Debates of June 12th, 2026

Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a real pleasure to hear the speech of my colleague, and I deeply appreciate his work for first nations. As everybody know, I am very proud to be a member of the House, because I represent Wendake, in my riding, and I am very proud to have been the representative of its people for the last 18 years here in the House of Commons and before that in the national assembly.

Let me remind members that many years ago, on June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Harper apologized for the crimes that had been done at the residential schools, but a lot of things have not been done yet, especially one of the key elements in our policy when we talk about the first nations as partners in prosperity. Could the member explain to Canadians what we mean when we are using the words “partners in prosperity” with respect to first nations?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this context, we are talking about prosperity if we are to build energy projects pretty much anywhere in the country, but mostly we are focused on expanding opportunities to the Pacific. That is a lot of what we are talking about. A lot of these projects, pretty much all of them, run through first nations land, either treaty territory or land claims.

Therefore, if we are going to build in that direction, out west, we need to ensure that consultation is done properly, ensure that first nations are active partners in projects and ensure that they are receiving benefits through jobs, impact benefit agreements; what we were proposing before the election, the resource charge; and transferring and ceding tax room on the federal level, providing the opportunity for the companies to pay the nations directly for those taxes. We need to ensure that they are getting all benefits available to them, to ensure that they share in the prosperity of all.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to get clarity. When the government brings forward self-government agreements, as long as they are focused on areas like governance, citizenship, culture, language and education and they are not focused on land or private property, is it the Conservative position that the Conservatives would be supporting self-government agreements?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that would be impossible to say, because most self-government agreements include a land claim, so those two things are not separate. They can have modern treaties that involve land in what we would be supporting.

What I was going to say to supplement, and should have said during the first round, is that what makes this piece of legislation very easy to accept is that the land claim was done in 1993. The land claim was already settled. This one, however, is focused on government, but there are many treaties that have come forward that we have supported, one being that of Whitecap Dakota Nation, that actually involved land and that we supported and rushed through the House in just a few days. Therefore, there are opportunities for treaties that involve land, as long as they are not impacting private property, or they include protections for private property. That is a line we cannot cross.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate today, we heard the minister say that this agreement is a model to inform future treaties, yet the most recent treaty, the K'ómoks Treaty, which my colleague also mentioned, introduces the concept of UNDRIP, a foreign document. This is not made in Canada. Could my colleague comment on how important it is for Canada to stick to made-in-Canada solutions when we are drafting our treaties?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that also brings the point we were discussing earlier, and yesterday in committee, that there are U.S. tribes that are trying to seek legal standing in decisions to be made in Canada, specifically around consultation, whether about energy projects or otherwise. U.S. tribes should not be interfering in decisions made in Canada. These are our projects and our resources, and these are our benefits to achieve. We do not need interference from any outside sources, so the government should be doing everything it can to ensure that our decisions are made domestically, not internationally.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, again, for the House, I will say that a comprehensive agreement can include a self-government piece as well as a land piece. There are agreements that are just about land, but there are also agreements that are just about self-government. If it is not about land, are the Conservatives supportive of legislation that is just about self-governance?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that solving land claims and self-governance are good things. They are not always mutually exclusive. They often intertwine and are the same. We are more than happy for land claims be resolved and for there to be self-government over those lands. We would be very supportive, but the government is mixing up the two. The land claim here, and I am talking about Bill C-27, not anything else at this moment, was already dealt with, so we are dealing only with the governance structure of it.

Whitecap Dakota Nation had the self-governance and cleaned up the land claim as well, which was supported. They both can become one, and they both can be supported by us, except when the government creates something where it stops arguing for fee simple property, such as in the Cowichan decision, which allowed uncertainty to take hold in the city of Richmond. That is something we have an issue with. There is a Musqueam agreement that is like a menu, in which the government, knowing the uncertainty Cowichan created, did not ensure that private property was not available for negotiation. It may not include private property at the end of the day, but the fact that the government failed to take it off the table is a shortfall on its part.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is important that we distinguish among self-government agreements, land claim agreements, comprehensive agreements and constructive arrangements, such as parks agreements. It would be important to understand the Conservative position when it comes to only self-government agreements, because they are sometimes stand-alone agreements that are separate from land agreements and other constructive agreements.

If I could understand the Conservatives' position when it comes to self-governance, that would be really appreciated.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this.

It depends what the government is putting on the table. I think we have outlined what we will support and what we will not. If the minister, in the time available, would like to lay out a specific example, maybe I could give a better answer. She is throwing out, “Will Conservatives support this?”, but we do not know what would be in it. If the K'ómoks Treaty were done properly, I think we would have a better chance of pushing it through the House. If the Cowichan decision were argued properly, I think we would have a different outcome for the people of the city of Richmond.

To answer this broad question that could include anything, when the government is not putting anything on the table, is very difficult.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Westbank First Nation is one of the indigenous communities in my riding. It obviously has its own governance agreement.

Would the member enlighten us and say what he believes is a good message for people, not just in the Okanagan but right across B.C.? What would they like to hear from the Conservative Party right now?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what I laid out in my speech is that economic activity and economic reconciliation benefit all people, whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. We need to build quickly, and the government is not doing that. If we build quickly, we have jobs, opportunity and wealth, but the government is throwing every barrier in the way.

In addition, I mentioned Tom Siddon and his wife, Pat, and the member will be happy to know that I mentioned the work they did on the land claim in 1993 to finalize it for those nations.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 8 p.m. and perhaps call it a week.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Accordingly, pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 9, 2026, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:39 p.m.)