Ellis Ross
Skeena—Bulkley Valley, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, when Canadians think of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, they think of LNG and the port of Prince Rupert. These projects are important, but they are only part of the story.”
“Madam Speaker, the member gave a knowledgeable speech in terms of democracy and the way this place is supposed to work. In fact, when I came here, the Liberal government had a minority government, and things were working. It was getting comments from all the MPs in this place, and there was compromise and amendments in committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is basically democracy that translates from the House to committee. The Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP all agree with part 1 of this bill. There is no question about that. It is 9:30 at night, and after this, the committee will sit again.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very passionate speech. As opposition members, we propose to improve these types of bills with amendments. The Liberals characterize these amendments at committee stage as obstructions, yet all we are trying to do is make the bills better.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member was knowledgeable in his comments and his speech on Bill C-9 . I spoke to this bill. As an indigenous person, coming from the Indian Act and knowing that natives did not have rights until the last 50 years, I was shocked at this.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are important life-saving drugs that Canadians might not be able to access in a timely manner. Some Canadians are suffering from serious conditions and cannot access proven life-saving drugs. We know the risks, and we know the science behind these drugs is sound. Those are not the problems.”
The complete record
Every one of 288 lines we hold for Ellis Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“It has the regular rhetoric: “Message from the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations...Purpose...Context...Interpretation and application of this policy...Principles guiding the timely, effective and full implementation of modern treaties...Advancing objectives of modern treaties...[and] Direction to public servants”. (1545) That means that every single ministry under the federal government that is tasked with working with its counterparts in treaty first nations has been directed to do a job. There are headings on legislative, policy and program design considerations; monitoring, evaluation and review; and commitments to further work on essential components of the policy. Then there are the annexes. One is intergovernmental relationships, with the intergovernmental leaders' forum and the intergovernmental policy circle.”
“A first nation gives up its asserted rights and title and comes into a constitutionally protected document agreement in good faith, in the spirit that the first nation that signs the treaty will walk beside Canada and B.C. and help build Canada together. The first nations are there. They want to implement and they want to build, not just for their own first nation but for Canada overall, but Canada is missing. In fact, the document, “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”, came from another document, “Canada's Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy”. This has more headings than the first document I named. It goes on at length ad nauseam in terms of how Canada this year will commit to implementing the treaties that it signed with first nations.”
“However, what government members will forget to tell them is that this issue is 20 years old. It comes back annually. There have been endless reports, even to the point where the Government of Canada created a document called the “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”. It has headings: “Roles and Responsibilities...Deputy Ministers' Oversight Committee...Modern Treaty Implementation Office [and] Evaluation of the Directive”. On top of that is the expected rhetoric that the government will “ensure that they are aware of, understand, and fulfill their departments' obligations pursuant to all modern treaties in effect.” It sounds good, except it does not do it. The treaty itself is supposed to be a document that says Canada, B.C. and a first nation shall work together in key areas.”
“The treaty is 20 years old and yet the people still cannot get the federal government to co-operate as a treaty partner as outlined in the treaty itself. I also have in my riding two first nations that are up for ratification, the Kitselas First Nation and Kitsumkalum. They are going through the ratification stage right now in B.C. However, they are going to face the same problems that Nisg̱a'a, Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and other first nations are experiencing right now with modern-day treaties, in that they cannot get Canada to participate in a modern-day treaty in partnership with Canada. The current Liberal government wants the world to think that if it creates a treaty commissioner there will be accountability and Canada would then get to the table and co-operate with these first nations that have signed modern-day treaties.”
“moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting the short title. He said: Mr. Speaker, before I get to my comments, I would like to draw members' attention to Cancer Awareness Month in honour of my younger sister, my mother and all those fighting this horrible disease; and the support teams who help out those who are trying to fight cancer. We are talking today about the government trying to create a new position of treaty commissioner. The rationale is that somehow this would give accountability to the government's implementing and honouring the modern-day treaties that have been signed, mainly in B.C. They were negotiated in B.C. for the last 30 or 40 years. I have the honour of having one treaty in my riding, the Nisg̱a'a Treaty.”
“Mr. Speaker, without a doubt that is exactly what we learned pretty quickly when we purchased KVI. We opened that up to everybody, native and non-native alike, including first nations from other communities because we knew we could not fulfill the workforce for LNG Canada for 50,000 workers. With Chevron coming down, that was going to be another 40,000 workers. We get the grand announcements. We get the rhetoric of building Canada strong, of being an energy superpower and all that. I do not believe any of it, but if we are going to try to get there, one of the key components is to build the workforce and make sure that the workforce, the majority of it, is Canadian.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a living example of that in my community, Haisla first nation. We could not get government support for our for-profit institution, Kitimat Valley Institute. We fixed it, not through government support, but through the corporations. I believe that this motion we are talking about is going to be discriminatory. Do colleagues know who it is going to affect the most? It will be those people with a low income. Who are the most low-income people in Canada? It is those people from first nations. I cannot accept this motion the way it is worded.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is the point of this motion then, if not to restrict federal student grants and exclude for-profit institutions like my band has? Why should we have that? This member got up earlier. I heard him say that somehow we are playing a game. This is not gamesmanship. This is about rebuilding Canada. This is about rebuilding a future for young people. Why have this restriction, especially for a lot of first nations communities all across Canada, which are doing exactly the same thing as my community? This would actually discount all those first nations' efforts to not employ just their own people, like an institution like ours, and employ native and non-native alike. It has benefited everybody. It has made Canada stronger. I do not see the point of this motion.”
“If we are going to be the energy superpower in the same vein as LNG Canada, or maybe Chevron, which left Canada, a $30-billion investment, and if we want to rebuild this, we have to rebuild the people. We have to show them hope. This motion does not do it.”
“When we think about LNG Canada, there are 50,000 construction workers. I am sad to say that not all of those construction workers came from Canada. They came from all over the place. They came from the United States. They came from all across Canada, from different provinces. I see it as a specialized industry. I get it, but we do not build the Canadian workforce by limiting our options. Canada is in a really tough spot with the trade war from the United States and the trade talks coming up. I agree, we have to be independent as a country. We have to diversify our trade, and we have to rebuild our economy after 10 years of stifled policies, regulations and legislation. However, to omit a certain educational entity is wrong. It is not building our workforce. It is not building the future.”
“They have to, otherwise we have people leaving our community. We have a brain drain, and that is what is happening right now in Canada with our best and brightest, whether they go to a public institution or not, going to the United States. This motion does not help. It punishes young people, it punishes Canadians, and why? Is it a budgetary question? If it is, just say it. However, if we want Canada to be running on all cylinders, we have to consider all the components that go into training, especially when we are talking about what we do as small first nations communities all across B.C. and Canada that want to contribute to the economy and want to get our people into the workforce. If not for the Kitimat Valley Institute, KVI, we would not have the number of people entering the workforce to build LNG Canada.”
“Everybody who works at a facility contributes to the economy, locally, provincially and federally. However, it is the next generation of workers who are going to feel this crunch, because they cannot get the training in public institutions alone. For first nations trying to be creative, trying to chart out their own futures for their young people based on the circumstances they have been given under the Indian Act, it is a tough slog. We cannot think about the idea of the chicken and egg when we are talking about economy versus education. I learned pretty quickly that everything we did for training, for education, actually returned to me in anger, because there was no economy in our region. There was a job expected after this training. At that point I understood that training and education go hand in hand with economic development.”
“For a first nation that does not have own-source revenue, it becomes a budgetary exercise and puts limits on what it can do with its younger generation. That is why we bought the Kitimat Valley Institute. We scratched together the dollars to accomplish that. This proposal excludes the Kitimat Valley Institute, which my band operates on private land, by the way. We bought the land from the provincial government, kept it in fee-simple status and keep paying the taxes on it because we understand that the economy is a lot bigger than what we are thinking about. (1235) I do not think the government is truly thinking about all the aspects that go into a private post-secondary institution, which includes taxes and employment of instructors and custodians.”
“Now, many students rely on those grants to afford their career programs, including first nations students. First nations have no real opportunity to engage with respect to what we are talking about here today. If the average aboriginal person who has never left and does not want to leave the reserve has to leave for training or employment, they will want to return to their community or their territory at some point. This is a real struggle. Not only are we telling that person to go out there and find their way in the outside world, but we are basically telling them that they are going to have to struggle with affordability issues under the Indian Act because they will not get 100% of the funding.”
“What was proposed at the Liberal convention just recently for these young people who want to leave is a $500,000 exit tax. If anybody wants to leave Canada for employment or to build a business outside of Canada, there could be an exit tax, which the Liberals debated at their convention. Not only are they stifling the economy so that young people cannot build a life, but they want to punish them with this proposed exit tax. This is not the way to build Canada into the best performing country in the G7, let alone an energy superpower. To do either of those things we need a workforce, preferably a Canadian workforce that is trained and created in Canada, within our borders. Without that, we are basically supporting the economies of other countries, especially when we are talking about labour shortages in skilled and technical fields.”
“As a small first nation band under the Indian Act, we had no money, but we could see its value because coming down the pike were forestry, LNG and mining jobs, so we did what we could to scratch together the dollars to purchase this private post-secondary institute and save it. Did we get any government help? No, we did not. It was the private sector that came to our rescue, the corporations. Those first few years were a struggle without government support, provincial or federal. Our people back then were facing the same situation that young people in Canada are facing right now. There is no opportunity or future for young people in Canada, so they are trying to leave. They are trying to go to the United States for a better opportunity to build a life.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Kitchener Centre . I am very proud to get up on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to speak to the motion, which is on the federal Canada student grant for full-time students. This brings me back to 20 years ago when my small first nation, the Haisla Nation, was trying to integrate our people into the economy, specifically into the workforce. Basically, what we are debating here is a motion about the federal government restricting student grants for public institutions and not-for-profit private institutions. While we are talking about this, I have to talk about the Kitimat Valley Institute, a private post-secondary institute in my riding, in the town of Kitimat, that was bankrupt. We could see the value in saving the Kitimat Valley Institute.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Indian Act, I have a special concern when it comes to civil liberties and the freedoms and rights of Canadians. However, when we are talking about protecting civil liberties, the Liberal government says that is based on conspiracies when, really, all we are trying to do is protect the freedom of Canadians. Can my colleague give some examples of the Liberal government trying to promote the overreach of government, which nobody wants in this House or in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member brought up AI in reference to our elections. Canada is so far behind in data centres and AI. It is becoming a bigger issue in the House of Commons. How much more work does the member think we have to do, with the technologies already in place, in places like China, that are interfering with our elections?”
“Mr. Speaker, this could have been avoided. The Liberal government's secret approach to agreements, such as the Musqueam rights recognition agreement, without transparency or clear protections for private property, has added to the anxiety private property owners are already experiencing. The consequences are uncertainty, stalled sales and the potential to derail previous reconciliation efforts. Will the Prime Minister commit today that no future agreements will be signed unless they explicitly protect and prioritize the private property rights of Canadian homeowners?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan ruling has created uncertainty for homeowners and first nations in B.C., calling into question whether private property rights are secure. Canadians are already struggling with affordability. They should not have to wonder whether or not they own their own homes. Cowichan themselves said that they did not seek to invalidate private property ownership. Will the Prime Minister direct his lawyers to thoroughly argue in court that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must be a priority as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent description of this bill. It is not really talking about jurisdictions or provinces per se, but I want the member to talk about jurisdiction in terms of international borders, especially the United States. Some of the platforms the member talked about actually originate in the United States and are being advertised on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Has the government actually considered that, or is it going to wait for the bill to go to committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do recognize that integration, but it is not only in the auto industry. We are intricately connected in all sorts of trade. That is why the CUSMA negotiations are so important, but the diversification we are talking about does not mean we should spend 2.3 billion of Canadian tax dollars to help a dying industry in the United States. Why are we not investing that into the industry in Canada to bring back the jobs that were lost just this past year under the Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about, and what I try to talk about, is a made-in-Canada approach for Canadians. We have asked questions of the Canadian government about funding initiatives in Skeena—Bulkley Valley that would produce jobs and revenues for Canadians. We are talking about Telkwa Coal, which needs infrastructure. Terrace's industrial lands need infrastructure help. We are talking about the Stewart port, which needs infrastructure dollars. We have had no answers. We have the answers for a made-in-Canada approach. We do not need an approach that helps a dying electric vehicle industry in the United States. That is what this rebate is going to do. It is going to rescue the electric vehicle industry in the United States.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against affordable electric vehicles. I have nothing against affordable gas and diesel vehicles. I have nothing against them. My opposition has to do with how the rebate is essentially going to fix a dying economy in the United States, Ford and General Motors, while at the same time it will benefit Tesla, an American company that will benefit from more carbon credits.”
“Mr. Speaker, I said that because the Liberal record already shows what failure looks like. The Liberals gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Stellantis to build a manufacturing plant here. They claimed they were going to get it back. They claimed there was a promise of jobs. What did Stellantis do? It took the money and ran down to the United States to build jobs and cars in the United States. What is so different here? How will this rebate actually produce jobs and improve the economy in Canada? It is all going to benefit the United States.”
“I know that to some people here, the idea of being fiscally responsible is a joke, but under the Indian Act, it was hammered into us, as chiefs in council, that we were not allowed to go into debt or have deficits, under punishment from the federal government. Those rules are still there today. We can talk all we want about this brand new world of driving an electric vehicle—”
“It is going to cost billions more to provide the infrastructure for the EV mandates. Who is going to pay for that in the end? It will not be the government; it will be the consumers and the taxpayers. In fact, right now, I am getting complaints at my office about the new hydroelectricity bills that people got in the last couple of days. They are asking what is causing the jump, but I do not know. I know that the hydroelectricity cost for the dams in B.C. was a deferred cost. Just like with the unmanageable budget the Liberal government has put in place, at some point somebody is going to have to pay that bill. If they do not, there will be consequences to our sovereignty. There are many examples of what happens if a country cannot pay its bills.”
“This is not what the Prime Minister promised, especially when I do not think the Canadian public understands where we are going with respect to investments. This is not just investing the $2.3 billion in rebates, which will go to the auto manufacturers in the United States. According to Natural Resources Canada, we will need around 450,000 public EV chargers, along with nearly 12 million in homes, by 2035 to accommodate the projected new EV car sales. We talked a lot about this in B.C. The infrastructure we need in B.C., especially in the rural areas, is just not there. We are talking about a supply of electricity that B.C. does not have in the first place. Then there is the transmission line, which comes right into our neighbourhoods and into our homes, but it is just not there.”
“Perhaps I should say they used to work in forestry, because the industry is basically shutting down left, right and centre in B.C. An EV is not practical. Therefore, to put financial pressure on people who are already struggling with affordability, making sure they get punished if they buy a gas or diesel vehicle, is unfair. What has replaced this electric vehicle mandate? A tailpipe emissions mandate, which is going to accomplish the same thing as the EV mandate. It is going to put pressure on Canadians, especially those who cannot even think about purchasing an electric vehicle. This is not fair. Government should not be putting more hurdles and obstacles in front of Canadians, who cannot afford a home, cannot afford groceries and cannot afford to pay their utilities.”
“Well, this tax rebate is coming from the government; it is coming from taxpayers. It is $2.3 billion, and that is on top of the $52 billion that the government committed to creating an electric vehicle supply chain in Canada for a vehicle that is produced in the United States. (1725) Now we are looking at 49,000 electric vehicles coming from China. We are helping lagging economies, but doing nothing to help our own economy and our own people, whether we are talking about jobs or affordability. I will say one thing, and I talked about this a lot in the B.C. legislature, but the electric vehicle mandate was unfair and unreasonable. Putting financial pressure on people to buy an electric vehicle, especially in ridings like mine, in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, where it is not practical for those who work in forestry or on farms.”
“There are the promises made by the Prime Minister . He promised that we are going to be the strongest performing country in the G7. No, we have a failing grade on that. He promised that we are going to be an energy superpower. No, we are not. He wanted to be judged by the price of groceries at the grocery store. No. One of the most significant promises he made was to President Trump, and it was that he was going to invest $1 trillion Canadian into the United States economy. I think we are well on the road to seeing that promise fulfilled, even if it is in instalments, like a $2.3-billion rebate going to the electric vehicle manufacturers in the United States. By the way, when the Prime Minister came back to Canada, he clarified that it would not be taxpayer dollars, but that it might be private investment dollars.”
“We will be sending $2.3 billion of rebates to help a failing industry in the United States, and our auto manufacturers, or what is left of them in Canada, that do not produce electric vehicles will have to buy carbon credits from an American company. How is this building Canada strong? We hear all these talking points, but everything is actually geared toward the United States and helping its economy, helping it with its jobs and helping it re-establish its manufacturing sector. Canada not only is helping it with this rebate, but we also previously gave Stellantis hundreds of millions of dollars to produce jobs and vehicles in Canada. What did Stellantis do? It said, “Thank you very much,” left Canada and went to the United States. It is going to build a plant down there. Everything is geared toward the United States.”
“Canada is actually throwing a lifeline to America for EVs made in the United States with a rebate. There is only one car that could possibly qualify for the rebate that we are talking about; the rest of it is going to help an industry that is dying in the United States. The agreement the government signed with China is going to help an industry that is dying in China. It is an over-produced, over-subsidized vehicle. However, it does not end there. Tesla has revenues coming from carbon credits. Since 2017, without selling anything, it has raised over $10 billion in carbon credits from auto manufacturers that do not produce electric vehicles, including those in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is tough to get back to House business given the events that happened in Tumbler Ridge on Tuesday. Canada is still trying to recover. We send our thoughts and prayers to the community, the people and the families of Tumbler Ridge. They are going to have a long journey of healing. My family is quite upset about this. Today, we are talking about electric vehicles and the rebate initiative from the federal government. Listening to the speeches, I keep hearing the conversation go back to how we are supporting Canadian auto worker, that the world is moving towards electric vehicles and how Canada intends to join that trend, but American EV automakers are actually writing off their losses, and the same thing is happening in China. Its domestic sales are collapsing.”
“Would my colleague agree that basically there are enough provisions in the treaty, as well as organizations that are demanding accountability from the government—”
“Mr. Speaker, representatives from that side of the House, the government, claim that the Conservatives have no idea what we are really talking about, when what we are talking about is accountability. I was a chief councillor. I was a chairman of the treaty negotiations. I was actually part of First Nations Summit, an advocacy group based out of Vancouver of all chief negotiators. I know of the six oversight committees that are actually fighting for basic accountability. There is also the Auditor General, the highest, most powerful, basically non-political group in Canada, who has been telling the government that it has to respect treaties. The only group in the House that does not respect accountability for treaty implementation is the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, this debate is centred around accountability in terms of the minister or the government not honouring or respecting treaties, yet it is already written into the provisions. One of the most powerful and most senior institutions the government has is the Auditor General, who says the government should respect treaties, but the government ignores that. There are oversight committees that have been talking about exactly what is contemplated in this bill, and the government ignores it. To my colleague, I agree, but does this add or take away from the frustrations that first nations are experiencing in treaty bands today?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of Skeena-Bulkley Valley. The petition calls for the government to scrap the reckless expansion of MAID to those suffering with a mental illness as a sole underlying medical condition. They also state in this petition that this is wrong since the government has already failed to meet its promises to expand mental health supports.”
“Madam Speaker, in Canada, we already have one of the most senior and most powerful institutions. The Auditor General is already saying that Canada is failing at its treaty obligations. There are half a dozen oversight committees. There are aboriginal groups advocating for government to live up to its commitments under treaties. There are also the treaty provisions themselves that speak to accountability. Would the creation of a new commissioner compel the ministers and the government to live up to treaty obligations?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her experience with indigenous negotiations, land claims and treaty negotiations. I think the question on this side of the House is not about the purpose of the commissioner but about the reality of the minister's not being held responsible for not implementing a treaty. Everything in a treaty has provisions in terms of what the Crown should be doing to be an equal treaty partner. Even the bill we are talking about today says nothing that would compel the minister to honour a constitutionally protected, documented treaty. Is there any type of language that says that the government would actually uphold the honour of the Crown in terms of implementing treaties that have been in existence for the last 30 or 40 years?”
“Madam Speaker, I am listening to the debate. The government and our colleagues down the way want more oversight. Speaking as an aboriginal leader, especially regarding the Indian Act, I think there is already a ton of oversight. There are countless committees. The insult here is that first nations have signed the highest agreement in the Canadian Constitution, yet they are being afforded a different type of disrespect. They are not getting the full partnership the treaty promised. What is outlined in every one of the chapters and provisions is what should be implemented as a partnership. Now we are talking about adding another oversight committee. Can my colleague talk about what it really means when we say, “Let us hold the minister responsible for implementing a treaty”?”
“Madam Speaker, back in my day, I was a treaty negotiator for my band. We did not sign a treaty, but I heard the same complaints for 20 years. Members of government and members of the Bloc talk about transparency, which has been alive and well in this place for the last 20 to 30 years. We have seen hundreds of reports go through this chamber on what the first nations are complaining about in terms of implementation. What we are talking about here is accountability. What is the use if the minister in charge will not make a decision or not interact with the first nation that signed one of the highest reconciliation agreements in Canada, which is protected by the Constitution? Do we need more transparency, or do we need more accountability in terms of Bill C-10 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, there are a lot of Canadians watching us who will be affected by this high-speed rail network and the right-of-way, which I heard is going to be 10 kilometres wide. For those watching at home who are wondering what is going on, we are talking about consultations and high-speed rail, yet the motion is simply asking for an apology to the people of Mirabel for the expropriation that happened in 1969. Is there any appetite for the government to respond to the motion on the floor today and what the Bloc is proposing?”
“Mr. Speaker, if everybody already sees the need to build up the economy, would an official apology from the government not actually be a big step in terms of clearing up the right-of-way for a high-speed rail?”
“Mr. Speaker, this debate is really the Bloc asking for an apology for an expropriation of land that happened in 1969 and for the past not to be repeated, but I think we are coming across one of the fundamental problems that comes along with fast-tracking. Everybody understands the need to build our economy, build pipelines and build high-speed rail, but we have some fundamental human problems that come up when we talk about fast-tracking, which may override some fundamental issues. If everybody understands the need to support— An hon. member: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate today, I hear two conversations: One is for an apology for past expropriations, and one is for the fast-tracking of a high-speed rail. To be honest, I did not know about these issues before today, but in doing some research, I am more interested in the process and the mechanics. Can my colleague across the way answer whether the same mechanics, in terms of expropriation and land acquisition, will apply to a pipeline being fast-tracked and built to the west coast of British Columbia?”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion is an apology to the residents of Mirabel for expropriation. I am using this opportunity for educational purposes. I did not know about this happening back in 1969. I get why the Bloc has put this motion on the table, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. The government seems to be reluctant to support the motion. In terms of expropriation, what is the member's understanding of where this takes place? Does it take place within the environmental assessment, or does it take place outside the environmental assessment that provides some type of pathway for high-speed rail?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are having two debates here. The government is trying to sell high-speed rail, but nobody I have seen get up today opposes the idea of high-speed rail. I think our Bloc colleagues are suggesting that we do not repeat history. I will take a different approach. In terms of what happened to first nations, a lot of education had to happen before we could start to understand what we are trying to reconcile. I think what the Bloc is getting at is that we should educate Canadians on the dangers of expropriation, based on the past, so we do not repeat it in the future. Would my colleague from the Bloc agree with that statement?”
“Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate, I heard two different speeches and two prerogatives over the last hour. It seems to me that the Bloc's motion is simply asking for an apology for expropriation that happened in 1969, in a formal manner, coming from the House and coming from the government. However, the government has not acknowledged the motion. All the government members are talking about is the high-speed rail. I get both sides. They both make sense. Bringing us back to the motion, I can sympathize with the Bloc because as a first nations member, I, along with my people, experienced the exact trauma that their members have explained. Could the minister tell us if the government has any intention to actually acknowledge the motion that is on the floor today?”