure that our processes with our partners are collaborative, and we are going to ensure that the government continues to move forward with the investment of $686 million over five years to implement decisive actions under the Pacific salmon strategy initiative to meet these challenges. We recognize the importance of long-term measures for the sustainability of Pacific salmon of the west coast. We have accomplished many targeted initiatives to date, including restoring more than 18.5 million square metres of salmon habitat, retiring more than 400 commercial licences, upgrading Fisheries and Oceans Canada and community hatchery infrastructure, and supporting sustainable fishing opportunities while reducing their impact on valuable stocks. We recognize the social, economic and cultural importance of Pacific salmon for Canadians. The government is committed to the long-term health and sustainability of our vital fisheries resources and is confident that the department's progress—

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the member, not only because he was previously a chief of his nation but also because of his lived experience in the first nations in his community. The member opposite was around the first nations chiefs last week as they gathered at the AFN, and I was there with him. I heard first nations chiefs from all across this country, especially British Columbia, say that nothing should happen without their free, prior and informed consent, but when I hear the member's party opposite, its members seem to think they can ram the legislation through for a pipeline without the consent of first nations. I ask the member, did he hear something different? Does the member opposite agree with his party's framing that the development of major projects should be rammed through without UNDRIP's free, prior and informed consent laws and the rights entrenched in section 35?

Mr. Speaker, our government continues to respect and acknowledge the important work they are doing as first nations leaders across this country. Our ministers have been busy all week listening to rights holders and going to the meetings. I, as a former Assembly of First Nations National Youth Council member and a former regional chief, know the important work that goes into the development of resolutions and all the different debates they have. Our government is listening, and we look forward to building our country together with first nations.

Madam Speaker, It's not for me to rock the boat, But what's the deal on last week's vote? We won the thing, so I won't gloat But Robert Fife, I'd like to quote: He spoke about some sneaky deeds Where two were, hiding in the weeds, Which served the Tories voting needs “Embarrassing!”—the headline reads. Their outline makes it all but certain The two that hid behind the curtain, With a snap election, they were flirtin' Credibility shot, their polling hurtin'! They tried to blame it on the app, But fact and fiction showed a gap! The answers shared were all over the map It sounds like just a pile of...inconsistencies! So what it is, I'll try to say Next time try to make your way, Into the House, and make our day By voting for the BIA!

Mr. Speaker, the member was a productive member at the indigenous and northern affairs committee during her time there, and I want to thank her for her efforts at that committee. Next week, we will have the Assembly of First Nations in town for its annual general assembly. We will have hundreds of chiefs and more than 600 first nations community members from all across Canada. They will be asking us what we are doing to improve their legislation and what we are doing to improve their quality of life. I wonder if the member opposite could talk to us a bit about how we should be collaborating to ensure that while these chiefs, who are an integral part of Canada, are here, we are showing them that we can work collaboratively across party lines to ensure we are doing the best for them.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her work at the indigenous and northern affairs committee when she was there. She talked a lot about why it is important for us to have oversight when we are looking at modern-day treaties and the things that Canada has agreed to. When I was speaking with some of the stakeholders who have been pushing for this, they said we really needed accountability and really needed people to ensure we are moving forward on implementing the treaty promises we make. The member opposite talked a little about economic outputs and ensuring that indigenous people are part of the growth that is happening in Canada. In budget 2025, there were some significant items for her riding of Nunavut. I am wondering if she could talk about how indigenous people in her riding and across Canada are becoming a big part of the economic growth of this country.

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 meets an important moment in our country's history. It is a budget that bets on Canada, a budget that invests in our future and ensures that we will build a strong and resilient future. The challenge before us is to become less reliant on our trade partners to the south and to build from within. I would like to start off by talking about one of my favourite words in the English language, which is “infrastructure”. I would also like to congratulate the Victoria Highland Civic Centre steering committee on its advocacy and work to ensure that a new rink will be built in Baddeck if the 2025 budget passes. The community has been sorely lacking over the past year with a rink that had been eroded to the point that it was no longer safe. During my campaign in the spring, I heard from many in Victoria, and especially in Baddeck, about how devastating the loss of the rink was to the community and what we needed to do to get a rink for the community for the local youth hockey program. It fills me with great joy to be able to deliver on this project for them. I want to especially thank the members of the steering committee, John Trickett, Jeanne Campbell, Terry Kelly, David Parkinson and Sandy Campbell for never giving up on the new rink for the community. This rink is a perfect example of the kind of infrastructure investments our government is making. We now have a build community strong fund with $51 billion over 10 years, from small local community infrastructure to major infrastructure, such as hospitals, universities, transit, and road and water systems. On this side of the House, we are ready to build great things and keep our economy moving. Our government is also investing and fast-tracking major projects that will focus on buying Canadian for Canadians. These are projects that are shovel-ready and shovel-worthy and that would advance our climate and reconciliation goals. One project of significance for Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish is the government's Major Projects Office selection of Wind West Atlantic Energy. Wind West has the potential to power Nova Scotia and beyond with enough clean wind energy to meet our demands into the future. This first phase, with four wind power areas off the coast of Nova Scotia, aims to unlock 5,000 megawatts and could drive billions of new investments in economic activity across the country. Wind West is a project that shows the investment in clean energy does not have to come at the cost of economic development. We can invest in our future while strengthening our economy. Another major investment we are making is in housing and homes. With the new Build Canada Homes initiative, there is $13 billion that aims to increase the supply of affordable housing through construction, financing and industry. As we endeavour to build houses faster and in greater numbers, we will build these Canadian homes with Canadian materials, such as lumber, to ensure that we are supporting our local industries from start to finish. Restoring affordability to homes is important, but we are also working to restore affordability to everyday life. It is clear that the cost of living has increased in Canada, just as it has increased around the world due to climate change, American tariffs and the war in Ukraine. As a G7 country with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, we are uniquely positioned to make investments in our future and build a stronger, more resilient country. Our government is also cutting taxes for 22 million middle-class Canadians, which goes a long way to help the residents of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, and of ridings across Canada, to keep more money in their pockets. At the same time, we remain committed to seniors with our dental care program, committed to families with our affordable child care and the Canada child benefit, and committed to youth with a $40-million investment in a youth climate corps with green jobs that will help take on the challenges of climate change, not to mention the 175,000 jobs within Canada for the Canada summer jobs program for young Canadians. We are launching automated federal benefits to ensure that 5.5 million low-income Canadians get the benefits they need without the complicated paperwork. We have also ensured that the children across Canada are not distracted by empty bellies when they are trying to learn by making the national school food program permanent. This program saves money for families and makes sure that no child's hunger is an obstacle to their education. Budget 2025 continues the important work of advancing reconciliation. Our Prime Minister campaigned on a promise to spend less to invest more, but while other departments were asked to find up to 15% in savings, we knew that we had to protect the core services and programs that we deliver to indigenous Canadians, and that is what we did. It is not only the right thing to do; it is also our fiduciary responsibility to ensure that we do not take steps backward. We heard from Indigenous people during the budget consultation process not only that we needed to invest billions in housing, water, waste water and infrastructure in indigenous communities but also that weather-related emergencies are more frequent and that the impacts of climate change required urgent investments. Fires, floods and hurricanes have impacted indigenous communities in great numbers, and we will be there to help them through these difficult times. We also heard about challenges to our communities, when it came to health and Jordan's principle. That is why we are investing billions to ensure that we address the challenges within Jordan's principle, including addressing the backlog of crises and creating stability moving forward. Budget 2025 allows us to do that. Unlike budgets in the past that captured indigenous investment on a few pages, the current budget has indigenous investment that is embedded and integrated throughout. It is embedded within the national school food program. It is embedded within the artificial intelligence budget, which can help us digitize indigenous languages moving forward. It is embedded in the projects of national importance that will help us build the strongest economy in the G7 by ensuring that projects advance indigenous interests with meaningful equity, meaningful partnership and meaningful participation. I have heard the challenges during my lifetime from first nations communities, which have shared with me a great deal about how they are tired of micromanaging poverty. I have good news: Budget 2025 dreams of a future of prosperity for indigenous communities, through major investments in being multi-million-dollar partners in the energy sector, in building trade ports and in mining critical minerals that the world needs. We invite indigenous nations to dream big and to take advantage of the $10 billion in the indigenous loans guarantee program and the $45 billion allocated to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, so indigenous leaders can manage prosperity, not poverty. I would encourage first nations, Métis and Inuit communities to look at the suite of tools available to make investing in major projects more affordable. For example, last spring in my riding, 12 Mi'kmaq communities formed a limited partnership known as the Wskijnu’k Mtmo’taqnuow Agency, WMA, and borrowed $18 million from the Canada Infrastructure Bank's indigenous equity initiative to invest in a battery storage facility alongside Nova Scotia. The great thing about this is that they get the own-source revenues not only when the project is paid off but also all along the way; as they are making payments, they are able to bring own-source revenues back to their communities. I have often been asked by Indigenous leaders how they can invest in major projects when the needs are so great in their communities. How can they make payments on million-dollar loans? This is the beauty of the indigenous loan guarantee program. The way it is set up, it works with indigenous stakeholders and communities so loan payments are balanced to maximize benefits to them. When communities are given the right tools, indigenous leadership drives prosperity and long-term ownership. With the budget our government has presented, we are investing in housing, clean water, health care, connectivity and infrastructure so communities can thrive and prosper. The budget speaks to the north and to working hand in hand with indigenous partners to build a stronger future together. I invite indigenous leaders to work together, to dream big, to create partnerships and to be partners in major clean energy projects such as the Wind West Atlantic energy project, the Iqaluit hydro project or the Northcliff Resources Sisson mine. Now is the time to build Canada. Let us build prosperity in all our communities.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk to youth in my riding, they are asking us to invest in a better future. They are asking us to help build Canada, and they want to be a part of this. They want to be part of the trades. They want education. They want our economy to thrive. Confident countries invest in their communities and in their youth. Confident countries do the work that needs to be done to give those youth a brighter future, and that is what our government is going to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite were to read the memorandum of understanding, he would see that what the Prime Minister has agreed to are certain conditions that would allow, potentially, in the future, for a pipeline. Those conditions are predicated on the fact that first nations have full, free, prior and informed consent in the project, and that British Columbia is part of the project. I am confident that our Prime Minister knows and understands section 35 constitutional rights and knows the conditions required to build in this country. That is why we are advancing indigenous interests, and that is why what we need to do is continue to build but to build in a way that is respectful of all people.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives wish that Canadians had afforded them the ability to create a budget, but they chose the Liberals. They chose us because of the fact that we invest in them, in our youth and in our country. We believe in building a stronger country for all Canadians. When I knock on doors, not one person ever talks to me about the deficit or the debt. They talk about what our government is able to do. We are going to continue to deliver for Canadians. That is why we have won four elections in a row.

Mr. Speaker, we have liftoff in Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish. Last week in my riding, Maritime Launch Services conducted a suborbital space launch in Nova Scotia. This gravitational leap for our province and for Spaceport Nova Scotia brings us one step closer to achieving Canadian sovereign launch capability. In our near future, it is expected that we will witness an orbital launch on the soil of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish. This process will be groundbreaking for our local economy, our national sovereignty and security, and the future of the commercial space industry in Canada. Our region is growing, expanding and building. Nova Scotia is headed into new stratospheres. I would like to celebrate this achievement of the suborbital launch, and I look forward to supporting the journey to space, often called “the final frontier”. I look forward to Canada's future and, as one famous Canadian once put it, “to boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table two reports in both official languages. The first is copies of the 2022-23 “Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society: Policing”. The second is copies of the Yukon land claims and self-government agreement implementation report for 2017 to 2022. I request that both reports be referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I sit with my colleague on the INAN committee and appreciate his views and questions. The member talked a bit about some of the rights that the previous Conservative government promoted, but he did not once mention the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Stephen Harper and Conservatives voted against at the United Nations, whereas we as a federal government implemented it, turned it into action and ensured that we followed up with the implementation of UNDRIP. I know the member just went through training yesterday with the KAIROS blanket exercise, as did I, and we heard from youth in his riding. I wonder if he can share a bit of what he heard from the youth and what he learned during that KAIROS blanket exercise that can help us with the debate we are currently having.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. I have been hearing the Conservatives talk about how many modern-day treaties they signed under Stephen Harper. On the one hand they are bragging about how many treaties they have signed, and on the other hand, they are saying that they are not going to vote for oversight or for someone to ensure that implementation and education around the modern treaties are in place. I am wondering how it is that Conservatives can brag about the treaties, but when it comes to actually implementing those treaties and having oversight and a commissioner to do so, they vote against it, just like they voted against UNDRIP and just like they voted against clean water for first nations communities. How can the Conservatives stand up with any credibility and talk about indigenous issues?

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is from the Yukon, and I cannot help but notice that there are so many communities from the Yukon that would be helped by the legislation. I am sure the member has heard advocacy from Yukon first nations leaders over his time as a member of Parliament. I wonder if the member would share some of the information and advocacy from the first nations leaders of the Yukon who have been asking, over years and maybe generations, for this kind of legislation to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to share some thoughts on something that has been a lifelong passion for me, and that is ensuring the implementation of treaty rights and inherent rights in Canada. In fact, besides studying treaties in law school and being a professor of aboriginal and treaty rights at Cape Breton University, I was honoured to be given the opportunity to be the first-ever treaty education lead for the province of Nova Scotia. While doing that job, I was honoured and privileged to be able to do some work with some of the treaty commissions that are already set up in certain provinces across Canada. We have the Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan. We have the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba. We have the B.C. Treaty Commission. I had the chance to meet with all of them and hear about the important work and the successes they are having across this country. In fact, last week, or two weeks ago, I was in Treaty 4 territory in Manitoba, where treaty commissioner Loretta Ross told me that one of the best things the treaty commissioners were able to do there was to ensure treaty education was offered in all schools across Manitoba. Largely championed by Premier Wab Kinew, we have been able to see treaty education become mandatory in the province of Manitoba. These treaty commissioners are doing some amazing work. I would invite the Conservatives who have been saying they are not going to support this legislation to reach out to them and hear about that important work in advancing reconciliation through building trust, through ensuring collaboration as treaty partners and through educating the public on the importance of sharing that we are all treaty people in this country. The overall purpose and objective of this important piece of legislation is to ensure oversight and accountability to ensure the treaties we have signed are implemented. There are more than 27 modern treaties in this country, covering more than 40% of the land mass across this country. Indeed, what we have heard from stakeholders and leaders is quite simply that we need to implement these treaties we have signed and made promises on. All we are asking, and they are asking, in the most simplest of terms is that we honour and obey, and if we make a promise we keep it. I think if we asked any indigenous nation across this great country what is important to them, they would ask us to honour the treaties, implement the treaties and be treaty partners. I am troubled by what I am hearing from the Conservatives and the narrative that we are creating some sort of bureaucracy and that it would cost too much money to implement what we have signed on to in the 27 modern-day treaties. They talk about bureaucracy and they talk about money, but what they are not going to talk about is that when they go home tonight to their children, they are going to quite simply tell them that if they make a promise, they should keep that promise. That is what we are talking about. This is not a surprise to me. I am the son of one of the original drafters of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, who went to the United Nations for decades. When they finally got a declaration that all nations could sign on to, Canada, led by Stephen Harper then, rejected it and said, no, we would not vote for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Thankfully, as a Liberal, as a member of Parliament for my riding, I was able to help ensure that the Liberal government said it believed that first nations people should live without racism and was going to ensure that these rights were implemented. That is why we passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, when it came time for the Conservatives to decide whether they would support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, they once again voted no. Twice last year, I got up in the House of Commons and asked for unanimous consent to give first nations clean water legislation, protecting their source waters. Twice I got up here. Twice I heard nays from the Conservatives. Twice I was shouted down and not even allowed to get the words out of my mouth on the protecting first nations clean water legislation. It would appear the Conservatives are showing their true colours again in delaying, denying and obstructing any legislation that benefits indigenous people. Currently in my riding, there are land protectors in the Cape Breton Highlands who are protesting the decimation of the moose population and moose habitat. I went to see them, and while this matter is primarily one of provincial jurisdiction, what was required was a treaty partner that would show empathy, that would create education and awareness, that would look toward collaboration to resolve this. However, the Conservatives decided and believed that fines and jail were more appropriate. I am proud to stand on this side of the House, which believes in taking steps toward reconciliation and treaty implementation and believes in education, empathy and collaboration. I have heard from other members of the House that they want to see this legislation pass. They have said that we need to move forward, and not only on advancing reconciliation. Last week, we celebrated the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, but I have not heard much from the Conservatives on what we need to do to implement and advance them. In this House, I have a heard a number of times that, while the Conservatives support modern-day treaties and indigenous reconciliation, they are going to vote no on this legislation. I ask the Conservatives quite simply, in the few minutes I have here, to get on board, stop delaying this important legislation and allow us to move forward with unanimous consent. Over the years, we have seen that the Conservatives are intent on delaying, denying and obstructing indigenous legislation. I am asking them tonight, the week after the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, to stand with us to implement modern-day treaties and support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in the House to honour Eleanor Mitchell from the Potlotek Mi'kmaq community, an elder whose life embodies resilience, compassion and enduring strength. Eleanor was taken to the Shubenacadie Indian Residential School at the age of six, separated from her family and subjected to the trauma that so many indigenous children endured. Despite these hardships, Eleanor's life became a testament to survival and love. She raised three sons, cared for her mother through illness and is cherished by her family for her knitting and baking. Eleanor is the last living survivor in Potlotek to have attended the Shubenacadie Indian Residential School. This week, her community will honour her. My aunt Eleanor's story reverberates with both pain and hope. On National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, let her name be remembered in the House and let her courage inspire our continued commitment to truth, reconciliation and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated hearing from our member from Saskatchewan. It is really good to have a member of the Liberal Party from Saskatchewan. I grew up in Saskatoon, and I have always joked that I have been one of the only Saskatchewan Liberals in our caucus for the last few years. I am really happy that he is here and talking tonight. We have heard, over many years, about some of the climate-related emergencies we are dealing with, the climate crisis and the forest fires. We have known as Liberals and the government, as we were made aware by Canadians, that we need to do more on that. While on the other side members deny climate change exists and try to blame it on forest management, on this side we know there is a climate crisis that we need to address. I know the member spent a lot of time in the provincial legislature. I wonder if he could talk about the importance of collaboration with all four levels of government, whether federal, provincial, municipal—

Mr. Speaker, as I rise for the first time as the member of Parliament for Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the constituents of our riding for putting their trust in me as their representative. To my campaign team, I say that this journey would not have been possible without them. June is National Indigenous History Month in Canada. It is a month to celebrate indigenous culture. It is a time to reflect on our shared history, and it is a time to acknowledge the vast contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis. National Indigenous History Month is also an opportunity to embrace indigenous events in our communities, hear the beautiful languages and support the work of indigenous arts and crafts. I encourage all Canadians to get involved in National Indigenous History Month this June. Wela'lioq. Meegwetch. Marsi. Nakurmiik.

Mr. Speaker, we are closer than ever before on ending water advisories on reserve. We have lifted 147 water advisories since 2015. The next step on our reconciliation journey is passing the first nations clean water act, but the Conservatives are blocking the bill from moving forward to the Senate. It is shameful to stand against first nations clean water standards like this, and it is shameful that Conservatives have openly refused to support first nations communities. Getting this bill passed would ensure first nations are afforded the human right to clean water. The AFN is calling on us, and first nations are relying on us, to move this bill forward. Lives are at stake. Water is life. As members, we must move this bill forward as quickly as possible. I am calling on all Conservative members to do the right thing, support first nations clean water. It is not too late.

Mr. Speaker, on November 30, I was honoured to attend the signing of the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty in Treaty 1 territory, the homeland of the Red River Métis, with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. It was the first of its kind. This co-developed modern treaty will recognize the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis with an inherent right to self-government and lawmaking powers over its own citizenship, elections and other internal operations. Furthermore, this signing marks an important milestone on the path of reconciliation as Canada's first self-government treaty with a Métis government. This is about self-determination as stipulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I look forward to continuing to partner with indigenous governments on future self-government treaties as we move forward towards true reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, I think the more we find out about the residential schools, the more Canadians realize the horrific tragedies that occurred there. I can say, as a nephew of multiple aunts who went to residential school, we continue to focus on support and healing. That is why we have the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, to continue to have these discussions and to open the minds of Canadians to the experience of many first nations who went to residential school, the Métis, the Inuit, but also their descendants. We are going to continue to be focused on that support for Canadians.