Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have this opportunity to rise during adjournment proceedings today.
This is in follow-up to my question of December 7, 2015. On that day I asked the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs to tell Canadians the full costs of implementing the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Not only did I not get a cost, which I had asked for, but I also asked if they had analyzed the implications. This is an important area that I felt we needed a more fulsome discussion of.
The commission, of course, was created by the Conservative government in 2007. A year later the former prime minister, the hon. member for Calgary Heritage, stood in the House and apologized to former students and their families for the Canadian government's role in the operation of the residential schools.
There is no doubt that the school system had a profoundly lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage, and language. There is no place, as has been noted a number of times, in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential school system to ever prevail again.
Of course, it took extraordinary courage for the survivors who came forward to share their painful memories. It is a testament to their resilience as individuals and to the strength of their culture. The scars are a long way from healing. The work of the commission is a step towards that goal.
The Prime Minister has promised Canadians a transparent government. He has promised Canadians that his government will implement each of those 94 recommendations.
While many of the recommendations are excellent and necessary, I believe the government needs to appropriately calculate and share with Parliament the full cost and implications of them with Canadian taxpayers, including for example the implications of our accepting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and what impact that might have and what the assessment is of that in terms of Canada's economic future.
The declaration calls on countries not just to consult and accommodate indigenous people on laws and projects that might affect them, as Canada has been doing, but also to obtain their full consent.
There are many legal minds who have suggested that this will give a veto. Implementing this declaration was in the minister's mandate letter. Is it the intention of the federal government to give a veto over specific development projects? Obviously, indigenous people have the right to be consulted, but I do believe it is important for the federal government to maintain its final authority. Otherwise there is no clear process to follow. Legislation and projects may be stonewalled indefinitely, whether they involve natural resources or tourism. These projects are vital as we struggle with difficult times. They are vital for our economy. We need to have clarity around what that means. We cannot operate with that level of ambiguity.
In addition, there were many far-reaching recommendations, from money for truth and reconciliation centres, to monuments, athletic programs, and CBC/Radio Canada.
Again, we absolutely need to move forward on these important recommendations, but there are some that perhaps need a second view. We need to share with Canadians fully the costs and the implications.