Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the mover, Mr. Hawkins, and the seconder, Mr. Yakeleya, for bringing us here today and to thank the many stakeholders, as was mentioned in both their statements, who allowed us to recognize this very important piece in our Canadian history.

When one reviews the motion in detail, it is extremely hard to ignore as the facts speak for themselves and they’re daunting. It’s clear from a broader perspective this motion is really dealing with the dysfunction of our social conditions and circumstances from substance abuse, chronic violence, economic deprivation, cultural trauma from residential schools and colonialism in general. Yet to the heart of the debate the questions that still bear asking, what will such an inquiry accomplish and how? What questions should this inquiry try to put to rest and how would things change moving forward?

If anything, the calling for such an inquiry appears to have become almost the default political position for many where it sparked opposition in its framework.

I have thought long and hard in preparation for today’s motion. I have scoured the opinions of political analysts. I have reviewed the many positions of First Nations organizations across the country, and I read numerous reports and their findings. My conclusion is actually mixed, but it is supportive, and I would like to explain.

Many believe that such a national inquiry would be very long, laboured, complex and an expensive exercise with questionable impact. Others agreed and said, yes, it will be complicated, painful and sensitive, but argued this is exactly what needs to take place during a crisis, that public record needs to take place and that this will symbolize a national narrative for the transition of healing, and I do agree with that.

As for how much this type of an inquiry would cost, this was a difficult research question to answer. Some peg it that it would cost over $60 million and others claim it could cost well into the hundreds of millions of dollars. To the question of costs, as mentioned earlier by Mr. Hawkins, is that really the determinant we should be debating? I don’t think it is.

Many believe the issue at hand would be better addressed with taking this investment and national mandating an elite police task force with Aboriginal representation to tackle the backlog of these unsolved cases. I believe the latter point would definitely have a more action-orientated outcome, but would we be resolving the root cause of the problem? I don’t think it would.

In essence, I would suggest that both approaches in a multi-pronged framework would need to come together to have truly effective resolve. Despite the potential of design flaws with such a national inquiry, in my opinion, makes little sense for me to oppose it given its tremendous influence it could have on future government policies, closure for families and public healing as a whole.

Therefore, I wish to thank Mr. Hawkins for bringing this motion to the floor of the House today and, of course, Mr. Yakeleya, for seconding it so we could have this important and needed debate for the victims and their families.