Bill C-10

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.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is a distraction. We have a terrible economy. Our resources are not getting developed. The Premier of the Northwest Territories was here today with some grand chiefs. They want to get economic development up in the territories. All we are seeing is a decline in the economy there.

We need to get real things done. That is going to be with a future Conservative government.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C-10. The bill would create a new agent of Parliament, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The commissioner's role would be to assess how the terms of modern treaties are being met or not met, as the case may be, and report to Parliament on their findings. I see that the agent would not really have the power to tell the government what to do, nor to control in any way its response to their findings, and we already have the Auditor General writing reports and highlighting the gaps and inadequacies of the Liberals' response in the area of modern treaties, so really the commissioner would just be another highly paid Liberal position that would have no power to direct the government to do anything. I am not in favour of creating additional bureaucracy.

That said, I want to start by laying out the premises from which I am speaking. First of all, treaty rights must be respected; this is absolute. Second, we must work with first nations, Inuit and Métis people to ensure that they are self-governing and prosperous, and to help address issues that need to be overcome. I think that is clear, and that is the path of reconciliation in our country, but whenever the Liberals are failing to accomplish anything, which is what has happened over the last 10 years, they create a bureaucracy.

We have seen this pattern of behaviour in the housing crisis, for example. We know that far too many people were allowed into the country for the number of housing starts. The former housing minister had said we had to build 550,000 units per year in order to catch up over the next four years, and housing starts are down, so not only did the Liberals create one housing bureaucracy, but they are on their fourth bureaucracy and still there is no progress in terms of actual results.

There is the same problem in defence. We have been trying to buy F-35s since I was elected, and there is still nothing, so instead of fixing the existing procurement process, the Liberals decided to create a new defence procurement bureaucracy, and there is no proof yet that it will accomplish anything.

It is the same thing with major projects. The government has all kinds of infrastructure departments that could be building in our country. It put together an infrastructure bank full of high-priced Liberals who have not built much of anything, and $35 billion went out the window there. Again, it is a bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing and that is not helpful for anything.

There is the fentanyl czar, at a moment when the fentanyl crisis is an issue in terms of trade with our southern partners. It is definitely something that Canadians care about. It has killed 50,000 Canadians from fentanyl overdoses. We have 400 fentanyl superlabs, according to the RCMP and CSIS. The port of Vancouver is receiving shipping containers from China that are not scanned and are sent down to Washington state. What has the fentanyl czar accomplished in the months that he has been in place? Absolutely nothing. That is the reason I do not support adding additional bureaucracy to try to achieve something.

When it comes to truth and reconciliation, let us look at the Conservative record versus the Liberal record. It was Stephen Harper who commissioned the truth and reconciliation report that brought to the House 92 recommendations of how we could move towards reconciliation, and in 10 years the Liberal government has implemented 14 of them out of 92. That is a failing grade. When it comes to negotiating modern treaties, the Harper government finished five, and there have been zero out of 70 for the Liberal government in 10 years. Again, that is a failing grade.

When the Liberals brought forward the building Canada act, it was the Conservatives who brought forward the need to consult with indigenous peoples, when the Liberals were ready to exempt from everything every project that they wanted to go forward. Therefore it is the Conservatives who have sincere support to ensure that we move towards reconciliation and that we turn our indigenous peoples, first nations, Inuit and Métis into a prosperous self-governing part of our Canadian entity.

In my riding, I happen to have four first nation reserves, and they are not receiving a lot of assistance from the government. With regard to Kettle & Stony Point, these are very entrepreneurial individuals. In fact, their current latest project is to put in place a solar panel path. There is technology to do this that will power the entire reserve. This is green technology. This is an excellent initiative and they are struggling to get support.

We can talk about the Walpole Island folks. Bkejwanong, which is the name that was added to the riding, has the only ferry to the U.S. in my riding. There was another ferry but the guy who is currently trying to negotiate with the U.S. is the guy who let the Coast Guard, while it was under his watch, speed, break the existing ferry, lose $4 million a year in revenue for the CBSA and get sued for more money than it would have taken to fix the thing and keep the border crossing in place, but that is another story. The Walpole Island ferry needs infrastructure upgrades in order to be able to take the heavier trucks, to increase the economic trade that we are doing with the U.S. Again, the federal government is not there for it.

I understand that this is the Conservative record and the Liberal record. I could add to that a couple of other things for the Liberals. I was here in 2015 when they pledged $8.4 billion to eliminate boil water advisories on reserves, and here we are. I can say, as a chemical engineer, that if someone gave me $8.4 billion for 129 boil water advisories, 10 years ago, and asked me to get that fixed, the job would be done now. In fact, after Jane Philpott left, we made next to no progress on this. We still have indigenous people who do not have clean water in this country, and I do not know how we can talk about trying to do anything positive if we do not give them basic rights to clean water.

Let us not forget that the Liberals brought lawsuits against indigenous children. They brought lawsuits against indigenous people trying to get dental care. That is the record of the Liberals. It is no wonder that indigenous people in Canada are concerned. However, because they are concerned, and because the Liberals think we are approaching an election, it is the perfect time for the Liberals to virtue signal that they are going to do something, but they are not really going to do anything. They are just going to introduce another bureaucracy. It is not like they should know better, honestly.

Between 2015 and 2017, here are the bureaucracies that they created to try to deal with the modern treaty issue. The first one was called the modern treaty implementation office. The next one was called the assessment of modern treaty implications office. The third one was called the performance management framework. Then they had the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee and then the reconciliation secretariat. After all of that bureaucracy and all of those highly paid people, I am sure they created lots of paper reports but nothing was accomplished.

That, in fact, is the key issue when we look at Bill C-10, that nothing is really going to be accomplished through the bill, yet there are serious issues that need to be addressed. Treaties need to be modernized. I think we need to move forward at a faster pace on reconciliation. It is not happening. When I look at even the language that is in Bill C-10, it is so hypocritical.

If we talk about the preamble, it states, “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and the Métis”. It is committed, but it has only done 14 out of 92 calls to action in the truth and reconciliation report.

It goes on to say, “Whereas the recognition and implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights are at the core of reconciliation”. What about the latest gun confiscation, where they want to take hunting rights away from indigenous people by removing their firearms? It is unbelievable.

It also says, “Whereas modern treaties are intended to strengthen the health, dignity, well-being and resilience of Indigenous peoples”. In terms of health, we could talk about boil water advisories, or talk about taking them to court over dental care. How is that in any way lining up with what this bill is proposing?

It talks about the “resilience of Indigenous peoples, to create enduring relationships between modern treaty partners and to advance national socio-economic objectives that benefit all—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member's time has elapsed.

Questions and comments, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that we can all agree as parliamentarians that there are better ways we can find efficiency within the civil service, when I talk to indigenous communities across this country, they noticed a marked difference from the Liberal government about how we approach the issues and how we have invested in these solutions versus where the Conservative Party was 10 years ago when it was in government.

There is more work to be done, but what I really picked up on is that the member talked about energy and clean energy on reserve. I found it refreshing because I have not heard much from the Conservative opposition benches about climate change and about doing things to reduce emissions. I am curious about whether the member could opine a bit on her view.

We have not heard a lot about what the Conservative Party would do with respect to the environment. Is the position that the Conservatives would spend more money than the government is currently spending on renewable energy? What is their position?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question because the Conservative Party has a great plan that would help reduce the global footprint not just by providing LNG and small modular nuclear reactors to supplant coal and heavy oils in China, India and the emerging world, but also by supporting green technology here at home and making Canada a leader in that, so that we could export that and create jobs here in Canada.

Certainly I do not believe in subsidizing something that is not sustainable, but I absolutely believe that there are green energies that would be effective. The one I talked about is one where the cost of the project is a very few million dollars, and it is actually sustainable to provide all the energy for the reserve, which costs nearly $1 million a year. This project has a payoff time that is very short and that is the way we should go.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed commissioner will not have the authority to enforce compliance, as my hon. colleague pointed out. Their role is to point a finger at the federal government's shortcomings and failures to comply with modern treaties. Their limited powers will only permit them to conduct performance reviews and audits.

Would the hon. member like the commissioner to have an enforcement role or does she think that would still be too much red tape?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need someone who will have authority over the government. The proposed commissioner would write a report with recommendations, but we already have that right now and the government has not moved. We need someone who can compel the government to act.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, our colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes mentioned that Conservatives support modern treaties. Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner and office.

Could my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong please expand on whether the commissioner would help resolve disputes over treaty interpretation?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this would be an agent of Parliament, not an officer of Parliament. This person would have no power to do anything other than write reports to the government, which the government has already shown it would not act on. Certainly, I am sure this individual, whatever high-paid Liberal friend they choose, would have some expertise in modern treaties, but at the end of the day regarding the recommendations that would come forward, I have no confidence that they would be followed up on any more than those from the Auditor General and the officers of Parliament who previously made recommendations that have not been acted on by the government.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was consistent. She said she would support amending the bill to give the commissioner more power to force action. Could she give us an example of how that might be worded?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if this position has no power over the government, then the government has just created a bureaucracy. If this person is actually able to force the government to take action or to act on the government's behalf to actually close the treaties and get agreement on the 70 that are still outstanding, that would be progress.

[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.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill represents concrete, transformative progress in Canada's legal relationship with indigenous peoples. It would institute a long-term parliamentary accountability mechanism that is the product of genuine collaboration.

Can my colleague tell us today why our colleagues opposite are refusing to support this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we have some bad habits here.

No particular party is to blame. There are five parties here. We are at our best when we work together.

What we all need to do right now is ignore campaign sign colours. We just need to consider what is best for everyone.

Members should forget their party colours and do what is right.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a second to thank my colleague for her speech. I think it is the kind of speech that sets the tone we need to hear in the House of Commons.

Bill C‑10 is an important piece of legislation. It represents a significant milestone in modern treaty implementation and monitoring.

Not long ago, we celebrated the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I admit that this day always makes me a little uncomfortable, because in my riding, like many others, situations arise, including environmental situations, that lead people to call on the federal government the other 364 days of the year, yet it never answers. After families are left in insecurity and people are abandoned to environmental harm, then people are expected to celebrate reconciliation.

I wonder whether my colleague has any comments on that situation.