Mandy Gull-Masty
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure and an honour to introduce the water bill, because we know that the $4.6 billion of resources attached to that bill are going to help communities do the work that they need to do in community, supporting their members with clean drinking water.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy that my colleague has asked that question. It is one of great importance, because we know that first nations have to do the work of expanding the minimum standards that are now applicable in their communities and setting the regulatory gaps for in communities and out of communities, working, negotiating and collabo…”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really proud to be here and do the work, and I invite my colleague to work with us in advancing the things we are determining: $5.9 billion to support on-reserve housing, ensuring that over 55% of first nations have housing plans, ensuring that communities have housing managers and ensuring that they are accessing the tr…”
“Mr. Speaker, that was an important question. Bill C-37 would ensure that first nations have the authority and means to deliver safe, reliable drinking water in their communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, the authority, clear standards, historic funding and sustained support are at the core of the bill. I am proud to have ensured that this government, the only government, has pushed forth the bill to support real jurisdiction over water systems, to create standards, and to govern these systems according to their rights, priori…”
“Bill C‑37. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑37, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
The complete record
Every one of 81 lines we hold for Mandy Gull-Masty, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure and an honour to introduce the water bill, because we know that the $4.6 billion of resources attached to that bill are going to help communities do the work that they need to do in community, supporting their members with clean drinking water. It was a pleasure to meet with Chief Ackabee and Chief Fisher to speak about their file. If this member wants to do meaningful work in helping those communities, she should support the meaningful collaboration that we need to do to push communities forward to have access to clean drinking water.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy that my colleague has asked that question. It is one of great importance, because we know that first nations have to do the work of expanding the minimum standards that are now applicable in their communities and setting the regulatory gaps for in communities and out of communities, working, negotiating and collaborating in partnership with provincial and territorial governments. For the first time ever, this government has been able to secure that in collaboration. We will support them in community and out, in partnership, at all tables, because we want to honour the work we do with them.”
“Mr. Speaker, the authority, clear standards, historic funding and sustained support are at the core of the bill. I am proud to have ensured that this government, the only government, has pushed forth the bill to support real jurisdiction over water systems, to create standards, and to govern these systems according to their rights, priorities and lived reality.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was an important question. Bill C-37 would ensure that first nations have the authority and means to deliver safe, reliable drinking water in their communities. By affirming jurisdiction over water sources and by also ensuring drinking water and waste water for first nations, we would be enabling the development of clear, consistent, first nations-led standards. The authority— An hon. member: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really proud to be here and do the work, and I invite my colleague to work with us in advancing the things we are determining: $5.9 billion to support on-reserve housing, ensuring that over 55% of first nations have housing plans, ensuring that communities have housing managers and ensuring that they are accessing the training and certification to build those homes, because we are not only building homes, but we are equipping first nations with the resources they need to do the job. Only this government has done that. We can look at the track record of the opposition. I think it is 99 homes, maybe fewer.”
“Bill C‑37. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑37, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Mr. Speaker, the process of enfranchisement unjustly stripped thousands of first nations individuals of their status. While the practice was ended 35 years ago, the harmful legacy still remains. That member knows that this bill is before study at the committee. That member knows that there are witnesses, and we want to respect those first nations witnesses' rights to come to defend and speak for themselves and their communities. I am willing to work with that member to respect those first nations rights, because this is what we are committed to doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that important question. As an Eeyou iskwew from the community of Waswanipi, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary today, I know we are taking moments this month to honour who we are as part of National Indigenous History Month. We are here to celebrate our strength, resilience and culture. I am proud to work with my colleagues who are first nations, Inuit and Métis, demonstrating the fierce resistance representing every part of this country. [ Member spoke in Cree and provided the following translation: ] I want to acknowledge all first nations, Inuit and Métis people and I honour them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member is well aware that Bill S-2 is in front of the committee for study. I welcome her input. We are there to ensure that enfranchisement, the intention of the bill, is responded to. We continue to work closely with groups across the country, hearing their input. I am open to supporting these communities, because enfranchisement quantifies who indigenous people are under the Indian Act. We are trying to ensure that we remove the barriers of the Indian Act for first nations people in this country. I am working on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, for decades, there was underfunding and discrimination in this file. I am proud to work with the only government that has decided to take a stand and add funding to this file to meet the needs of indigenous nations in Quebec and across Canada. I am proud to be doing this work. I am very pleased to note that, under urban and rural programs, in big cities and in the north, we are doing this work together, not only with the nations, but also with people in urban centres. That is very important.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear a question on such an important issue, which is a first. We know that housing is a top priority in indigenous communities. That is why I am proud to be working with my colleagues to launch the program to build Canada strong and build homes in indigenous communities. We will build these homes together with them, to meet their needs. I am proud to be doing this work with them, and we will stay the course.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. I want to sincerely congratulate the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the Ontario first nations that have worked tirelessly to be the ones making the decisions for their own children. On May 29, we honoured the start of this work, based not only in culture but also in ceremony, to undertake this work. Through this historic investment, $8.5 billion means predictable, stable funding. It will also go to ensuring that prevention efforts are a priority. We are supporting this critical work. We are committed to continuing—”
“Mr. Speaker, we have just signed a historic, first-of-its-kind, multilateral emergency management agreement among the Abegweit First Nation, the Government of P.E.I. and our new government. I want to thank Chief Gould and his council for hosting this important event. The agreement recognizes Abegweit First Nation as a full and equal partner in emergency management. It strengthens planning, preparedness and coordination in regionally specific ways that are culturally appropriate and responsive to community needs. Working in partnerships with indigenous people is something I am proud of doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have launched a new path forward to long-term reform of child and family services, one that acknowledges regional realities and puts first nations children and families first. This approach is supported by an ongoing commitment of over $35 billion for a seven-year period and $4.4 billion ongoing afterwards. I want to ensure that children are connected to their families, cultures and communities. By seeking regional agreements, we are able to respect the distinct realities of first nations across the country. We are committed to moving ahead with urgency, care and responsibility.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am quite surprised that my colleague is willing to support the bill only if members remain in urban areas, and that this is equal treatment of first nations people. Therefore I am not sure I can truly support the position and reasoning he is bringing forward. If communities accept this process, are they not continuing to support the further discrimination of the Indian Act because their members remain out of territory or out of community? I want to understand how the Conservatives intend to provide the opportunity to first nations communities to develop status, membership and authority of their members who reside off community, which the bill would not offer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to also acknowledge and echo the challenges of being a first nation person doing this critical work. We know this bill has been put forward as something to address enfranchisement as part of the Indian Act. If we are truly going to support the process of community having jurisdiction and authority over defining membership and status, will my colleague support and create the space needed for community to do that work internally and have authority over choosing procedure, or will my colleague support amendments that would eliminate the opportunity for them to do so?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his support. There is much work left to be done in terms of the bill itself. I am looking forward to the debate and the process that will be undertaken. This is imperative work. I believe that the voice of leadership across this country, the locally elected chiefs and councils, must participate and bring forward the solutions they are looking for. As I said, it should go beyond the scope of what these amendments are offering.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that this is one of the biggest challenges I face as Minister of Indigenous Services. I have to work with a law that is highly discriminatory against Canada's indigenous peoples. That is why my approach to finding solutions will be based on the guidance I receive from the community. We must prioritize including indigenous peoples to ensure that solutions are adopted by and for them.”
“While we are doing this consultation process, it is imperative that their voice be part of the solution, building well beyond what is offered in the amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, the intention of Bill S-2 was to address the enfranchisement and the return of 3,500 people. This is how the bill was framed. I want to commend the Senate for the work they do and the important history of speaking to this file and the discrimination that the Indian Act has in place. At the same time, I also want to ensure that it is clear with my colleagues that we have launched a collaborative process that is engaging with community and asking them to submit proposals that are presently being looked at for legal risk and legal validity, to ensure the solutions we bring forward are going to be upheld and truly meet the standard of what a solution should be for community.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 in its original form was intended to look at enfranchisement, one of the challenges with the Indian Act. I can answer that there are many cases of discrimination under the Indian Act. I am looking for a solution that is going to ensure we are able to reach consensus on what the solution truly is. In this case, the amendments put forward are looking to implement a one-parent solution, but is that truly the only solution that we can bring forward? Is it blood quantum? Is it the one-parent rule? Are there alternatives? We should challenge ourselves to do more and allow communities to maintain jurisdiction over their lists and make decisions for themselves.”
“I urge for the passing of the bill as it was originally introduced to Parliament, so those who have waited far too long do not have to wait any longer.”
“While I know and address this as a colonial policy, I want to ensure that the solutions that we bring forward are going to be based in further protecting the implementation process of what they are designed to do to ensure that we bring forward equality. We want to also make sure that we are fighting to protect community, and that they are leading the solutions, the true message of reconciliation. Experience grounds me and reminds me that this work is deeply personal, including for me and for my own family. I carry that with me every time I stand in this place. We have the opportunity before us to correct a painful legacy, to restore the rights that were unjustly taken from thousands of people asked to make a simple choice that perpetuated further harm. Bill S-2 is necessary, it is urgent, and it is a meaningful step towards justice.”
“The court decision in the Nicholas case found that certain registration provisions in the Indian Act violated the equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court gave Parliament a deadline to act. That April 2026 deadline is fast approaching. If we fail to pass the bill in this time, we risk leaving 3,500 people behind. We risk creating uncertainty for families who have already endured too much. Further, we risk unequal application of the Indian Act across the country, and we risk allowing unconstitutional provisions to remain in force. This cannot happen.”
“That is why addressing the second-generation cut-off requires a distinct legislative path forward, one that allows space for meaningful engagement with partners and also for government and communities to be prepared to support the changes that need to be made. [ Translation ] While we are engaging in the collaboration process with first nations on broader reforms, we cannot ignore the urgent need to help people who are waiting right now, people who have applied to register and been denied because of enfranchisement, people whose parents or grandparents were forced to choose between their identity and their children's safety. (1010) [ English ] People have lived in this system without recognition, because the system was designed to erase their rights.”
“Broad consultation, the second phase, will focus on these solutions and be quickly launched in the coming weeks. Advancing these amendments to Bill S-2 without meeting the legal duty to consult would repeat outdated processes that unilaterally impose a legislative solution, not to mention further jeopardizing the status of thousands of individuals who have been waiting in limbo for the bill to pass, to address enfranchisement. [ Translation ] I am firmly committed to addressing the second-generation cut-off, but we must respect this fundamental principle or we risk repeating the very wrongs we are seeking to right. [ English ] Getting this next step right is important. Legislative change without implementation readiness is not reconciliation.”
“I want to reiterate today that the question is not how we will do it, but when we will do it. We need to follow the lead of the community to ensure that the solutions we bring forward are not only supported by the community but have the consensus of rights holders. [ Translation ] That is why we launched the collaborative process in November 2023 to address the second-generation cut-off and section 10 voting thresholds. [ English ] Many first nations and organizations have developed proposals for solutions to these very issues, and through the advisory council, the proposals are presently being studied and evaluated based on legal viability. This work is grounded in lived experience, community knowledge and the realities of administering membership systems.”
“It also amends the act to remove outdated and offensive language related to dependent persons, language that is a legacy of colonial mindsets. In addition, it makes it easier to reaffiliate individuals, particularly women, with their natal first nations band. [ English ] These changes matter because they correct real harms and bring people home. Bill S-2 is a step in the right direction. I want to share and state clearly that I recognize that it does not address all inequities in the Indian Act. The second-generation cut-off rule continues to harmfully erode entitlement over generations. Under the rule, if an entitled person marries someone who is not entitled, their children hold entitlement, but their future children, the second generation, do not. This is a critical issue that must be addressed the right way.”
“Across this country, thousands of first nations individuals are waiting for enfranchisement decisions, waiting for their identity to be restored, waiting for their children to be recognized and waiting to be told by Canada what they have always known: that they belong. I have heard first-hand the impacts of enfranchisement on individuals, on their families and on their communities. They have been clear that it is imperative to avoid delay and that changes are needed in the Indian Act. Their message is that they cannot, will not and should not continue to be deterred or denied their rightful entitlement any longer. [ Translation ] This bill gives first nations peoples back the power to have their name removed from the Indian register and take back control of their identity.”
“Now, for the first time, the indigenous Minister of Indigenous Services is standing before members to advance reform on the very injustices of enfranchisement. [ Translation ] It is an honour for me to help move forward Bill S-2 , which specifically addresses these inequalities. (1005) [ English ] This legislation would restore entitlement to approximately 3,500 first nations individuals and their descendants who gave it up or lost it. These are not just numbers on a page. There are more than 3,500 mothers, fathers, children, aunties and grandparents who are all looking for the restoration of identity, dignity and recognition, what they should have always had and what belongs to them.”
“I recognize that for many individuals who did choose enfranchisement, it was truly not a choice at all. Imagine someone being told that their education, profession or ambition would cost them everything: their identity and their children's identity. I stand here to speak to Bill S-2 , a vital step towards addressing inequities in the Indian Act. It is worth remembering that before 1960, a first nations woman like me would never have had the opportunity to sit in this chamber as a member of Parliament unless she first gave up her status. To serve in Canada's democracy, she would have been required to renounce legal recognition of who she was. That was the price of enfranchisement: participation in exchange for erasure.”
“Mr. Speaker, kwe, kwe . Ulaakut . Tansi . Waajiye . Bonjour . Hello. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. The Indian Act of 1876 is a remnant of our colonial history and an attempt to completely assimilate first nations peoples. It sought to absorb our languages, cultures, governance structures and, ultimately, our identity as first nations. [ English ] Through a process called “enfranchisement”, first nations individuals were told that they would gain the basic rights that other Canadians already had. They simply had to give up who they were. They would have the capacity to vote, to own property, to practise law and to become a doctor. Imagine having to make that choice.”
“Bill S-2. Second reading moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Nunavut .”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to be able to respond to my colleague and affirm the announcement of $115 million towards renewed funding for the Inuit child first initiative that will reach those children and families in his riding, and like mine. I want to thank my constituents who expressed their support for this progress. I am looking forward to continuing to deliver in this space. Of course, we are going to be doing long-term work in partnership with our colleagues to ensure that we are able to determine the future next steps of this process.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for this important question. To eradicate tuberculosis, investments have been made in innovative, Inuit-led approaches to improve health outcomes in those communities that are most at risk. Our government has just announced an additional $27 million in significant investments for tuberculosis solutions in Inuit Nunangat. [ English ] We will advance this work in partnership with ITK and Inuit treaty organizations to better support prevention, screening and—”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for being really consistent in representing her members. The message has been clear to me that we need to respond. That is why we have been working with our partners and look forward to what the next step is going to be. I am sure the member will be pleased to see what that is going to be. I am looking forward to what the message will be when it comes out very shortly.”
“I am proud to say that this is an exercise based on respect for our culture, our identity and our language. Our reports are prepared in the Cree language and presented to several levels of government, not just Parliament. This gives us the opportunity to introduce ourselves and explain what the agreement is and how we work with the different levels of government.”
“Madam Speaker, I also grew up in the riding. It is a treaty territory. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is recognized as the first modern treaty. I think that this process reinforces partnership because I come from a nation that has been submitting reports directly to Parliament, not just to an officer of Parliament, for 50 years. We ourselves chose two commissioners who spoke to Parliament on our behalf. Philip Awashish, Bill Namagoose and all the people on the Cree-Naskapi Commission truly demonstrated that, when nations have independence and the ability to report to Parliament, they get to define the process, the relationship and the approach to the work. That is why I strongly support Bill C-10 . My nation has been doing this work for 50 years.”
“I want to ensure that when we are developing the protocol, it is understood by the partner that while they would continue to work with the minister and the federal department, the commissioner would be there to further enhance accountability should there be a gap or a concern for discretion or a pathway forward. It is something I think would further enhance accountability directly to Parliament. This is what our partners are looking for.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the minister would still have the obligation to respond to the partnership. This would not be done away with. The supplementation of a commissioner's being put into place is with regard to the reporting. It is the oversight. It is to ensure that the verification and the validity of the position of the partner would also be tabled to Parliament. In essence, I believe that it would ensure the strengthening of findings, in terms of the implementation process of the claim. It would be supplementary to the process.”
“It will also give indigenous partners a role in the negotiation process for new modern treaties and the assurance that the government's commitments will be honoured. [ English ] They will know that the commissioner would be looking to ensure that the Government of Canada not only meets its commitments but also enhances working relationships with the understanding and respect of the cultural context. I want to ensure that rights and the rights of the future children and grandchildren of the land claims are respected and are supported in future negotiations. True partnership is when we ensure that we invite the partner to work directly with government and report to Parliament. Anything less is not honouring the commitment of what we have signed with them.”
“As the former leader of a modern land claim nation, I must urge my colleagues across all parties to ensure the consideration of the importance of the commissioner's role. Creating space so decisions, reflections and the verification of implementation are taken within the context of culture, language and identity is something that is needed. It is not only in the spirit of reconciliation and the approach to partnership; it is something that has been requested from us by our partners. If we are to truly respect our commitment to modern land claims and treaties, we must undertake this pivotal next step. [ Translation ] Bill C‑10 creates the position of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation.”
“This is not reflected in today's government structure. I wish to respectfully address my colleagues who spoke earlier today who see this as an additional duplication or layer of process. It is not; it is one that would shine the light on the importance of culture and identity for claims holders. For credibility, the commissioner would have to have expert knowledge in modern land claims and would be required to consult and engage directly with treaty partners throughout the review processes. Partners would have the opportunity to comment on preliminary findings, and their written views would be included in reports tabled to Parliament so both federal responses and indigenous perspectives would be heard. This is a critical step.”
“[ English ] While the Auditor General provides broad oversight of government spending, the commissioner's mandate would be exclusive to federal modern treaty implementation activities. The commissioner would bring specialized expertise, cultural understanding and a sustained focus on Canada's constitutional commitments to indigenous partners. The commissioner would have the flexibility to conduct audits and systemic reviews that are tools designed to identify recurring issues and improve how departments work together to enhance implementation of modern treaties. They would also focus on systemic barriers and on long-term solutions that would make the commissioner's role unique in Canada's oversight landscape, with the approach of being based in culture and the understanding of the identity of the partner.”
“Such a long but limited cycle ensures both independence and continuity, and will allow the commissioner to exercise the oversight role free from political influence. [ English ] The position would be filled by someone who has deep expertise and knowledge of modern treaties. It would be a unique construct to make sure the commissioner has the credibility and understanding to provide consistent, expert and independent oversight over successive governments. That person would be selected in close consultation and partnership with modern treaty partners. [ Translation ] This does not duplicate the Auditor General's work. The commissioner's role is complementary but distinct, based on an approach that respects the culture and identity of the nation and the partner.”
“The commissioner's role would also be pivotal and fundamental in ensuring culture-specific auditing processes that would supplement the structures that exist at this moment. The commissioner would be empowered to conduct reviews and performance audits of federal departments and agencies to assess how effectively they are meeting modern treaty agreements. This would be a supplemental process that does not exist today. The recognition of culture and ensuring that we are looking at the entirety, a holistic approach to what the community and the nation are as partners, is a critical step in respecting modern land claims. (1250) [ Translation ] The commissioner will be appointed for a seven-year term with the possibility of being reappointed for one additional term.”
“The commissioner would answer to Parliament, the table that the partners have asked to report to and work with. Not even the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, a cabinet minister or the Prime Minister could intervene. This structure is one that my very own nation has used successfully. As the former leader of my nation, I believe it is way beyond the scope of the structure of the government today. Without the creation of a commissioner, we would be unable to ensure that we could rightfully uphold the relationship at the true level of Parliament at which it should be addressed. The commissioner would be independent: free from political interference and pressures. Their mandate would be enshrined in law, and their reports would be tabled in Parliament for transparency, as well as for enhanced public scrutiny.”
“While federal departments and ministers are there to honour the relationship and work with them, we want to ensure that modern treaties are treated with the respect and the approach that are clearly outlined in the documents themselves. [ Translation ] Calls from indigenous partners have been echoed in reports from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition and the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. Creating the position of commissioner for modern treaty implementation responds directly to these calls. The bill before Parliament reflects decades of advocacy by indigenous partners regarding modern treaties and collaborative efforts. [ English ] At its core, Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation.”
“They are among the most complex agreements our government undertakes, reflecting the rights, priorities and aspirations of indigenous peoples and Canadians alike. By their very nature, modern treaties and their implementation are non-partisan. Upholding these constitutional commitments is a shared responsibility across all parties and is one that transcends political cycles in governments. For far too long, the implementation of modern treaties in our country has been challenging. Modern treaty partners have repeatedly raised concerns about delays, challenges in coordination, and insufficient oversight by federal departments and agencies with respect to living up to their legal duties and obligations. The bill has come at the request of the nations themselves, which wish to work closely with Parliament and to be able to report to it.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today. [ Member spoke in Cree and provided the following translation: ] Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. [ Translation ] I rise today to speak to Bill C-10 , which creates a new independent officer of Parliament, specifically the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. [ English ] Modern treaties are not symbolic documents; they are legally binding agreements that affirm indigenous rights, support self-government and provide frameworks for economic development, environmental stewardship and cultural revitalization. Modern treaties often take time, in some places generations, to negotiate.”