Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, efforts to deny, distort or minimize the truth about residential schools is deeply harmful and will always be condemned. Denialism is a cruel rejection of well-established facts, and it undermines the truth that is essential to reconciliation with indigenous people. That is why our government is moving forward with a $5-million investment in education and public awareness so that Canadians can continue to learn from survivors, their families and communities and better understand the painful legacy of residential schools. We will confront denialism with the truth and ensure that it is never erased or forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, efforts to deny, distort or minimize the truth about residential schools are deeply harmful and will always be condemned. Denialism is a cruel rejection of well-established facts, and it undermines the truth that is essential to reconciliation with indigenous people. That is why our government is moving forward with a $5-million investment in education and public awareness so that Canadians can continue to learn from survivors, their—

moved that Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, be read the third time and passed. Mr. Speaker, I begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. We are now at third reading of Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act, and that is no small achievement. I want to extend my deepest thanks to the modern treaty partners whose experience, persistence and leadership shaped this bill at every step. I also want to thank the members of this House who have helped advance the bill. At its core, this legislation is about more than establishing the commissioner for modern treaties. It is about something much bigger. Fundamentally, it is about our commitment to advancing reconciliation through partnership and making sure that the commitments we make today lead to tangible, measurable results. It is about moving from intention to implementation so that modern treaties deliver real outcomes for indigenous communities, including strong governance, greater economic opportunity and improved quality of life. As we look at the work that brought us to this moment and everything we have accomplished together, one lesson stands out: Real progress happens through partnership. This bill was co-developed with indigenous modern treaty partners every step of the way. Before we began drafting this bill, we worked together to develop Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy in 2023. That policy, the first of its kind, set shared expectations for federal departments and created a more consistent approach to implementation across government. It set standards for shifting the culture of the federal system towards stronger relationships and accountability. Building on that foundation, we co-developed this bill with modern treaty partners. Their lived experience guided every component. They shared where current approaches were not always delivering consistent results and they shaped the commissioner's mandate, authorities and reporting structures. By its very design, this bill is stronger and more credible. It reflects the shared ownership of a common objective to improve the modern treaty relationship and derive the full benefits of these agreements for partners, their neighbours and all Canadians. Bill C-10 reflects a recognition that collaboration with indigenous partners must be the norm. Modern treaty partners are governments and our strategic partners shaping the future of this country, and this bill reflects that truth. This is both principled and practical. All indigenous modern treaty partners spoke strongly in support of the legislation. Our government supports it and it is my hope that the opposition will support it so that it can move on to the Senate. After all, it is rare to see legislation with this level of shared support. The commissioner for modern treaty implementation act would create an independent commissioner whose sole focus would be supporting effective, consistent and transparent implementation of Canada's modern treaty commitments. Modern treaty partners have been united in their call for stronger oversight. They have emphasized the need for a mechanism that helps everyone understand where progress is being made, where challenges remain, and what steps are needed to honour the full spirit and intent of modern treaties. With this legislation in place, the commissioner would, one, conduct independent and expert oversight of any activity carried out by the Government of Canada that relates to the implementation of modern treaties; two, report to Parliament to hold the Government of Canada accountable for its modern treaty obligations; three, be independent, objective and impartial in the discharge of their mandate and have expert knowledge of modern treaties; four, have the authority to require departments to provide the information necessary to carry out its mandate. Modern treaties partners have long called for this mechanism that can look across governments and help make treaty implementation consistent, effective and timely. This kind of independent oversight would bring clarity to the work. It would highlight where progress is happening and where more attention is needed. It would also create the space for honest dialogue, the kind of early, constructive conversation that would prevent problems from growing. Across government, we see how independent oversight improves outcomes. Modern treaty partners deserve the same consistent oversight, given the depth, complexity and importance of their constitutionally protected agreements. The implementation of modern treaties is a matter that concerns every government, now and into the future. Current and future governments will need visibility into federal performance and a system that is equipped and compelled to follow through consistently on commitments. Bill C-10 would help deliver that. With this commissioner in place, issues that have been difficult to surface would gain visibility, patterns that were previously hidden would be easier to identify, and both Parliament and partners would have access to clear, independent reporting. This transparency is essential to building stronger treaty relationships and a stronger Canada. I also want to take this opportunity today to talk a little more about modern treaties and why they are so critical to reconciliation and to building a stronger future. Modern treaties are a distinct expression of reconciliation and a constitutionally entrenched commitment between the Crown and indigenous partners. They promote strong and sustainable indigenous communities and affirm indigenous rights over lands and resources, but as I said, modern treaties are not only instruments of reconciliation. They are engines of economic growth that create certainty for investors, the government and indigenous governments; enable major projects; and support long-term prosperity for indigenous communities and all Canadians. We have seen this clearly across the country. The Nisga'a nation, British Columbia's first modern treaty partner, is seeing significant economic development and is taking on an increasingly active role in major projects. The Nisga'a nation is a proponent of the Ksi Lisims LNG project, a major project that has the potential to create jobs, generate economic opportunities and deliver long-term benefits for Nisga'a citizens and the entire country. By taking an active role in projects like this, including by pursuing equity ownership, the Nisga'a are helping ensure that major developments create lasting prosperity and economic opportunities that can benefit generations to come. At the same time, the Nisga'a are continuing to strengthen their self-government, including by holding their own elections in accordance with the Nisga'a nation's own constitution. This is a powerful example of what self-determination can look like in practice, building economic opportunity while exercising the rights and responsibilities of self-government. In the Northwest Territories, the Tłı̨chǫ government has invested in an all-season highway project that would connect remote communities and open up new opportunities in mining. This infrastructure development is helping community members access health service and education and supporting local businesses. Another example of this is the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board. This board promotes sustainable use of land and resources while preserving traditional practices. It plays a leadership role so that the fish, forests and wildlife of the Gwich'in area remain healthy and sustainable. Its mandate is to work in the public interest and represent all the parties to the modern treaty: the Gwich'in, the people of the Northwest Territories and all Canadians. These examples remind us of what can be when modern treaties are implemented effectively. They show that treaties support well-being, stability and prosperity. They drive growth, create jobs, build up our economy and ultimately build Canada strong. Bill C-10 offers a concrete way forward. By making implementation more visible and consistent, the commissioner would oversee the system from a whole-of-government perspective and make sure we are working consistently toward effective implementation. Progress must be visible, it must be measurable and it must make a difference in people's lives. Trust is central to every treaty relationship. It takes time to build and ongoing effort to maintain. Trust is built through action: consistently meeting commitments and demonstrating results over time. The commissioner would be an investment in these relationships; in trust, accountability, efficiency and a more just and prosperous future for all Canadians. Strong accountability measures promote responsible governments. They support credibility and, importantly, results. Modern treaty partners would continue to play an important role in the establishment and operation of the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The appointed commissioner must have the confidence of both Parliament and modern treaty partners. That is why the appointment process includes direct consultation with modern treaty partners. When executing their mandates, the commissioner would determine the procedures, terms and methodology to be followed for each review or performance audit after engaging with the relevant modern treaty partners. The commissioner would also provide relevant modern treaty partners with the opportunity to review and comment on any preliminary findings and recommendations of the commissioner, with any comments published in the final report. These processes have been specifically designed to provide credibility, transparency and independence for the commissioner and their office. These requirements would also ensure that modern treaty partners remain active participants in the commissioner's work. Modern treaties represent a concrete step on the path of reconciliation. For modern treaties to truly move us forward, we must strive to find better ways of implementing their spirit and objectives. The commissioner would help us do that in a way that reflects the importance of these relationships to all of us. As we reach third reading, I want to reflect on what this bill means in the broader context of reconciliation. Since the signing of the first modern treaty in 1975, successive governments have recognized the importance of these agreements because they know that Canada's future lies with strong, respectful relationships. They have understood that when we honour our commitments and build stronger partnerships with indigenous peoples, we create a stronger, fairer and more successful country. In these uncertain times, we need partners we can count on. Indigenous modern treaty partners are exactly those partners. Modern treaties cover more than 40% of Canada's land mass, including 80% of the north. It is clear that the only way we can move forward and build Canada strong is in partnership with indigenous modern treaty partners and in accordance with our obligations. This creates unique opportunities for collaboration between modern treaty partners, Canada and other stakeholders on shared, crosscutting priorities in sectors including energy, natural resources, defence, finance and real estate. Modern treaty partners are already leading in this space in innovation, investment and development across Canada. They are doing it within federal implementation approaches that can continue to be strengthened. This is the time to act. It is the time to strengthen how we carry out our commitments and advance reconciliation in concrete ways. That begins with passing Bill C-10. Reconciliation must be practical, must be measurable and must deliver results that people can see and feel in their daily lives. This bill is a practical step forward, one that supports partnership and helps modern treaties deliver the results they were meant to achieve. Once again, I want to thank modern treaty partners for their leadership, advocacy and unwavering commitment to this work. The journey we took together to co-develop this legislation shows what is possible when trust, creativity and collaboration are at the heart of the process.

Mr. Speaker, it is important work. Having a commissioner for modern treaty implementation has been a call from modern treaty partners. As to the importance of the commissioner, they would be an agent of Parliament who would submit reviews and performance audits directly to Parliament. It is really important to note that the whole-of-government approach the commissioner would be taking is an opportunity for them to make findings and recommendations regarding implementation and to really be able to work with modern treaty partners and government to improve our relationships. It is an opportunity to have findings and recommendations, to make sure they are public and to make sure we are reporting on the progress that is made. That is a really important part. A lot of the audits may show the areas where we need to do work, but it is equally important to show the areas where we have done a lot of work. The commissioner would have that opportunity, and I encourage all members of the House to continue to support this work. Again, this bill was co-drafted with modern treaty partners. It is a call they have been asking Parliament to take up. It is also related to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan that the government has, specifically chapter 5, section 9, which states that the co-development of indigenous modern treaties is really important.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, and I would also like to thank the Bloc Québécois for its support. It is important that the whole House have the commissioner's reports, so that everyone is aware of the importance of modern treaties and so that people can see the recommendations. I encourage my colleagues, when they examine the budget, to bear these considerations in mind. They will see that the funds are there to support modern treaties. I would like to raise another point. The commissioner deals solely with the work of the federal government, and not with that of provincial or territorial governments.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation was co-drafted alongside the 27 modern treaties, as well as with federal officials. However, I would note that the consultation period was broader than that. There were over 130 partners, including indigenous modern treaty partners; first nations, Métis and Inuit groups, which also participated; national indigenous organizations and provincial and territorial governments. It was a broad consultation that occurred. As to the process of selecting the commissioner, it would be done in consultation with modern treaty partners. Following that, it would go to the Governor in Council. It would then be brought forward for feedback from the leaders of the opposition parties. Again, it is about co-development in drafting and co-development in selecting the commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, when looking at the socio-economic conditions of modern treaty partner communities, we see there is an increase in socio-economic conditions, which shows the importance and value of modern treaties. I would highlight that it is for the commissioner to continue to strengthen our relationships. The commissioner would conduct independent and expert oversight of any activities carried out by the government, would seek to ensure timely and effective implementation and would report directly to Parliament to hold the government accountable on the relationships, objectives and obligations. This is an important report that would be coming to Parliament so that all parliamentarians could see the work being done throughout the year. They would have the opportunity to see what is working and the areas where we need to step up and continue to make progress. The opportunity and benefit of the commissioner for modern treaties lie in continuing to grow this relationship and highlighting the work that is ongoing and still needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I definitely agree with my colleague. Modern treaty partners are critical in advancing many of the projects we are seeing right now, such as the Nisga'a nation with Ksi Lisims and the Tłı̨chǫ first nation with the Arctic economic and security corridor. In Iqaluit, we have NTI, which is leading the hydroelectric project. We are seeing modern treaty partners across the country not only in equity, but also leading the charge in these major projects, and we really look forward to continuing to work with modern treaty partners to build Canada strong.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question and one that is currently before the courts. In the recent Wolastoqey decision, the Court of Appeal in New Brunswick, which is the highest court in the province, has refused leave to appeal. It found that aboriginal title cannot be declared over private property. On the other side of the country, in the Cowichan case, the B.C. judge found that they could coexist. We disagree with B.C.'s decision and are appealing it to maintain the clarity and certainty of private properties. However, as we are seeing differing views in the courts, we continue to be there to get the certainty.

Mr. Speaker, I find it disingenuous that the members opposite continue to suggest that we are not protecting the private property rights of Canada. Here is what we have been doing: We disagreed with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling and appealed it; we supported Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial. Section 92 of the Constitution sets out that private property is provincial jurisdiction. It is excluded from all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level. For Cowichan, B.C. is acting within its jurisdiction to put measures in to support any implicated property owner—

moved that Bill C-27, An Act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to the second reading of the legislation that would give legal force to the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę self-government treaty. It is very timely that we are having this debate now as we celebrate National Indigenous History Month. While this month is a celebration, it is also a reminder, not only for Canadians but also for us as parliamentarians, of the work we need to do to help build a stronger, more equitable future for indigenous peoples. By advancing this legislation today, all members of the House have the opportunity to support a stronger future for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. This moment has been a long time in the making. All of us know that the heart of this legislation is in the north, in the Sahtu and with the people of Norman Wells. It began with elders, leaders and families that carried a vision for their nation. It began with their determination to see their governance restored, their authority recognized and their future placed back in their own hands. When we speak about progress, we must also speak about legacy. In the Sahtu, that legacy is profound. More than 30 years ago, the signing and enactment of the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement fundamentally changed the landscape of indigenous governance and land management in Canada. It was a landmark for not only the Sahtu but also the entire country. It created certainty, stability and a foundation strong enough to support other self-government negotiations into the future. The agreement brought clarity to land stewardship and resource management across a vast region that has since shaped decisions, influenced national policy and guided how we approach modern treaties across Canada. It set a precedent, and communities across Canada refer to it as they advance their own agreements. It made space for new models of partnership between indigenous governments and Canada, between communities and industry, and between northern peoples and the federal system. The 1993 agreement changed the way Canada understands shared responsibility for land, water, wildlife and resources. It proved that reconciliation, when grounded in respect, can create not only fairness but also stability for investment, planning and shared prosperity for future generations. From that foundation came the first self-government agreement in the Sahtu, the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement, which was a milestone that inspired and encouraged others across the region. Today, we are here to advance the second of five potential agreements that were envisioned all those decades ago, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę self-government treaty. This treaty is not an isolated achievement. It is part of that continuum, a living legacy of a region that has consistently led the way on land claims, self-determination and innovative governance. Today, we build on that legacy through Bill C-27. If passed, it would establish the agreement as a self-government treaty in Canadian law. It would formally recognize the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę government as the government of the Sahtu, Dene and Métis of Norman Wells and would affirm what has always been true, which is that the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę hold inherent rights of self-government, rights affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. This is practical, meaningful and legally binding recognition. The treaty confirms the authority of the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę to make their own laws; elect their own leaders; protect and revitalize their languages; strengthen their culture; deliver their own programs and services, including education and health care; manage land use and development decisions within their jurisdiction; and chart their own path forward as a nation. However, I also want to consider what this means not just for governance but also for people. Fundamentally, self-government is a deeply human concept. It affects the classrooms in which a child learns. It affects the homes in which families live. It affects the care a grandparent receives, the language heard in the community hall, the decisions made at the council table and the confidence and optimism of young people imagining their futures. Self-government means that programs are designed locally by people who understand the community. It means language and culture are protected, not as an afterthought but as central priorities when developing policies and programs. It means that governance reflects Sahtu values rooted in respect, responsibility and relationships. For the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, this treaty is a return to an age-old system of governance grounded in culture and social and spiritual practices passed down over countless generations. Their ancestors governed themselves long before Canada existed, and this legislation would recognize that truth and restore the space for indigenous decision-making to flourish again. These authorities reflect what the community has long envisioned: decisions being made by the people who live there, who know the land, who share the culture and who carry the responsibility for future generations. This legislation would honour commitments, renew relationships and, just as importantly, help unlock new opportunities for the nation to build and prosper on its own terms. I can say with confidence, because the community has shown it again and again, that the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę are ready. After 20 years of negotiation, countless meetings and tireless leadership, they are ready to take on self-government. One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the foundation it would establish for economic opportunity. Under the legislation, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę would have jurisdiction with respect to direct taxation of its citizens within its land and authority over internal and local affairs, as well as the ability to finance their self-government. These tools would help support long-term planning, create jobs and generate their own revenue. As an indigenous government, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę government would be positioned to engage directly on development projects, ensuring that benefits flow into the community and that development reflects local priorities and values. This is good news for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. It is good for the region, it is good for the Northwest Territories, and it is good for Canada. Stable governance encourages investment. It speeds up decision-making, gives clarity to investors and aligns economic development with cultural and environmental stewardship. It also means that projects can move forward with community support. This is how the north succeeds, by making certain that the people who live closest to the land have a real voice in how it is used. Before I close, I want to take a moment to thank everyone who played an important role in getting us to where we are today. I thank leaders, elders, youth, negotiators and community members. They have shown what can be achieved when partnership is genuine and relationships are built on trust. To the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, mahsi cho for their leadership, mahsi cho for their patience and mahsi cho for their partnership. As a proud northerner, as a minister of the Crown and as someone who has spent my life working with and learning from communities across the Northwest Territories, it is an honour to play even a small role in this moment. As we observe National Indigenous History Month, this legislation gives us the chance to live up to our highest ideals as a country, to honour our commitments and to walk forward with indigenous peoples together. I urge all members of the House to join me in working to pass this critical piece of legislation without delay.

Mr. Speaker, what is before the House would be an important part of that, meaning the establishment of the self-government of the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. One of the other initiatives that Parliament approved was funding for Our Land for the Future, which is a land guardian program. It is working with indigenous governments across the Northwest Territories to develop the land guardian program. Another indigenous government in the Sahtu region is Fort Good Hope. I was just talking to them yesterday about their land guardian program. It is creating 2 million dollars' worth of local wages, which is 12 full‑time positions and over 100 community members participating throughout the year. It has been important for land, for culture, for wildfire protection and for many more things, so I tip my hat to all the land guardians across the Northwest Territories. The other thing I would note in the Sahtu is the recent Mackenzie Valley Highway. We are working to expedite that project, and we have seen that Rio Tinto is looking to explore for copper in the region.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to go through the regulatory process. One of the initiatives that will support the Mackenzie Valley region, including Norman Wells, is the government's announcement of referring the Mackenzie Valley Highway project to the Major Projects Office. That is the opportunity to work with communities as well as the territorial government, which is the proponent on this project, to accelerate it. With the Mackenzie Valley Highway, it would benefit residents with local food supply and fuel being able to be shipped all year and not depending on barges and winter roads. Already we are seeing more mineral exploration in the region, and we are continuing to support that through critical mineral investments that were announced in budget 2025.

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, this is a treaty, so it was negotiated with the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. Following the negotiations, we came to the draft. A consultation then occurred with 30 indigenous nations, which had minor amendments that were then incorporated. The community then ratified this in March 2025. The territorial government ratified it in March 2026. I am looking for the House to expedite this so we can have this approved before the summer.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the legal challenges from the United States-based indigenous groups against the Province of British Columbia. However, Canada is not a party to this litigation. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that decisions about consultation with non-resident groups may be required in certain circumstances. However, the federal government is monitoring all legal cases when it comes to duty to consult and accommodate, and we are updating when necessary. Again, we are monitoring the B.C. legal challenges closely and we remain committed to building Canada strong.

Mr. Speaker, beyond the investments such as the Mackenzie Valley Highway, the Slave geological province and the Taltson hydro expansion, the important thing about accelerating this legislation is really the importance of the self-governance to the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. With that, it would be able to make its own laws, elect its own leaders and protect and revitalize its language and culture. This is incredibly important. Without this legislation, it is right now an organization that has to follow the not-for-profit guidance, and so it is a bit disrespectful, really. We should be passing the self-government agreement. This is part of the 1993 land claim agreement that we would be going on to self-government. This would be the second of the five communities that would be seeking self-government. Again, I urge my colleagues to pass this as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is important to note that the self-government agreement is legislated under the Constitution: their legal authority to pass their own laws, to set up their own elections and to protect their culture. The first self-government agreement was the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement. It will be having its 10th year anniversary this year, and we have really seen how incredibly important it has been in the community of Déline. I really look forward to seeing the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę's self-governance as it continues to grow in the community of Norman Wells. There is the opportunity to also consider moving to the indigenous public governance. However, at this stage, it is not looking to have that authority.

Mr. Speaker, in February, we did sign three Musqueam agreements. One was a framework agreement, which is really outlining how we will work nation to nation. Included in that is section 5.1, which says that it is not a land claim, and section 5.2. Again, I encourage the members opposite to look them up, as they are available online. For the other two agreements, one was about fisheries and one was about marine stewardship, but they are not about private property. Today, for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, this is a self-government agreement. The land claim was settled in 1993.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition for supporting this legislation. As mentioned, this is one community of five. Déline was approved in 2016. We are moving forward with this one. The consultation is in process for Colville Lake, which is one of the other communities. If that legislation comes forward and is similar to Déline and Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, I wonder if the members opposite would support an expeditious passing of that legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is important that we distinguish among self-government agreements, land claim agreements, comprehensive agreements and constructive arrangements, such as parks agreements. It would be important to understand the Conservative position when it comes to only self-government agreements, because they are sometimes stand-alone agreements that are separate from land agreements and other constructive agreements. If I could understand the Conservatives' position when it comes to self-governance, that would be really appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that was presented yesterday was full of false information, including when they talked about the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement is available online, but I know the Conservatives have not read it. I will feel free to read section 5.1: “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements”. I will also read section 5.2: “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam's Rights and Title.” The whole agreement is available online, and I encourage the Conservatives to read it.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, the province, the City of Richmond, Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Cowichan are all appealing the Cowichan decision. There is also another court case. It is in New Brunswick. The Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion than what was reached in Cowichan. We now have two courts in Canada taking very different approaches. This divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity we are seeking in the Cowichan case. The Cowichan case is in active litigation, including today. We will defend private property.

Mr. Speaker, at trial, Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown, and we will continue to do so on appeal. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. This is why we supported Montrose's application to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial, which is occurring today. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs, in the courts, not on the floor of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, our government will always raise legally viable arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Litigation guideline number 14 does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support them. Canada has appealed the Cowichan court ruling, and all viable defences remain on the table.

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we will not be discussing our legal strategy on the House of Commons floor. However, yesterday, the Conservatives had a lot of questions about something that is public and available for them to read, which is the Musqueam agreement. Let me read the Musqueam agreement since they will not read it themselves. Section 5.1 of the agreement states, “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements...”. Section 5.2 states, “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam's Rights and Title.” There is more on the website for them.

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we are not going to discuss our litigation strategy. The Conservatives have referenced the litigation direction, but they have read only one sentence out of principle number 14. Our government will always raise valid arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Litigation guideline number 14 does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada has appealed the Cowichan ruling, and all viable defence—

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite flagging the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. They reached a very different conclusion from Cowichan. Therefore, we now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity that we are seeking in the Cowichan case, which we appealed, the Government of British Columbia appealed, the Cowichan appealed, the Musqueam appealed, the Tsawwassen appealed and the City of Richmond appealed. It is active litigation before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to read all of litigation principle number 14. He has only read the first sentence. However, what I will talk about is the Cowichan case and the current status. As far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of litigation. However, the courts ruled against that. Since the ruling last summer, we consented to the Montrose application, and we are now awaiting a ruling from the judge on that. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. That will allow an impacted private property owner to be heard at trial.

Mr. Speaker, an agreement cannot be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking directly to Canadians who may be watching this debate today and feeling anxious or uncertain. As the Prime Minister has made clear, “private property rights are fundamental...[and our government] will always defend them.” Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. Before I begin, I want to remind members of this House that the Cowichan case is subject to active litigation and appeal. As it stands right now, the trial order has not yet been entered and will not be entered until the Montrose application to reopen the trial, which I will discuss later, is resolved. Given the impact our words here today could have on this active litigation, it is important that all members of this House, including myself, are judicious and responsible with their words. Let us get to the motion. Our government agrees with some of the principles in the motion and already takes many of them into negotiations. However, we will not allow the Conservatives a platform to continue to spread disinformation with a special committee. We will not allow this Parliament to be used to relitigate an active court case with partisan rhetoric, which could potentially jeopardize the ongoing litigation. Respect for the judicial process is essential. Canadians do not need the Conservatives' political chaos and poorly informed commentary layered on top of the complex legal questions at play in this case. Further to that, this motion is redundant as it calls on the government to do things we are already doing. For example, in the Cowichan case, the government has defended the validity of grants of fee simple title by the Crown and will continue to do so on appeal. Again, as the Prime Minister said last week, “private property rights are fundamental...[and we] will always defend them.” It is already Government of Canada policy to only make rights and title agreements that protect the private property of Canadians. I can assure this House, and all Canadians, that we will not, nor would we ever, entertain or even consider an agreement where Canadians lose their private property. In fact, we have been signing modern agreements with first nations since the 1970s. None of those modern treaties, negotiated agreements or federal approaches have led to Canadians losing privately owned land. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has protected and will protect private property. Before I go any further, I would like to briefly share my perspective on this debate. I come from a region shaped by modern land claims based on historic treaties. I am not indigenous. I own private property in an area covered by a modern treaty. I have lived, worked and governed in contexts where indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians have learned—sometimes imperfectly, but always constructively—to coexist on the same territory. This experience has taught me a fundamental lesson: The key to success is not to stoke fear. It is not spread disinformation, and it is certainly not to use political opportunism. The key is to sit down at a table, have constructive discussions and responsibly carry out the difficult work of reconciliation. That is what our government is doing, but that is precisely what this motion seeks to undermine. This motion wraps itself in the language of private property while fundamentally misrepresenting the government's position, the facts on the ground and recent federal agreements with indigenous partners. It also confuses the results of a court decision, one that our government fundamentally disagrees with, and a negotiated agreement that does not deal with Canadians' private property interests. It suggests that government agreements are giving away private land. It suggests that, because of the Musqueam agreement, Canadians could lose their homes. None of that is true. What is true is that this motion is an opportunistic political play by the Conservatives to create fear, stress and division. If they truly cared about addressing Canadians' concerns, they should have put forward a motion grounded in facts and that reflects the situation as it is, not one that only serves their political interests. Let us turn first to the Cowichan decision. This case has a long and complex history. It is, in fact, the longest civil trial in Canadian history at over 500 days. At its core, it raises legal questions about aboriginal title and how it interacts with Crown obligations and existing land ownership systems. Throughout the case, Canada has consistently defended the validity of Crown grants of fee simple title, and we continue to do so today. That position has not changed. We also recognize that private ownership is a foundational part of Canada's legal system. It gives people certainty and confidence in their homes and businesses. That matters to Canadians and it matters to our economy. Canada has formally appealed the decision because we believe further legal clarity is required, particularly with respect to private property interests. We will advance all legally viable arguments to protect that clarity. Importantly, the court ruled that British Columbia, not the federal government, has the duty to negotiate in good faith regarding privately held lands, because jurisdiction over private property and land registries rests with the provinces. Section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The Conservatives continue to ignore the fact that this is constitutional reality, not political choice. To that end, British Columbia has appealed. British Columbia is acting within its jurisdiction, and British Columbia is working on measures to support potentially impacted private property owners. When it comes to aboriginal title, more generally, it is important to note that the law is far from settled in this regard. For example, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion in J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation, as compared to the B.C. Supreme Court's decision in Cowichan. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal states that it is open for a court to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that a declaration of aboriginal title cannot be made over private property. Canada is waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to confirm whether it will hear an appeal of the Wolastoqey Nation decision, and we are monitoring this case closely. We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the court is needed. We recognize that the Cowichan decision has caused uncertainty and anxiety. Canadians deserve to feel secure in their homes and investments. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. Further, since the ruling last summer, we, Canada, consented to the Montrose application and we are now awaiting a ruling. For those who are unfamiliar, Montrose is a company that operates in Richmond and claims to be the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. If the trial is reopened in a limited way, Montrose, an impacted private property owner, will have the opportunity to present evidence and its perspective on the impacts of this decision. The judge will rule on whether or not there should be a limited reopening of the trial. This may impact the decision made by the judge in August 2025. We consented to this application because we believe that when people may be directly affected by legal ruling, they deserve to be heard. Canadians know what they can expect from our government. We have appealed the Cowichan decision, and we will advance all legally viable arguments to preserve the certainty of private property interests. As I said at the beginning of my speech, though, the Conservatives believe that they should use Parliament to relitigate an active court case. Let me be clear. Having these discussions here on the floor of the House of Commons or in a special parliamentary committee, instead of in a courtroom where they belong, has the potential to negatively impact Canada's legal position and may actually undermine arguments on appeal that would protect private property. We must respect the judicial process and continue to seek resolution of this matter through the courts. The Conservatives have suggested that the directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples restricted Canada's ability to advance legally viable defences in the Cowichan litigation, specifically referring to litigation guideline number 14. Litigation guideline number 14 of the directive does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada is currently reviewing potential legal arguments for the Cowichan appeal, and all potential defences remain on the table. Again, our government will always raise valid arguments that we believe will be successful in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada is currently reviewing all legally viable arguments for the Cowichan appeal and all potential defences remain on the table. However, even if the Conservatives are not listening, I want to reassure Canadians at home who are watching that Canada will advance all legally viable arguments on appeal to protect private property. I now want to turn to the incremental rights recognition agreement with the Musqueam first nation, another area where misinformation has flourished. This agreement did not appear overnight. In 2017, Cowichan and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding. In February 2026, that work evolved into a framework agreement. This is not a title agreement, and it is not a land claim. Let me be absolutely clear on a point that has caused concern: This agreement does not affect private property. In fact, it cannot affect private property because it is a bilateral agreement between Musqueam and the federal government. Why does that matter? It is because, again, private property falls under provincial jurisdiction. As I have said, section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not have the authority to negotiate Canadians' privately held lands, and this agreement does not in any way attempt to do that. It is important to note that all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level protect private property. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Further, it is important to note that the Musqueam themselves have been clear. In fact, just a few weeks ago, Musqueam's chief negotiator said that private property was never on the table. It was a non-starter from the very beginning. As the agreement itself states, this work is about building relationships, establishing principles and setting out processes for future discussion, not transferring land. I really want to highlight one bullet from the agreement for us to remember throughout the debate today. It reads: For a long time we, Musqueam and Canada, misunderstood each other. We are all one and we are here to stay. It was impossible for this misunderstanding to go on. We wanted to reach a mutual understanding and that is why we gathered together to make an informed decision. In the spirit of reconciliation and consistent with the principle of nəća̓ʔmat ct [which means we are all one], Musqueam will continue to work collaboratively with Canada to further our mutual interests to transform conflict and injustice, to create partnerships in the spirit of unity, with the aim of developing processes for shared decision-making, revenue and benefit sharing, and dispute resolution. This agreement is the result of more than 10 years of negotiation. Negotiation, instead of litigation, provides clarity, stability and better outcomes for everyone involved. Again, despite what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, it does not interfere with fee simple property ownership. The maps circulating online showing “land being given away” are maps of Musqueam's claimed historical territory, not title. Conservatives confusing the two is either careless or deliberate. The government has not agreed to anything new with respect to these areas. We will not, cannot and will never negotiate away Canadians' private property. There are no clauses transferring private homes. There is no sudden erosion of municipal or provincial authority, and there is no legal basis for the climate of panic the Conservatives are attempting to create. I will remind the members on the other side of the aisle that responsible leadership means actually reading agreements before condemning them. Let me offer the House a concrete example of a title agreement, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, which became a law in B.C. on May 16, 2024. The law confirms the “Rising Tide” Haida Title Lands Agreement and enshrines the recognition of Haida aboriginal title in the laws of B.C. The agreements and legislation provided important protections such as the following: Private property, residential, commercial or industrial, is not affected by the recognition of Haida aboriginal title; and privately owned land, or fee simple property, remains under provincial jurisdiction and the recognition of Haida aboriginal title will not change any rights associated with it. This means that business licences, building permits and zoning continue as is through the reconciling process. It means that key infrastructure, like ferry terminals and highways, continues to be operated and maintained by the province. It means that provincial and municipal services provided by Haida Gwaii, including health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services, also continue as they are. The agreement and provincial legislation came into effect on July 5, 2024. It has been almost two years and the sky has not fallen. Life has continued on for folks. That is what negotiated coexistence looks like in a constitutional democracy. With regard to aboriginal rights and treaty rights, we will continue to hold consultations on mines and major projects of national interest. None of this is new. Even before the title was established, the Crown always had a duty to consult. Title clarifies the rights of indigenous partners; it does not invent duties out of thin air. In 2014, when the Supreme Court affirmed aboriginal title in the Tsilhqot'in decision, some critics predicted chaos. They warned of economic collapse. They said Canadians would lose their land. None of that happened. That was 12 years ago. We have gained clarity about the nature and location of lands covered by Tsilhqot'in aboriginal title. That clarity has provided certainty to investors, communities and the government, which has enabled them to build. One of the greatest harms of this motion is not legal, but social. It invites Canadians to fear reconciliation. That is not leadership. Many Canadians were not taught about treaties or unceded land, but a lack of education is not an excuse for the Conservatives' spreading misinformation now. Leadership means explaining complexity, not exploiting it for fundraising opportunities. Let us be serious. We can protect private property. We can advance aboriginal title and rights. We can do both without reopening the Constitution as this motion proposes because, frankly, we do not have time for a constitutional wrangling exercise. Canadians want homes built, projects approved and the economy growing. We can do that right now within our existing constitutional framework. Hope is not a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy. If the Conservatives ever hope to lead, they will need to learn how to work with all Canadians, including indigenous partners. That means quitting the fearmongering, quitting the misinformation, starting to learn and starting to build relationships. They need to recognize that reconciliation and economic growth are not opposites. They are partners when done properly. I will close where I began. To Canadians watching today, they still own their home and they can still renovate it, and our government is fully committed to protecting their property rights. In indigenous treaty or agreement discussions, private property is not on the table. It is not today and it will not be tomorrow. What we are doing is building a stronger, more honest, more stable foundation for coexistence and prosperity. What is on the table is whether this House chooses clarity over chaos, unity over division and serious governance over fear-based politics.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point regarding the Musqueam agreement, it is an incremental rights and recognition agreement. If folks are interested, they can go to the website and there is a description of what an MOU is and what a framework agreement is. We are currently at the framework agreement. Back in 2017, we signed the MOU with Musqueam. It took nine years to come to the framework agreement. It outlines the next steps for discussion. The other two agreements that were signed were about marine stewardship and the fisheries. The motion the Conservatives are proposing says we have not included private property in every agreement. I ask the Conservatives why we would include that in every agreement, including the education agreements, the health agreements and the self-government agreements. When an agreement does not touch on private property, we do not include it, because it does not touch on private property.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I think that there is an opportunity here to discuss how we can improve awareness about treaties. There is a lot of disinformation and denialism about history. We would love it if the committee could take this opportunity to look into how we can improve awareness about treaties and residential schools. I think it would be a good exercise. It would also be a good idea to look at how we can address the issue of aboriginal title, since there are numerous examples across Canada. How can we explain this better and educate Canadians on this?

Mr. Speaker, tied to both of my colleagues' questions, I think about the opportunity for improved communications, but also the uncertainty and fear that can happen in the investment world when the education is lacking. When there is talk about the federal government giving away all this land, which is inaccurate, that is misinformation and it leads to that uncertainty the member is speaking of. Canada was just at the United Nations indigenous peoples forum. We are a leader that many countries look to with regard to reconciliation. We can continue to shine. Our journey toward reconciliation is not over. It is a long journey, and we need to continue to evolve. Making sure that we continue to advance modern treaties and aboriginal title in a way that protects private property is important work that we need to continue.

Mr. Speaker, the courts and litigation create uncertainty. This case began in 2014. The ruling ended in 2025. All parties appealed the decision. Montrose has asked for the trial to be reopened. We are awaiting the decision from the judge. Litigation can create uncertainty while we are working through these steps, which is why we prefer to work through negotiations. Agreements like that with Haida, where the federal government, the province and the Haida Nation were able to come together and actually work through how private property and aboriginal title can work together, are a prime example. It is ensuring that Canadians understand the current stage of the legal process, because it is being appealed. There is the opportunity that the trial may be reopened in a limited way. It is important that we continue to tell Canadians the current facts, as well as continue to work through negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention litigation guideline number 14, which the Conservatives have referenced a number of times. I encourage them to read beyond the first sentence and actually read the whole principle. If they get to the second sentence, they will see that all defences are available. However, “defences must not be pleaded simply in the hope that through discoveries or investigation some basis for the defence may be found.” We can only use defences “where there is a principled basis and evidence to support the defence”. We are in active litigation. We are continuing to review all viable legal arguments. However, when the members mention guideline number 14, I really encourage them to read beyond sentence number one and get through the whole principle. I also encourage the Conservatives to read the whole directive, because I think it will enlighten them. Again, we are looking at all viable options in the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, one part of the motion, part (c), calls on the government “to make no agreement without explicit property protection so that fee simple property rights are enshrined in all future agreements with First Nations”. However, agreements relate to education, health and policing. We do not reference private property there. Are the Conservatives proposing that we include the health transfer for the Government of British Columbia or any type of provincial government? Why is it limited to first nations?

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is still in active litigation and we are not going to talk about our legal strategy on the floor. However, what we can talk about are public agreements, which the Conservatives have called “secret”, the Musqueam agreements. They are available online. I encourage my Conservative colleagues to read them. These agreements did not appear overnight. In 2017, Musqueam and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding. In February 2026, that work evolved into a framework agreement. However, it is not a title agreement, it is not a land claim. Let me be absolutely clear. The agreement does not affect Canadian—

Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about that statement, but I am wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement does not reference private property because it does not deal with private property. Agreements do not reference everything they do not deal with. We only talk about things that the agreement is about. I am just wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that, yes, I also speak to many residents who are concerned and have questions, but the important thing is to talk with residents and to explain the issue and not to stoke fear and confusion. In December 2025, the New Brunswick Court issued a decision on aboriginal title that ruled differently. Therefore, we have two court cases and two different decisions. We have appealed the Cowichan decision because there is a need for further clarity. I have not met a Conservative yet who has read the Musqueam agreement. Section 5.1 of the Musqueam agreement specifically states that it is not a land claims agreement. Can the member opposite please explain? If this is not explicit enough, what would it take?