Billy Morin
Edmonton Northwest, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting my first petition, petition e-6909, which has approximately 13,000 signatures. The petitioners call on the government to protect the records and testimony of residential school survivors. I know there is some ambiguity with respect to these records.”
“There is some great work that has been done by the truth and reconciliation centre out of Winnipeg, but this ambiguity needs to be addressed by the House of Commons so that it can be a forthright and respectful conversation going forward with Canadians, and we can all, Canadians and indigenous peoples, move forward in a country that is fo…”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been good at announcing programs, dollars and funds, but it is really blank on the details. I am wondering if the minister knows what codes are on the first nations themselves and if he is going to invest from the public purse into first nation homes.”
“Mr. Speaker, the AFN exposed that the last decade of Liberal housing strategy has left first nations 157,000 homes short. Given that Build Canada Homes plans to build only 5,000 homes annually, by what year will the Liberals build 157,000 homes needed for first nations? I would like to know just the year.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2020, the Liberals told chiefs they would make first nations policing an essential service, with new legislation and expanded service and number of communities served.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Older, Bolder, Better event, Alberta's largest Seniors' Week event, was recently hosted by the WE Seniors at my home of Enoch Cree Nation's River Cree Resort.”
The complete record
Every one of 245 lines we hold for Billy Morin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for all her hard work on the file. It is a very difficult file on which to find the balance and everything. I will say, though, that debate on every aspect is very important. To be very blunt, I have heard from first nations in the last 48 hours that have serious concerns. Every level of debate is important, but I do anticipate that the bill will move to committee so that those voices can also be heard in a timely manner.”
“Canada's own legal history teaches us that when treaty wording is uncertain, courts will spend years, sometimes generations, trying to reconstruct the common intention of the parties, while communities and Ottawa are left to deal with the unexpected consequences. Parliament still has time to reduce that uncertainty here, so let us proceed with respect: respect for the Manitoba Métis Federation, respect for other rights-bearing Métis communities, respect for indigenous rights, respect for legal certainty and respect for Canadians who deserve laws that are clear enough to understand and that promote unity, not down-the-road division. We look forward to discussing how to improve this bill, with consideration of any amendments, in committee.”
“(1720) This means asking whether Bill C-21 should include explicit protections making it clear that this treaty would not negate other Métis agreements, would not make the Red River Métis the only Métis people under section 35, would not constrain future negotiations with other Métis groups, would not recognize land-related section 35 rights unless Parliament intends to say so explicitly, and would protect private property of everyday Canadians. These proposals are not antireconciliation. They make reconciliation more stable, more transparent and more durable at a time when many Canadians feel uncertain about where we are going. Modern treaties are too important to be carried out by implication when explicit language is available.”
“The fairest and most constructive position is not to attack the Manitoba Métis Federation or deny legitimacy of the Red River Métis self-government. It is to say we honour the work that brought this treaty here, we recognize the unfinished business of reconciliation, and we accept that the Manitoba Métis Federation has spent years building toward this milestone. However, because this treaty would be constitutionally entrenched and binding on everyone, we owe it to the Manitoba Métis Federation, other Métis governments, first nations, provinces and everyday Canadians to draft the implementation legislation with maximum clarity.”
“The impacts are not only political disputes but real, on-the-ground impacts that can hold back timely growth of Canada's economy for all treaty peoples. As Parliament constitutionalizes a treaty whose wording and surrounding narratives are already being used in regulatory settings, Parliament has a duty to consider how wording matters outside this chamber. The commitment to a financial arrangement that would meet the expenditure need of the Manitoba Métis Federation to exercise its defined self-government functions is good in concept but poorly spelled out. Those IOUs promise big buckets of potential rights and obligations and a bureaucratic framework to ensure that Ottawa would get plenty of say in how it wants to maintain control over such agreements and this indigenous nation. That brings me to my final point.”
“These concerns are real, and I know the Manitoba Métis Federation is aware of these concerns from first nations as well. I do not hear any indigenous nation, Métis, Inuit or first nation, wanting to see other indigenous peoples fail, but the process and details must be addressed. All of these types of agreements and treaties must live together, and we as indigenous and non-indigenous peoples must coexist. A third area of concern is everyday predictability in governance and in how we grow the Canadian economy. The Canada Energy Regulator's process in British Columbia has seen the Manitoba Métis Federation relying on the treaty and the Red River Métis homeland claims to assert consultation rights far beyond the Red River, two provinces away. This can result in confusion, cost and delay in resource development.”
“The chiefs of Treaty 3 in Ontario have said, in a submission to the Liberal government, that they have concerns about pre-approved modern treaties that will supersede historic Confederation-era treaties, practically making them second-class citizens. We have heard and we know that with the Liberal government, there has been little to no consultation with first nations across the numbered treaties in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba regarding the bill. The Liberal government has started a significant consultation on Bill S-2 while doing no consultation on things like Bill C-5 , and now, again, first nations are questioning the inconsistent politics being played by the government on when consultation is used and when it is not used.”
“The Liberal government must acknowledge the push-back it received on Bill C-53 in consideration of the bill before us, not because the Manitoba Métis Federation is in the same category as other Métis in question in Bill C-53 but because other indigenous concerns were expressed explicitly. A fundamental question must be answered by the government, a question that I have received and that I know the Liberal government has received as well: How would this treaty overlap with the historic numbered treaties in Canada? We cannot shy away from the fact that the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs in Alberta recently passed a resolution against the proposed treaty in question today.”
“It is clarity. For indigenous folks, especially Métis, first nations and Inuit people, the issue is equally serious but different. It is whether constitutionality can be protected via a treaty drafted in a way that leaves room for one indigenous government's hard-won recognition without crowding the constitutional room needed by others. It is whether reconciliation is being advanced through careful pluralism or through avoidable conflict. It is also about whether an indigenous community needs recognition in a treaty in order for its self-government rights to be exercised.”
“Paragraph 88 goes further and says that the treaty contemplates future negotiation or recognition of Manitoba Métis Federation jurisdiction over lands that may be held by the Red River Métis, and the preamble of the treaty itself refers to the unfulfilled land-grant provisions of the Manitoba Act, implying the potential for redress. For non-indigenous Canadians, especially those worried about their recreational or life-sustaining use of the land, it is important not to inflame fear. This treaty would not, on its face, threaten fee simple title. It does not contain a clause expropriating private home ownership. However, it would create a legal framework that could affect future consultation questions, future jurisdictional negotiations and future litigation over the scope of rights. The responsible position is neither alarm nor denial.”
“Chapter 9 lays out the process for future supplementary self-government arrangements in areas including wildlife, migratory birds, and fish harvesting and management; environmental assessment and protection; administration of justice; and any other matters reasonably related to self-determination, self-government, or other rights and interests of the Red River Métis. For many first nations and other indigenous peoples, a traditional paradigm is that we are a part of the land, inclusive of wildlife and plant life.”
“Canada's failure to be precise and to communicate about several recent agreements in B.C. has caused harm to everyone. If Canada wants to say now that the Manitoba Métis Federation treaty does not recognize land-related rights, it has a duty to spell that out explicitly, inclusive of protecting fee simple property. (1715) Too often, it seems the current government wants to intentionally leave in that ambiguity so it can take credit but not responsibility for the decisions made. Why does this matter?”
“Various Métis groups appreciate, celebrate and support Canada's modern treaty-making with Métis governments and recognize the Manitoba Métis Federation's right to pursue self-determination through this agreement. A second area of concern is land and aboriginal rights ambiguity. Supporters of the bill frame this as an internal governance treaty, not a land claims treaty. The treaty's immediate operative jurisdictions are about governance, citizenship, internal structures, accountability, adjudication and related institutional matters, not a direct land transfer. In recent months, disagreements about how treaties and other agreements about land-based rights should be interpreted have led to much uncertainty on the part of Canadians and much undeserved ignorance, interpretation and hatred directed toward indigenous peoples.”
“It also does not imply that the Manitoba Métis Federation represents any other Indigenous collectivity than the Red River Métis. It preserves the possibility that there are other Métis collective rights holders, which is a good thing, established before effective European control, that include individuals with Red River Métis ancestry and may hold distinct section 35 rights. Those are important safeguards, and any fair reading of the treaty should say so. There is respect from other Métis governments that have also worked for years at securing recognition of their own rights-bearing communities and self-government agreements. Their concern is not that the Manitoba Métis Federation should have no treaty. It is quite the opposite.”
“We have heard from other Métis nations the concern that the treaty may fail to leave constitutional space for other Métis groups. Once implemented, it will be binding on third parties, including other federally recognized Métis governments. Self-government agreements and treaties with different Métis and other indigenous governments must coexist with each other. There are strengths in drafting this agreement with flexibility and limiting language, but there is also too much ambiguity. Paragraph 13 says nothing in the treaty may be interpreted to determine the geographical location or the extent of the Red River Métis. There is also nothing in the treaty to imply that the Red River Métis is the only Métis collective under section 35.”
“Paragraph 10 then says the Red River Métis acts “exclusively” through the Manitoba Métis Federation in exercising collectively held rights, in pursuing scrip claims and in Crown consultation respecting potential adverse effects on Red River Métis section 35 rights. Paragraph 19 adds that any existing section 35 rights of self-government in respect of the definition of Red River Métis and the exclusive representation of the Red River Métis by the Manitoba Métis Federation continue and will be exercised in accordance with the treaty. To many Red River Métis citizens, these provisions are long overdue recognition and nation building. That perspective needs to be heard. However, to other Métis governments, these same provisions raise alarms. The treaty's definitions and scope are read as expansive and ambiguous.”
“This is serious work, and it deserves respect, but respect for the work done by the Manitoba Métis Federation does not erase the duty of Parliament to ask what this text does, what it does not do and what it may be read to do later. The next area of concern is the definition of Red River Métis, relationships with other Métis governments and the question of constitutional space for others. The Red River Métis should be the ultimate authority on determining who is Red River Métis. Paragraph 1 defines the Red River Métis as an “Indigenous collectivity...originally established within the historic Northwest and centred in the Red River Valley,” distinct from any other indigenous collectivity and collectively holding section 35 rights, including the inherent right to self-government.”
“Governments, federal and provincial, are learning hard lessons about focusing their work on reconciliation rhetoric rather than the hard work needed to bring as many people along as possible, indigenous Canadians and non-indigenous Canadians alike. There is much in the treaty that deserves acknowledgement. It recognizes Red River Métis self-determination and the inherent right of self-government. It recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis in paragraph 9. It provides concrete jurisdiction now over citizenship, leadership selection, internal operations, accountability, administration, enforcement and related matters.”
“Several Métis groups have made the point that the Manitoba Métis Federation jurisdiction should not extend to other Métis traditional homelands and territories, and that it should be up to the Métis justice systems, not the Crown courts, to determine what Métis laws mean and how they apply. Modern treaties have the opportunity to place aboriginal and non-aboriginal relations in a shared legal system where we can build certainty, continuity, transparency and predictability. (1710) Ambiguous modern treaty drafting can produce years of conflict. It is not fearmongering to remember the decades of history when interpretation and poor relations resulted in unintended division. Canada still lives with that today. We see this playing out in British Columbia.”
“The implementation legislation before us would give the treaty and future Manitoba Métis Federation laws the force of federal law, which would prevail in many areas over inconsistent other federal laws. Among other features, it has the potential to give non-Manitoba Métis Federation police forces and provinces the power to enforce Manitoba Métis Federation laws on non-members of Manitoba Métis Federation, including the possibility of the power to prosecute and imprison accused individuals. Because the Manitoba Métis Federation is not definitively geographically bound or defined in the treaty, Manitoba Métis Federation laws could potentially apply anywhere inside western Canada and beyond.”
“It requires us to confront them before they become drawn-out lawsuits, which can still happen despite the best efforts of drafters, and to anticipate and resolve disputes in more conciliatory ways. It requires us to ask whether consultation in other indigenous communities was sufficient to anticipate the potential challenges this treaty might face. The first reason for caution is that the treaty itself says that it is a treaty within the meaning of sections 25 and 35, that it has the force of law, is binding on all persons and bodies, and engages the honour of the Crown. Once Parliament gives effect to that, the courts, not the ministers, become the final interpreters of what this text means. If Parliament leaves ambiguity in a constitutional instrument, Parliament is not choosing flexibility, but risking future litigation.”
“We even support the Manitoba Métis Federation's choice, as is their right, to negotiate and enter into an agreement that empowers them to move away from the Ottawa bureaucracy. As a first nations person, I would not personally support growing the ISC bureaucracy as a part of implementing this treaty. A key part of the Manitoba Métis Federation's self-governance is its freedom to choose its partners even if ISC has shown a long history of being unreliable and abusive to other indigenous communities. Supporting the Manitoba Métis Federation's self-determination and governance over its own people does not require us as legislators to ignore potential challenges with implementation.”
“As members of Parliament, we have a duty to combat such abuse and bring respectful dialogue to such important matters, and this is a very important matter. We need to take the time to make sure this bill that proposes to bring the agreement into Canadian law and constitutional law is well-built. This is why this debate should not be reduced to a false choice between reconciliation and scrutiny. Parliament can support reconciliation and still insist on precision. In fact, when legislation will constitutionalize a treaty under sections 25 and 35, precision is a part of reconciliation. Conservatives support treaty rights. We support Métis self-government. We support modern agreements that are durable, constitutional and workable.”
“The treaty also links itself to the unfinished reconciliation identified in the Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada action. I want to acknowledge President Chartrand and his leadership, which has led to the Manitoba Métis Federation becoming a socio-economic driving force in Winnipeg, Manitoba and beyond. I also want to show respect for those other indigenous governments for helping with the conversation about what could be improved within the treaty and for their courage for respectfully bringing their concerns to the broader discussion. I know from experience that indigenous critics can experience the most severe forms of abuse from outsiders and insiders via lateral violence, despite the shared goal of building solid foundations for future generations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise and speak to this bill on the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. I want to begin with respect for the Manitoba Métis Federation. The work we discussed today did not appear overnight. It reflects decades of organizing, advocacy, negotiations and constitutional work done by the Manitoba Métis Federation and the Red River Métis citizens. The Red River Métis people have fought for recognition and their place on the land since before Canada became a country in 1867. In most recent history, the agreement itself records a long path, a 2016 framework agreement, a 2018 incremental reconciliation plan, a 2000 interim fiscal financing agreement and a 2021 self-government recognition and implementation agreement, all leading up to today.”
“Mr. Speaker, currently, the Canada Energy Regulator has confirmed that the Manitoba Métis Federation does some level of consultation in northern B.C. for major projects on the environmental effects of traditional section 35 rights. Should one day the Métis be in Quebec and want to acknowledge section 35 rights there, would my colleague from the Bloc Québécois be okay with that level of new jurisdiction in Quebec as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing this forward. Certainly, we see self-determination on behalf of any indigenous community, any Métis community included, as being a good thing. The minister ended her last comments by talking about registration and identifying as a part of that community and that nation. The Liberal government took a different approach when it came to consultation regarding Bill S-2 , which would ultimately define who first nations people are as part of the status in the Indian Act. They have undertaken significant consultations and delayed that bill. On this one, I have heard from first nations that they have had zero or very minimal consultation on this. I am wondering if the minister could explain the level of consultation taken with first nations on this bill versus Bill S-2 .”
“As Conservatives, we always stand for safer communities, meaningful consequences for crime and a justice system that puts victims first. As we enter the break as parliamentarians and go into Easter, too many families out there have an empty seat at their table. This bill, while not filling that spot at their table, would certainly help bring closure for those families. I support this bill. Help us pass it through this House.”
“They know compassion for victims and accountability for offenders are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Bill C-236 strikes that balance. It would ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes face consequences that reflect the gravity of their actions. It would ensure that parole is treated not as an entitlement but as a privilege that must be earned, and it would ensure that victims are not forgotten in the process. Our justice system must be worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. That trust is eroded when violent offenders are considered for release too soon. It is eroded when families feel unheard. It is eroded when accountability is replaced with leniency. Supporting Bill C-236 is an opportunity to begin restoring trust in our justice system.”
“Too often in this country, victims and their families feel like an afterthought. They are asked to attend parole hearings to recount their pain and fight for the continued incarceration of the very individuals who shattered their lives. Bill C-236 recognizes that reality. Limiting unnecessary parole hearings and strengthening denial provisions would reduce the emotional toll placed on families and tell them they would not have to keep reliving this trauma year after year. Rehabilitation is an important goal, but it cannot come at the expense of safety and justice for victims. Where genuine rehabilitation has occurred, our system already has mechanisms to recognize it, but where it has not, the risk remains high. Parole must be strongly considered to be denied. Canadians understand this balance.”
“It is about restoring confidence in our justice system. From a Conservative perspective, this is straightforward. First, public safety must always come first. A government's primary duty is to protect its citizens. When someone has demonstrated a pattern of violent behaviour, the risks they pose cannot be minimized or ignored. Strengthening parole criteria in those circumstances is not excessive. It is responsible. Second, accountability matters. Criminal acts, especially violent ones, must carry real consequences. If sentences are too lenient or parole is granted and considered too easily, we undermine the deterrence effects of our laws. We send the wrong message not only to offenders but to Canadians, who expect the justice system to uphold order and safety. Third, we must stand with victims.”
“Canadians expect a justice system that is fair but also firm. They expect consequences for murder. They expect that when someone commits murder, they will not have an easy path through their time in the prison system at the victim's expense. We have seen too many instances of killers considered for parole too early. We have seen families forced to relive the trauma at repeated parole hearings, year after year, uncertain whether justice will truly be served. This is not justice. It is a failure of the system. Bill C-236 would address this by allowing for longer periods between parole hearings in the most serious cases. This is about giving victims and their families peace of mind. It is about ensuring that dangerous individuals are given the harshest sentences they deserve under Canadian law.”
“In our culture, our elders teach us that those who are not sent to the spirit world through a proper funeral, protocols and ceremony cannot become our future ancestors to guide us from the spirit world in this life. To this day, there are still victims' families out there who have not received closure. Justice in Canada must put victims first. Circumstances surrounding murderers' paths through the justice system exposes serious flaws in our system, flaws that have left far too many Canadian families re-victimized by a system that often prioritizes offenders over those they harm. (1625) At the heart of this bill is critical reform ensuring that individuals convicted of the most serious violent crimes face tougher sentences and a stronger parole system when they continue to pose a clear risk to public safety.”
“The chiefs took notice of McCann's law, and the 40-plus chiefs across Treaties 6, 7 and 8 passed a resolution that stated: We support strengthening accountability by requiring offenders convicted of serious crimes to disclose information about the location of victims' remains before parole or sentencing consideration, recognizing its potential to bring closure and healing to families of [missing and murdered indigenous peoples]. These are the chiefs of the families back home in Treaties 6, 7 and 8, and I am proud of my leaders back home for supporting the action that this bill would take. This bill originated in and was written in their home territory of Treaty 6. Ultimately, in this instance, Samuel's family was granted the small, gracious closure that we all hope for, for all victims: His body was found.”
“Just this past year, the murder of Samuel Bird captured the hearts and minds of first nations indigenous peoples and all Canadians around the Edmonton, Alberta, region. Samuel went missing, and his family was desperate, searching an area larger than the city of Toronto for his remains. It was during this search, in looking for actionable, tangible ways to support Samuel's family, that the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Alberta took notice of this bill and lent its support. Of course, its priority at the time was the immediate search for Samuel, but the foresight of the chiefs had them looking into a hard future and toward their treaty partner, the Crown and the federal government, for support.”
“This means ensuring that indigenous women and girls are safe in their homes, in their communities and across this country. It means supporting practical solutions, better coordination between law enforcement agencies, stronger accountability and improved access to social supports to ensure that families are never left in the dark when tragedy strikes. It also means respecting the calls for justice, not as symbolic gestures but as actionable steps that demand measurable results. That is what McCann's law would do. It would help take an actionable, meaningful step toward those families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls who live without closure. While women are disproportionately represented in the murders in this country, this bill would affect all ages and people who are victims.”
“Between 2009 and 2021, they accounted for 5% to 7% of all homicide victims. They are six times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women, and even more alarming, they are up to 12 times more likely to go missing or be murdered. These are not just numbers. These are mothers, daughters, sisters and loved ones whose absences leave permanent holes in families and communities across the country. The national inquiry heard from over 2,300 witnesses, including survivors and their families, whose courage in sharing their truths laid bare serious gaps in policing, justice and social supports. As Conservatives, we believe the first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens, especially the most vulnerable.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-236 , or McCann's law. I want to thank my hon. colleague from Parkland for his relentless work in the mission for justice and closure and his support for those victims and their families who have not received a proper burial, which is something that all humans deserve. I acknowledge the spirit of Lyle and Marie McCann, their family and their never-ending journey to justice and closure. They, among many, have experienced the harshest crimes in our society still to this day. It is well known that indigenous women and girls also experience a disproportionate, unfair portion of these harsh crimes. Indigenous women and girls make up a small percentage of Canada's population, or roughly 2% to 4%, yet they represent a vastly disproportionate number of victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, since I have come here as a new member of Parliament, I have witnessed ISC over the last number of years go from 4,000 to 8,000 employees. I have seen ISC programs double and the results for first nations and indigenous peoples come down. Can the member reflect on how focusing on empowerment through root causes is better than focusing on expanding budgets for government bureaucracy and bloated programs?”
“Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the original version of the bill is Bill C-38 through the Nicholas decision, and it affects primarily the Michel band in particular, of over 3,000 people approximately. I think the Liberals are phrasing this as one or the other. We can have both, and we can make history today. The government has traditionally gone through litigation to change the Indian Act. This time it can redefine reconciliation and be proactive to stay out of long, costly court cases and do both to honour the Michel band but also get rid of the second-generation cut-off for generations to come, today.”
“Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the Indian Act needs to be dispelled, but it is first nations that have to be the primary driver of that. I agree with my colleague in that regard. For this legislation, I accept the amendments the Senate made. Again, we cannot let perfect get in the way of progress. The Indian Act is still going to be generations and decades ahead at different paces for first nations communities, but ultimately what we are talking about here today is the federal government's relationship specifically to status individuals, and government being able to lead on that to get rid of it today and get rid of discrimination.”
“Mr. Speaker, ultimately, as I said, the decisions and the destiny of first nations and indigenous people lie in their own communities. I agree with that principle, but I also think that this is a delay tactic from the Liberals. Quite frankly, it is not consistent with their position when it came to not consulting on Bill C-5 and on Alberta's MOU. Right now, I think that first nations have that opportunity. The amendments contemplate a one-year transition period, but there is more than ample opportunity and resources for first nations to do the right thing, which they want to do, to move their own membership definitions.”
“I challenge the Liberals to not use delay tactics when it is politically convenient, to show leadership and to put in the work to pass Bill S-2 , which honours the Nicholas decision and gets rid of the second-generation cut-off, expediently during this Parliament.”
“Ottawa needs to focus less on political ISC programs and more on the systematic empowering of indigenous peoples. I am proud to say that this is also the guiding principle of our Conservative leader and the Conservative team when it comes to indigenous-Canada relationships. I think all members of the House know that to be true, but the House has to be better at acting on that principle. I am finding the balance of being an MP and a person with first nation status. When my time here is done, I cannot look back and say that I did nothing to speak to and act against the extinction of first nations people, which by some accounts will peak in approximately 30 years. I am here to honour the principle of treaty that Canadians and first nations people will work together as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.”
“The ISC minister and my own community have found it. Membership and families should be defined by the first nations themselves, not by Ottawa. Nearly half of first nations have found the solution, and the government should focus its efforts on the capacity to facilitate first nations to move from section 11 to section 10 bands, or modern, self-government, self-determining agreements with the federal government. The first nations need to meet Canada halfway and make this a priority by putting in the work to define their own membership laws. That was my attitude when I was chief, and it is the attitude I still carry to this day as a Conservative member of Parliament. First nations are the masters of their own destiny, not Ottawa.”
“We have heard from an uncle who signed a nephew's birth certificate so that the child did not have to be ostracized from their own community and from a kokum who lives on reserve and is transitioning to her spirit journey who is not able to pass on her life's belongings and her home to her children and grandchildren. We heard from first nations entrepreneurs, including an owner who will be forced to sell his business to a band in order to keep it indigenous-owned because his daughter is non-status. We listened to the AFN youth council speak to how they are not leaders of tomorrow, but leaders of today, who are there to address the government on this issue because they will ultimately not be a part of seeing whole first nations communities and families go extinct in their lifetime. There is a longer-term, principled fix here.”
“Since the Senate initiated this challenge, I have heard some of the toughest stories. If the government is truly about nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation, it will have to act to respond to these stories by getting rid of the second-generation cut-off and honouring the Nicholas decision. There are stories such as that of a chief from Manitoba who raised her daughter with language, culture and ceremony, but because of the second-generation cut-off, the chief's daughter is systematically not a first nations person. Who is the government to uphold the law in telling the chief that her daughter is less than others in her own family? This is certainly not reconciliation, and it is not nation to nation.”
“I respectfully challenge the minister and offer my help and advice for the work necessary to help end discrimination against women and children and end the second-generation cut-off in that work. I give thanks to my fellow Conservatives for giving me the ability to issue that challenge, which is rooted in aligning first nation and Conservative values to end discrimination. It is also rooted in aligning values, such as self-determination and self-responsibility, lower government control of the people, the protection of traditions and the transmitting of those traditions down through generations, and the protection of the institution of family to keep families together. Conservative values and indigenous values can align. This is ultimately about keeping families together.”
“Speaker, just yesterday I was proud to sit in the House and witness my Conservative colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes be supported with the unanimous consent of all parties to amend the Criminal Code to end coerced and forced sterilization, which unfortunately disproportionately affects indigenous women and girls. It was a powerful moment between all parties that will bring justice and hope for the future. (1035) Furthermore, the 45th Parliament is unique. In 2025, Canada helped elect the first indigenous woman to become Minister of Indigenous Services , and I am proud to have been asked by our Conservative leader to sit as the shadow ISC minister.”
“The government can be proactive in reconciliation by doing the right thing now before going through long, costly litigation to end sex discrimination in the Indian Act. As Conservatives, we want to help lead a new chapter in reconciliation. We are proud to be an opposition that challenges the government to meet higher standards. That is the power of Parliament and its relationship with first nations peoples. It is a relationship that can be one of the defining aspects that shows that the House can work together rather than being defined by political differences. Mr. Speaker, I need to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes . The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. Billy Morin: Mr.”