Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak strongly against Bill C-10, the proposed modern treaty implementation act. Although the government frames this legislation as a step towards reconciliation and improved accountability, it is neither. Instead, it expands bureaucracy, repeats mechanisms that are already in place and diverts energy away from the real work in reaching agreements with the nations.
Conservatives believe in the importance of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. We believe deeply in honouring the treaties this country has signed, both historic and modern. Modern treaties represent decades of the negotiation, collaboration and sacrifice of first nations, Inuit and Métis partners. They define land rights. They established jurisdiction, and they provide a clear path towards local decision-making and economic certainty. These agreements matter, and they deserve to be implemented.
Bill C-10 does not advance that goal. In fact, it does the opposite. Since the 1970s, Canada has sought to move beyond numbered treaties and develop modern, comprehensive agreements that are grounded in partnership. Today, more than two dozen modern treaties are enforced across the country, from Nunavut to Yukon, Quebec and British Columbia, where I represent my riding.
These agreements form a critical foundation for reconciliation, economic development and indigenous self-government. They are supposed to be binding and enforceable, and they are supposed to hold the federal government accountable, but the government has consistently failed to meet its obligations under those agreements. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of record, and that record has been documented clearly, repeatedly and exhaustively by the Auditor General of Canada.
This brings me to the central flaw of the bill. Bill C-10 creates the position of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, an office that would review, monitor, assess, evaluate and report on federal performance. Those are the words we have all seen before because they describe the existing mandate of the Auditor General. For nearly 20 years, the Auditor General has published report after report identifying federal failures in implementing modern treaties. These reports all say the same thing: There are chronic delays, unfulfilled commitments, inadequate coordination between departments and no meaningful consequences when obligations are ignored.
The oversight already exists. The findings exist. The recommendations exist. What does not exist is the government's willingness to act. One has to ask, where has accountability been? Who has faced the consequences for failing to uphold these treaties? I have yet to hear a single minister held responsible for years of missed deadlines and ignored commitments.
Instead of fixing the problems that have been highlighted by the Auditor General, the Liberals want to create a new office to highlight the same promises over and over again. This new commissioner comes with a price tag. It is not free. It comes with a price tag of $10.6 million over four years, money that could instead be used to actually implement treaty obligations, support indigenous governments' capacity or accelerate negotiations that have been solved for years. This is bureaucracy posing as progress, and Canadians are expected to cover the tab.
Yes, indigenous partners have expressed support for this bill because they want stronger oversight. They want something to actually be done, but accountability comes from implementation, not from another layer of review. Communities are calling for results, safer housing, reliable water and treaty commitments to be fulfilled. The only thing that will deliver that to them is a government that is willing to act on the oversight already in place, and the government has not done that.
To illustrate how redundant this office is, I will point out that the bill contains an entire section explaining that the commissioner must avoid duplication of work with the Auditor General and other oversight bodies that already exist. Even the legislation seems a little embarrassed by it. It states that the commissioner must “coordinate their activities” to prevent overlap. When a bill has to explicitly warn itself to not duplicate functions, it is clearly duplicating. That alone should tell the House everything it needs to know, but it gets worse.
The bill notes that the commissioner would not be a dispute resolution body. The commissioner would not be a performance auditor. The commissioner would get to decide their own priorities, including the number and frequency of reviews they would like to produce.
In other words, the office cannot solve failures, cannot enforce compliance and cannot even be compelled to work at the pace required to match the seriousness of the issues that are at hand. These issues are serious, not just in the province of B.C., where, in some places, they are exploding, but throughout Canada. Again, I ask what the office is supposed to do. The answer is nothing meaningful.
The problem is not a lack of oversight; the problem is a lack of action. The government has a long history of substituting announcements, offices and photo ops for actual implementation.
When faced with a problem, the Liberal instinct is always the same, to create a new bureaucracy and hope that symbolism distracts from inaction. Let us look at the record. Since 2015, despite promising a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, and despite promising to respect modern treaty partners, the government has negotiated zero new modern treaties. There has not been one in 10 years. There has been zero progress.
Meanwhile, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, Canada saw real results. Nine communities reached a final modern treaty agreement in six years. These were not symbolic gestures. They were fully negotiated agreements that required hard decisions, interdepartmental coordination and political will. Conservatives got things done, and the Liberals have not.
This context matters. A government that has failed to negotiate treaties and has failed to implement existing obligations now wants Parliament to believe that creating another office would miraculously fix the failures it has spent a decade ignoring. The claim is not credible. The Liberals argue that a commissioner would provide direction, but modern treaties do not need more direction; they need delivery.
Out of respect for our first nation partners, our neighbours, departments need to implement the agreements that have already been signed. Ministers need to enforce obligations already written in law. Commitments that have been sitting untouched for years need to be acted upon, not observed from afar by a new commissioner. Reconciliation is not achieved by expanding Ottawa's payroll. It is achieved when commitments are honoured.
Treaty partners have been patient. Some have been waiting for implementation milestones for decades. They deserve measurable progress, clear timelines and accountability, not more reports confirming what they already know, which is that the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.
Conservatives believe reconciliation must be practical and grounded in partnership, not in Ottawa-centric bureaucracy. We respect treaty rights. We respect the work, time and investment indigenous communities put into these agreements, and we believe that honouring that work requires implementation, not layers of duplication.
Let us be clear. If Bill C-10 passes, nothing will change. In four or five years, the Auditor General will still be issuing the same warnings, departments will still be missing deadlines, treaty partners will still be waiting and Canadians will still be asking where the money went. Oversight is not the issue; leadership is the issue. That is why Conservatives cannot support Bill C-10.
We will continue to advocate for transparent accountability. We will continue to push for the meaningful implementation of modern treaties. We will continue to insist that reconciliation requires action, not new offices in Ottawa.
