Parliamentary Speeches

Uqaqtittiji, residential school denialism is on the rise, which harms survivors and their families and communities. Denialism allows systemic racism to persist. It tries to hide that indigenous children were killed and buried at residential schools. The National Day for Truth and Reconciliation helps keep this truth at the forefront. Would the Minister of Crown and Indigenous Relations say what our government is doing to ensure that Canadians understand the continued impacts of trauma inflicted on indigenous people?

Uqaqtittiji, with June being National Indigenous History Month, I remind all Canadians to celebrate the stories, culture, strengths and brilliance of indigenous peoples across Canada. As a proud Inuk, I highlight the strength both of Canadian Inuit from across Inuit Nunangat and of Inuit from across Inuit Tapiriit Nunarjuarmi, the circumpolar Arctic. Ancient Inuit world view is embedded in our current society. I see it in Inuit remaining as hunters, seamstresses and knowledge holders. I hear it through Inuit decision-makers having influence in domestic politics and abroad. I have watched it shape legislation strengthening indigenous languages and rights, including in UNDRIP. We still have much to learn from Inuit and indigenous peoples. Let us work together for the betterment of our collective future.

Uqaqtittiji, I think that one thing we all agree on is that the Conservatives are really good at spreading misinformation and disinformation. They have Canadians believing that the bill, if introduced the way it is, would make it possible for someone to be charged just for reading scripture or sharing their faith. This is what the Conservatives have done. I wonder if the secretary can tell us why it is urgent to pass this bill so that we could help address some of the disinformation that has been shared by the Conservatives.

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that the hon. member mentioned the importance of reinstating the Attorney General's consent before charges proceed. I wonder if he could explain why that oversight is so important, especially given that we are being told, during these debates, about Conservatives doing this and Liberals doing that. Could he expand on why making sure that there is AG consent is so important and how appropriate oversight is particularly important in this kind of legislation?

Uqaqtittiji, I was raised in a system designed to eradicate my identity as an Inuk. While I have had my struggles, as many Inuit and indigenous peoples have, we continue to show our strength and practise our traditions. We still speak our indigenous languages, use our practices and celebrate our successes. [Member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following text:] lnnatuqait, nunaliit ammalu nagligijakka qujalivakka. [Member provided the following translation:] I thank my elders, communities and loved ones. [English] Could the minister share how Canadians can join in recognizing National Indigenous History Month and how we all can work to advance reconciliation?

Uqaqtittiji, last month, a group of us met Joe, a long-haul truck driver in Kavvilihiktuuq, also known as Hope Bay. We learned that he and his family have been stewards of the land for generations. Inuinnait in the area continue to manage the area. They have determined and will continue to help govern decisions regarding economic potential. The recent announcement of a new Inuit-led wind project at the Hope Bay mine shows what can be achieved through partnerships with Inuit organizations. Would the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources share how our government—

Uqaqtittiji, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. Before I begin my speech, I just wanted to send a quick congratulatory note to North of North, which won multiple awards at the Canadian Screen Awards. Ullukkut. I am happy to speak on behalf of Nunavummiut regarding Bill C-31, and I will be speaking regarding the proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act contained in Bill C-31. These amendments are essential. The Territorial Lands Act helps govern how Crown lands are managed in Nunavut, a region that is central to Canada's long-term vision for the north and to the development of a resilient Canadian economy. The amendments would strengthen Canada's sovereignty to protect our national interests and support sustainable economic development for Nunavummiut. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the north is going through a period of profound change and unprecedented opportunity. The Arctic's vast resources and growing marine access are creating new possibilities for trade, transportation and economic growth. Meanwhile, the world is becoming more dangerous and divided. Last March, the Prime Minister described the assumptions that shaped decades of Canadian defence and security as shifting rapidly. He said, “Climate change is causing our Arctic region to warm nearly three times faster than the global average, a shift that great powers are actively looking to exploit.” Countries around the world are competing for access to the critical minerals needed for clean energy and advanced technology. In this time of global uncertainty, Canada must be prepared. We must build strength here at home, bolster our security, build a stronger Canada and take full responsibility for defending our Arctic sovereignty. Canada is moving from reliance to resilience. We will no longer depend on any one nation. We will build a stronger, more independent country. We will take measures to build and keep the north secure. We are working with territorial and indigenous partners to seize these opportunities and boldly develop the full economic potential of the region. As announced by the Prime Minister, “At the centre of this plan are the 140,000 Northerners and Indigenous peoples who will have stronger, more sustainable, more connected communities, greater opportunities, and a lower cost of living.” The stakes are high, and we need to act. That is why we are proposing these important amendments to the Territorial Lands Act. If we are going to responsibly develop Canada's critical minerals, clean energy and transportation and trade corridors needed to strengthen our economy, Canada's national interests must guide our decisions. We cannot allow our resources to be taken up or used in ways that undermine our security, sovereignty or economic future. Let me explain what the amendments would do. The Territorial Lands Act sets the framework for making decisions about land use, mineral exploration and development, and environmental protections on Crown lands in Nunavut. However, the current framework does not provide a clear tool to address solutions where mineral tenure would interfere with Canada's national interests. Bill C-31 would address this gap. If passed, the amendments would allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, to act when it is in the national interest. This could include stopping mineral claims on certain lands for a period of time, cancelling existing mineral rights, cancelling prospecting licences and, in some cases, preventing specified parties from reapplying for those licences and mineral rights permanently or for a period of time. The proposed amendments would also establish clear processes around notification and compensation. The minister would be required to notify any affected mineral rights holder and determine whether compensation would be warranted, and, if so, how much. The legislation would also allow regulations to support implementation of these measures where needed. These are targeted measures intended for limited circumstances. As global interest in Canada's resources grows, we must ensure access to those resources is administered in a way that protects Canada's national interests. The goal of these changes is to ensure that mineral rights on federal Crown land in Nunavut are protected, in partnership with Inuit, for the benefit of their communities and to safeguard our country. Nunavummiut are at the heart of a strong Arctic. Protecting our sovereignty in the north relies on partnership with the people who live there. That is why the amendments to the Territorial Lands Act were informed by engagement with indigenous partners and the Government of Nunavut. In fact, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. asked the Government of Canada to address these potential risks on federal Crown land in Nunavut, just as they are doing on their lands. That request helped inform these proposed amendments. Following discussions with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Nunavut, budget 2025 included a commitment to pursue amendments to the Territorial Lands Act. Between December 2025 and March 2026, the government engaged with five indigenous groups with asserted or established rights in Nunavut, as well as with the Government of Nunavut, on the proposed amendments. We have heard clearly that indigenous rights must be respected. We will continue to work so that these amendments align with territorial laws as Nunavut moves forward toward greater decision-making authority, through devolution planned for April 2027. Our discussions with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Nunavut showed broad support for measures that would help address risk to Canada's national interests. We believe that the proposed amendments strike the right balance between economic opportunity, indigenous partnership and national security. Should these amendments pass, our work will not stop. The comments raised through engagement will continue to inform the work ahead, including Nunavut devolution, implementation of the United Nations declaration action plan and the ongoing review of federal laws across government. Several provinces and territories are also taking steps to modernize how mineral rights are managed and to address similar security and sovereignty vulnerabilities resulting from Canada's mineral rights free entry system. Nunavut should not be left behind. Canada needs modern tools that reflect today's economic and security realities in partnership with provinces, territories, indigenous partners and rights holders. The proposed amendments would complement other security-related initiatives being advanced across the federal government, including Public Safety Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Department of National Defence and Global Affairs Canada. Ultimately, this work is about partnership. It is about working alongside Inuit, indigenous governments, territorial partners, federal partners, industry and communities to build a stronger and more secure north together. It is about protecting the safety and security of everyone in Canada. Inuit are at the heart of Arctic sovereignty because the north is where they live, work and raise their families. As such, this is about making sure Inuit have the ability to help shape decisions about the future of their lands and resources in ways that create lasting benefits for their communities and future generations.

Uqaqtittiji, I am thankful for the wonderful opportunity to share more about the strengths of Nunavut. I mentioned, in my question, Joe, who is from the Kitikmeot region. He is a long-haul truck driver, but also, as I mentioned, he and his family have been stewards of the land for generations. For him, it is striking a balance between economic opportunities that will help with economic prosperity for Nunavummiut while keeping a balance with protecting the environment and making sure they still have access to caribou and marine mammals. These are great strengths that Inuit, in particular, have in the Arctic that I am sure are replicated in the many first nations and Métis stories, which we need to keep hearing in the House of Commons so that when we are talking about Canada, we are also lifting up indigenous peoples, given that June 1 is the first day of National Indigenous History Month.

Uqaqtittiji, first, I want to congratulate the newly elected NTI President, Gloria Uluqsi. I am very excited for her term. Second, the spring economic update included significant investments and programs benefiting Nunavut and helping to lower everyday costs for Nunavummiut. Some examples include pausing the fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, working with Inuit to reform nutrition north, doing upgrades to fortify the small craft harbours, like the one in Pangnirtung, and partnering with the Nunavut Fisheries and Marine Training Consortium to support tariff-affected workers. New funding and projects like these will help drive investment in the territory, create new jobs locally and enhance Arctic economic growth and security. Our government's plan ensures that Nunavummiut and all those who call the Arctic home can participate in building Canada strong and share in its success.

Uqaqtittiji, I am very happy to represent Nunavummiut on this side of the House. I was a parliamentarian when this bill was originally tabled in the 44th Parliament as Bill C-77, so I do have some history with this bill. I would like to also acknowledge that we are on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe people of these lands. This bill is such an important bill because it was co-developed with modern treaty organizations. Indigenous modern treaty partners have worked hard to get this bill to this state. They have sought independent oversight and accountability mechanisms of the federal government to modern treaty implementation. We must honour their work and do what we can to get this bill passed. The modern treaty holders deserve to have their work reflected in the work we do as parliamentarians. Canada is currently implementing 27 modern treaties. Of these 27 modern treaties, six include a comprehensive land claims settlement agreement, one includes only self-government provisions and is unrelated to any land claim, and 20 address both comprehensive land claims and self-government in some way. This is an important bill because of the accountability that would be sought and it would ensure the federal government meets its treaty obligations. Modern treaties are a constitutionally entrenched commitment between Crown and indigenous partners to build true nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships. An independent commissioner with audit and reporting powers could hold government departments to account and overcome long-standing inertia in treaty implementation. The commissioner would be important to ensure non-partisan oversight. Bill C-10 is important because it would advance reconciliation and self-determination through oversight and accountability of the federal government. Modern treaties create stability and predictability over rights, lands and interests. The creation of the commission would help ensure better and timelier treaty implementation. It could reduce legal disputes and uncertainty, enabling indigenous economic participation. I am disappointed to hear the Conservatives trying to diminish the important work of the modern treaty partners that co-developed this bill. Creating the commissioner is not just about creating bureaucracy. It is an added mechanism to ensure reconciliation. Just like in public safety, there is not only one office that ensures it. We do not only rely on the RCMP. We do not only rely on CSIS. We do not only rely on municipal law enforcement. That is the same for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Reconciliation cannot only be completed by one department of the Government of Canada. Monitoring implementation cannot only be done by the Auditor General of Canada. As an agent of Parliament, the independence of the office would be crucial to ensure that modern treaty nations and governments have a means to strengthen their relationship while avoiding legal action. Modern treaty holders have said at committee that the only recourse they have is to seek legal action. We all know how costly these legal actions become. Ensuring there is a better way to have modern treaty partners work with government departments through the commissioner would help to strengthen relationships so that the commissioner, as an independent oversight body, one that does not have party affiliations, would help ensure the independence reported by the commissioner to this Parliament and we would have records and debates about the important work the commissioner would do. The commissioner's work would cover all federal activities related to modern treaty implementation. This includes work tied to the treaties themselves as well as associated self-government agreements or related arrangements. The commissioner would focus on whether federal action aligns with three core principles: one, strengthen relationships with treaty partners; two, advance the obligations and objectives outlined in agreements; and three, uphold the honour of the Crown through timely and effective implementation. Reviews would be the commissioner's most flexible tool. It would be fit for purpose, which means the commissioner would be able examine many things, including a single federal activity, how multiple departments act on a shared obligation, recurring issues raised by one or multiple modern treaty partners, or systemic barriers that appear across agreements. As has been mentioned by others in this House, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, has worked in partnership with the Land Claims Coalition to ensure that this bill was introduced. I commend it for its work to ensure that innate rights based on the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are being implemented. We must do what we can to ensure that the many modern treaty holders who have worked hard are being heard. I appreciate all the work that's been done.

Uqaqtittiji, it really is very important to get it right. No matter what government we have, the prominence that is given to reconciliation will always have to exist because of where Canada resides. We are on indigenous peoples' lands, and we must always acknowledge it. That is why it is always important to say where we continue to do our work. The relationships we have with first nations, Inuit and Métis will always have to be long-standing relationships, and advancing reconciliation will always be something that we all have to continue to keep as a priority.

Uqaqtittiji, that is a bit of a confusing question. First of all, I should say that I have always been supportive of Inuit northerners who work in the mines in Nunavut. I have never spoken against the workers. Of course, I have always placed prominence on making sure there are better relationships between mining companies and Inuit rights holders and indigenous rights holders. Once those relationships are strengthened, I think that we could definitely see better economic development opportunities for Inuit and for indigenous peoples who want to remain hunters and who want to make sure that wildlife is protected, and that we would do better to combat climate change. With regard to the role of the commissioner, we need to make sure that it is created. The commissioner, as I said during my speech, would help make sure that the honour of the Crown is upheld. Being able to review that is going to be such an important function. That is why we need to make sure that the bill is passed right away.

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder what the hon. member has to say to the many first nations and modern treaty organizations that have negotiated for over 20 years to get this bill tabled. This is their hard work, which was co-developed with the federal government. What does she have to say to them about what their efforts have meant in making sure that the bill could be tabled so that we could have the role of the commissioner created?

Uqaqtittiji, I really appreciated my colleague's early observation about the omission in this motion about what is going on in our current geopolitical environment. He rightly pointed out that the Conservatives are great at disinformation, misinformation and really fearmongering in Canadian society. I wonder if he can share with us how this motion ignores this, by omission. What would he tell the followers who keep following the Conservatives and what the impact of that omission is on disinformation, misinformation and the policies we discuss in the House of Commons?

Uqaqtittiji, March 31 will be National Indigenous Languages Day. Our government acknowledges that indigenous languages must be celebrated and supported. We have more great news. The additional $17.2 million towards national Aboriginal broadcasting will go a long way. More indigenous peoples will preserve their cultures by showcasing their stories. Could the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages share how this will impact Nunavut—

Uqaqtittiji, I am proud to join a team that will take the larger picture of meeting the current political environment and that is set on meeting the immediate needs of the north. Northerners know that food security is about more than getting food on the shelves. It is about addressing the cost of living, local capacity and true food sovereignty. Can my colleague, the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, tell the House how our government is moving beyond food subsidies and creating a food economy for those who call the north home?

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the minister for sharing her time with me on this important bill, Bill S-2, to amend the Indian Act. Bill C-38, from the last Parliament, was a bill that I could not support at the time because of the inequities that first nations would continue to have. However, the NDP supports the Senate amendments to Bill S-2 and hopes that the bill will pass quickly. It is about time to finally make sure that first nations women and children get the justice they deserve. I thank the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group for its tireless work and advocacy. Its members are role models of what it means to never give up. The working group consists of Sharon McIvor, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Cora McGuire-Cyrette, Marjolaine Étienne, Chief Judy Wilson, Dr. Pamela Palmater, Dawn Lavell-Harvard, Dr. Gwen Brodsky, Mary Eberts and Shelagh Day. In their work, they remind us of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report in 2019, where the call for justice 1.2(v) calls on Canada to eliminate gender discrimination in the Indian Act. It is clear that the Liberal agenda is to delay the passage of Bill S-2 and the Senate amendments by using the need to consult on the “how” and the “range of potential pathways” that need to be consulted on, which I heard during the indigenous and northern affairs committee meeting in February when Lori Doran, director general, individual affairs, Department of Indigenous Services, appeared. Some of the work that has occurred to fix the discrimination in the Indian Act includes but is not limited to the following: First, Bill C-38 was tabled in the 44th Parliament. Second, Indigenous Services Canada, in 2023, reported that it was beginning a co-development consultation process to address the second-generation cut-off. Third, the Assembly of First Nations provided a brief in 2020 that said, “Enfranchisement had an impact on all subsequent generations of people. It did not matter if an individual was voluntarily, or involuntarily enfranchised—subsequent generations could not appear on band lists or on the Indian register as status Indians.” Fourth was Nicholas v. Canada in 2011, which required the tabling of Bill C-38. Fifth was Bill S-3's final report to Parliament in December 2020. Sixth were the amendments to the Indian Act, including Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2010 and Bill S-3 in 2017. I remind Parliament that these amendments, like Bill C-38, were only in response to court cases against the federal government. I am struck by the stark contrast of pace the Liberal government chooses to make, depending on whether it respects indigenous peoples rights. Very clearly, we see the contrast in how the Liberal government fast-tracked Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. Bill C-5 became enshrined in Canadian law in record time. It received royal assent on June 26, 2025, only one year and two months after the election. First nations, Métis and Inuit all called for the federal government to slow down to give indigenous peoples time to understand the potential impact of Bill C-5. The Liberals ignored these calls and used House procedures to ensure a quick passage. They violated the rights of indigenous peoples as required under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They did not receive the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. Now, in Bill S-2, the Liberals want to do consultations on how to remedy this issue, stating that there is a “range of potential pathways”. All of a sudden, they worry about whether Bill S-2 would be charter-compliant. The Assembly of First Nations supports Bill S-2. In fact, it calls upon the federal government to “immediately and without delay end any and all sex- and race-based discrimination in the Indian Act” in its December 2025 motion in response to Bill S-2. The delay tactics are so clear to indigenous peoples that we have responses like the one from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, who stated that they will not participate in the consultations on the second-generation cut-off. They explained, “The consultation process is a clear conflation of status, membership, citizenship, and self-government, which are all separate legal issues”. The Chiefs of Ontario support amendments that, as stated in the media, “aim to address its longstanding inequities and remove discriminatory language that should never have existed.” They further call on the federal government to “work directly with First Nations to create a framework that allows them to fully control their own membership, free from restrictive federal oversight, with decisions recognized as authoritative for all purposes.” Instead, the Liberals are opting to consult on how to remedy the issue of the second-generation cut-off. They have stated their so-called concerns about the huge increase of potential members that would happen if Bill S-2 passed. A leading expert, Dr. Pam Palmater, stated at the indigenous and northern affairs committee that: There have been no [less] than 10 Supreme Court of Canada cases that said you can't use consultation as a delay. You can't use financial costs by the federal government. None of these excuses are at play. They also say that you cannot use an incremental approach to get rid of section 15 discrimination, and that's exactly what this is. Why are they doing it? Well, it's unjust enrichment on Canada's part, because the longer they delay making these amendments, the less money they have to spend on people who should rightfully be included, and then they insulate themselves from liability with non-liability clauses, and that's wrong. The other thing that I think is really important to remember is that millions of people aren't going to be added. In fact, the estimates are 7,500 people a year, divided over 630 first nations. We all know that with every single amendment, millions were never added. It was 130,000 for Bill C-31, 38,000 for Bill C-3, and Bill S-3 is 88,000 so far, divided among 630 first nations. The Government of Canada can make substantial changes to the Indian Act to end discrimination, but it has chosen to hide behind future consultations and small legislative steps to say it is making progress. The NDP calls upon the Liberals to end their delay tactics. I call on them to use the same pace they used in Bill C-5 to expedite the passage of this bill and ensure that discussions with first nations achieve their inherent jurisdiction over citizenship and membership.

Uqaqtittiji, I will remind the member that those kinds of questions should have been asked when they were expediting Bill C-5. They did not take into consideration that there had been different solutions and different things requested by different first nations, Métis and Inuit, yet they were able to expedite the passing of Bill C-5. If they were able to do that with that bill, they should be able to do it with Bill S-2 as amended.

Uqaqtittiji, I did not hear a favourable answer, unfortunately, and I think our fight will end up being that we make sure that those Senate amendments are included in Bill S-2, particularly because, for example, in Bill C-38, there was a provision where first nations who had experienced discrimination would have been disallowed from seeking restitution. The Senate amendments to Bill S-2 propose to fix those kinds of injustices.

Uqaqtittiji, I am rising on behalf of 69 petitioners who are seeking attention on pay equity. They have found that the office of the pay equity commissioner reported in 2024 that women earn 87¢ for every dollar earned by men and that this gap is even larger for Black, indigenous and racialized women, and disabled women. The governments of Yukon, NWT and Nunavut continue to be exempt from the Pay Equity Act. The petitioners point out that the Treasury Board of Canada, as an employer, has a responsibility to establish a pay equity plan. They are calling on the federal government to do three things: to increase the funding for the Office of the Pay Equity Commissioner; to provide more resources; and to issue an order in council removing the exemptions for the three territories from the Pay Equity Act.

Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to represent Nunavut in supporting Bill S-228. First, I would like to thank the very strong people, who may or may not be in this room, who are sharing their strength with us today: Jackie, Sylvia, Heather, Germaine, Chasity, Nicole, Lois, Nilak, Susan, Harmony, staff and volunteers. I also thank the MP for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, and I thank Senator Boyer for her decades of commitment to this work. Survivors of the horrific procedure of forced or coerced sterilization against first nations, Inuit and Métis have endured so much, and this is another example of a genocidal policy that has tested our strength. I thank Senator Boyer for her decades of commitment to this work. I was her student in law school when I first heard about just how deep this issue was across Canada. I thank the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice for their years of work. Finally, I thank the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, who studied this important issue and tabled a report entitled “The Scars That We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada—Part II” in July 2022. Far too many Canadians are still ignorant as to how Canada treated indigenous peoples. Senator Boyer has worked since around 2017 bringing this to light. At least 12,000 indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people were forcibly or coercively sterilized between 1971 and 2018. This practice is reported as far back as the 1920s. This bill is important because if passed, it would criminalize sterilization procedures in the Criminal Code. Today, I met Dr. Margot Burnell, president of the Canadian Medical Association. The CMA supports Bill S-228, which would make it clear that performing medical acts without free, prior and informed consent constitutes aggravated assault. The bill would define a sterilization procedure as any intervention that permanently prevents reproduction, regardless of whether it is technically reversible. The offence would be serious and could carry a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. Unfortunately, sterilization of indigenous women is not a practice of the distant past, as others have said in this room. There are ongoing class action lawsuits representing hundreds of indigenous women who were sterilized without their consent, and reports of forced and coerced hysterectomies and sterilizations performed on Black women, people with disabilities and intersex people. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights reported: In Igloolik, 26% of women between the ages of 30 and 50 were sterilized. In Naujaat, formerly known as Repulse Bay, almost 50% of women in the 30 to 50 age group were sterilized. In Gjoa Haven, 31% of women had been sterilized. More than 25% of women in Chesterfield Inlet and Kugaaruk had been sterilized. Those are the only ones that were well documented, but we know that there were a lot more. I share as well the story of Louise Delisle from the report, “The Scars That We Carry”. Louise shared: I was very young when I had my daughter. I was 15 years old. My parents were not parents whom I could come to and tell them that I was pregnant, so this was a traumatic time for me in my life, and I told no one. I had to leave school because I began to show, and actually my principal was the one who informed my mother that I was with child. Because I was so young, I had no idea what this all meant and how to handle this. Of course my daughter was taken away because I was so young, and I was the eldest of seven children living in a very poor home. I remember her birth. I remember the pain during her birth. I also remember a Black woman being in the room with me as a nursing assistant. I remember, through all the pain, that she got into an argument with the doctor who was delivering my daughter. I remember her voice to this day and the sternness in her voice when she said, “You can’t do that. You need permission to do that.” The doctor said, “Too late. I don’t want to see this girl back here again having kid after kid and going through this and maybe worse. We won’t be in this position again,” he said. I had no idea what he was talking about. I was in labour and I was 15 years old, but what I found out was he had done something that would prevent me from having any more children. This was never discussed with me or my mother, who was my guardian while I was in hospital. It was never discussed. My mother was not allowed in the room with me when I was giving birth, which was also something traumatic. The hardest thing for me was to come home without my daughter. Because I was 15 years old, like I said, I had to give her away. I couldn’t provide for her. Whatever the doctor did to me, I was not able to have children again in my life... So when I became 29 I married, and my husband and I wanted to have children. I was not aware what had happened until I was seeing a doctor in a fertility clinic to find out why I wasn’t getting pregnant.... That’s when I was told I had had a partial hysterectomy. That is the story of Louise Delisle. We have a responsibility to prevent obstetric violence. We have to make sure we see the link between racism and the forced practice of coerced sterilization in Canada that exists. Much work has been done by Senator Boyer that must be honoured. We must continue to stand with survivors. To all Inuit, first nations and Métis, I say to speak up. Their voices matter. They can help make a difference. They can help make sure that we have a better future. Having said this, Uqaqtittiji, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures, be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to speak to the bill, and I am also very pleased to have seconded the amendments submitted by the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, because I believe we share values. The bill required so much work, and her amendments can address so many of the flaws in the current iteration of Bill C-14. I thank the Criminal Lawyers' Association for its work. In a submission it made, it said, “There is a bail crisis in Canada. But it is a crisis of detention, not release.” Bill C-14 is not the answer Canadians need. It is a knee-jerk reaction to sensational headlines and high-profile incidents involving repeat violent offenders. Working hand in hand, Conservatives and Liberals rushed the bill through committee, holding only three meetings, while ignoring the voices of experts and the people most affected. The Prime Minister claims to represent Liberal leadership, yet he openly supports and advances Conservative policies. Over two-thirds of Canadians did not vote for a Conservative government, but this is the agenda now being forced on Canadians. The NDP is firmly opposed to Bill C-14. As the NDP critic for both justice and indigenous affairs, I am opposed to the bill because it would fail Canadians. Instead of making communities safer, it would cause great injustice, deepen inequality and trample on fundamental rights. Canadians deserve a better way forward. By relying on tough-on-crime talking points, the government hopes to satisfy public pressure, but real issues are overlooked. People struggling with poverty, mental health and addiction would be pushed further into the system. The bill offers nothing in the way of treatment, rehabilitation or prevention. The bill would put more innocent people behind bars for longer, sometimes for months, before any trial. The cost would be paid by families and communities when people lose their housing, their job or even custody of their children, all before they have been found guilty of a crime. Canada's current bail system is already one of the strictest in the world. In fact, 76% of people charged are now denied bail, up from 22% in 1978. More than 60% of people in provincial institutions are waiting for trial. One-third of the people detained before trial are never convicted of any crime; they sit in crowded jails without access to addiction or mental health programs. Indigenous people are drastically overrepresented in these numbers. Although they make up only 5% of Canada's population, about 30% of federal inmates are indigenous. People who are experiencing poverty, homelessness, addiction or mental health challenges simply cannot meet the conditions for bail. They do not have a phone. They do not have stable housing or work, and they may not have friends or relatives to vouch for them. These are the people who would pay the price for the proposed policy. Last year, the Department of Justice cut 264 jobs. In the fall budget, the Prime Minister mandated the reduction of justice department operations by an additional 15%. We know that reduction means more cuts are coming. These departmental cuts will affect supports for low-income Canadians, such as legal aid, bail support programs and community clinics. The bill in its current form would narrow the principle of restraint, which would make it easier to keep people in detention. It would expand reverse onus by forcing an accused person to prove why they should get bail, instead of the Crown having to prove why they should not, weakening the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It would toughen sentences, amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and make sweeping changes that would further tax an already overburdened system. These are not evidence-based reforms. There is no clear data on how many people out on bail reoffend. We do not even collect standardized data on bail decisions. Rushing the bill through when experts and civil liberties groups ask for better information is not responsible law-making. We already have evidence of programs that do work. The John Howard Society has supervised bail programs in Ontario communities that have success rates of over 90%, for a fraction of the cost of jail. These programs link people to addiction services, mental health services and social services, and they help people on bail meet the conditions set by the court. This is safer, less costly and more humane. What we need are real investments in community-based supervision available across Canada. We need prevention and rehabilitation programs to tackle the root causes of crime, including poverty, trauma, systemic racism and colonial practices. We need national standards for data collection and risk assessment. Debate in Parliament is supposed to serve Canadians and strengthen democracy, but on the bill before us, the Liberals and Conservatives are shutting out progressive voices like those of the NDP. They are refusing to listen to the experts who have studied Canada's criminal justice system. Instead they are moving quickly, relying on fear and political pressure rather than reason, evidence and open debate. This approach leads to bad law and weakens democracy itself. When Parliament ignores the people advocating for civil liberties, the rights of indigenous peoples, and evidence-based solutions, we all lose. Democracy cannot thrive when important debate is suppressed and the government ignores the expertise of the people working on the front lines. Canadians deserve a criminal justice system rooted in fairness and facts, not political theatre. We need real solutions backed by evidence. The NDP calls on the government to stop, listen and consult, especially with people who are experts and people who are most impacted by these laws. Democracy is best served when many voices are heard, not just one. That is why a stronger progressive presence in Parliament matters. When New Democrats speak up, critical issues like evidence-based justice, civil liberties and the rights of indigenous and marginalized people are not ignored. Canadians did not ask for a Conservative agenda, but that is what we are getting when Liberals and Conservatives rush bills like Bill C-14.

Uqaqtittiji, the fact that the member has stated that the government has not had data to develop the bill confirms what I have been saying: The bill was not based on evidence. I agree that we need to make sure we have better prevention programs. The best way to do that is to make sure we do not keep more people in jail, which the bill intends to. That is what we need to focus on. As the Criminal Lawyers' Association has said, there is a crisis, but it is in detention not on release.

Uqaqtittiji, the sensationalism that the media shares is creating fear that is not necessary, and the focus needs to be on addressing violent offenders. I hope that with the way the bill is, it would not be overgeneralizing the people who would be most impacted. We have heard that bail works right now and that people who are violent offenders are kept in, and that is what the target needs to be of the bill. That is not what it is at this point.

Uqaqtittiji, the first nations caring society created Have a Heart Day. I attended an event held at the Meridian Theatres at Centrepointe. There were about 15 schools with around 700 students at this beautiful event. Originally started in 2012, this campaign has students write letters to the Prime Minister regarding injustices towards indigenous peoples. Will the Prime Minister honour these calls and finally act to give equity to indigenous peoples in Canada?

Uqaqtittiji, in Canada we have several means of protecting civil liberties, whether it be law enforcement, the Canadian Armed Forces or other mechanisms. In that same line of thinking, indigenous people deserve just as much protection as all Canadians. I wonder if the member agrees that the more that we have to ensure that there is implementation of important contracts like the modern treaties, the more measures like this are necessary to ensure that the treaties are being implemented.

Uqaqtittiji, before the election, the Liberals planned to cut the Inuit child first initiative. When Inuit heard this, they spoke up by the thousands. Under pressure from Nunavut, the Liberals promised to extend the program. Since being elected, the Minister of Indigenous Services promised an announcement on the ICFI. Nine months later, far too many Inuit children are still being kept below the poverty level, and there has still been no announcement. Will the minister finally act to help Inuit children, or should they feed themselves on her promises?

Uqaqtittiji, I completely agree that this is such an important act of reconciliation. I wonder if the member agrees that reconciliation not only happens through government but has to be an effort by everyone who can help ensure that indigenous peoples have a better sense of well-being. I wonder if the member agrees that with the Conservatives being opposed to this bill, it also shows they are not supporting reconciliation with the modern treaty partners.

Uqaqtittiji, in Rankin Inlet, the NDP caucus heard from one Inuk who shared that he has waited for 11 years for a house. There are 17 people living in his two-bedroom unit. His story is all too common in Nunavut. The government is acting on what I have told it. Nunavut will receive 50 more homes added to the 700 originally promised in the budget. This is a good start. Will the minister keep working with Nunavut to address the worst housing crisis in Canada?

Uqaqtittiji, the state of emergency in Cross Lake Pimicikamak is now over 40 days old. The army came, made recommendations and left, and where is the federal government? It is still brainstorming solutions. Meanwhile, evacuees remain stranded in cities without adequate supports. When will Ottawa move past talking points and, at a minimum, implement the army's recommendations and uphold their constitutional responsibilities to support people returning to a safe home?

Uqaqtittiji, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have bungled fighter jet procurement for decades. Now, with Donald Trump threatening Canada's sovereignty and our NATO allies, New Democrats call on the Prime Minister to cancel all F-35 contracts and commit to purchasing the Swedish Saab Gripen. The Prime Minister promised to make Canada less reliant on the American military. Will the Prime Minister make the switch, or did his Davos speech mean nothing?

Uqaqtittiji, Nunavummiut are seeking reassurance from the government. Nunavummiut deserve to know how they will be engaged in keeping the Arctic secure. They deserve to be protected and to participate in their own safety. Inuit have the expertise, knowledge and skills to do so. The federal government creates too many barriers, such as not investing in housing and not feeding families, which is keeping them in poverty. Will the Liberals invest in the people of the Arctic so that Inuit too can keep the Arctic secure?