Michael Guglielmin
Vaughan—Woodbridge, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this up. The Prime Minister says affordability is the best it has been in a decade. Then ministers in the House rise and take credit for programs they implemented to address all the damage they caused. Their promised surveillance pricing legislation to lower grocery costs will not even take effect before 2028.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that affordability is the best it has been in a decade, but full-time workers are living in RVs and trailers because they cannot afford a home. Families are spending over 120% of their income on rent and food alone. People are even skipping surgeries and other major life events just to survive.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 1952, a courageous 21-year-old woman left her small town in Treviso, Italy, with her father by her side. They boarded a train bound for Genoa. From there, alone, she stepped onto a ship and began that now famous journey across the Atlantic, arriving at Pier 21 in Halifax.”
“Around her table, with a simple tablecloth, good food, candlelight and loved ones gathered close, she showed us what truly mattered. This Italian Heritage Month, I honour all Italian-Canadian nonni , especially my Nonna Olga, whose courage, integrity and love continue to guide us.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Now the Liberals want Canadians arguing over labels: technical recession, marginal recession, full recession. Even the Prime Minister himself admitted a technical recession and a recession are the same thing.”
“Canadians have worked hard, played by the rules and done everything asked of them. They should not be falling further behind because the government cannot control its spending. Canadians need a serious plan to restore growth, protect paycheques and bring hope back to the Canadian economy.”
The complete record
Every one of 299 lines we hold for Michael Guglielmin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, other countries are growing faster because they are cutting red tape and encouraging investment. Meanwhile, here in Canada, over 121,000 small businesses have closed since 2020. Domestic growth is shaped by the overall investment climate. Canadian businesses are postponing projects, productivity is falling and small businesses are closing at alarming rates. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet since he was elected, not a single anti-development law has been repealed, and tax burdens continue to rise. Will the government work with us to remove its own barriers to growth and get out of the way so we can build again in this country?”
“Mr. Speaker, a new report shows that 10% of all Canadian small businesses have been wiped out since 2020 as new closures outpace start-ups. The Bank of Canada now says that it expects only 1.1% GDP growth next year, that businesses are delaying expansion plans, and that growth in business investment is forecast to remain flat for 2026. Businesses do not want to invest here, because regulations and taxes make it difficult for businesses to invest and grow. When will the Prime Minister listen to Conservative ideas and finally remove taxes and barriers that are stopping Canadian businesses from building and investing?”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to bring forward this petition in support of a group of people who want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to some of their concerns surrounding the Bloc and Liberal amendments to Bill C-9 . The petitioners are urging us to look at this and understand that it could be used to criminalize passages of the Bible, the Torah, the Quran and other sacred religious texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights in Canadian society. The petitioners are urging the government to protect freedom of expression and religious freedom in this country, and I stand with the petitioners in their request.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' own ideology has finally gotten in the way because public safety has become too politically inconvenient for them to ignore. As I said earlier, we have been advocating for tougher sentencing laws and bail reform for years at this point. We are ready to advance bail legislation. We are ready to get serious on cracking down on crime and criminals, keeping them behind bars where they belong. Conservatives will always stand up for public safety.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have supported, and are in favour of, these provisions in the bill. Just to be clear, we think the bill needs to be split, specifically around the provisions with respect to mandatory minimums, because the bill is essentially a test. What it would do is open up for debate, again, all past rulings where a particular sentencing was deemed unconstitutional. It would remove the guardrails Parliament has, remove the instructions from Parliament and create more delays and more litigation. This is something that needs to be clarified in the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the hon. member for his comments, although they seem to be derived from an alternate universe. The facts on the ground are that Conservatives have always supported and advocated for tougher sentencing laws and have wanted the government to get tough on crime. Bill C-14 was introduced on October 23. We advanced that bill to committee on November 18 with the understanding that it would be moved quickly through committee so it could be passed into law. The government then decided to ram Bill C-9 through and support a Bloc amendment that attacked freedom of expression. All this is to say that, because we are defending freedom of expression, we are therefore obstructing bail reform. Conservatives have always been in support of tougher crime laws, and what Canadians need to ask themselves is why.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that statement, although, unfortunately, much of it is placed in some alternate universe that must exist out there. As everyone is well aware, Conservatives have been advocating for a tough-on-crime agenda for years at this point. We supported sending Bill C-14 to committee for study, yet it was put behind Bill C-9 . Then the Liberals decided to use their time to try to ram through attacks on freedom of expression. Why? We called for that bill to be moved ahead [ Technical difficulty—Editor ].”
“Millions of Canadians voted for the official opposition to do precisely that: Hold the government to account, improve legislation and demand excellence, especially on matters of public safety. Conservatives stand ready to work. We stand ready to improve this legislation. Of course, we stand firmly on the side of victims, communities and public safety.”
“Instead of responding to Senneville with discipline by clarifying offence definitions or crafting a narrow and targeted safety valve, the government chose the most expansive option available. It used a contested decision as justification for wholesale retreat from Parliament's sentencing authority. The government will point to law enforcement organizations and victim advocacy groups that have welcomed parts of the bill. Conservatives respect those voices. We listen to them and we agree with them on many of the reforms contained within the bill. However, broad support for certain provisions does not mean Parliament should abandon its duty to scrutinize the whole.”
“The majority relied on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate mandatory minimum penalties for child sex exploitation offences, but the dissent, led by Chief Justice Wagner, issued a warning that Parliament would be reckless to ignore. That dissent reaffirmed a foundational principle. Hypotheticals must be reasonable. They must have a real, factual and legal connection to the offence before the court. Parliament is not required to legislate for the least serious imaginable application of an offence. Using remote or extreme hypotheticals to dismantle sentencing floors risks undermining democratic accountability itself. Those words matter. Bill C-16 ignores that warning entirely.”
“Parliament set these penalties deliberately, not casually or symbolically, because certain conduct is so dangerous, so destructive and so harmful that incarceration was deemed to be the baseline, not the exception. The Supreme Court has never held that mandatory minimum penalties are unconstitutional per se. It has never stripped Parliament of its authority to impose them. Section 12 of the charter prohibits punishment that is “grossly disproportionate”. The House should pay close attention to what the court actually said, particularly in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville. In that case, the court was sharply divided.”
“It is a provision that would fundamentally alter how Parliament expresses denunciation for the most serious crimes. Under Bill C-16 , judges would be required to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum whenever applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. That provision would apply to nearly every mandatory minimum in federal law, excluding only murder and high treason. In practical terms, mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory at all. That includes offences such as aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, human trafficking, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings and multiple other firearms offences.”
“Earlier intervention before abuse escalates into severe violence or homicide is very important. Conservatives support this approach. The expansion of deepfake offences is necessary to respond to modern forms of sexual exploitation. Conservatives support this as well. The procedural reforms aimed at reducing trial delays deserve careful study. Justice delayed serves neither the accused nor the victim. Conservatives are prepared to engage constructively on those provisions. However, embedded within the bill is a sentencing provision that does not belong with the rest. It is a provision that would transform mandatory minimum penalties into discretionary suggestions. It is a provision that would apply across almost the entire Criminal Code.”
“We still have former Liberal members of Parliament, like the one from Vaughan—Woodbridge, suggesting that crime is just a perception problem by using year-over-year statistics instead of a multi-year average to look at the actual trends. We did so while Liberals repealed mandatory penalties, expanded constitutional sentences and pursued a bail framework that has left communities, including Vaughan, less safe. Bill C-16 combines measures that strengthen public safety with a sweeping restructuring of sentencing law that is fundamentally weakening Parliament's role. That is the problem and that is why the bill should, indeed, be split. The creation of coercive or controlling conduct offences within intimate relationships is a serious and necessary reform.”
“The Liberals did so in order to advance a narrative that because we are fighting back against Bill C-9 and their attacks on freedom of expression, we are therefore obstructing bail reform. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of how Liberals are playing politics with public safety. (1010) Conservatives have been calling for stronger responses to violent crime, which is up 55%; to human trafficking, which is up 84%; and to sexual assaults, which have gone up 76% in this country since the Liberal government took office. We did so when the government dismissed rising crime as a perception problem.”
“Since the Liberals are making their rounds in the media, suggesting we are obstructing bail reform, for the people watching at home let me highlight how the Liberals play politics with crime. The Liberals finally introduced their bail reform legislation on October 23. On November 18 they went to committee. Instead of advancing the legislation at committee so it could get expert testimony and be sent back to the House of Commons for a vote and be passed, from November 18 all the way to January 27 they chose to prioritize a different bill, Bill C-9 , and support a Bloc amendment that attacks freedom of expression and religious freedom, an amendment they knew we could not support. We asked 20 times before the Christmas break for bail reform to be moved ahead, but this was denied. Why?”
“That context matters because Canadians are being told a story by the Liberal government. They are being told that Conservatives are blocking progress. They are being told that we are unwilling to move legislation forward, and they are being told that democratic debate amounts to indifference toward victims. That narrative collapses under even modest scrutiny. Allow me to highlight the case of Bill C-14 , the Liberals' bail reform legislation. We all know that for years Conservatives have been calling on the government to get tough on crime and tough on repeat offenders. Bill C-14, while not going far enough, is better than what we have now. It would not address the underlying issue of removing the principle of restraint from Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , which is leading to the catch-and-release issues we are plagued with today.”
“Making the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree was a measure first proposed by my Conservative colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in Bill C-225 . Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to capture sexually explicit deepfakes draws directly from my Conservative colleague's bill, the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill 's bill, Bill C-216 . Of course, updating the mandatory reporting requirements for child sex exploitation material legislation was originally enacted by a previous Conservative government and later modernized through Conservative initiatives. We support these measures. We have supported them consistently. We have called for them long before the government had decided that public safety had become politically inconvenient to ignore.”
“Canadians expect Parliament to approach criminal law with seriousness and humility. Our decisions have the utmost real-life impacts on Canadians. They determine how we protect victims, how we hold offenders to account and whether people feel safe in their home and in their community. That responsibility demands clarity, discipline and honesty. Bill C-16 would meet that standard in many important respects. In others, it would not. I want to be clear from the outset. I have witnessed, upon returning to Ottawa in this winter session, the falsehoods coming from the Liberal government: that Conservatives are obstructing legislation on public safety. Many of the victim-focused provisions come directly from legislation introduced by my Conservative colleagues prior to the introduction of Bill C-16 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to recognize Waves of Changes for Autism, a charity in Vaughan that is celebrating its 10th anniversary. I would like to congratulate Ellen Contardi and her entire board for all their efforts over the years. Waves of Changes for Autism helps families that have children with autism. It helps them offset the cost of therapies. It has funded over 700 applications and has raised over $2.5 million since 2016. Since its inception, it has made sure that every single dollar has had an impact. In 2026 we dedicate this milestone by marking a decade of hope, a decade of opportunity and a decade of giving. Again, I congratulate Waves of Changes for Autism. It is an honour to rise today to discuss a very important issue in our country related to public safety.”
“Mr. Speaker, the York Regional Police recently arrested a man accused of extorting a Vaughan resident for seven years through threats and violence. Extortion is not a talking point; it is impacting real Canadians. Now Liberals are spreading falsehoods. Let us look at bail reform. The Liberals tabled bail changes on October 23. We agreed to send the bill to committee on November 18, and until yesterday, they sidelined public safety to attack freedom of expression. Will the Liberal government stop its obstruction, work with Conservatives to restore mandatory minimums for extortion and repeal catch-and-release laws Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada now faces the highest food inflation in the G7. The government's responses relied largely on short-term relief measures that may ease pressure temporarily, but do nothing to address the underlying drivers of rising food costs. Food affordability requires deeper structural action. Conservatives have put forward practical solutions, including eliminating the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax, boosting competition in the grocery sector and cutting red tape for farmers. Will the government work with Conservatives to deliver lasting relief for Canadian families?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents in Vaughan—Woodbridge. I am sure my colleague is as concerned as I am, considering he comes from an area in the country where extortion is very prevalent, that over at the justice committee, we are seeing the Liberals constantly vote down motions to bring their own bail reform ahead of all of the other legislation so that we could give that the scrutiny and debate it deserves, and so that it could be reported back to the House and we could then pass bail reform as quickly as possible. I am also wondering if, perhaps in the spirit of Christmas, the member could elaborate on why it is so crucial that the government quickly fulfills its promises and hires the CBSA agents that it said it was going to.”
“Conservatives have a real plan: cut the GST on new homes, help reduce development charges, tie federal infrastructure dollars to building more homes, and get government out of the way so builders can build. We will restore the promise and hope of home ownership for young Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, week after week, parents in Vaughan—Woodbridge tell me they fear their children will never be able to afford a home. Home ownership is a key milestone in adulthood. It is a rite of passage for Canadian families, yet under Liberals, that dream is slipping away. After promising half a million new homes, the Liberals now admit their new housing bureaucracy will deliver only a fraction of that. Build Canada Homes will cost $13 billion yet will add only 5,200 homes per year. This failure is pushing families out of the communities they love. Last year alone more than 35,000 families left the GTA because they could not find affordable housing, and it is no wonder. Government-imposed costs and delays now make up between 30% and 50% of the price of a new home.”
“There was $400 million committed to Algoma Steel, but it seems there are no jobs guarantees, because a thousand workers were laid off. What I believe we are seeing is a trend of the Liberal government's not wanting to review contracts before they hand out public dollars.”
“Mr. Chair, I was alarmed to learn that the minister apparently had not read the contract, because we heard at committee that she kept saying, “Read the contract; it is in the contract”. Which clause is that? It was always some clause in some contract we had not seen. Now we are learning not only that has she not read but also that apparently the legal team may not have read it. With respect to my hon. colleague's question, I will say that I really cannot understand why, with such a significant number of tax dollars at play, such a significant amount of public money allocated to the contract, they could not be bothered to take a look at it. There seems to be a theme. We also noticed it in the steel industry, which, as my colleague referenced, was part of my former life.”
“I would say that, in the future, if we are going to make any deals to support auto companies, this should be done with job protections for Canadian workers.”
“Mr. Chair, what we have seen with the Stellantis deal, where billions of dollars were laid out in both subsidies and direct investment to advance EV battery plants, and what we are seeing in the industry with respect to the number of individuals, consumers, who actually want to purchase these products, is that the demand is not there. Not only are we shelling out money for things that do not make sense and that hamper competitiveness in the industry, for a product that people do not seem to want to the degree the Liberal government thinks they should; we are also handing out contracts and dollars to companies without, as it appears today, any sort of jobs guarantees to protect Canadian workers.”
“Mr. Chair, I want to thank my hon. colleague for giving me an opportunity to point out that yes, while tariffs have been the catalyst, for the last 10 years we have dealt with serious structural problems in our economic environment and a structural issue around regulation. Our country is so overly regulated that we are actually approaching the point of miracle in this country. We have a tax framework issue that makes our businesses completely uncompetitive. We have an industrial carbon tax, which is adding costs. We have a crazy EV mandate, which everyone in the auto industry admits needs to be repealed immediately so we can breathe life into the sector. Therefore, while the tariffs are a major issue, there are concrete actions the Liberal government could take today to benefit the auto sector.”
“Second, as long as the American tariffs remain in place, make Canadian-built vehicles HST free so buying a car made in Canada comes with a clear price advantage and reason for companies to keep production here. Third, eliminate the industrial carbon tax. Fourth, make sure any future subsidies for large auto investments come with real, enforceable job guarantees so workers and taxpayers are protected if companies move work elsewhere. This debate is about more than policy details; it is about the Stellantis worker in Brampton who rises before dawn to assemble the vehicles that deliver us our prosperity; it is about the intricate supply chains connected to the auto plants in Oshawa. We stand on the side of auto workers in the House, for their families and for our communities at large.”
“A temporary pause to this EV mandate does not deliver the certainty investors, manufacturers and workers need. If EV targets are not met, the mandate could cost the auto sector upwards of $3 billion by 2030. If the mandate sits on the books, Canada remains an unpredictable and risky place to build vehicles. I should also mention that, just today, President Trump announced he will roll back the fuel efficiency standard for vehicles, which could further risk jobs and investment flowing south of the border. It has never been more urgent to get rid of the industrial carbon tax. Conservatives believe there is a better path. First, repeal the EV mandate so we can stop handicapping our industry and our dealers.”
“He told the committee that a pause on the EV mandate has not brought any certainty and that repealing it is the one simple action the government could do today to provide immediate relief to the auto sector. How about Flavio Volpe from the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association? He stated the EV mandate is “unachievable, unworkable and not based in reality”. If that is not bad enough, get this: The government's own analysis admits this mandate will disproportionately affect people of low income and people in rural areas because they face higher vehicle costs and higher electricity prices. Despite all of this, Liberal members at committee defended the EV mandate. For businesses to make capital investment and properly budget, we know they need certainty.”
“Instead of a deal, we have more and more uncertainty. Here in December, the results of the Liberal Prime Minister's action are companies like Stellantis choosing to invest billions of dollars and create thousands of jobs in the United States, despite being given billions of dollars by the Liberal government. Recently at industry committee, we had three emergency meetings on the auto sector. The message from industry partners has been clear: The Liberal EV mandate is making a bad situation much worse. For instance, Huw Williams from the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association told us the EV mandate makes Canada “less competitive”, a less competitive place and a place that is harder to attract investment to. He also said this mandate is a “pending disaster”. How about Brian Kingston of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association?”
“Workers in Ingersoll, Oshawa, Brampton and Sainte-Thérèse are living with layoff notices or the fear of one. At CAMI in Ingersoll, about 500 jobs have been lost. In Oshawa, hundreds of workers in the plant along with the supply chain are affected. In Brampton, roughly 3,000 Stellantis workers and thousands of supplier jobs are at risk. In Sainte-Thérèse, more than 700 workers at PACCAR now face layoffs. Just so we are clear what the stakes are, President Trump has been very clear: He wants investment and jobs pulled out of Canada and moved south. The Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a win and deliver us a trade deal by July 21. He said the Liberals needed to form government because only they could protect this country. That deadline now has come and gone, and we have no agreement.”
“Mr. Chair, I rise tonight to speak about an industry that is at the cornerstone of Canada's manufacturing power. Canada's auto industry is not just an economic engine; it is the economic heartbeat of provinces like Ontario and Quebec, pumping roughly $14 billion into our GDP and keeping more than 120,000 families in the middle class. Every job in an assembly plant supports nine or more in the wider economy. There are over 600,000 direct and indirect jobs that depend on this sector, and most of the vehicles we build here in this country are exported to the United States. When the auto sector stumbles, entire communities in Ontario and Quebec feel it right away. Right now, as we sit here today, as we speak, those communities are under real strain.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative record on indigenous relationships is clear. When Prime Minister Harper held office, we signed and implemented five modern treaties in six years. We always stand with indigenous people. We stand with reconciliation and with all first nations people.”
“Mr. Speaker, ministers need to be accountable for government programs and obligations and the treaties they sign that they choose to implement. We see a theme happening over and over again in the House by the Liberal government. Every time a program introduced by the government, like a treaty in this case, is signed off on and fails to get implemented properly, the solution from the government seems to be that we need more government. At a time when Canadians all across the country are facing increased costs to their standard of living and are facing more and more pressures, we see from the government the need to spend even more money, creating a new bureaucracy for oversight instead of using the tools we already have.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, who was deemed an expert on this issue years ago when the reports were done, already highlighted the significant gaps in the implementation of modern treaties. That is why we are questioning the need for a brand new bureaucracy that is going to ramp up costs. If we already have an Auditor General who has highlighted the gaps, all we need now is direct ministerial accountability, responsible to the House, and enforceable measures that are enforced when the government fails to implement the treaties it negotiates.”
“Mr. Speaker, we understand why indigenous people are pushing for this. It is because they are frustrated. They are frustrated with the government's failure to follow the findings from the reports of the Auditor General and actually implement the solutions that have been highlighted. Where we deviate from the government is that we think we need to follow the reports and enforce the rules already on the books. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need more government. That is going to ramp up costs and not achieve the results we are looking for.”
“We stand up for treaty rights, for the honour of the Crown and for a vision of reconciliation that is grounded in results, not just in rhetoric.”
“It is tempting to think that if we pass a bill and create a commissioner, we have solved the problem. The record of past reports and offices tells us otherwise. Instead of building a new bureaucracy and what seems to be the easy get-out-of-jail-free card policy solution to the government's past failures, we should strengthen the accountability of the systems we already have. We should insist that departments act on Auditor General recommendations. We should require transparent implementation plans for each treaty. We should empower indigenous governments as true partners, not as clients waiting for Ottawa to police itself. This is the approach the Conservatives will continue to bring to this debate.”
“We want to see a Canada in which indigenous and non-indigenous communities share in prosperity and in which agreements are honoured in practice, not just in words. Where Conservatives part on the bill is not the goal of accountability but on the tool the government has chosen; of course, that is based on their record. I have tuned into previous questions and answers on this very bill, and I know government members opposite may try to twist our words, so I will make this very clear. At a time when Canadians are struggling with the cost of living and when the federal public service has grown dramatically in size and cost, the answer to every problem in Ottawa cannot be more and more offices, more and more layers of reporting and more and more costs. Parliament should be careful not to confuse activity with results.”
“A commissioner would not build a home, sign an agreement or ensure that a department meets a timeline it has already missed. What would do that is ministerial responsibility and clear consequences for failure. If a modern treaty commitment is not being met, the responsible minister should have to explain that to Parliament. The department should have measurable implementation plans, codeveloped with treaty partners, that are reported publicly and tied to performance evaluations to senior officials. If officials refuse to act, they should not be promoted. If ministers ignore repeated warnings, they should answer for that in the House. Conservatives support modern treaties and self-determination.”
“If these entities have not solved the problem inside the government, it then raises the question of why we should believe that a new external office will do so. Who has been fired for not delivering in the past? Many modern treaty partners originally proposed that a commissioner be housed within the Office of the Auditor General, similar to the commissioner of the environment. That model would have leveraged an existing institution and reduced duplication. The government instead chose a stand-alone agent of Parliament with a separate office, separate staff and separate budget. The real test should be whether a proposal improves outcomes on the ground, not whether it creates an office in Ottawa. Reconciliation is measured in results.”
“The problem is not a lack of reports; the problem is that ministers and departments are not held to account when they fail to implement the very agreements they sign. In fact, the government has already created new federal offices and initiatives to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. Despite that, progress on implementation remains slow. No modern treaties have been established by the government. Indigenous governments spend too much time chasing basic compliance from federal partners.”
“Under the Liberal government, we have seen many new offices, frameworks and big promises, but at the end of the day, it has negotiated zero modern treaties. This is the context in which we look at Bill C-10 . (1220) Parliament needs to ask hard questions. Would the bill fix an underlying problem, or would it give the illusion of action while the same departments continue with business as usual? We already have oversight tools. The Office of the Auditor General has repeatedly studied modern treaty implementation and related issues. Audits in the last decade have highlighted serious gaps in how obligations are tracked, coordinated and met. Those reports set out recommendations and named the departments that needed to act, yet here we are years later, hearing many of the same concerns from treaty partners.”
“In 2008, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples recommended the creation of an independent body, such as a modern treaty commission, to help monitor implementation. Modern treaty partners have repeatedly called for stronger and stronger oversight. Conservatives take this history very seriously. Our record in government shows that modern treaties can be negotiated and implemented when Ottawa is focused on results. Under former prime minister Harper, five modern treaties were signed in six years. They included a first nation land claims and self-government agreement in 2006, a first nations final agreement in 2009, another first nations final agreement in 2009, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement in 2013 and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement in 2015.”
“Canada has concluded modern treaties with indigenous peoples across the north and in parts of British Columbia and Quebec. These comprehensive land claim agreements define landownership, resource rights, financial compensation and governance authorities. They are constitutionally protected and legally enforceable. The model has evolved over time. Before 2000, most modern treaties focused on land and resources, with separate or partial agreements for self-government. Since 2000, almost all modern treaties have included explicit self-government provisions. Whether a nation has a modern treaty, a self-government treaty or both, the obligations are legally binding on the Crown. For years, Parliament, indigenous leaders and experts have warned that Canada's record on implementation is inconsistent and often poor.”
“Those treaties, however imperfectly honoured, are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In many parts of the country, indigenous title and rights were never resolved by historic treaties. That is why the Supreme Court's decision in 1973 was so important. The court recognized indigenous title in Canadian law and forced the federal government to move from denial to negotiation. That decision opened the modern treaty era and led to the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975. Since 1975, Canada has negotiated and signed 26 modern treaties with indigenous groups in Canada, 18 of which contain self-government provisions or associated self-government agreements.”