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

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talking about ways the government could be more transparent in the implementation of modern treaties. Could he give us a brief summary of what is not working? He said that we do not need another commissioner. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but I would like to know more about what he is actually suggesting.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, who was deemed an expert on this issue years ago when the reports were done, already highlighted the significant gaps in the implementation of modern treaties. That is why we are questioning the need for a brand new bureaucracy that is going to ramp up costs. If we already have an Auditor General who has highlighted the gaps, all we need now is direct ministerial accountability, responsible to the House, and enforceable measures that are enforced when the government fails to implement the treaties it negotiates.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would like to take some time to elaborate on what our jobs are here, and specifically the jobs of the government and the ministers. Why do we need an extra layer of bureaucracy when they can simply keep promises?

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

Mr. Speaker, ministers need to be accountable for government programs and obligations and the treaties they sign that they choose to implement. We see a theme happening over and over again in the House by the Liberal government. Every time a program introduced by the government, like a treaty in this case, is signed off on and fails to get implemented properly, the solution from the government seems to be that we need more government.

At a time when Canadians all across the country are facing increased costs to their standard of living and are facing more and more pressures, we see from the government the need to spend even more money, creating a new bureaucracy for oversight instead of using the tools we already have.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can share with us how the Conservatives were protecting the rights of indigenous peoples when they worked with the Liberals to help expedite the passing of Bill C-5.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative record on indigenous relationships is clear. When Prime Minister Harper held office, we signed and implemented five modern treaties in six years.

We always stand with indigenous people. We stand with reconciliation and with all first nations people.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member put on the record this afternoon. It would appear as if she is supportive, at least in principle, of the legislation.

Part of the issue for us is recognizing that in order for the legislation to advance to committee, we need to get support from, in particular, the Conservative Party, which continues to want to prevent it from going to committee.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to that, given the importance of the fact that indigenous community leaders are pushing for the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, it is the government's responsibility to get the Conservative Party to accept the bill. We agree on the principle and want to study the bill. However, perhaps the government has not been able to fully convince everyone. I think it is the government's job to convince the Conservative Party, so I urge the government to have a conversation with the Conservative Party.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to partly address the comment made by the parliamentary secretary. I do not think anybody is obstructing anything. I just think every member in this House should have the same amount of time to participate in debate and speak to a bill as the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary. That is fair to all members of Parliament.

I appreciate the feedback from the Bloc Québécois member on this bill, especially the ideas for improvement when it comes to the reporting timelines. She makes a compelling case for why she thinks this bill and this requirement are needed. However, I would like her to comment, as she has been here for 10 years, on the sad state of affairs that we have a federal Liberal government that refuses to be accountable in the first place and does not just do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would need 10 years just to answer my colleague's question. My answer would also likely be very broad.

Whether we are talking about indigenous affairs or other issues, everything is being dragged out, as I said earlier. I get the impression that there is no will to do anything. I am seeing this with committees in particular right now. I was not planning on bringing this up, but it is clear that the government has no desire to convene committees, no desire to call witnesses, no desire to work and no intention of introducing any bills.

Even though we are told that it is not the same government, it has been the same government for 10 years. I feel that its members have no desire to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was a productive member at the indigenous and northern affairs committee during her time there, and I want to thank her for her efforts at that committee.

Next week, we will have the Assembly of First Nations in town for its annual general assembly. We will have hundreds of chiefs and more than 600 first nations community members from all across Canada. They will be asking us what we are doing to improve their legislation and what we are doing to improve their quality of life.

I wonder if the member opposite could talk to us a bit about how we should be collaborating to ensure that while these chiefs, who are an integral part of Canada, are here, we are showing them that we can work collaboratively across party lines to ensure we are doing the best for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague.

With all due respect, what I would say to the Assembly of First Nations is that the government must pass laws itself to monitor it and ensure that it is doing the work it is supposed to do.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about indigenous relations.

I know that there are several indigenous nations in her riding and that, historically, relations have been difficult. This means that it may have been challenging to built a relationship of trust over the years.

In this context, we see that the government deciding to go back on its word—

[The Acting Speaker, Dane Lloyd]

The member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan has 10 seconds to respond.