Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents in York—Durham.
While I am from York—Durham, which is a riding in the greater Toronto area, what people may not realize is that I actually represent two first nations communities: the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation. Both were included in my new riding of York—Durham during the last redistribution, so that is part of the great pleasure I have had as the new member for this new riding of York—Durham. Previously, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation was part of another member's riding, and, similarly, the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation were part of another member's riding. Now I have the pleasure of representing both first nations.
Part of my job and my experience as a new member has been doing some outreach to each first nation, as I do to communities across my riding, to get to know them and their issues. I have had the pleasure of getting to know both bands, their leadership and their communities more generally; in particular, there are Chief Donna Big Canoe of the Chippewas and Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas.
I had the pleasure of attending the Mississaugas' powwow this past summer to learn a little bit more about their history and their culture. What I have learned so far is that both first nations in my riding are striving to be modern and effective bands that work toward the good of their residents and the prosperity of not only their communities but also the larger community. For the Mississaugas, that is in Port Perry; for the Chippewas, that is the town of Georgina. I am happy to report that there are strong relationships between both municipalities and the first nations side by side.
I really view my role, in this case, as giving assistance to first nations, as I give to other municipalities, and being a good representative for them in Ottawa. I have learned that they are both entrepreneurial and community-minded. For example, the Mississaugas are the majority owners of the Minogi corporation, a new clean energy investment company, and the Voyager Services Limited company, a provider of nuclear and energy construction solutions. Last year, those companies announced collaboration with the Cameco company, a marquee Canadian company. To me that just shows the entrepreneurship of the first nations in my community, specifically the Mississaugas in that case.
The Chippewas have long operated the Island View Business Centre and then more recently opened a new business venture with the Seven Generations Commercial Centre and GoIn Fuels. I had an opportunity to help cut a ribbon there earlier this summer. They are not free from difficulties, like many communities. In the case of the Chippewas, the band is located on an island. That presents significant challenges for transportation and health care.
Unfortunately, there are great ironies in Liberal green energy policies, carbon taxes, eco-justice or whatever other name it has been called; they have sort of been falling away from that. When the minister was still in cabinet at least, they were pursuing these policies. One of the great ironies of that is that transportation to the Chippewas of Georgina Island is fuelled by a ferry that runs on diesel fuel, which was subject to the carbon tax. There was no ability for members of the band and community to get back and forth to the island other than on a ferry fuelled by diesel fuel. They just had to pay more out of pocket because of that carbon tax. That is an outstanding issue that the government has failed to address and has failed to make proper compensation for, in my opinion.
Now, being in Ontario, these bands have a different history than those that are subject to modern treaties, of course, because both bands were subject to treaties that existed in Ontario. There are two significant treaties: the Coldwater-Narrows treaty and the Williams Treaties. Both are now largely settled. They were largely settled by the previous Conservative government. That is a bit of a trend we have heard about today in the speeches.
It is clear that under the previous Conservative government, there was movement; there was political will to engage in good-faith treaty negotiation and settlements and, at least in my community, that resulted in the Coldwater-Narrows treaty and the completion of most of the Williams treaty settlement.
However, when it comes to Bill C-10, I just have one question: Why can the government not just do its job? It seems that every time there is a problem, the government for the last 10 years, and especially the new old government, seems to create some new bureaucracy. We have a problem in housing, so we need another bureaucracy. We have a problem with modern treaties and enforcing them, so we will create a new bureaucracy. However, another bureaucrat will not tell us anything we do not already know. For all the lip service that the government has paid to indigenous issues for the last 10 years, it remains, in my opinion, as fractured as it has ever been. There are, in fact, dozens of Auditor General reports from the last decade touching on aboriginal people's issues in Canada. Perhaps we should start with dealing with those before we create a new commissioner to give us more reports.
I want to focus for a bit of time on the supposed mandate of this new bureaucrat. The first mandate in Bill C-10 is “strengthening the relationships between the Government of Canada and Indigenous modern treaty partners”. As I said, I do not think this bureaucrat would tell us anything we do not already know. Is it not the minister's job to maintain good relationships with indigenous and aboriginal peoples across Canada? Is that not something she is capable of doing? Is it not the Governor in Council's job, acting through cabinet and the Prime Minister, to maintain those good relationships? Why can they not do that themselves?
The second mandate for this commissioner would be, “fulfilling the Government of Canada’s obligations under, and achieving the objectives of, modern treaties, these obligations and objectives being interpreted in a broad and purposive manner”. Of course the government should fulfill its obligations under a treaty. Indeed, it should fulfill its obligations and agreements with all Canadians. When the government says it will do something, it should do something. However, what is missing from this objective is any reference to protecting the rights of the Crown contained in any modern treaty. These treaties are two-way streets. They create rights and obligations, and I do not see how this commissioner would do the latter.
The third mandate would be, “upholding the honour of the Crown in respect of the timely and effective implementation of modern treaties.” Just a moment ago, I was accused of not having read the bill, but I assure the member for Nunavut that I did read the bill, and it does say that the commissioner's mandate would be to uphold the honour of the Crown. This is a fundamental aspect of aboriginal law that every law student learns about: that the honour of the Crown is always at stake in our discussions and interactions with aboriginal peoples. It can give rise to different duties in different circumstances, but what constitutes honourable conduct will vary in the circumstances. For example, the Crown should not act dishonourably or engage in sharp dealings, and because treaties are not simply contracts, a generous interpretation is necessary. It gives rise to the duty to consult, of course, and requires diligent good-faith implementation of treaties.
There are other aspects of the honour of the Crown, but the ultimate purpose, in my view, is toward the reconciliation of pre-existing aboriginal peoples and the assertion of Canadian sovereignty in the modern era. The honour of the Crown is fundamental in dealings between the federal and provincial governments and aboriginal peoples. In my humble view, at least, this is not something that can or should be delegated to a bureaucrat, a mere functionary. Where is the minister? Where is cabinet? Where is the Prime Minister? The government cannot and should not abdicate its responsibilities to functionaries. This is an important aspect, and it is incumbent on the minister, who is responsible for her department, to maintain the honour of the Crown, not on a commissioner.
Even if we accept that such a position is necessary or desirable, which we do not on this side of the House, in my view, the new bureaucrat would be missing a key power, and that is the power to do anything about new modern treaties. There would be no power to engage in negotiations; there would be no power to do any of the things that the government says should be done with respect to reconciliation. Therefore, we are left to conclude that this new position would, again, be mere window dressing and mere lip service. This is a continuing departure from parliamentary accountability and parliamentary supremacy, and it is a troubling trend of the Liberal government. In my view, the minister must be responsible for these relations, for their successes and their failures. The government must be responsible, not a new bureaucrat.
