MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Rebecca Alty

Follow by RSS

Alty, the minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, is steering Indigenous self-government treaties through Parliament, including laws for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę and the Red River Métis, a commissioner to audit how federal departments carry out modern treaties, and the government’s appeal of the Cowichan aboriginal title ruling to protect private property. She often makes promises without a date or measure, saying she looks “forward to continuing to work with modern treaty partners”. In debate she leans on documents, reading clause numbers and sections of agreements to back her points.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
87 / 100 over 53 statements
Signal 90 / 100
Relevance 80 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 89 / 100
Averaged over the 53 of 61 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Says again and again

Statements 61

Oral Questions ·

Natural Resources

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“This bill does not change our duty to consult Indigenous peoples. It creates one main office to handle consultations, which cuts down on government red tape. We cannot build a strong country without working with Indigenous peoples.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 40 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. The building Canada strong act would not change the duty to consult. The bill proposes a centralized Crown consultation hub so that indigenous peoples can spend less time navigating government red tape and more time having meaningful conversations. Our government is focused on building Canada strong, and we cannot do that without indigenous peoples.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Angelo Iacono

“This bill helps Indigenous communities because it makes the approval process faster for their projects without changing the rules.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I think that one of the benefits is that a lot of projects across Canada are led by indigenous communities or require their equitable participation. For them, the process is the same. With this bill, it will take less time and the work will move ahead faster.

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“I support this bill. Indigenous leaders told me it will make consultations simpler because only one department will handle them instead of several. Our duty to consult Indigenous communities does not change.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have been talking about this legislation with indigenous leaders from across the country. Based on the feedback I am hearing about Bill C‑39, it offers the possibility of a consultation process coordinated by a single department. The process would be more organized, sparing communities from having to deal with different departments at different times of year. The duty to consult remains unchanged. Currently, two agencies conduct assessments: the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canada Energy Regulator. The bill provides that only one agency will be responsible for assessment. That said, the factors to be considered and the duty to consult remain the same.

In response to a question from John Brassard

“I support this bill because it speeds up project reviews and cuts down on duplicate work. For example, some energy projects would only need a review from one agency instead of two. The minister would also have less time to make a decision, which gets projects moving faster without hurting consultations.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, one great thing about this legislation is the opportunity to have efficiencies and to reduce duplication. For example, if there is an offshore energy project that is being proposed, right now it has to go through an assessment with the Impact Assessment Agency, as well as the Canada Energy Regulator. What is being proposed in Bill C-39 is that it would go from two agencies to one agency. It would be the Canada Energy Regulator doing the review. That would also be the federal department leading consultations and bringing the federal family in to do one project, one review, one consultation. I would also note that the legislation allows for an extension, if need be, for further consultations. There are parameters in the legislation that allow for some flexibility, but the benefits of this legislation are really about reducing the duplication and having more coordinated consultation. Another thing is that the minister’s decision-making time goes from 90 days down to 65 days. Again, there would be no impact on consultation. It would just be with the minister for less time.

“I want the House to pass this bill. It helps us build clean energy, roads, and other major projects faster by cutting repeat paperwork across government departments. It still protects the environment, respects treaties, and ensures Indigenous communities are properly consulted and can partner in these projects.”
  • A repeated line

    “That is how we build Canada strong.”

    Said 20 times by 14 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. Today, I want to speak about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and why it matters for Canada’s future. Canada is at a pivotal moment. The global economy is undergoing a major transformation. Countries around the world are competing to attract investment, create jobs and develop new industries. At the same time, Canadians are feeling the effects of the rising cost of living and economic uncertainty. To meet these challenges, we must grow. We must build roads, ports, clean energy projects, transportation networks and other infrastructure that will enable Canada to grow and create good jobs. When we talk about building Canada, we must remember something important. It is not just about what we build, but also about how we build. That is why indigenous peoples must be part of this work. After all, first nations, Inuit and Métis are not only rights holders. They are business leaders, investors, entrepreneurs, employers and project owners. They are helping to shape Canada’s economy and create opportunities for future generations. Simply put, we cannot build a stronger Canada without indigenous peoples. That is why we have taken steps to support indigenous participation in major projects. We have opened new consultation resource centres to help communities participate in project reviews. We have provided funding so indigenous communities have the expertise and capacity they need to engage in discussions about projects that affect them. The growing role of indigenous ownership is reflected in the success of the First Nations Finance Authority, a first nations-led, not-for-profit financial institution created under the federal First Nations Fiscal Management Act. Earlier this year, the FNFA issued a record $800-million bond, helping push total first nations investments financed through the institution beyond $5 billion. Those investments are supporting housing, infrastructure, business development, clean energy and indigenous participation in major projects across Canada because participation is important, but ownership is even more powerful. When communities have ownership, they do not just have a seat at the table; they have a stake in what is being built and a share in the benefits that result. Across Canada, we are already seeing examples of what that looks like. Wataynikaneyap Power is a first nations majority-owned transmission project. The project connected remote communities and Ontario’s electricity grid, reducing reliance on diesel fuel while creating a long-term indigenous-owned infrastructure asset that will provide benefits for generations to come. The Canada Nickel’s Crawford project is showing how indigenous communities are becoming true partners in Canada’s critical mineral sector. The Taykwa Tagamou First Nation made a significant equity investment in the project, helping ensure that economic opportunities, decision-making and long-term benefits are shared with the community. The project will help supply the critical minerals needed for batteries and other clean technologies that drive down emissions while also creating jobs and economic growth in the region. In B.C., the Portland Canal marine terminal is a deep-sea port with the primary purpose of critical mineral transportation from the region to overseas markets. The terminal is jointly owned by the Nisg̱a’a and Tahltan nations, as well as Arrow Transportation Systems. These projects are among many across the country that show what reconciliation looks like in action. They demonstrate that indigenous communities are not simply participants in Canada’s economy, but helping lead it. Many indigenous communities have told us that consultations often start too late. Others have told us that they have to answer the same questions posed by different government departments. Some communities are experiencing consultation fatigue; in other words, they spend so much time navigating government processes that they have less time to devote to the issues that matter most. We have listened to these concerns. These comments have helped shape the building Canada act. The goal of the legislation is simple. We want to make project reviews more efficient and more predictable while maintaining indigenous rights and environmental protections. One of the key parts of the bill is reducing duplication. Instead of having several federal bodies reviewing the same project separately, the legislation supports a more coordinated approach with the goal of having one federal review process and one coordinated consultation process whenever possible. We also propose creating a Crown consultation hub. We can think of it as a central coordination team. Its job would be to help federal departments work together, identify issues earlier and improve communication with indigenous communities. The goal is not to have less consultation; the goal is to have better consultation. We want indigenous communities spending less time dealing with red tape and more time having meaningful discussions about projects that affect their lands, waters and futures. I also want to be very clear about what does not change under the building Canada strong act. Canada’s duty to consult does not change. Our obligations under modern treaties and self-government agreements do not change. Indigenous rights remain protected. Meaningful consultation remains essential. When more time is needed for consultation, the legislation allows for extensions or timelines to be paused. There is another reason why it is important for good projects to move ahead faster. If Canada really wants to fight climate change, we need to build infrastructure that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve our future. That includes the renewable energy generation, power lines, energy storage and other clean energy projects. All too often, projects that could help communities reduce their dependence on diesel are subject to long, complicated approval processes. By making reviews more efficient, reducing duplication and improving coordination, we can help move forward projects that Canadians need while continuing to uphold strong environmental protections and meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples. Building faster and protecting the environment are not competing goals. When done properly, they go hand in hand. I also want to note that the situation in Canada’s north is unique. In the Yukon, Nunavut and much of the Northwest Territories, project reviews are already carried out through modern treaty and co-management systems that were designed with indigenous partners and reflect constitutionally protected agreements. Bill C-39 does not replace those systems. However, in the Inuvialuit settlement region, where federal impact assessment processes continue to play a significant role, the improvements in coordination, consultation and permitting proposed in this legislation could help provide greater certainty and efficiency while continuing to respect indigenous rights and existing obligations. Some people talk as though economic development and reconciliation were at odds. I see them as working hand in hand. Indigenous peoples are not just being consulted on major projects: They are increasingly owning, investing in and leading them. When indigenous communities are true partners, projects are stronger, communities benefit and everyone is better off. That is the vision behind the building Canada strong act. It is a Canada that builds, a Canada that creates jobs, a Canada that attracts investment and a Canada that respects indigenous rights, honours treaties and advances reconciliation. We can build the infrastructure our country needs. We can create opportunities for future generations, and we can do it together. That is how we advance reconciliation. That is how we create shared prosperity. That is how we build Canada strong for all.

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

In response to a question from Leah Gazan

“Denying the truth about residential schools is harmful. That is why our government is spending $5 million on education and public awareness so Canadians can learn from survivors.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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—

In response to a question from Lori Idlout

“Denying the truth about residential schools is harmful and wrong. Our government is spending $5 million on education and public awareness so Canadians can learn the truth from survivors.”
Official Hansard

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.

Government Orders ·

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Indigenous groups with modern treaties are leading major projects across Canada, like clean energy and trade routes. We need to keep working with them to build the country.”
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“I want this bill to pass. Modern treaties help partner communities. This bill creates a commissioner to watch over the government and make sure it keeps its treaty promises. The commissioner will report to Parliament so we can see what is working and what still needs to be done.”
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Bardish Chagger

“We wrote this bill together with Indigenous modern treaty partners and consulted more than 130 groups across the country. We will also work closely with these partners to choose the new commissioner.”
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“I want the House to pass this bill. All members need the commissioner's reports so they understand modern treaties. The budget includes money for these treaties. Also, the commissioner will only watch the federal government, not the provinces or territories.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“I want the House to pass this bill. It creates an independent commissioner to check how well the government is following modern treaties with Indigenous partners. Our treaty partners asked for this bill, and we wrote it together with them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 41 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

“I want the House to pass this bill. It creates an independent commissioner to make sure the federal government actually follows through on its modern treaty promises to Indigenous peoples. Indigenous treaty partners helped write this bill, and they all support it.”
Official Hansard

moved that Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, be read the third time and passed. She said: 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.

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

In response to a question from Tako Van Popta

“We are protecting private property rights. We appealed the court ruling in B.C. and helped a local property owner bring evidence to court. Under the Constitution, provinces handle private property, and it is left out of federal land claims talks.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “A private property owner in the area.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

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—

In response to a question from Tako Van Popta

“The courts disagree on whether Indigenous land rights can exist on private property. We are appealing a British Columbia ruling that says they can. We want clear rules to protect private property.”
Official Hansard

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.

Government Orders ·

Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Act

“These Indigenous self-government agreements are different from land agreements. I want to know where the Conservatives stand on self-government agreements on their own.”
Official Hansard

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.

“Indigenous agreements can cover self-government, land, or both. If this bill is only about self-government, I want to know if the Conservatives support it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, again, for the House, I will say that a comprehensive agreement can include a self-government piece as well as a land piece. There are agreements that are just about land, but there are also agreements that are just about self-government. If it is not about land, are the Conservatives supportive of legislation that is just about self-governance?

“I want to know if Conservatives will support self-government agreements as long as they focus on things like culture, language, and education, and do not involve land or private property.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I just want to get clarity. When the government brings forward self-government agreements, as long as they are focused on areas like governance, citizenship, culture, language and education and they are not focused on land or private property, is it the Conservative position that the Conservatives would be supporting self-government agreements?

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“This bill supports self-government for one of five communities. When we bring forward a similar bill for another community, I want the opposition to pass it quickly too.”
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Tako Van Popta

“The agreements we signed are not about taking private land. The bill we are debating today is only about self-government. The land claim was already settled in 1993.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.