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

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not at all. This is not a failure; this is even progress that we have been making for the last 10 years in the Liberal government. Even before that, it was being done in the Harper government, so this is a continuity of that. There is not a failure happening in government.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up here today to talk about accountable government and speak to Bill C-10. The government has put forward this piece of legislation, and I think it is a total admission of the Liberals' failure to keep first nations included in the Canadian economy and ensure first nations are part of the Canadian conversation. Therefore, one of the trinkets they are putting forward is the commissioner position, to acknowledge that they have been a failure over the last 10 years.

I want to talk about accountable government more broadly. People back home always say, “Arnold, you are part of the government,” but I say no, I am part of the opposition. The government is generally considered to be the front bench on the government side of the House. That is the government that lives inside of our legislative chamber. Unlike in the United States, where the administration lives outside of the legislative process, in Canada, in a parliamentary system, the government lives in the front bench, and that is the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

They direct the administration of our country, and they answer directly to the legislature. They are right here, and one of the key functions of this place is to hold the government to account, principally through question period. That is probably what people see the most. That is the Government of Canada. It then branches out from there to all the ministries, the ministry offices across the country, and the folks who work for those ministries would also be part of the government. Very soon, I hope to be part of the governing party of Canada, if not part of the government, Lord willing.

I also want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time.

When we talk about accountable government, this is an important part of Canadian history. This is something that this particular place fought vehemently for at the founding of Canada in response to being a colony of Great Britain, asking and pushing for our own responsible government. I would also point out that the responsible, accountable government that was fought for at that time was immediately put to the test in the riot reparations act that the brand new Canadian Parliament passed. It then ran out to ask the Governor General to not sign it into law, because the government had suddenly realized the ramifications of the riot reparations act. The Governor General at the time asked if we wanted a responsible, accountable government or not. He signed that into law, and the negative implications of it came to fruition. Parliament then reversed itself on that particular bill.

I tell that story just to point out that the things that happen in this place have an impact on Canadian society. I hope that is the case, and I know that to be the case. The point is that the Liberal government is the government of this country, and it has duties it has to implement. The Liberal government is classic in terms of causing a problem or failing to address a problem and then, rather than fixing the problem, coming back here for another piece of legislation and saying that this is the one that will fix the particular problem. In reality, it generally has the tools and ability to fix the particular problem or manage the particular issue or maintain the relationship around the world that it currently has.

We hear from the Liberals often that a particular UN document is demanding that they do something. Maintaining the relationship with first nations across this country, ensuring they are full participants in our economy and living up to the treaty obligations this country has signed onto are just basic functions of the government. We do not need a UN document or a UN declaration to tell us to do these things. The Government of Canada should be doing these things because we are upholding the honour of the Crown and we are upholding the things that make us this country.

In the case of the current government, it is the Government of Canada, and it should live up to its obligations. This means treaty obligations, keeping the peace in this country, working on maintaining our borders and reducing the crime. On all of these things, many times, we see total mismanagement, and then the Liberals come in here and say, “If we only had this piece of legislation.” We see this in front of us over and over again, with bills such as Bill C-2, Bill C-8 and Bill C-11, where the government is trying to solve problems it could already solve and is the cause of.

With Bill C-10, we see a classic case of Liberal mismanagement. We failed to sign new treaties across the country and failed to manage the relationship. We have seen the resource industry stalling out because of our inability to build major projects across this country, and now the Liberals are bringing this forward.

The other thing I find very interesting is that, although I say it is the tired old Liberal government, this is a “new” government, but we have yet to see any major new pieces of legislation. This is not a new piece of legislation from a new government. It is something that is long sought-after. The Liberal government has introduced this idea over and over again. This is not something new.

We are looking forward to the removal of Liberal bail. That would be a new piece of legislation. The reversal of Liberal bail in this country would be an impressive thing in order to get crime under control. That would be new, but this is not a new idea. This is something the Liberals have talked about for a long time, and now, because their legislative agenda is kind of empty, suddenly they are going to put it forward.

I am going to turn my attention to the Bloc. I always find it interesting when I agree somewhat with the Bloc. Bloc members are saying that this commissioner would not achieve anything, that it would not do anything, which is also kind of our position on this. It would not do anything and is just spending money for the sake of spending money, which, I acknowledge, is generally the Liberal test of success: Success is how much money it spends on a particular thing.

I point to the border. When we say the Liberals are failing to maintain our border and are allowing people to run across our border and things like that, their response is not that they are doing a good job managing the border; it is that they are spending more money managing the border than the Conservatives did and are therefore being successful. They are not. The problem is that the border is porous and unmanaged by the Liberals. If we could spend zero dollars to manage the border, I would be in favour of that as well. The amount of money the Liberals spend to manage the border is irrelevant if we are not getting the results we are looking for. Fundamental to an accountable government is who is responsible.

This commissioner is a distraction from the responsibilities of the government. The government is responsible for maintaining these relationships and cannot outsource it to a commissioner. It cannot outsource it. I guess the same goes for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for example. Does his advice get followed by the Liberal government? No, not at all. Will this commissioner's advice be followed by the Liberal government? Maybe, or maybe not. The fundamental issue is the results the government has caused.

We see it over and again, whether it is with the Liberals' bail system, which they totally made a hatchet job of, border security or cybersecurity. Over and over again, the Liberals fail to be responsible for the issues the government is supposed to be responsible for in this country. We see a failure, and then suddenly the Liberals will say we need a particular piece of legislation in order to fix it. When we then look at that piece of legislation, it generally does something other than what they say it will do, or it fails to change anything.

I just want to put on the record that, in some weird way, we agree with the Bloc on this, that the commissioner would not do anything. I also want to close by stating that the bill is an admission by the Liberal government that its inabilities over the last number of years have led to failure.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that some Conservative members in the past have delayed indigenous legislation.

Seeing that there are certain modern treaty partners in Conservative ridings, like the Manitoulin Island first nations, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Whitecap Dakota Nation, can the member opposite confirm that the relevant members have talked to or will talk to the modern treaty partners? What assurance will he provide that his party will work to pass the bill quickly, without any unnecessary delays, to help modern treaty partners in their respective ridings?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member listened to my speech; however, I would remind her that the previous Conservative government signed five modern treaties over the course of the Conservative tenure of governing this country. Our relationship with first nations was managed. Our relationship to get major energy projects built in this country was a success. We look forward to the day when a Conservative government rules this country once again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, we have heard a lot of misrepresentation of reality, if I can put it that way.

The Conservatives say that Harper signed five treaties. Well, he was elected prime minister in 2006, and one of the treaties was signed in 2006. He does get the credit; technically, he did sign it. Then the Conservatives say that the Liberals have not done any. That is not true. We have signed treaties. The Conservatives just have not done their homework, or they are intentionally trying to mislead the House. I suspect they have not done their homework.

My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that having an independent agent of Parliament who is supported by indigenous community leaders is something that all members should be supporting? It appears that just the Conservatives in the House are opposing it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the member, the use of the term “intentionally misleading the House”, in almost all situations, is dangerously close to the line. I invite members to be careful when they respond to not do indirectly what they cannot do directly.

With that being said, I recognize the member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out again that it is estimated that the commissioner would cost the Canadian government $2 million. That is deficit spending, I would point out. The fact is that first nations communities, along with all communities across this country, are struggling to put food on the table and to pay their heating bills.

Saying that we should do more deficit spending and deflate our money more does not, I think, help anybody.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives boast about being the best at reconciliation. This is what we have heard today. However, four months ago, they supported the Liberals' Bill C‑5, a bill dealing with nation-building projects that went against consultations with first nations.

Today, they are telling us that, in the Harper era, they signed more treaties than the Liberals, so they are the best. Today, they are telling us that they do not really agree with Bill C‑10, using bureaucracy as an excuse. They may be the best at accountability, but only when it suits them.

My question for my colleague is simple. Are the Conservatives not afraid that, in the event that they return to power, they would have to be accountable to a commissioner who we hope will have real teeth?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that comes just after all the nice things I said about the Bloc.

I would point out that, particularly on Bill C-5, we made significant amendments to ensure that, for example, the Lobbying Act would not be undermined by the bill. I understand that the Conservative members on committee for that bill made sure the projects would still be subject to conflict of interest and lobbying guidelines, and a number of other acts that apply. It would exempt them from Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the anti-pipeline bill and the anti-tanker bill, respectively, because we think that those two pieces of legislation are standing in the way.

If the Liberals are willing to make an exemption from their own pieces of legislation again, an admission of Liberal failure, we would be happy to support that.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as repeated throughout the day by me and my colleagues, Conservatives support modern treaties.

Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner and office, but the creation of this new office would add an extra layer of bureaucracy and costs by the government, and not a guarantee of meaningful change.

With regard to Bill C-10, on behalf of indigenous people throughout Canada, my question is as follows: What happens if a department continues to ignore treaty obligations?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question.

Modern treaty partners across the country are looking forward to the passage of the bill. It is important, as it is a way to ensure that there would be accountability. They have been let down many times by many governments on the implementation of modern treaties.

We all stand to be accountable for implementation of modern treaties, including the signing of modern treaties as we go forward. This would be the role of the modern treaty commissioner.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is from the Yukon, and I cannot help but notice that there are so many communities from the Yukon that would be helped by the legislation.

I am sure the member has heard advocacy from Yukon first nations leaders over his time as a member of Parliament. I wonder if the member would share some of the information and advocacy from the first nations leaders of the Yukon who have been asking, over years and maybe generations, for this kind of legislation to move forward.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations for his tireless work on this file, including during the last Parliament, and for his advocacy.

The piece of legislation before us is an incredibly important one for Yukon first nations. I have heard repeatedly, in my four-plus years of holding the privileged position as a member of Parliament, from every self-governing first nation, about how important it is, not just for the position of commissioner but for robust and timely implementation of treaties. This is ongoing work in progress. It is often frustratingly slow from their point of view.

However, we are making progress. We need to continue to be held accountable and to commit, for whatever government, as we look forward in the decades to come, is in power, to ensuring that the commitment is sustainable and is sustained.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain how we can possibly trust the Liberal government and take it seriously right now.

This is the same government that totally betrayed first nations four months ago when it failed to consult them on a project in the national interest. Members will recall Bill C‑5, which was passed on closure with the support of the official opposition, the Conservative Party. The Conservatives do not brag too much about that, especially since it was a new government that was four weeks old. It was really unprecedented.

To come back to my question for my colleague, I wonder how we can trust people who did not consult first nations four months ago and who are also telling us today that they are going to establish a commissioner who will be an observer with no teeth.