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

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it the height of hypocrisy to hear the parliamentary secretary and the Liberals talk about their commitment to treaties and reconciliation when they are violating the treaties this very day.

In my riding of Parkland, the Parkland School Division has had to lay off 100 educational assistants and has had tens of millions of dollars in losses because the current Liberal government cut off Jordan's principle funding for at-risk and vulnerable indigenous students. It is not just in my riding; it is across this country. Yellowknife Catholic Schools had to lay off 200 members because of the Liberal government's cuts to indigenous education funding. Could my hon. colleague talk about how the Liberal government is currently failing indigenous people?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question of Jordan's principle is a conversation that has come up time and time again with trustees from my local area. The question is falling, seemingly, on deaf ears with the government. I have asked time and time again for some consultation, for communication and where we are moving forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am just as disgusted with the Liberal parliamentary secretary and agree about the hypocrisy of the Liberals' so-called mandate for reconciliation, which we know is not sincere. I wonder if the member agrees that because we have an important role in the Auditor General, which does make sure that there are audits going on with government operations, maybe we need the role of the commissioner to be able to call out such hypocrisy in this House.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more that hypocrisy is not welcome in the House, but we hear it time and time again.

This is not a true step toward reconciliation. We spoke earlier about $10.6 million over four years: bureaucracy posing as progress. What indigenous peoples are looking for is safer housing and reliable water, but Bill C-10 would not do any of that. It would be just another study and another study, when there are already recommendations in place that we need to fulfill. Let us just do and implement these things. We do not need another bureaucratic prism to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will talk about NDP hypocrisy on another day.

One thing I can say is that the legislation is substantial. It is something indigenous leaders have been calling for and assisting with the drafting of. Can the member tell the House again how the member reconciles being in favour of reconciliation with not supporting legislation of this nature?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 clearly, with no doubt, would only add another voice that governments have been ignoring for years. The issue is not people's raising awareness; the issue is the government's ignoring them, and that would not change with Bill C-10.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about treaties, we are not talking about paperwork; we are talking about promises, solemn commitments made between the Crown and indigenous people. They are commitments that define land, governance, rights and the very shape of our shared country, and the truth is that a promise is only as strong as the people responsible for keeping it. For decades, indigenous partners have asked for something that every Canadian understands: respect, fairness, and a government that keeps its word, not just speeches and photo-ops but real action.

Bill C-10, which would create a new commissioner for modern treaty implementation, is supposed to be that answer, but we cannot solve a problem of execution by creating more bureaucracy. Accountability does not come from a new office; it comes from leadership, responsibility and courage to deliver on commitments that already exist in law.

Before we talk about implementation, we need to be clear about what modern treaties actually are. A modern treaty is not symbolic; it is a legally binding agreement, a negotiated settlement that clarifies land ownership, resource rights, governance and jurisdiction. In many cases, it includes self-government provisions that give indigenous communities authority over education, health, culture and local services.

These agreements were meant to end decades, sometimes centuries, of litigation and uncertainty. They are not suggestions; they are federal law, so when Canada signs a treaty, the honour of the Crown is on the line, and that honour cannot be delegated to another office and cannot be outsourced or buried inside a new bureaucracy. It has to be lived out in real action.

Here is the heart of the issue. The problem is not that there is too little oversight; the problem is that there is too little action. There is no shortage of reports; there is a shortage of results. The Auditor General, time and time again, has already told Parliament exactly where the system is breaking down: late funding, inconsistent interpretation of agreements, poor coordination across departments, unclear accountability, and almost no consequences when obligations are ignored. There have been multiple audits over the years by the Auditor General of treaty-related obligations, and there are still delays, missed commitments, and indigenous governments being forced back to the table to fight for what was already agreed to.

Now the government has proposed a new commissioner, someone who would monitor, assess and report, but reports are not roofs, and they do not build homes, bring clean water, deliver policing or create economic opportunity. The new office would have no power to compel compliance or enforce obligations. It would have no direct accountability to Parliament. It could not direct departments, impose consequences or resolve disputes. It would be just more smoke and mirrors, because oversight without enforcement is a system built to observe failure, not to fix it.

Indigenous leaders have shown us what real partnership looks like. Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band captured it well when he said, “We're business people. Our goals are to build a strong future [and] to pursue the good life”.

That is the spirit we should be supporting: indigenous communities building their own future through hard work, collaboration and opportunity. A government that keeps its word and delivers on modern treaties does not create dependency; it creates the space for that success to flourish. Good things happen when everyone does their part: when indigenous governments lead, when local businesses invest and when Ottawa actually follows through on the commitment it has already signed.

We know that the agreements can be negotiated and implemented when the government is focused, disciplined and accountable. Modern treaties and self-government agreements are possible. They are not easy files; they require discipline, focus, trust and constant conversation with indigenous partners, but they can be delivered.

Let me remind the House what success looks like. Tsawwassen is located just an hour from my riding. The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, which happened under Prime Minister Harper, is one of the most significant modern treaties in our country's recent history, not because it made headlines but because it made progress. It came into effect in 2009, giving the Tsawwassen First Nation clear authority over its land, its resources and its economic future. It replaced uncertainty with clarity, and decades of stalled negotiations with a real and enforceable partnership.

However, what stands out about Tsawwassen is not just the treaty itself but what the community built with it. It used its rights, the way any government should: with discipline, vision and a plan for the next generation. We can see it in the development around Tsawwassen Mills and Tsawwassen Commons. We can see it in the jobs created, the businesses launched and the sense of momentum that did not depend on speeches and symbolism but on hard work and steady leadership.

Here is the real lesson: When the treaty is clear, when the federal government does its part, when the rules are respected by everyone at the table, indigenous communities do not just participate in the economy, they help drive it. The Tsawwassen treaty succeeded not because Ottawa created a new office; it succeeded because the agreement was honoured and because the Tsawwassen people turned opportunity into outcomes.

We love to take our grandkids out to the Tsawwassen Mills mall to wander around Cabela's checking out the displays. When it first opened, we threw a few gutter balls in the bowling alley at Uncle Buck's Fishbowl and Grill, and the kids loved it. It is a living example that when we keep our word, show up, follow through and respect the commitments we have already made, good things happen: stronger communities, stronger partnership and a stronger Canada.

More agreements like the Tsawwassen agreement will not come from a new office, a new commissioner or a new layer of bureaucracy. They will come from a government that respects the negotiating table, honours deadlines and holds itself accountable for results. They will come from ministers who show up, officials who execute their mandate and indigenous partners who share the future of their communities.

Conservatives believe in accountability. We believe in honouring the Crown. We believe in a strong nation-to-nation relationship grounded in trust. Yes, oversight matters, but real oversight comes from Parliament, from the Auditor General, from the treaty governance bodies and from the courts, not from yet another monitoring office.

Conservatives believe there is a better path forward, one rooted in accountability, partnership and respect. We would strengthen responsibility inside the ministries that already exist, setting clear expectations, forcing performance milestones and requiring regular reporting to Parliament, with real consequences when obligations are missed. We would use the tools already written into modern treaties, the dispute resolution clauses, the courts and the work of the Auditor General. Instead of creating more layers of bureaucracy, we would put responsibility back on ministers and departments, where it belongs.

If the commitment is delayed, Canadians deserve answers from the people who signed the agreement, not from another office with no power to enforce it. We would honour the sovereignty and self-determination of indigenous partners by making accountability something we build together, not something imposed by Ottawa. Above all, Conservatives are focused on results, because homes, infrastructure and opportunity are delivered by governments that do their job, not by more commissioners and more reports.

Indigenous governments have been clear: Yes, they want accountability, but more than that, they want progress. They want the federal government to deliver what it already agreed to. They want implementation that is timely, consistent and respectful. Bill C-10 would give us new reports but not new results. Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, expect more than that.

Reconciliation is not a new title, a new commissioner or a new office on Wellington Street; reconciliation is when a treaty is honoured, when communities see a real change and when the federal government does what it already promised to do. Let us choose the path of integrity and a future where treaties are not words on paper but living commitments, upheld with discipline and delivered with honour, measured in real progress on the ground. We do not need more bureaucracy; we need a government that does its job.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is before us because of the strong leadership from indigenous people and the grassroots from indigenous community members, along with a co-operative government seeking through reconciliation to bring forward positive legislation. That is the driving force of what we are voting on, but the Conservatives continue to want to filibuster to prevent the legislation from passing. My question is why.

While the member is addressing that particular question, maybe she can also address the issue of how we can reconcile the Conservative Party's, and in particular the leader of the Conservative Party's, approach in dealing with the pipeline going through B.C., feeling that there is absolutely zero obligation to indigenous people or the Province of B.C.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us be honest. The question distracts us from the core problem. The government's answer to every failure is to stack another layer of paperwork on top of the last one. Bill C-10 would create just another monitoring office that would not be able to enforce a thing. There is more paper with the same problems.

The budget is full of new departments that will not solve a thing. It is time to get serious and ensure that departments that already exist actually follow through on their responsibilities.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again, we listened to the Liberal parliamentary secretary talk about how Conservatives are not honouring reconciliation in our treaties. Meanwhile, the Liberal government is attacking indigenous children who have autism, fetal alcohol syndrome and other vulnerabilities. It has cut funding for indigenous education that was mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada and the treaties.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could talk about the hypocrisy from the Liberals on indigenous funding.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, we Conservatives oppose the approach the government is taking. A new bureaucracy does not hold anyone to account; it shields ministers from responsibility. Instead of fixing delays, the government creates another office to talk about the delays. That is not progress, and it adds a whole lot more cost.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in this chamber on behalf of the people of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Today, we are debating Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. The bill would create a new officer of Parliament supported by a new federal office, with a mandate to review and audit how federal departments implement modern treaties. The commissioner would examine the performance of government institutions and present findings in Parliament. The stated goal is to improve how Canada lives up to its obligations under modern treaties. The bill is presented as a measure in the federal action plan to implement UNDRIP and respond to a long-standing frustration that Canada often signs agreements and then fails to deliver on them.

Those frustrations are very real. Conservatives recognize that. We support treaty rights and reconciliation. We support self-determination and self-government for first nations, Inuit and Métis. We do not question the sincerity of indigenous partners who see the bill as a way to hold Ottawa accountable. Our concern is that Bill C-10 answers a problem of implementation with more bureaucracy and less accountability. We need accountability in the government to actually meet our treaty obligations.

To understand why that matters, it is worth recalling where modern treaties come from and what they are meant to fix. Treaty rights in Canada go back to the earliest relationships between the Crown and indigenous nations, through the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the historic peace and friendship treaties, and the numbered treaties that cover much of western and northern Canada. Those treaties, however imperfectly honoured, are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In many parts of the country, indigenous title and rights were never resolved by historic treaties. That is why the Supreme Court's decision in 1973 was so important. The court recognized indigenous title in Canadian law and forced the federal government to move from denial to negotiation. That decision opened the modern treaty era and led to the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975.

Since 1975, Canada has negotiated and signed 26 modern treaties with indigenous groups in Canada, 18 of which contain self-government provisions or associated self-government agreements. Canada has concluded modern treaties with indigenous peoples across the north and in parts of British Columbia and Quebec. These comprehensive land claim agreements define landownership, resource rights, financial compensation and governance authorities. They are constitutionally protected and legally enforceable.

The model has evolved over time. Before 2000, most modern treaties focused on land and resources, with separate or partial agreements for self-government. Since 2000, almost all modern treaties have included explicit self-government provisions. Whether a nation has a modern treaty, a self-government treaty or both, the obligations are legally binding on the Crown. For years, Parliament, indigenous leaders and experts have warned that Canada's record on implementation is inconsistent and often poor.

In 2008, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples recommended the creation of an independent body, such as a modern treaty commission, to help monitor implementation. Modern treaty partners have repeatedly called for stronger and stronger oversight.

Conservatives take this history very seriously. Our record in government shows that modern treaties can be negotiated and implemented when Ottawa is focused on results. Under former prime minister Harper, five modern treaties were signed in six years. They included a first nation land claims and self-government agreement in 2006, a first nations final agreement in 2009, another first nations final agreement in 2009, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement in 2013 and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement in 2015.

Under the Liberal government, we have seen many new offices, frameworks and big promises, but at the end of the day, it has negotiated zero modern treaties. This is the context in which we look at Bill C-10.

Parliament needs to ask hard questions. Would the bill fix an underlying problem, or would it give the illusion of action while the same departments continue with business as usual? We already have oversight tools. The Office of the Auditor General has repeatedly studied modern treaty implementation and related issues. Audits in the last decade have highlighted serious gaps in how obligations are tracked, coordinated and met. Those reports set out recommendations and named the departments that needed to act, yet here we are years later, hearing many of the same concerns from treaty partners.

The problem is not a lack of reports; the problem is that ministers and departments are not held to account when they fail to implement the very agreements they sign. In fact, the government has already created new federal offices and initiatives to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. Despite that, progress on implementation remains slow.

No modern treaties have been established by the government. Indigenous governments spend too much time chasing basic compliance from federal partners. If these entities have not solved the problem inside the government, it then raises the question of why we should believe that a new external office will do so. Who has been fired for not delivering in the past? Many modern treaty partners originally proposed that a commissioner be housed within the Office of the Auditor General, similar to the commissioner of the environment. That model would have leveraged an existing institution and reduced duplication. The government instead chose a stand-alone agent of Parliament with a separate office, separate staff and separate budget. The real test should be whether a proposal improves outcomes on the ground, not whether it creates an office in Ottawa.

Reconciliation is measured in results. A commissioner would not build a home, sign an agreement or ensure that a department meets a timeline it has already missed. What would do that is ministerial responsibility and clear consequences for failure. If a modern treaty commitment is not being met, the responsible minister should have to explain that to Parliament. The department should have measurable implementation plans, codeveloped with treaty partners, that are reported publicly and tied to performance evaluations to senior officials. If officials refuse to act, they should not be promoted. If ministers ignore repeated warnings, they should answer for that in the House.

Conservatives support modern treaties and self-determination. We want to see a Canada in which indigenous and non-indigenous communities share in prosperity and in which agreements are honoured in practice, not just in words. Where Conservatives part on the bill is not the goal of accountability but on the tool the government has chosen; of course, that is based on their record. I have tuned into previous questions and answers on this very bill, and I know government members opposite may try to twist our words, so I will make this very clear. At a time when Canadians are struggling with the cost of living and when the federal public service has grown dramatically in size and cost, the answer to every problem in Ottawa cannot be more and more offices, more and more layers of reporting and more and more costs. Parliament should be careful not to confuse activity with results.

It is tempting to think that if we pass a bill and create a commissioner, we have solved the problem. The record of past reports and offices tells us otherwise. Instead of building a new bureaucracy and what seems to be the easy get-out-of-jail-free card policy solution to the government's past failures, we should strengthen the accountability of the systems we already have. We should insist that departments act on Auditor General recommendations. We should require transparent implementation plans for each treaty. We should empower indigenous governments as true partners, not as clients waiting for Ottawa to police itself.

This is the approach the Conservatives will continue to bring to this debate. We stand up for treaty rights, for the honour of the Crown and for a vision of reconciliation that is grounded in results, not just in rhetoric.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Bill C-10, this is not just a focus being introduced by the government. This is, in essence, being led by indigenous communities and indigenous leaders. When we talk about reconciliation, this could be a part of it in a very positive way.

Based on the Conservative opposition that we continue to see in the filibuster of the legislation and the behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party, who completely ignores indigenous communities on major projects, would the member not agree that the Conservative Party's approach to indigenous-related issues would appear to be nothing but artificial?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we understand why indigenous people are pushing for this. It is because they are frustrated. They are frustrated with the government's failure to follow the findings from the reports of the Auditor General and actually implement the solutions that have been highlighted. Where we deviate from the government is that we think we need to follow the reports and enforce the rules already on the books. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need more government. That is going to ramp up costs and not achieve the results we are looking for.