Bill C-77 (Historical)

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation

This enactment provides for the appointment of a Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation to conduct reviews and performance audits of the activities of government institutions related to the implementation of modern treaties. It also establishes the Office of the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation for the purpose of assisting the Commissioner in the fulfillment of their mandate and the exercise of their powers and the performance of their duties and functions. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Motions in Amendment

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am very happy to represent Nunavummiut on this side of the House.

I was a parliamentarian when this bill was originally tabled in the 44th Parliament as Bill C-77, so I do have some history with this bill.

I would like to also acknowledge that we are on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe people of these lands.

This bill is such an important bill because it was co-developed with modern treaty organizations. Indigenous modern treaty partners have worked hard to get this bill to this state. They have sought independent oversight and accountability mechanisms of the federal government to modern treaty implementation. We must honour their work and do what we can to get this bill passed. The modern treaty holders deserve to have their work reflected in the work we do as parliamentarians.

Canada is currently implementing 27 modern treaties. Of these 27 modern treaties, six include a comprehensive land claims settlement agreement, one includes only self-government provisions and is unrelated to any land claim, and 20 address both comprehensive land claims and self-government in some way. This is an important bill because of the accountability that would be sought and it would ensure the federal government meets its treaty obligations. Modern treaties are a constitutionally entrenched commitment between Crown and indigenous partners to build true nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships. An independent commissioner with audit and reporting powers could hold government departments to account and overcome long-standing inertia in treaty implementation. The commissioner would be important to ensure non-partisan oversight. Bill C-10 is important because it would advance reconciliation and self-determination through oversight and accountability of the federal government.

Modern treaties create stability and predictability over rights, lands and interests. The creation of the commission would help ensure better and timelier treaty implementation. It could reduce legal disputes and uncertainty, enabling indigenous economic participation.

I am disappointed to hear the Conservatives trying to diminish the important work of the modern treaty partners that co-developed this bill. Creating the commissioner is not just about creating bureaucracy. It is an added mechanism to ensure reconciliation. Just like in public safety, there is not only one office that ensures it. We do not only rely on the RCMP. We do not only rely on CSIS. We do not only rely on municipal law enforcement. That is the same for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Reconciliation cannot only be completed by one department of the Government of Canada. Monitoring implementation cannot only be done by the Auditor General of Canada.

As an agent of Parliament, the independence of the office would be crucial to ensure that modern treaty nations and governments have a means to strengthen their relationship while avoiding legal action. Modern treaty holders have said at committee that the only recourse they have is to seek legal action. We all know how costly these legal actions become. Ensuring there is a better way to have modern treaty partners work with government departments through the commissioner would help to strengthen relationships so that the commissioner, as an independent oversight body, one that does not have party affiliations, would help ensure the independence reported by the commissioner to this Parliament and we would have records and debates about the important work the commissioner would do.

The commissioner's work would cover all federal activities related to modern treaty implementation. This includes work tied to the treaties themselves as well as associated self-government agreements or related arrangements. The commissioner would focus on whether federal action aligns with three core principles: one, strengthen relationships with treaty partners; two, advance the obligations and objectives outlined in agreements; and three, uphold the honour of the Crown through timely and effective implementation.

Reviews would be the commissioner's most flexible tool. It would be fit for purpose, which means the commissioner would be able examine many things, including a single federal activity, how multiple departments act on a shared obligation, recurring issues raised by one or multiple modern treaty partners, or systemic barriers that appear across agreements.

As has been mentioned by others in this House, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, has worked in partnership with the Land Claims Coalition to ensure that this bill was introduced. I commend it for its work to ensure that innate rights based on the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are being implemented. We must do what we can to ensure that the many modern treaty holders who have worked hard are being heard. I appreciate all the work that's been done.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of reconciliation, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C‑77 in the last Parliament and we will support Bill C‑10 as well.

From what I understand, my colleague is telling us that having more transparency in the implementation of treaties would create more awful bureaucracy. A few days ago, we voted on Bill C‑228, introduced by the Bloc Québécois, which called for free trade agreements to be debated in Parliament. That bill would not have created any new bureaucracy at all. The Conservatives always like to say that they do not mind working long days in Parliament. When it was time to vote on Bill C‑228, which did not create any new bureaucracy, my colleague voted against it.

When it comes down to it, is it possible the Conservatives just have a bit of an issue with transparency?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, Bill C-10 is a reproduction of Bill C-77, which was originally tabled in the last Parliament. As we did at that time, we support this bill in its current form, as it is a reproduction.

I would like to thank, first of all, Aluki Kotierk, who was the former president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. She worked hard to ensure this bill would be introduced to help make sure that modern treaty obligations are being implemented. I also thank the Liberals for putting it in the calendar so we can inch it forward toward getting it to committee to make any amendments to help make sure the issues posed during debate are addressed.

Bill C-10 has been in the works for more than 20 years. Indigenous modern treaty partners have been working toward this. They have sought the independent oversight and accountability mechanisms of the federal government on modern treaty implementation.

There are some reasons we support this bill. First, it is a safeguard. Second, it would help ensure accountability and would put Canada in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous peoples have been partners in the creation of this bill, and it would advance reconciliation and self-determination. I think helping to realize the full potential of modern treaties is an important foundation of this bill.

Just to briefly explain what I mean by it being a safeguard for indigenous modern treaty partners, it would help implement specific modern treaty obligations. Canada is currently implementing 27 modern treaties. Of these 27 modern treaties, six include only a comprehensive land claim settlement agreement, one includes only self-government provisions and is unrelated to any land claim, and 20 address both comprehensive land claims and self-government in some way.

The first modern treaty was signed in 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Nunavut Agreement was signed in 1993. I had the pleasure of being there when it was signed. The Whitecap Dakota Nation in 2023 is the latest.

Accountability would be seen if this bill is implemented by ensuring that the federal government meet its treaty obligations. We need to be reminded of the context of why this bill is particularly important. It is because the Liberal government is ignoring the rights and title of indigenous people in resource extraction and economic development in the name of nation building, specifically through Bill C-5.

Modern treaties are a constitutionally entrenched commitment between the Crown and indigenous partners to build true nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships. Establishing the commissioner would bring Canada in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, honouring commitments and advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. An independent commissioner with audit and reporting powers could hold government departments to account and overcome long-standing inertia in treaty implementation.

As I said earlier, this bill was created in consultation with indigenous modern treaty partners. Indeed, they asked for this legislation.

When Bill C-77 was originally tabled, there had been engagement with over 130 indigenous groups, including indigenous modern treaty partners, indigenous groups negotiating modern treaties, self-government agreement holders, national indigenous organizations, and provincial and territorial governments. I met with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition previously, as well as others, and there was overwhelming support for the passage of this bill.

Bill C-10 would advance reconciliation and self-determination through oversight and accountability of the federal government. Modern treaties create stability and predictability over rights, lands and interests. For example, the signing of the Nunavut Agreement included the creation of the Nunavut Impact Review Board, a strengthened role for hunters and trappers, and the important signing of a draft Nunavut land use plan. The bill would help realize the full potential of modern treaties and self-government arrangements.

About 1.8 million people self-identified as indigenous in the 2021 census, representing about 5% of the population. There needs to be better and timelier treaty implementation that would reduce legal disputes and uncertainty, enabling indigenous economic participation.

Indigenous gross domestic product has posted positive growth every year since 2012. It grew from $41.7 billion in 2012 to $54.1 billion in 2019. Indigenous entrepreneurship is on the rise, with self-employment rates among first nations, Métis and Inuit having increased since 2016. Indigenous entrepreneurs contribute approximately $48.9 billion to the Canadian economy, a figure that could increase if systemic barriers such as limited access to federal procurement opportunities are addressed.

I would like to take this time to address some of the Conservatives' concerns about what they are calling additional bureaucracy.

The bill would create a new office with costs, but it would include co-operation with the Office of the Auditor General to reduce duplication, possibly allowing for efficiency gains. There would be improved certainty and accountability around treaty obligations, which could de-risk investment, particularly in northern and resource regions, supporting project finance and partnerships.

As a reminder, Bill C-5 created new bureaucracy, two new offices, yet the Conservatives supported Bill C-5 and to have it expedited. For them to call into question whether the bill before us is appropriate because it would create a commissioner position to ensure that treaty obligations are being met is a serious concern that we must address and that can be addressed at the committee stage.

New Democrats stand in partnership with the indigenous modern treaty partners who have been consulted and are advocating for the creation of this new office of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This is actually the second time this bill was introduced. It was introduced as Bill C-77 in the previous Parliament. The Bloc Québécois supported the bill then and we still do today.

I would like to acknowledge the first nations who live in my riding and with whom I interact. I am talking about the Naskapi, who have a modern treaty, one of the first reached with Quebec in the 1970s. I would also like to acknowledge the Innu, particularly the Regroupement Petapan, which brings together the Innu first nations in Essipit, Nutashkuan and Mashteuiatsh, which is not located in my riding but in the riding of Lac‑Saint‑Jean. They have been trying to negotiate a modern treaty for 45 years. I am talking about negotiations, not even about implementation. I acknowledge them because it takes courage, perseverance, patience and even tolerance for them to work toward getting their rights recognized and included in a treaty.

We are obviously in favour of the bill because it is all well and good to say that we have a treaty, a treaty is just a vessel. We are also interested in content. It remains a promise, and it is time for action.

I must humbly say that I have now been the member for the riding of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, formerly Manicouagan, for 10 years. I witnessed everything that led up to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a process that was not easy. These rights were already being discussed long before I arrived. Essentially, we managed to enshrine that in law, but the fact remains that, under the banner of truth and reconciliation, emphasis on the word “banner”, actions are largely symbolic. Once again, we are dealing with form, communication, and appearances. However, on the ground, in the communities, in my opinion, there is no real reconciliation, and indigenous communities still do not have full access to the truth. These are therefore still only symbolic gestures.

I have heard the argument put forward by my Conservative colleagues. They say that such a measure is unnecessary, that mechanisms already exist to ensure transparency. They cite the example of the Auditor General and other positions, which, in their view, guarantee government accountability. However, these mechanisms sometimes appear to be deficient, not in terms of the Office of the Auditor General, but rather in terms of the consequences that the government should face when it fails to act as it should or within the prescribed time frame.

I can understand that argument, but at the same time, this is about defending a cause. As a Bloc Québécois member, I do not think that Quebec's voice would be heard if I were not here. I am not speaking about myself alone, of course, but my party colleagues as well. I would never be so arrogant as to say that simply about myself. In short, the Bloc Québécois is there to defend Quebec and Quebec's interests only. The same applies here. If we are not getting the results we want because of a lack of mechanisms ensuring transparent implementation and government accountability, we would obviously support the creation of a commissioner position to fill that void. In fact, indigenous peoples are calling for the creation of just such a position, which sends a clear signal. They do not feel that they are being respected. I therefore believe that we must hear them, listen to them and consult them as part of the truth and reconciliation process, because that is essential to any agreement. I think their request is legitimate.

I have spoken about the form and legitimacy of the first nations' request and about the issue of symbolic gestures, which we want to move past, but I still have some criticisms of the bill and would like to hear my colleagues' opinions afterwards.

The mechanism, of course, includes an annual report that lists, for example, the government's shortcomings in implementing modern treaties. This annual report is first submitted to the minister. Then, the minister has up to 15 sitting days from the time it is submitted to table it in the House so we can consider it. Bloc Québécois members would obviously like to receive the report immediately. We do not see why we should have to wait extra time, since the number of days the minister can wait before tabling the report in the House of Commons is highly variable, highly relative and therefore highly arbitrary. There are in fact two types of reports, and I will explain the distinction between them.

The first type is the annual report. Tabling a report in June right before the House rises obviously does not have the same impact as tabling a report during the fall, when we are sitting all the time, except for two weeks. In the latter case, we would get the report quickly. That is the first criticism. Why not give us the report right away so that we can examine it and take action as opposition members?

Let us now talk about the second type of report. The commissioner can submit a special report when they believe it is of pressing importance and should not be delayed. In my opinion, when the submission of a report cannot be delayed and a limited report is made available quickly, it is because there is an issue that needs to be dealt with urgently. If it is an urgent matter, I question the usefulness of submitting the report to the minister following the exact same rules, that is, a waiting period of 15 working days from the time the report is submitted to the minister to when we receive it. In my opinion, this does not work. If there is an emergency, we really should receive the report right away, so that we can take action.

All that first nations are asking for is transparency, so that modern treaties can be implemented quickly. Indeed, the whole issue of how fast this can be done is a factor. As I said at the outset, I have first nations in my riding that have been negotiating for 45 years. For the time being, they have no treaty. Are we going to make them wait another 50 years before these treaties are fully implemented? That is unacceptable. We want to speed things up. We also want government accountability. Naturally, the opposition parties require that same accountability. We need to be able to hold the government to account.

For all these reasons, although we accept the bill, we would like to study it in committee so we can improve it. We want the process to be really easy and to go quickly and smoothly, and we want the government to be active, but, as I humbly repeat, I have been here for 10 years and I get the impression that time moves slower in the House. It seems like things that could be done quickly and efficiently if there were some degree of determination always end up taking incredible detours and being seriously delayed. Nothing gets done. That is why, if we need mechanisms or a position like commissioner for modern treaty implementation on a temporary or long-term basis to get the government moving, then we would support that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder what the member has to say to the over 130 indigenous groups that helped co-develop this bill in its original form, Bill C-77, of which Bill C-10 is a carbon copy. What does she say to them about the hard work they did to ensure that Bill C-10 could reach the stage that it is at?

Indigenous groups have been asking for the role of the commissioner to be created so they can see legal obligations finally implemented. As she correctly said in her statement, there is not enough implementation of legal treaties with first nations, and there needs to be a commissioner position to ensure that these obligations are being met.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge first of all, with respect, that we are gathered on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, and that these territories, unceded and unsurrendered, have been a place of meeting and exchange for centuries.

I am pleased to speak today to the proposed legislation to establish a commissioner for modern treaty implementation and what the next steps in the process would be. The bill is a priority for each modern treaty nation in the Yukon, and I am pleased to say that we have in the Yukon 11 self-governing nations with modern treaties.

The proposed legislation is timely, even on its reintroduction, because we should be reminded that the bill was introduced a year ago as Bill C-77 and died with prorogation. The need, though, is even more pressing now than before. The world is changing. Canada needs to be ready, and that means building an economy that can withstand whatever comes our way. We are doing that by creating more space and opportunities for indigenous leadership, innovation and economic inclusion.

The rights and collaboration of modern treaty partners are top of mind in all this work, so the bill represents a meaningful step forward in the Government of Canada's commitment to reconciliation and to the full and fair implementation of modern treaties.

Modern treaties are not just legal documents; they are foundational agreements that affirm indigenous rights, support self-government and build a framework for respectful nation-to-nation relationships, and they must be honoured with both word and action.

Setting up and rolling out the commissioner's office and making sure it works well are key. The next steps in how we build this office would shape the trust, effectiveness and lasting relationships needed to keep Canada's modern treaty promises.

My colleagues have highlighted the ways in which we have worked with modern treaty partners to codevelop Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy, as well as an independent oversight body and the role of a commissioner tasked with holding Canada accountable for the implementation of modern treaties, and to shine a light on how federal programs and policies are or are not supporting their implementation.

The bill is about more than oversight, though; it is about trust. It is about ensuring that the commitments made in modern treaties are not only respected but also actively upheld with transparency, with accountability and with the full weight of Parliament behind them. This is especially important to the Yukon, where, as I stated, 11 of the 14 first nations have signed modern treaties and self-government agreements. Even in the Yukon, challenges persist when it comes to federal implementation. Too often, progress is slowed, and the bill would respond directly to those concerns.

We have worked closely with indigenous partners every step of the way to determine next steps. Codeveloping the proposal and legislation together was essential, not only to create a mutually agreed-upon process but also as a reflection of what Yukon first nations and others have long called for: a dedicated independent body to ensure that Canada lives up to the spirit and intent of its treaty processes, and a meaningful part of our journey toward reconciliation. As we go forward, the collaboration would continue.

Given the importance of the proposed new role, the appointed commissioner must have the confidence of both Parliament and modern treaty partners. That is why the appointment process would include direct consultation with modern treaty partners, going beyond the usual steps for other agents of Parliament. After receiving the recommendation from the minister following consultations, the Governor in Council would consult with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and in the House of Commons. It would then seek the approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons. Once this is complete, the commissioner would be appointed under the Great Seal.

The steps I have outlined today are extensive and robust, and this is by design. These steps have been specifically requested by modern treaty partners to cement the credibility of the commissioner. These steps are in line with the appointment process for all other agents of Parliament, with the addition of the consultation of modern treaty partners.

Once the proposed appointment process happens, the next step would be standing up the commissioner's office. The commissioner would have the discretion to design and operationalize their office as they see fit. This step in the process would include the designation of the location of the head office by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. In engagement sessions, modern treaty partners asked for confirmation of funding to support the commissioner. It is integral that commissioners would be appropriately funded to carry out their work and mandate.

Once fully operational, the commissioner and their office would begin working to fulfill the mandate in the proposed bill by conducting reviews and/or performance audits of any activity carried out by the Government of Canada that relates to modern treaty implementation. The commissioner would determine the procedures, terms and methodology to be followed for each review or performance audit, after engaging with the relevant modern treaty partners. Consistent with other agents of Parliament, all final reports of reviews and performance audits would be submitted directly to the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament for tabling.

It is anticipated that the commissioner would complete their first audit or review report in the third year of the office's operation and would continue to complete reports of reviews or performance audits in subsequent years. Additionally, each calendar year, the commissioner would be required to prepare an annual report to Parliament. The annual report would be provided to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who would submit it the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament for tabling. This is intended to give Parliament a direct line of sight into the operations of the commissioner and their office in the same way as with other agents of Parliament.

The work of the commissioner and the processes I have just shared have been specifically designed to, first and foremost, provide credibility, transparency and independence for the commissioner and their office. I hope the summary of the next steps, including the appointment of the commissioner, the standing up of their office and the completion of their first reports, has shed some light on our plan as we go forward.

Before I conclude, I want to highlight how important codevelopment has been in working and in moving the initiative forward, and I want to stress how vital it is to keep working closely with indigenous partners as the legislation moves ahead. As former AFN Yukon regional chief Kluane Adamek has said,

The creation of a Modern Treaty Commissioner marks a step forward in honouring the commitments Canada has made to First Nations and upholding the spirit and intent of these agreements. I commend the parties for this important work and strongly urge the Government of Canada to take all measures necessary to ensure this body is fully independent, adequately supported and resourced, and has the necessary powers to effectively fulfill its mandate.

The new role would create a significant shift in Crown-indigenous modern treaty relationships so that future governments are held accountable to Parliament for our modern treaty relationships, objectives and obligations.

It is essential to establish the commissioner's office with care and transparency, working closely alongside modern treaty partners. Doing this would help build trust so that the office can effectively carry out its important mandate. Getting it right means honouring the promises made and strengthening relationships based on respect and partnership.

We are hopeful that this important and transformative step will help Canada become a better modern treaty partner, one that is more trustworthy, accountable and transparent in its modern treaty relationships.

Meegwetch, qujannamiik, gunałchéesh, shä̀w níthän, sógá sénlá’, marsi cho.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C‑10.

It is also an honour to stop, especially given the content of the legislation, to recognize that we are all on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation. To them, we say meegwetch. We recognize in this country, and it is quite a stunning thing when one starts diving into it, how many nations and language groups there are, how many peoples whose lands we live on without noticing or thinking about the thousands of years they stewarded Turtle Island, took care of and, in many cases, welcomed and protected European settlers and allowed them to survive. I say that today because it is critical that we not just recognize the need for reconciliation on the one statutory day per year that this Parliament created a couple of years ago, which we observed on September 30. It was once known as Orange Shirt Day because of Phyllis Webstad's story, which breaks our heart, of the wonderful orange shirt that her grandmother bought for her being taken away; she never saw it again.

On that day, I know my colleagues on all sides of this House went to events in their own ridings. Many of them were here in Ottawa for the event that took place on Parliament Hill, which was very moving. If we have said it once, we have said it a million times: Reconciliation is not just one day a year; it is how we conduct ourselves, what we do and how we show that we understand the project of reconciliation.

The project of reconciliation is truly a whole-of-society project, with indigenous peoples and members of settler cultures, like the vast majority of members here.

It just about breaks my heart to have heard most of the debate in this place today as Bill C-10 comes forward. People who have been watching, any of the viewing audience, I just want to tell them that there is a story here that they are not hearing. It is likely some later-day insomniac watching CPAC.

Yes, it has taken a long time to negotiate the modern treaties. Yes, we now have 26 modern treaties, and that represents an enormous effort of the comprehensive nature of the modern treaties. In 2003, just to give a sense of history, that is obviously 22 years ago, a group called the Land Claims Agreements Coalition came together. It recognized that it was different from the treaties that took place back in the 1700s, 1800s and into the early part of this century. They recognized that modern land claim treaties were different, and they came together despite the fact that we are talking about vastly different language groups and experiences on the land and relationships with the land. They were groups as different as the Carcross/Tagish First Nation; the Council of Yukon First Nations; the Gwich’in Tribal Council, way up on the border with Alaska, where the Gwich'in need and rely on the porcupine and caribou for their sustenance, just as the Tsawwassen First Nation's modern treaty relies on the salmon and a different ecosystem altogether, with a completely different language group; and significantly, of course, the Nunavut Tunngavik, which represents an enormous chunk of Canadian territory.

Just to give a sense of what it means to have a modern treaties coalition, that work is not done by just some kind of stakeholder group; they are people who have come together, chiefs from nations that are as vastly different as if the people of my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands sat down with folks from downtown Toronto to decide what our priorities would be for grocery shopping for a potluck. We're different people from different places. It is a tribute to these first nations and peoples that they came together and formed this modern Land Claims Agreements Coalition.

The coalition is co-chaired by an extraordinarily gifted group of dedicated people. One current co-chair, Jeremy Tunraluk, is the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., which has a huge land base. The other co-chair is the president of the Nisga'a Lisims Government, Eva Clayton. They work together. They came to Ottawa this week, and I met with many of the people who were in the leadership of the modern treaties agreements, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition.

What they came together to tell us about was how long they have worked to achieve what Bill C-10 proposes. How long have they worked for that? They worked, first, to get their land claims agreements put together, to have modern treaties established and to have them accepted by the Crown. Then, over a 20-year period, they consulted about how we were going to enact this and make it happen. These first nations, Métis and Inuit people, over a 20-year period, decided that what would work would be to have an independent auditing function embodied in the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

This is something first nations, Métis and Inuit people decided, and they have been working to try to get the government to act upon it. They felt they were finally making progress on October 10, 2024, when Bill C-77, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, was tabled in this place.

I am not going to go back, because one thing that has been consistent through the day-to-day across the aisle is one party pointing at the other and saying it is the other's fault that nothing has happened so far. I am not going to go there, but I do remember why Bill C-77 did not get past first reading. We were rather stuck for a while. I am not going to discuss who was to blame for that, but Bill C-77 died on the Order Paper on January 6.

We are talking about what the peoples and the nations are asking us to do. If we are serious about reconciliation, then we must live up to the promise of 20 years of consultation in which the Government of Canada, under at least a few different prime ministers, said it would get this thing done and it would bring in, as a legislative priority, a commissioner of modern treaty implementation. It was a tool that was codeveloped over decades. It was brought forward for first reading almost a year ago now.

Bill C-77 died on the Order Paper when the House was prorogued by former prime minister Justin Trudeau, along with 25 other bills that died that day, and it has come back to us now. It was tabled for first reading on September 25, almost a full year after it started as Bill C-77, and it is now back word for word as Bill C-10.

There are the first nations and the leadership from the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, as well as all the different partners, such as the Déline Government and the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun. I mentioned some of the first nations, such as the Kluane First Nation, the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, the Toquaht Nation and the Teslin Tlingit Council. To all these people, if they have been watching Parliament today, all I can do is tell them how very sorry I am, because the last thing they expected to see was settler culture people saying that this is just a waste of time and that this will be a Liberal appointee.

This must be a commissioner who has the trust and faith of the indigenous people of this country and of the modern land claims agreements, the modern treaties. The peoples who entered into these modern treaties are saying, “If you're not serious about reconciliation, you might as well tell us now, because we've been patient.” What we were asked to do directly by the people in these land claims modern treaties is to pass Bill C-10 and to pass it quickly, as it does not need amendments.

I beg my colleagues on all sides of the House to take this small step for reconciliation. I ask them to pass the bill quickly and to not make it a political football. I ask them to be proud of themselves when they look in the mirror, so they can say they did their part to make up for the horrors of abuse. This is what we do: We pass Bill C-10.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my friend from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes and I have had an across-the-aisle exchange yet. I congratulate him on his re-election.

I would ask the member to please reconsider. There are a lot of reasons that those nations in this country, the indigenous nations that form the 26 modern treaties that have been signed and negotiated, have waited too long.

The bill before us was originally Bill C-77, which was introduced almost a year ago. It was allowed to die on the Order Paper. There is no point in going back over which parties are to blame for that, but now we must come together and get the bill passed. Can the member agree?

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about an issue that is fundamental for the future of Canada and Quebec, and that is economic development in indigenous communities. The report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs reminds us of the barriers that these communities face and that make it so that the desired outcomes are not always achieved as originally planned.

This is a critical issue, but it is also a mirror that reflects the systemic challenges that are deeply rooted in our society. Reconciliation will not be possible without eliminating the barriers that continue to prevent first nations, Métis and Inuit people from receiving a fair share of this country's wealth. This is not just a matter of social justice. It is also a matter of economic development for all.

Barriers to economic development in indigenous communities include the legacy of colonialism, the failure to recognize indigenous jurisdiction, inadequate infrastructure, administrative burdens, limited access to capital, and limited access to federal procurement opportunities. First nations, Inuit and Métis face similar barriers, but they are also confronted with challenges that are unique to their situation and their relationship with the federal government. Financial challenges are systemic barriers.

One of the major barriers we face is access to funding. Take, for example, the down payment required for any new project in an indigenous context. It is a minimum of 10%, a requirement that does not take into account the economic realities of these communities, where many people live below the poverty line. Under these conditions, how can anyone hope to undertake an economic development initiative, be it commercial or residential, if the down payment is an insurmountable barrier?

However, there is a solution in the Yänonhchia' program. This innovative solution is available in Quebec. Not only does it give the middle class on first nations lands access to home ownership, but it also stimulates a unique market for high-quality properties in various communities. We asked the Minister of Finance to provide funding at the earliest opportunity for this program, which helps members of communities in need finally get a roof over their heads. The message is clear: It is important to set the right priorities.

In addition, access to private capital continues to be a major challenge. With few exceptions, financial institutions continue to show clear mistrust toward indigenous businesses, making it extremely difficult for them to access credit. This situation is even more complex in remote communities, where transportation and material costs make projects considerably more expensive. These disadvantages mean that even the simplest construction project in indigenous communities like Wemotaci or Chisasibi will invariably be more expensive than in cities like Montreal or Quebec City. It is not just a difference in costs, it is a systemic inequality that hinders development projects from the outset.

Red tape is another factor hindering growth. The administrative burden created by governments, both federal and provincial, should not be underestimated. Funding programs are complex and poorly adapted to the realities of indigenous workers and entrepreneurs. In many cases, an application has to be submitted several times to different departments, resulting in lengthy delays and missed opportunities. This cumbersome bureaucracy only slows down the development of indigenous initiatives.

We need a more flexible, responsive approach. Decisions need to be made faster. Most importantly, the reality of indigenous communities must be taken into account in the funding allocation process. Continuing to apply rigid processes designed in urban centres is not going to solve the issue of economic development for indigenous peoples. We need decentralization, a redistribution of decision-making powers and real political will to facilitate, not impede, first nations development for and by first nations.

Geographic isolation is also a factor in economic exclusion. As we know, indigenous communities face unique, often invisible, but deeply structural barriers. They do not all experience the same realities. Some are close to urban areas and are in a better position to meet program requirements. Others, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer wisely pointed out, have difficulties that are not taken into account, such as geographic isolation. This leads to exorbitant supplier costs and creates glaring inequalities between regions. These are known as remoteness costs.

Let us not forget that many of these communities are located in remote regions, where access to infrastructure and basic services is still a survival issue. This translates into extra supplier costs, but also a lack of access to economic opportunities, federal contracts, and sometimes even adequate banking or financial services. Indigenous populations are doubly penalized, both by their remoteness and by the systemic indifference of the government, which does not adapt its policies to meet their specific needs.

Economic reconciliation is a necessity for all. It is essential to remember that economic reconciliation is not possible without the active participation of indigenous peoples in the Canadian economy. Reconciliation is about more than symbolic statements or gestures. It requires meaningful action and financial commitments. Studies show that if indigenous communities had the same economic opportunities as the other Canadians, the Canadian economy as a whole would benefit considerably. Canada could increase its GDP significantly, by $30 billion to $100 billion annually, simply by allowing indigenous people to access equitable employment conditions, training and funding. It is in everyone's interest to remove barriers to indigenous economic inclusion. We are not asking for a favour here. We are offering an opportunity that must be seized for the good of all of Canada.

The proposed opportunities are a way forward. To overcome these barriers, we must work together. It is imperative that the Government of Canada implement policies and strategies that take the realities of indigenous peoples into account. Obviously, this entails implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, in collaboration with the communities, and formally recognizing indigenous legal frameworks for the management of their lands.

The government also needs to support the creation and expansion of indigenous financial institutions that can meet the specific needs of indigenous businesses. The aboriginal financial institution network needs to be strengthened and adequately funded to foster access to capital and support the growth of indigenous businesses. Finally, it is crucial to review federal funding and procurement mechanisms to allow for genuine and equitable participation by indigenous businesses in major infrastructure and development projects in Canada. Indigenous initiatives funds must be tailored to the specific needs of each community, taking geographic, social and economic aspects into consideration.

Economic reconciliation also requires solid land bases. The Bloc Québécois has long been calling on the federal government to commit to land reform, and we will continue to push for that as long as necessary. We suggest partnering with indigenous groups to undertake a vast nation-to-nation effort to sign agreements and treaties that are entered into freely and are mutually agreed upon, allowing for more self-determination for these communities.

We propose that the comprehensive land claims policy be completely overhauled, which would include creating an independent entity to manage and resolve these claims. Appointing a commissioner, as set out in Bill C‑77, is a step in the right direction, because the federal government is not only slow, it is often a bad partner. Of course, the commissioner will be able to point all that out, but that should not stop the federal government from taking action now. Two weeks ago, when the ministers appeared before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, none of these crucial issues were addressed.

It currently takes 18 years on average to settle a land claim, including two years seeking government approvals. This creates a significant financial burden for first nations. That is already excessively long, but for some nations, the process can take up to 30 years. We are talking about three decades. These barriers sometimes lead communities to give up and settle for the Indian Act as the lesser of two evils. This policy needs to be addressed urgently because it impedes true, equal partnerships between nations.

Since 2018, repealing the Indian Act has been one of the objectives of the relationship framework between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples. However, the Liberal government is being too passive on this issue. In Quebec, only the Cree and Naskapi nations have been emancipated from this act, thanks to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the resulting legislation.

When it comes to land claims, the situation in Quebec is similar to the one in British Columbia, where a large part of the territory is still not covered by treaties. This is problematic because the comprehensive land claim settlement process is excessively long and costly. It frustrates many first nations representatives without contributing toward improving living conditions in the communities. Furthermore, these negotiations create an extremely significant financial burden for indigenous communities. Currently, they are financed through a combination of repayable loans and non-repayable contributions. In 2013, the accrued debt, with interest, was $817 million. This funding model acts as a disincentive for communities, prolongs negotiations and forces some nations to give up when they run out of money.

The problems with this policy do not stop there. The federal government is both judge and jury in these negotiations. The process is so long that negotiators frequently come and go, increasing delays even further, because each new negotiator has to get up to speed on the complex files. Furthermore, these negotiators have no flexibility and constantly have to ask the government to approve their decisions. In short, the existing process does not resolve disputes efficiently or help eliminate colonial structures such as the Indian Act.

With respect to the additions to reserve policy, it is important to have sufficient funds to enable the 20 or so communities recognized by the federal government to complete the process set out in the policy so they can finally receive the funding they need to ensure the well-being of their members with complete peace of mind. Can the government assure us that there will be enough money this year to enable them to take action? Three first nations in my riding, which is in Quebec, have been displaced. They still have no stable land base. This is unacceptable. I would like to see those communities get their fair share. Too often, they are overlooked. I want to name them.

They are Timiskaming First Nation, Winneway first nation and Hunter's Point first nation, now Wolf Lake.

In this context, I want to underscore the following. This means that there is money that is not going to areas such as health, childhood education or an indigenous police service. It takes too long. Every time there is a hiccup, it seems like everyone is fine with that. At some point there needs to be action. Everyone will need to sit down together and offer solutions. Far too often, first nations issues are put on ice. The government will use any excuse to walk away from the negotiations, and often the real reason is that it just is not listening. Finally, things are left to drag on. Generations have been waiting for answers and results. That is another way to promote self-determination for indigenous peoples, especially back home in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

The Inuit and Métis also deserve better representation within bodies that reflect on economic reconciliation. The Inuit of Nunavut or Nunavik, like the Red River Métis, are not subject to the Indian Act. However, these indigenous people have unique realities that deserve to be addressed by this government. They need to be better represented within the institutions and organizations set up by the federal government.

While the Red River Métis are now recognized as an indigenous people by the Government of Canada, they continue to face significant challenges in accessing financial resources and economic opportunities due to the delayed recognition of their rights and the federal government's broken promises. For a long time, they have been excluded from the funding and economic development programs available to other indigenous groups. While progress has been made in recent years, these commitments remain lacking.

Despite these barriers, Métis people have shown remarkable resilience and a great potential to develop their own economic initiatives and institutions. However, the lack of appropriate channels for distributing funds and delays in implementing supportive policies continue to impede their ability to build sustainable infrastructure.

The federal government absolutely must keep its promises and put in place funding mechanisms and institutions specifically designed to meet the unique needs of Métis people so that they can fully participate in the Canadian economy and ensure a prosperous future for their communities.

I will digress for a moment. On the weekend, we marked Louis Riel Day. If there is something that Canada should think about, it is how it treated one of its own. The case of Louis Riel is well documented, and we should think about and look back at that history. I think that we have erred for too long. I want to acknowledge President David Chartrand.

Since I only have a little time left, I want to take this opportunity to raise some issues that I think are problematic when it comes to the economic development of first nations. I want to talk about the much-touted 5%. I am talking about recommendation 8 of the report. It is all well and good to say that the government awards 5% of federal contracts to indigenous businesses. However, when it comes to things like GC Strategies or projects like the one in Chalk River that is going to have a major impact on nuclear safety in Quebec and Canada, the indigenous component is often being managed by people who are not really indigenous. They have access to government funds and they are the ones who communicate with the government. The government can then say that it consulted indigenous people in the context of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. However, these indigenous impersonators are not recognized by indigenous people. That is a problem.

Pretendians are people who self-identify as indigenous for economic or personal gain. In many cases, it may be a historical error. It is not necessarily a deliberately false claim. However, there are some serious problems at the moment. Fake indigenous claims are being used to gain access to contracts or to earn social licence. Think about the Chalk River project. An association known as the Algonquins of Ontario helped ensure social licence. Meanwhile, the Anishinabe in both Quebec and Ontario, plus 140 municipalities, are opposed to the project. Those who speak for the indigenous people are not the indigenous people.

There is no shortage of examples when it comes to economic development. Bastien Industries produces moccasins that are made in Wendake. This is an example of an economic development project where products are made by hand, with knowledge being passed on from generation to generation. It is an economic driver and source of pride for the community. Unfortunately, the company has no access to government contracts, and yet if the indigenous people who work there want to sell their products in the United States, they will be asked for their Indian status card.

That is not possible in Canada. Those mechanisms do not exist and so identities can be claimed. These companies take second place when contracts are awarded. There is no obligation to do business with indigenous peoples. Actually, the law says there is in theory, but in practice, no mechanism exists. That is a fundamental problem. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is particularly interested in this. I think we need to delve deeper into the issue of who is indigenous and who is not. At some point, this has a major impact on economic development.

I also want to take this opportunity to raise another issue. To me, it is one of the main solutions. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs examines it in this report, particularly in the first recommendations. In my opinion, the major solution, which is a philosophical one, is to trust the knowledge of the first nations and develop projects “by and for” indigenous nations. Right now, there are a lot of recommendations. However, I am shocked to see that the study is almost two years old. It is something we have thought about, but not a thing has changed.

This government is on its last legs. It had plenty of time to take action and develop investment funds by and for indigenous peoples. Yänonhchia' comes to mind, along with the initiatives of NACCA, the National Aboriginal Capital Corporation Association, and many others that will provide financial leverage. The government puts structures in place, but often this only creates obstacles and barriers. Basically, indigenous communities are given two years to build a house. However, it takes time to get an architect to approve things. It is much harder to find one in remote areas and in indigenous communities. By the time an architect is found, the deadlines have passed. That is how it works at the federal government. Perhaps only two houses a year per community end up being built. Indigenous populations are growing quickly, and the needs of communities are not currently being met. Some serious reflection is needed, and the solution involves projects by and for indigenous peoples.

In conclusion, urgent action is essential. We have an historic opportunity before us. Removing barriers to economic development for indigenous peoples is not only a moral imperative, but also an economic one. We have a responsibility to right the wrongs of the past and to work together to build a prosperous future for all Canadian and Quebec communities, indigenous and otherwise. Indigenous peoples must be fully integrated into the economy of Canada and Quebec, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is in everyone's best interest. If we want a prosperous, inclusive and truly reconciled Quebec and Canada, we need to invest in the prosperity of indigenous peoples.

Together, as equal partners, we can build a future based on justice, equality and economic reconciliation.