Indigenous Affairs

During question period on Indigenous Affairs, the NDP raised concerns about the government’s Building Canada Strong legislation (Bill C-39), arguing it would fast-track projects in ways that harm Indigenous human rights, and called on the government to instead pass Bill S-2, which would remove sexism and racism from the Indian Act. The parliamentary secretary responded that the legislation changes how major projects are reviewed rather than the standards applied to them, and said the government has a duty to consult First Nations and views them as partners on major projects.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre

NDP

Linked statement

“The government is rushing a bill that harms Indigenous human rights while refusing to pass a bill that removes racism and sexism from the Indian Act. I want the government to drop this project bill and pass the bill to fix the Indian Act right now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are fast-tracking indigenous human rights violations in Bill C-39 while refusing to pass Bill S-2, in an attempt to keep sexism and racism in the Indian Act. Their bait-and-switch is to say, “Hey, look over here; we are pledging to abolish the Indian Act.” First nations have seen this playbook before, used with the white paper and handed down by Harper. Will the government stop the bait-and-switch in the House today, withdraw Bill C-39 and pass Bill S-2 without delay, or do they want to see another Idle No More?

Mike Kelloway, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Liberal
“This bill changes how we review projects, not our standards for them. We have a duty to consult First Nations. Big projects need First Nations as partners.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 38 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Clarity 41 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the many questions on this topic. The reality is that this legislation is not about changing standards; it is about changing processes. That is a key distinction in this legislation. We take on a special duty. Our special duty is to focus on the duty to consult, but deeper than that, the reality is that projects from coast to coast to coast not only need first nations buy-in but need first nations partnerships.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 159

  1. Government Orders Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act 27 statements
  2. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  3. Oral Questions Parks Canada 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions International Trade 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Ethics 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions News Media Industry 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Medical Assistance in Dying 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  13. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Medical Assistance in Dying 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  16. Oral Questions Air Transportation 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  20. Government Orders Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act 40 statements
  21. Oral Questions Pensions 4 statements
  22. Oral Questions Air Transportation 2 statements
  23. Oral Questions Parks Canada 2 statements
  24. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  25. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements