“Our $10-a-day child care helps families and lets more women work. The Conservatives are wrong to prefer private options. Also, the American president caused a war with Iran that could cause a recession and raise oil prices. Will the member criticize the American government for that?”

“Madam Speaker, it is absolutely shocking and very disappointing to hear the member opposite disparage our government’s $10-a-day child care program. This is such an important program for families and for women to be involved in the workforce. Hearing Conservatives talk about private options being preferable just shows how out of touch they are. The American president caused a global war against Iran, which is at risk of causing a global recession with the highest increase in oil prices ever. Will the member opposite criticize the American administration on the record?”

“The Conservatives are always discouraging. Our government has done a lot of good work since the Prime Minister was elected, and we will keep working for Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, when we want to hear something discouraging, we listen to a Conservative. Since the Prime Minister was elected, just over a year ago, a great deal has been accomplished, and a great deal will continue to be accomplished. Whether the Conservatives want to recognize that is up to them. At the end of the day, we will continue to work for Canadians.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Our government already removed federal trade barriers between provinces through legislation last year. We are working with premiers to help them remove their own barriers. The member needs to recognize that we must cooperate with the provinces to get this done.”

“Madam Speaker, the member talks about more trade between provinces, and he expresses some frustration. Literally within a couple of months of the Prime Minister’s coming to office, the newly elected government, just over a year ago, was able to take down the national barriers; has met with the premiers and with territorial and indigenous leaders; and continues to encourage provincial jurisdictions to be able to take down provincial barriers that are in place. I think that is something the member needs to recognize. In a federalist system, we need collaboration and co-operation. I am wondering if the member recognizes that, in that federal system, the federal government has to work with other jurisdictions. From a federal perspective, the Prime Minister has taken down those barriers. We did it in legislation just prior to last summer.”

“The Bloc Québécois supported my bill for a school food program, but then they voted against funding it permanently. This budget also helps seniors pay for groceries. Why does the Bloc Québécois support help for families sometimes, but vote against it at other times?”

“Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, I introduced a bill in the House to create a school food program. Every Bloc Québécois member voted in favour of the bill. We now have a school food program across Canada. During consideration of the latest budget, the Bloc Québécois voted against the measure that would make this program permanent. The member mentioned seniors. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit will help some seniors get through these tough times. Why does the Bloc Québécois sometimes vote in favour of certain measures that benefit families, yet suddenly vote against other such measures when it comes time to help those who need it most?”

“I want to ask how Quebec's strong work in aerospace, batteries, and clean energy affects the province's economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question regarding Quebec. You have built real economic leverage through your sectors like aerospace, batteries and clean energy. I want to know if the member agrees that—”

“If we cut federal funding like the Conservatives want, Canada will fall behind in aerospace, batteries, and clean energy, and we will lose good future jobs.”

“Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would agree that scaling back federal investment, like the Conservatives proposed, would weaken that advantage, like I said before, in aerospace, batteries and clean energy and go hand in hand with the next generation of job jurisdictions that actually invest in growth.”

“I support this bill because it updates the rules for northern lands. It lets the government stop or cancel mining rights if national security or key infrastructure is at risk. It also protects northern jobs and works with Inuit partners.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This afternoon, I would like to talk about the Territorial Lands Act, the amendments to the act, economic development and nation building in the north, as vice-chair for the rural caucus. I am rising to speak to the proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act that are contained in Bill C-31. At the outset, I want to be very clear. Changes to this initial act are necessary. They would strengthen Canada’s sovereignty, security and economic future, while deepening our partnership with the Inuit and supporting northern and rural communities across the country. I am speaking as vice-chair of our national rural caucus, and I want to underline something that is very fundamental. Rural, remote and northern Canada is very much a part of the country’s nation building and where it is actually happening. We will be there to allow it to continue to happen. Today, we are finally making some of these communities feel like they are finally at the table. I am going to focus on how these amendments would support indigenous self-determination and responsible economic development, as well as long-term nation building in the north. In terms of a changing global economy, the global economy, as we know, is rapidly evolving. Countries are competing for secure supply chains of critical minerals, minerals essential to clean energy, advanced manufacturing and national security. Canada, particularly northern and rural Canada, has an enormous opportunity here. With that opportunity comes responsibility. As competition intensifies, Canada must ensure that its natural resources are developed responsibly and strategically, and in a way that aligns with our national interests. That includes making sure that our rules reflect some of today’s realities, hence the amendment. Nunavut and rural Canada are at the centre of nation building. The Arctic is more important than ever to our sovereignty, economic growth and national security. Nunavut is at the heart of our future here up north. I want to be honest about something. Projects that will define Canada’s next century, like our critical minerals, energy corridors, ports in the north, roads and infrastructure, are not being built in downtown cores. They are being built in rural, remote and northern communities. For far too long, these communities powered our economy without a full voice in shaping that. That, with this amendment, is changing, and it must continue to change. Mining is already the cornerstone of Nunavut’s economy. It creates good-paying jobs, supports local businesses, builds infrastructure and strengthens communities. In 2025, mineral production in Nunavut was projected at $3.74 billion, demonstrating that importance not only to the territory but to Canada as a whole. For rural and northern Canadians, this is what economic inclusion looks like. It looks like jobs close to home. It looks like infrastructure that lasts generations. It looks like communities that are growing and thriving. Why do these types of amendments matter? Canada’s free entry system remains an important strength. It has supported exploration and investment for decades. Today, there is a gap. The current system does not allow Canada to act when mineral rights could be used in ways that conflict with some of our national interests, whether related to economic security, sovereignty or critical infrastructure. Bill C-31 would address this gap. It would introduce a targeted national interest safeguard, which would allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, to act in specific cases. Examples of this include cancelling existing mineral rights when necessary, preventing new rights in sensitive areas and temporarily closing lands to protect some of these strategic priorities. Examples also include ensuring notification and fair consideration of compensation. This is not about overreach; this is about responsibility. In terms of strengthening our investments through this amendment, and I want to address this directly, it would not hurt investment, but strengthen it, because a free entry system would remain in place, as it always has. These measures would be targeted, limited and only used in exceptional circumstances where national interests are at stake. In fact, they would also provide something that investors value deeply: certainty. They would make clear that Canada has strong rules, a stable framework and the ability to protect strategic assets. For rural and northern economies, that certainty is essential. It ensures that investment continues, that projects move forward and that communities benefit. The bill is part of a broader effort to support nation building, especially where it is actually taking place. I would like to remind everybody again that nation building in Canada today is happening in rural, remote and northern regions. It is happening in our energy corridors, our mining developments and our ports and transportation hubs. It is happening with clean energy infrastructure. I have a clean energy project in my riding right now in South Shore—St. Margarets, our Mersey wind project, which is a new direct competitor for Nova Scotia Power. It is a larger-scale clean energy project in our area, which we have not seen before in Nova Scotia. There are also projects like the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link. There are also projects like the Grays Bay road and port project. This is also about Iqaluit’s hydro project. These are transformative projects, and when we look at transformational things, they do not happen overnight. They do not happen within one year. They do not happen within two years. These are transformational projects of which, over the next decade, we are going to really see the benefits and reap the rewards. They connect with communities, and they create jobs. These projects also help strengthen sovereignty and reduce emissions. Importantly, they ensure that rural and indigenous communities are not just participants, but leaders and partners in Canada’s economic future. The amendments to Bill C-31 would also help ensure that mineral tenure does not interfere with these nation-building projects. In terms of indigenous partnerships, like how we were talking before about having indigenous people at the table as leaders, I would like to talk about indigenous partnerships and the devolution processes. The legislation is also grounded in respect for Inuit self-determination, for modern treaties and also for indigenous leadership, so engagement has taken place with the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and indigenous partners alike. These amendments would support a broader path toward Nunavut’s devolution: the historic transfer of land and resource decision-making to the Nunavummiut. This is also about ensuring that decisions are made closer to home by the people most affected. We are forward-thinking, so we are also looking at safeguards for some of these processes. There would also be a forward-thinking measure in this amendment. It would ensure that Canada’s resources are developed responsibly, strategic infrastructure can move forward, Inuit priorities are respected, rural and northern communities benefit fully, and our sovereignty and security are protected. This is about preventing risk while also unlocking opportunity. In conclusion, we are at a turning point. Global demand is rising, competition is intensifying and Canada has what the world needs, but success also depends on getting it right. It depends on recognizing that rural, northern and indigenous communities are not on the margins of our economy, but at the centre.”

“My region lost a lot of mining jobs in the past, but the changes in this budget bill are helping new mines start up. Will these changes help bring new mining projects to your riding too?”

“Mr. Speaker, and I just want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is wonderful to work with her. She is a new colleague. She is doing great work. I know how good she is. She is representing a rural riding just like me. In the last spring economic statement, there was $1 billion for small craft harbours, and I know that she was a big part of this investment. She was talking about some of the amendments that are in this bill, and she was talked about mining. I had a lot of mining industry in my region back in the day, but it has closed. There were 2,000 people laid off at a mine in my region back in 2013. Now with these new amendments that are being putting forward and this new process, we see new mine projects coming into play. Can the member tell us if amendments like that would also help her riding with new projects of this kind?”

“The Mining Association of Canada supports our budget update. They say it helps Canadian mining stay competitive and brings more investment into critical minerals.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Bathurst for that. On Thursday, there will be an announcement. I will be at the AGM for one of the Nova Scotia mining associations. With regard to what some of the mining associations are saying about our federal budget update, I would like to read into the record the following quote from the Mining Association of Canada: MAC applauds today’s federal budget, which contains many measures that will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian mining and accelerate investments in critical minerals. Budget 2025 responds directly to several requests from the Mining Association of Canada and follows through on a number of mining-related commitments—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“This bill protects our national interests, our economic security, and our control over the Arctic in special cases. It also supports Indigenous economic reconciliation.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to let my colleague know that is exactly what we are doing right now, debating this bill in the House. With regard to my statements on the Territorial Lands Act, the free entry system in that act remains in place. These amendments are a safeguard in some of the exceptional cases involving Canada’s economic security, sovereignty and other national interests. I would also like to talk about Arctic sovereignty and the proposed changes within this amendment, allowing for indigenous economic reconciliation.”

“This bill helps manufacturing businesses write off building costs faster, clarifies exploration expenses, and tracks crypto assets. The opposition should talk about these real issues instead of complaining about debate time.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that measures in this bill are providing temporary and immediate relief, expensing for eligible manufacturing and processing buildings. The opposition members want to talk about debating here in the House today. Instead of complaining about the length of time to debate, they should actually be asking some of these debating questions. I also want to let him know that these expenses qualify as Canadian exploration expenses. Within the bill that we are debating today, we are also implementing a crypto asset reporting framework.”

“We have limited sitting days and many bills to pass. The Conservatives want to defeat this budget bill. We need to limit debate time, or it will never pass.”

“Mr. Speaker, the average number of days that the House will sit is around 130 or 135 days in any given year. Currently, there are 35 or so pieces of government and Senate legislation before the House. We then need to take into consideration the number of opposition days that are given, and then the number of days when we actually have debates. Surely to goodness, and the leader of the Green Party has been around for a good number of years now, she has seen that time allocation is sometimes a tool that is necessary to pass legislation. Given the performance of the Conservative Party members and their commitment to defeat the legislation, if we did not have time allocation, the bill would never pass. The member knows that. Would the member not at least concede that fact?”

“Canada needs one building code for the whole country so we can build modular homes faster. We should not lower building standards. Making homes more energy-efficient may cost more up front, but it saves homeowners money over time.”

“Mr. Speaker, as a structural engineer, I spent a lot of time with the building code, so it was interesting to hear the member’s speech, which focused quite a bit on the building code across Canada, the national code. One of the issues in Canada is that we have individual building codes for each province. There is no standardized code, which really impacts our ability to standardize housing design and to scale modular housing. I would also remind the member that, as he knows full well, building codes are a minimum standard, so it is kind of interesting to be talking about reducing minimum standards even further. I want to talk about the need for increased energy efficiency in building codes. Yes, that does increase the initial purchase price, but then it has a far better life cycle cost for that house. The member spoke about a cost lens. I wonder if he also thinks that should include the life cycle cost when we include energy efficiency.”

“I support this bill because it creates a single agency to buy military equipment faster. It takes too long to get equipment to our armed forces, and this new system will cut delays. Buying more defence equipment in Canada will also create good manufacturing jobs in places like St. Catharines.”

“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to Bill C-31 and the heart of our national security, our economic resilience and our sovereignty as a nation. Canada has long stood as a proud and reliable partner among the world’s leading democracies. Our work within the G7 and our enduring commitment to NATO reflect not only our values but our understanding that collective security and co-operation are essential in an increasingly uncertain world. If Canada is to remain a credible and capable partner abroad, we must ensure that we are equally strong and prepared at home. For too long, Canada’s defence procurement system has been fragmented across multiple departments, slow to engage with industry and overly complex in its execution. The result has been delays that stretch not months but years, sometimes even decades, before critical equipment reaches the Canadian Armed Forces. This is not simply an administrative issue. It is a matter of sovereignty. A nation that cannot equip its armed forces in a timely and effective manner risks undermining its own ability to defend its territory, protect its interests and respond to emerging threats. That is why Bill C-31 is significant. The creation of the Defence Investment Agency represents a decisive step forward in modernizing Canada’s approach to defence procurement. This agency will consolidate procurement processes that are currently spread across government. By removing duplicate approvals and cutting unnecessary red tape, it will accelerate timelines and provide much-needed clarity and predictability to our industry partners. With a centralized process for review and approval, procurements will move forward more efficiently. With specialized expertise housed within a single agency, we will ensure that defence acquisitions are managed with the focus and precision they require. I would like to take a moment to talk about how this is important in St. Catharines and within southern Ontario. We have seen through the threat of tariffs, the trade war with the United States, the impact on the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario. St. Catharines, and Niagara, relies on the automotive industry. It is something we have relied on for about a century. That threat is there. We have heard it from our American partners. The Prime Minister is right in ensuring that we step up and meet our NATO commitments and using that commitment to build and ensure strength within our manufacturing sector. I had the opportunity to tour a company in St. Catharines called FBT. FBT is a multi-generational company that has been in business for quite some time. It saw the writing on the wall a few years back, as it primarily did business with the automotive sector, and has switched its processes in-house to focus on defence and nuclear. It still does some automotive. In touring that facility a couple of times, I saw that it is using advanced manufacturing with high precision and is ready to take it to the next level. It is expanding and will be able to meet the needs that Canada is putting forward in our defence sector. It provides a great number of high-paying jobs in St. Catharines and has a lot of long-term employees there, which speaks to the good work it does. A lot of tool and die shops, and other companies within the Niagara region, can learn a lot from this company. With this type of agency in place, which can see procurement move quickly, a lot of companies can retool. They can be dual-use and work within what we have laid out in the defence industrial strategy. We do not have to go far from FBT in St. Catharines. Across the street from FBT is Ontario Shipyards. At the moment, it is undergoing a $130-million refit of a Canadian Coast Guard vessel, the Terry Fox. I am sure others in this place may look to a place in southern Ontario and question what I am about to say, but St. Catharines has a strong tradition of shipbuilding. It is one of the industries that it was founded upon. The Welland Canal is older than the railway itself in this country, and St. Catharines was the heart of that. We need to get back to that. With these changes, with speeding things up, I would like to see more development, more opportunities for a shipyard that has been vacant for far too long. We have seen the benefits in Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, with ships being built there and government contracts. With us getting to our NATO commitments, I would like to see that next step happen in St. Catharines. Let me come back to the agency, which will align defence procurement more strategically with Canada’s economic and industrial objectives. Every dollar invested in defence is an opportunity to create careers, grow Canadian business and drive innovation in sectors such as aerospace, shipbuilding and advanced manufacturing. By leveraging procurement as a tool for economic development, we will strengthen our domestic industrial base, reduce reliance on external supply chains and position Canadian firms to compete on a global stage. We saw that even in southern Ontario, in Kitchener, with the Canadian military ordering a new service rifle to be in line with our European allies. I believe it was the Danes who ordered tens of thousands of these rifles as well. The opportunity is there. The Prime Minister has worked very hard to build relationships with like-minded allies. To see, even in just one announcement, the benefit to southern Ontario and the supply chains throughout southern Ontario from this defence industrial strategy is a good thing. It is something that I know concerns my colleagues across southern Ontario, with the loss of jobs, especially in the automotive industry. Our approach includes continued investment in dual-purpose infrastructure, projects that serve both our military and the broader Canadian public, ensuring that our defence spending delivers tangible benefits across society. The Defence Investment Agency will ensure earlier and more meaningful engagement between the Canadian Armed Forces and our defence industry. By bringing industry into the conversation at the outset, we will enable a clearer understanding of operational needs, realistic timelines and available technological solutions. This proactive approach will allow Canada to anticipate future requirements and build capacity at the speeds and scale that modern security demands. Finally, the agency will strengthen Canada’s alignment with key allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and France, countries that have already established dedicated procurement bodies to streamline their defence investments. This alignment will make our joint procurement initiatives more efficient and enhance our ability to collaborate within NATO. Our commitments to NATO are clear: We must meet the benchmark of 2% of GDP in defence spending, and we must contribute meaningfully to the alliance’s long-term objectives, including the 5% investment pledge by 2035. By reforming the procurement system, we are not only meeting these commitments but also reinforcing Canada’s role as a dependable and capable ally. At the same time, this initiative positions Canada to play a leading role in broader multilateral efforts, including Europe’s readiness 2030 plan, which seeks to strengthen defence supply chains and industrial co-operation among allied nations. There is no contradiction between sovereignty and co-operation. On the contrary, in an interconnected world, they are mutually reinforcing. By strengthening our domestic capabilities, we enhance our independence, and by aligning with our allies, we amplify our strength. Canada must be ready not only to meet the challenges of today but also to anticipate those of tomorrow. This reform is an important step in that direction. I know that many of my colleagues went to the CANSEC conference in Ottawa to see the business that is happening. I know that the Prime Minister announced a significant investment with Saab that will have some substantial economic benefits, not only within our aerospace industry but beyond, to strengthen those supply chains that have been shocked. Companies concerned that they have no orders on the books will have an opportunity to grow and to meet that new demand, and they will feel safe in the understanding that Canada’s government has their back and is willing to move forward and to ensure that industries under attack are protected under the defence industrial strategy.”

“We are spending more money on defence now. This will help manufacturing businesses across the whole country, not just in one province.”

“Madam Speaker, I think we are falling into an old debate in a system where we were not spending enough on defence. We were all concerned about not everyone getting a piece of the pie. We are in a situation now where if we are at 2%, which we are, going to 3.5%, there is an opportunity for the manufacturing sector, not just in Ontario but also in Manitoba. We have heard announcements across the country. The old saying “A rising tide lifts all boats” applies. This is something we can see right now. Though I cannot speak about and have no insider information on what will happen next with our next fighter purchase, I know that it will benefit not only just one area of the country but from coast to coast to coast.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Car manufacturing in my region is still strong, including a new battery plant opening soon. Chinese cars make up only a tiny part of the market, and our government is not buying them. We are focused on supporting Canadian auto workers and companies like General Motors.”

“Madam Speaker, St. Catharines has had a General Motors factory in our city for, I believe, about the last century. It is something I do hear about from constituents. It is something they are concerned about. Down the road in Niagara, construction is continuing on a battery separator plant. It will open in 2027 and will be transformative. The number of Chinese automobiles the member is talking about is such a small segment of the market. There has been an increase in production at Honda and Toyota. I know they have suspended plans for further expansion, but their production is strong. We look for more of that in the future. I talked about many of the buy Canada projects. Buy Canada is the Government of Canada’s buying. The Government of Canada is not buying the vehicles that the member is talking about. I would be excited to be working with companies like General Motors to build Canada strong.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Manitoba's aerospace industry is growing, and we are working hard to expand it. The government treats all regions fairly. I want the other members to stop criticizing this work and work with us instead.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to respond in terms of Manitoba’s aerospace industry. Whether it is Magellan Aerospace, StandardAero, the Winnipeg Airports Authority and the work it is doing, WestJet, or the Canadian Forces air force base, Manitoba is in fact very aggressive in looking at how we can expand that industry, and we have received a very positive response. I would love to do a comparison with what we have done over recent years, in particular ever since we have had the increase. I would not support the member for Portage—Lisgar or other members of Parliament’s trying to discredit what I think is an important opportunity. There is no regional preference. It is something important. We should be supporting federal co-operation and ensuring that there is a sense of equality. I am just wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to a more collaborative approach in building a stronger, healthier Canada.”

“I support this budget bill. It invests billions of dollars in Cold Lake, Alberta, and it will help projects across the country.”

“Madam Speaker, it is amazing. Everyone woke up when the hon. member asked a question. We even heard from the minister today, talking about the significant investments that are happening in Cold Lake, Alberta: billions of dollars’ worth. We are going to see that across the country. It will not just be with one project, one item of procurement. The bill would help, as I said, raise all boats.”

“I support this bill because it updates how we manage Crown lands in Nunavut. It lets the government stop or cancel mineral claims if they threaten Canada's security or national interests. Inuit leaders asked for these changes, and they help protect our Arctic sovereignty.”

“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.”

“Canada is spending money to defend itself. This includes Nunavut and keeps the Arctic safe.”

“Uqaqtittiji, here is how I answer that question. Canada is investing in Canada. Canada is making sure that it can defend itself, and it is doing so with measures that will help make sure that this includes Nunavut and keeping the Arctic secure.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 39 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →