Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a matter that goes beyond the very foundation of this country: the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples. That relationship is defined not only by our history, but by our honour. It is tested not by words or new offices, but by actions. It is measured not by the number of new bureaucracies we create, but by the commitments we fulfill and the promises we keep.
For decades, governments have spoken of reconciliation, yet reconciliation without accountability remains a broken promise. The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, simply provides cover for its decade-long history of broken promises to indigenous peoples. The new office of the treaty commissioner would tell us nothing that the Office of the Auditor General and many indigenous leaders have already told us: that the government continues to fail.
I want to speak plainly about where we are in implementing modern treaties in Canada, what progress has been made, where failures persist and how we can fix the system without creating another costly bureaucracy at a time when taxpayers can ill afford it. However, before we discuss implementation, it is important to define what we mean by modern treaties and self-government treaties.
A modern treaty is a comprehensive land claims agreement negotiated between a first nation, Inuit or Métis group and the Crown, which means the federal government and sometimes provincial governments, that settles outstanding aboriginal rights and land claims. The purpose of a modern treaty is to resolve long-standing disputes over land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. The scope of a modern treaty can include land, resources, financial compensation and governance rights, and it often incorporates self-government provisions. However, not all modern treaties are full self-government agreements. Once implemented, modern treaties are enforceable by federal law and generally replace or clarify rights under historic treaties.
A self-government treaty is an agreement, often part of a modern treaty, that specifically recognizes and establishes an indigenous government with the authority to make certain laws in areas similar to a provincial or municipal government. Its purpose is to grant indigenous groups the right to govern themselves, which includes control over education, health care, culture and local services. The scope focuses on political authority and administrative powers rather than on only land and resources. Legally, self-government provisions are binding and implemented under federal law. They can exist as part of a modern treaty or as a stand-alone self-government agreement.
Understanding these distinctions is crucial. Implementation is not about creating new offices or new bureaucracy; it is about ensuring the Crown and its departments respect the legal authority already established in those agreements. I should note that the recent Whitecap Dakota's self-government agreement, which passed with Conservative support in 2023, is not a full modern treaty. There remain outstanding issues, which I understand the government continues to negotiate on.
I wonder exactly how a future commissioner of modern treaty implementation would be able to magically motivate the government to get this done. Naming and shaming is one way, yes, but the ministers can do that themselves. The ministers of each and every department can hold their departments accountable for failures rather than creating another new bureaucracy.
We know it can get done. In fact, the Conservatives, under Prime Minister Harper, signed five modern treaties in a span of six years. In over a decade, the Liberals have negotiated none. The five modern treaties include the Tlicho first nation's land claims and self-government agreement that happened in 2006, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement in 2009, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement in 2009, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement in 2013 and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement in 2015.
Make no mistake. I have said it once; I will say it again. The Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous communities that want to get off the paternalistic and archaic Indian Act. What we do not support is the mistaken assumption that spending more taxpayer dollars compensates for the lack of accountability within government bureaucracy.
Who has been fired? Has anyone been fired for not living up to what the government signed? Have any departments done some reorganization because of the failures of the government to live up to its treaties? I have not heard that today in a speech.
How has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations managed this internally? I know she is new. I get that she was elected just a few months ago, but this question still remains: How is a report from the new commissioner's office going to change things when dozens of Auditor General's reports on the failures of government have resulted in nothing moving forward?
The Office of the Auditor General conducts regular audits of treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-government agreements, the implementation of them, and treaty land entitlements. Some of the audits include the 2005 report on the federal government meeting treaty land entitlement obligations, the 2006 report “Federal Participation in the British Columbia Treaty Process—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada”, the comprehensive “Audit of the Implementation of Modern Treaty Obligations” from 2013, and the 2016 report “Implementing the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement”. This does not even include the 14 Auditor General reports produced since 2015 on related issues facing first nations, Inuit and Métis.
Where are those reports? Has every government department been addressing the concerns tabled by the Auditor General? This is why indigenous leaders are calling for this legislation. Yes, they want to see more oversight, absolutely, but we think the failure is on the government. We think the government itself, within the bureaucracies, and the ministers themselves have not been pushing departments hard enough to live up to these modern treaties.
While governments continue to ignore the reports and audits from the Auditor General and continue to ignore treaty partners, there is still no collaborative modern treaty implementation policy, which happened in 2023. What would be a positive step forward considering the Liberal government is currently bogged down with 70 treaty negotiations, and two years later, it has not implemented anything?
Here is another crucial point. Implementation is not about new policies, new offices or new dollars going into bureaucracies. It is a question of whether current officials are doing their jobs, whether existing departments are held accountable and whether existing laws and commitments are enforced.
However, here we are today talking about a new office, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, a multi-million dollar bureaucracy intended to monitor, oversee and report on implementation, an office that would not be entirely accountable to Parliament. The commissioner, government and treaty partners would decide when audits are conducted and how, not Parliament. Reports would be tabled by the minister a few weeks after they receive them, but Parliament would not have the power to initiate audits of the government's handling of modern treaty implementation.
With respect, that is the wrong approach. We do not need more bureaucrats. In fact, the Liberals really ought to learn from their past mistakes. Between 2015 and 2017, several new federal offices and initiatives were created to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaties implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee, and the reconciliation secretariat.
Since the creation of these offices, as I have said before, no modern treaties have been established by the government. There are six entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure the implementation of these treaties, and now we are supposed to believe that finally we have the magic bullet that will solve it all.
Again, maybe the answer is to start firing those who are not doing their jobs, who are not living up to the commitments the government signed and is obliged to do. There are reports creating dust on shelves. Why are we not just doing what those reports have outlined? We need ministers and officials to take responsibility for obligations we already have, whether in modern treaties, self-government provisions or historic agreements.
Since the 1970s, Canada has sought to move beyond the numbered treaties through the negotiation of modern treaties, which are comprehensive land claim agreements that establish self-government, define rights and confirm jurisdictional authority. Today, there are over two dozen modern treaties in force across Canada, from the Yukon and Nunavut to British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. These agreements represent some of the most advanced models of indigenous government anywhere in the world, yet today, the situation remains uneven.
Some treaty nations have made substantial progress in self-government and economic development. Others remain entangled in administrative barriers, forced to negotiate or litigate and litigate again for the very rights they thought they had already secured. For many indigenous governments, the experience of treaty implementation has been one of delay and paternalism. Departments interpret treaty commitments inconsistently, and fiscal transfers are too often designed to preserve federal control rather than encourage and enable indigenous autonomy. This results in what leaders have called “the illusion of implementation”: the appearance of progress without the substance of change. A treaty signed is celebrated. A treaty implemented is where the government drags its feet.
Across Canada, indigenous and treaty partners continue to wait for commitments signed decades ago to be fulfilled. Implementation remains chaotic and delayed. Fiscal transfers are late or incomplete. Departments pass down responsibilities back and forth like a file that nobody wants to own. In 2024, the Auditor General reported again that the federal system remains fragmented, bureaucratic and unaccountable. One of the greatest challenges is that no single department or body holds full responsibility for ensuring Canada’s compliance with its treaty obligations. Responsibilities are fragmented across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board, just to name a few.
This bureaucratic mess means that when commitments go unfulfilled, no one is held accountable, not politically, not financially and not morally. Instead of holding those responsible accountable, the government proposes spending millions on a new office to supervise what should already be happening. How many offices do we need to tell the government that it is failing? Adding one commissioner does not change culture or performance. Only enforcement, accountability and clear expectations can. A lot of this, as I have mentioned many times in my speech, has been outlined in various reports already tabled in this House over decades.
The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Restoule v. Canada was a stark reminder of what is at stake. For nearly 170 years, the Crown failed to honour the Robinson Huron Treaty, failing to adjust annuities as promised. The court called this a violation of the honour of the Crown, not an oversight but a breach of trust, yet instead of ensuring that departments and ministers simply fulfill their obligations, now we hear talk of creating another bureaucracy to monitor implementation. The honour of the Crown is not measured by bureaucratic reports or new offices but by results on the ground: homes being built, clean water and indigenous policing being named an essential service, something that was promised years ago by former prime minister Trudeau, which still has not happened. Infrastructure is crumbling. Governance and economic opportunity are what indigenous leaders are calling for, and it is Canada that has failed to live up to those obligations.
We have built a system that celebrates the signing of those treaties, but nothing is happening to ensure that they are being upheld, despite the reports, despite the information, despite the studies and despite the conversations that we have on the ground with indigenous leaders themselves who are calling for this. What should change is ministers and departmental officials being held responsible for their legally binding obligations. That will change when we start firing people who are not doing their jobs. If a treaty commitment is delayed or ignored, someone must be held accountable, not an office on Wellington Street but the department itself, the minister and the leadership who signed those agreements.
Safety and basic services remain uneven. As I mentioned before, indigenous policing is underfunded, housing is substandard and climate-related disasters disproportionately impact indigenous communities. The Auditor General has talked about all of this. The Auditor General has also outlined ways to fix it. The commissioner would not build houses. The commissioner would not hire police officers. A commissioner would not ensure clean water.
What is required is executive responsibility and operational diligence. Departments must prioritize, budgets must be executed properly, and ministers must ensure that existing laws are followed. That is how results are delivered, not by another layer of bureaucracy.
Federal programs designed to support indigenous communities are often mismanaged. Hundreds of non-indigenous firms have falsely claimed indigenous status to win contracts. Oversight came way too late. Do not forget ArriveCAN. A commissioner would not prevent fraud; proper departmental controls, accountability and enforcement would.
Similarly, free, prior and informed consent is often ignored in practice. Consultation without power is meaningless. A commissioner cannot give departments the political will to respect indigenous sovereignty; only leadership and accountability can.
Therefore the solution is clear: Departments need to do their jobs. The authority, the responsibility and the obligation already exist; we simply need to enforce them. Ministers must be held accountable. If an obligation is unfulfilled, it is not a bureaucratic problem; it is a leadership failure. Parliament must ensure consequences.
Indigenous governments must be partners in oversight. They should hold departments accountable directly, without requiring another costly office. Performance must be measurable. Tracking, reporting and enforcement can be done with existing systems, and I have already named a bunch, if officials are mandated to act rather than to report on not acting.
Reconciliation is measured in results: homes built, clean water delivered, indigenous policing, economic opportunity and the integrity of our nation-to-nation agreements. We do not need another commissioner. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need another office to spend millions of taxpayer dollars when we are already running massive deficits. We need ministers, departments and public service officials to simply do what they are legally required to do. If we honour our treaties, if we enforce accountability and if we expect results, then reconciliation is not just possible; it is inevitable.
Let us act here in the House with integrity, with resolve and with honour. Let us ensure that every promise is kept, not with more bureaucracy but with the discipline to actually do our jobs.
