Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation

Sponsor

Rebecca Alty  Liberal

Status

Third reading (House), as of April 21, 2026

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-10.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Similar bills

C-77 (44th Parliament, 1st session) Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-10s:

C-10 (2022) Law An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19
C-10 (2020) An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts
C-10 (2020) Law Appropriation Act No. 4, 2019-20
C-10 (2016) Law An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-10 proposes a Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, an independent officer reporting to Parliament, to oversee and improve the federal government's fulfillment of modern treaty obligations.

Liberal

  • Establishes independent oversight: The bill establishes an independent Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, directly responding to over 20 years of Indigenous advocacy for an oversight mechanism to hold the federal government accountable to its treaty commitments and build trust.
  • Advances reconciliation and UNDRIP: The legislation is a crucial step in advancing reconciliation and upholding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), strengthening nation-to-nation relationships and ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligations.
  • Fosters economic growth and partnership: Modern treaties are vital drivers of economic prosperity for Indigenous communities and all Canadians. The bill, co-developed with modern treaty partners, ensures effective implementation to unlock this potential through collaboration.

Conservative

  • Opposes new, redundant bureaucracy: The party opposes Bill C-10, arguing the proposed commissioner is a costly, redundant bureaucracy that duplicates the Auditor General's work and merely covers government failures.
  • Highlights Liberal government's failures: Conservatives note the Liberal government has failed to negotiate any modern treaties in a decade, unlike the previous Conservative government's record of five in six years.
  • Demands accountability and concrete action: The party demands ministers and departments be held accountable for fulfilling existing legal obligations and delivering tangible results, rather than relying on more reports and bureaucratic layers.

NDP

  • Supports bill C-10: The NDP supports Bill C-10, a reproduction of Bill C-77, which has been developed over 20 years with modern treaty partners to ensure treaty obligations are met.
  • Ensures accountability and reconciliation: The bill acts as a safeguard, ensuring federal accountability for modern treaty implementation, aligning Canada with UNDRIP, and advancing reconciliation and self-determination for Indigenous peoples.
  • Developed with indigenous partners: Indigenous modern treaty partners asked for this legislation, which was created in consultation with over 130 Indigenous groups, receiving overwhelming support.
  • Justifies new office and costs: The new office, while incurring costs, would cooperate with the Auditor General to reduce duplication, improve certainty, de-risk investment, and support Indigenous economic participation.

Bloc

  • Supports the bill: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-10 as an important step towards reconciliation and ensuring accountability in the implementation of modern treaties, a position consistent with their previous stance.
  • Ensures accountability and transparency: The party believes the commissioner will provide necessary oversight to ensure the government fulfills its obligations, addresses a lack of follow-up, and moves beyond symbolic gestures to real action.
  • Proposes improvements to the bill: The Bloc suggests amendments to ensure the commissioner's independence, guarantee full access to information, respect provincial jurisdictions, ensure adequate funding, and require immediate tabling of reports.
  • Acknowledges Quebec's leadership: The party highlights Quebec's James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement as Canada's first modern treaty, serving as a successful model for land management and indigenous community development.

Green

  • Supports bill C-10: The Green Party strongly supports Bill C-10, which establishes a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, as a crucial step for reconciliation.
  • Indigenous-led initiative: Bill C-10 is the result of over 20 years of consultation and co-development with Indigenous peoples, particularly the Land Claims Agreements Coalition.
  • Urges swift passage: The party urges all members to pass Bill C-10 quickly, without amendments, and to avoid making it a political football, respecting Indigenous requests.
  • Essential for reconciliation: Passing Bill C-10 is a vital action to demonstrate seriousness about reconciliation and to honor the long-standing promises made to Indigenous modern treaty partners.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right when he says that the government often fails first nations.

I represent the Mohawk community of Kanesatake in the House. I know that there have been problems with water pollution caused by criminal groups, among others. I have been hounding the government about this for years, but I cannot even get a call back. The government has shown real indifference to this issue.

My colleague thinks that the government lacks leadership when it comes to treaty implementation. Still, does he not think that having a commissioner who could serve as a sort of liaison with first nations communities would be a better way to keep a closer eye on the government, particularly a government that does so little? Would it not ultimately be an accountability tool that would allow us parliamentarians, as well as first nations themselves, to keep an eye on the government?

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the first nation community in the member's riding. My ancestors came to this country with the Mohawk peoples in 1783, fleeing the United States at the time. It is absolutely unacceptable that first nations continue to face these challenges in a country as wealthy as Canada. What we are seeing with issues like talking about creating a new commissioner is a government that is talking about window dressing, when what we really need to be talking about are tangible investments to make life better for indigenous peoples in this country. It is performative, and what we really need is accountability.

That is why I am very proud, as a member of Parliament who represents communities in the Treaty No. 6 area, to stand up in the House and fight for them and hold the government accountable, to ensure it takes action to live up to its promises.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon South, SK

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Parkland for mentioning Jordan's principle. Half of our school divisions in the province of Saskatchewan are well behind in funding from the federal government, and that has caused a lot of stress around the board tables. In fact, many school divisions have actually had to make cuts in educational assistants because they had planned ahead of time and then all of a sudden the cheque from the federal government did not come to give the support.

I just want to thank the member for bringing up Jordan's principle and ask for his thoughts on the school divisions' issues with the federal government.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB

Madam Speaker, this is a huge issue in my riding, in my hon. colleague's riding and in ridings across the country, where school divisions, which are primarily provincially funded, have been receiving support from the federal government following the court decision on Jordan's principle. That court decision stated that for at-risk indigenous youth, the federal government would be there to provide support for educational assistants and additional supports to help many of these children, who are struggling with very unique challenges, to get ahead and up to the same level.

The government members have decided to withhold funding from groups like the Parkland School Division, resulting in layoffs of over 100 educational assistants in our area. That is hurting not only indigenous children but all the children in the school district, and the federal government is squarely to blame.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-10 and a fundamental issue in our nation's history: the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, which must be grounded in honour, trust and, most importantly, the fulfilment of promises.

This relationship demands more than words. It demands action, yet for too long under this government, we have witnessed a pattern of rhetoric outpacing results. Over the last decade, for the Canadian federal government, reconciliation has become more of a slogan than a measurable reality. Under Bill C-10, we find another example of this trend.

Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act, purports to establish a new agent of Parliament to monitor, review and audit how federal departments implement modern treaties with indigenous nations. The commissioner would conduct performance audits, assess compliance with treaty obligations objectives and the honour of the Crown itself, and report the findings to Parliament after sharing drafts with relevant departments and treaty partners.

On paper this sounds reasonable. However, far more important, in practice, it likely amounts to a multi-million dollar distraction that simply duplicates existing oversight mechanisms, lacks any real enforcement power and diverts precious resources from where they are truly needed: direct implementation, infrastructure, housing, clean water and economic opportunity for indigenous people.

Let us be frank about what modern treaties represent. These are comprehensive, hard-won agreements, often comprehensive land claim settlements, often including self-government provisions, that resolve long-standing disputes over land, resources, governance and rights. They establish enforceable federal law and empower indigenous nations to exercise authorities in areas like education, health, culture and local services. They are meant to foster true partnership, self-determination and prosperity, moving indigenous communities beyond the paternalism of the Indian Act.

Conservatives have a proud record of advancing these agreements. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, we successfully negotiated and signed five modern treaties in just six years: the Tłı̨chǫ land claims and self-government agreement, which was finalized in 2005 and 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 Délı̨nę final self-government agreement in 2015. These were not symbolic gestures. They delivered land, resources, financial settlements and governance powers that have enabled economic growth and community-led decision-making. In stark contrast, the Liberal government, now approaching 11 years in power, has signed exactly zero new modern treaties.

Seventy negotiations languish today in limbo, as they have for years. Basic commitments, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, which were, by the way, promised to be completely resolved by 2021, remain unfulfilled in dozens of communities, to the detriment of these communities. Housing shortages persist. Policing is under-resourced in many areas, and climate vulnerabilities hit indigenous nations hardest. As for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, many still gather dust.

The Auditor General, a commissioner who already has powers to document all of these issues, has extensively documented these failures, repeatedly, over the last 11 years. There have been more than 20 reports that have highlighted chronic issues: inconsistent departmental interpretations of treaty terms; delayed or incomplete fiscal transfers; fragmented responsibilities across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board; and most damningly, a complete absence of consequences when obligations are ignored.

Key audits include the 2013 comprehensive review of modern treaty implementation, the 2016 report on the Labrador-Inuit claims agreement and follow-ups in subsequent years showing little meaningful progress on any issue by the Liberal government. Even as recently as 2005, the Auditor General's follow-up on first nations' programs underscored ongoing implementation gaps and unsatisfactory actions on prior recommendations, yet the government responds not with decisive leadership but with more bureaucracy, as we find in the bill before us.

In this bill, we find another commissioner, another office, another $10.6 million over four years with ongoing annual millions of funding that could instead be used to fund homes, water systems or job-creating projects. The commissioner in this bill would review, monitor, assess, evaluate and report, but those are words that the Auditor General's mandate already has.

Unlike the Auditor General, this new role offers no binding recommendations, no penalties for non-compliance and no ability to compel departmental action. Reports under the bill would filter through the minister before Parliament sees them, how convenient, risking dilution or delay. Parliament itself has no power to initiate audits under this new recommendation. This is not robust accountability. It is simply performative oversight designed to deflect criticism from the federal Liberal government's lack of action.

Indigenous leaders and treaty partners deserve better than more endless reports. They deserve results. The Supreme Court's 2024 Restoule decision on the Robinson treaties reminds us what happens when the Crown fails its duties for generations: breaches of trust, prolonged litigation and eroded confidence. We cannot afford to repeat that cycle with modern treaties.

True reconciliation requires executive responsibility, not administrative expansion. Departments must prioritize treaty fulfilment in budgets and operations. Ministers must face consequences for lapses through performance evaluations, public scrutiny or even personnel changes when the failures are systemic. Indigenous governments should have direct funded channels to flag issues and demand response without bureaucratic intermediaries, as is outlined in this bill.

There are many other ways that the government could do better on all of these fronts. For example, it could enforce existing obligations directly by tying ministerial and deputy ministerial performance reviews explicitly to treaty compliance metrics, ensuring personal accountability for delays or breaches. The government could strengthen the Auditor General's monetary capacity by allocating dedicated and highly structured resources within the OAG for specialized recurring modern treaty audits with faster follow-up mechanisms and mandatory parliamentary briefings. It could impose strict response timelines that would mandate that departments must provide detailed action plans and progress updates within 90 days of any Auditor General finding or treaty partner complaint.

The government could accelerate stalled negotiations by setting clear timelines and processes for concluding the 70 ongoing talks, redirecting funds from redundant offices to bolster negotiation teams and support direct implementation. It could redirect the proposed costs associated with this bill towards achieving tangible priorities, including housing construction, clean water infrastructure, policing enhancements and economic development in treaty territories. The government could better empower indigenous-led oversight mechanisms by supporting direct oversight protocols that allow modern treaty partners to trigger departmental reviews and enforce transparency with new federal layers. It could advance economic reconciliation by fast-tracking resource partnerships, revenue sharing and development projects under existing treaties to generate jobs, self-sufficiency and community wealth.

The government could consolidate duplicative entities, instead of creating more of them, by merging or eliminating overlapping post-2015 offices into a single streamlined accountability framework with real, actual enforcement authority. It could enhance dispute resolution tools to better ensure expedited access to mediation, arbitration or tribunals in treaty disputes, reducing costly court battles. The government could shift to outcome-based metrics by replacing vague reporting with clear, public key performance indicators, such as homes completed, water advisories lifted and governance powers exercised. These are all things that would demonstrate visible progress as opposed to another bureaucracy.

Reconciliation is not measured by the number of offices in Ottawa or the volumes of reports produced. It should be measured by safe homes built, clean water flowing, strong policing in communities, thriving economies and the full honouring of nation-to-nation promises. Conservatives stand firmly for indigenous economic empowerment and accountability that delivers results, not more red tape.

We will not support Bill C-10 in its current form because it distracts from leadership failures and perpetuates delay. Let us instead demand action, enforce what already exists, hold people accountable and deliver for indigenous persons, who have waited long enough.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:25 p.m.

Conservative

William Stevenson Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Madam Speaker, as a member of INAN, the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I welcome a lot of the member's suggestions because the criticism we get from the government is that we do not have suggestions. The member has touched upon a lot of the issues, specifically one that has hit my riding.

Does the member think they could work with what they have available now, or does the process need to change? In my riding, the Exshaw School was going to have to close because it was reliant on the neighbouring Stoney nation, which had all its kids there, and the government was not paying for the school. The school was about to close until the eleventh hour.

Does the member think it is just that the Liberals do not get things done, or do they need to change the process entirely?

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Madam Speaker, my colleague would know from hearing testimony from indigenous persons at his committee that the reality is that when there are critical issues on the ground or ongoing generational issues, what often happens is that they get raised and then they go into this black box ether of multidepartmental malaise and event horizon that results in nothing. It results in more reports and more obfuscation, and that is not how we are going to achieve reconciliation in Canada.

Again, I tried to put forward concrete recommendations for the government to move away from more bureaucracy, more paternalism and more complaints, ending up in an endless morass of bureaucracy, and toward real key performance indicator-based outcomes that we can measure, like more schools built and boil water advisories lifted. This is where we need to go, and it is very disappointing to see yet another bureaucracy put in place as opposed to talking about actual outcomes.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for sharing her perspective with us, although it is not one that I share. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑10. We think it is a good idea to have a commissioner.

However, if the bill is passed and a commissioner is appointed, I am concerned about the appointment process. Earlier, I gave the example of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is also appointed for seven years, who is independent of Parliament, and whose appointment—which is supposed to be a consensus decision—is becoming politicized. We know that the Minister of Finance has done everything possible to undermine his credibility and that the Liberals may be in the process of choosing the new Parliamentary Budget Officer without consulting the other parties. I wonder what my colleague thinks about commissioners being appointed by the Governor in Council, which basically means by the Prime Minister.

Does my colleague not think that, if the bill is passed, we should perhaps try out a new method and have an appointment process that directly involves Parliament?

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Madam Speaker, I also have concerns about the politicization of the Parliamentary Budget Officer appointment. I think Parliament should have more influence and oversight in that appointment process. However, at the same time, the member also gave the exact argument for why colleagues in this place should not be supporting this bill. A better option to have more oversight would be to have fenced, allocated resources within the existing scope of the Auditor General's office, because it has teeth behind its processes.

I believe, if Bill C-10 passes, indigenous persons are going to experience more delays, more obfuscations and more politicization, as opposed to achieving actual results. We should be talking about lifted boil water advisories, economic opportunities and resource partnership development. That is where we need to be driving, and that is what we should be talking about here.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:25 p.m.

Liberal

John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, it is very good this morning to hear the comments from the members opposite and their new-found respect for treaties and also for reconciliation.

I am just wondering how the member opposite would reconcile that with the comments from her leader that the federal government should override indigenous rights in order to get pipelines built, regardless of the objection of those rights holders.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Madam Speaker, first of all, the Leader of the Opposition sat in a government that successfully negotiated and finalized six modern-day treaties. My colleague opposite sits in a government that has negotiated zero treaties over 11 years. The proof is in the pudding.

Second of all, the Prime Minister, the leader of the member's party, has claimed that he wants to build pipelines, yet he cannot point to a shovel in the ground. I think what is going to happen is that the Liberals' voter coalition is rapidly going to fall apart because they do not have the chops to do exactly what my colleague opposite said, which is advance resource development processes while—

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:30 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

We are out of time and need to resume debate.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

At its core, the bill responds to long-standing concerns raised by indigenous communities about the need for greater federal accountability in implementing modern treaties and agreements. These treaties are essentially comprehensive land claims agreements that are negotiated between first nations, Inuit and Métis groups and the Crown to resolve long-standing disputes in defined territories.

I want to recognize that indigenous communities have long asked for a mechanism to ensure that Canada fulfills its promises under these treaties. However, the way the bill seeks to achieve that goal raises important concerns about accountability, clarity and the impact on existing property rights.

First, many of the functions the commissioner would perform are already done within the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations. By codifying them in law and creating a new office, we risk duplicating roles, blurring the lines of authority and diffusing ministerial responsibility.

Despite appearances, the commissioner for modern treaties implementation would not be an officer of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Ethics Commissioner, who are appointed by and report directly to Parliament itself. They are independent of government and do not exist to hold the executive, the Prime Minister and the cabinet to account.

However, under Bill C-10, the commissioner would be appointed by cabinet, via the Governor in Council, on the advice of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. This means the commissioner would sit within the executive branch, the Prime Minister's cabinet, and not the legislative branch. While the commissioner would table reports in Parliament, they would answer to the very government they are meant to monitor. Parliament could not direct them, remove them or review their work in any substantive way. This is a very serious oversight gap.

We have seen this problem before. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was designed with similar intentions: to be at arm's length, efficient and transparent. Instead, it became a costly entity with limited parliamentary scrutiny, spending billions while accountability remained murky. This new proposed office, with $10.6 million over four years, risks following the same path.

I also note that no external oversight mechanisms are built into Bill C-10, which is a very big omission. There would be no independent review body overseeing the commissioner. There would be no performance audit or sunset clause. There would be no clear consequences for failing to act on findings. There would be no mandatory parliamentary committee review at fixed intervals.

These omissions of accountability are not abstract. They would have real-world consequences, particularly when it comes to land and resource rights. In provinces such as Alberta and British Colombia, people are, right now, experiencing the practical impacts of uncertainty due to overlapping land rights. Landowners with fee simple title, which is the form of title most Canadians own their home under, are worried. These landowners believed their property rights were secure, but they are discovering that they may need to consult indigenous groups before doing things like building a dock, harvesting timber or even walking through nearby forested areas.

The Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision has shown that even the long-held title ownership Canadians have in their homes and lands does not always confer absolute control. This has created a great deal of uncertainty for landowners, lenders and the real estate market. As treaty rights continue to expand across the country, this decision would continue to touch more communities, municipalities and resource-rich regions across Canada.

As these modern treaties are implemented, we must also prepare Canadians for the changes that will follow. This is why the roles, powers and accountability mechanisms of the commissioner must be clearly defined, which is something that is not present in the bill and that the bill fails to do. We do not need a new layer of bureaucracy with undefined reach into matters that affect both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. It is crucial that the government communicate all policies and legal shifts openly and honestly with Canadians. Canadians deserve to understand not only the rights being affirmed for indigenous communities but also their own rights. Canadians also need to understand how their rights, including property rights and resource rights, may be affected.

This is about transparency and fairness. People cannot respect or adapt to what has been hidden from them. If we fail to prepare the public and if these developments arise suddenly or unevenly, we risk confusion, frustration and unnecessary division. For years, the government has talked about reconciliation, but without accountability and without clarity, reconciliation will never be achieved. The path ahead must therefore include national education that explains how treaty rights and private ownership rights coexist under Canadian law and how governments intend to manage those intersectionalities.

Canadians must not be left to learn through conflict or court cases. They must be included through dialogue, communication and truth. The relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples must be built on trust, integrity and transparency. Trust is not created by removing ministerial responsibility or by insulating bureaucracies from scrutiny. We cannot allow the new commissioner to become a parallel system of governance funded by taxpayers, shielded from oversight and empowered to make decisions that could change the relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples, property rights in Canada and the economic stability of the country without direct accountability.

There is a basic irony here in the government creating a treaty commissioner who could not be overlooked. At its core, the implementation of treaties is the responsibility of cabinet ministers. These are elected officials who are accountable to Parliament and to Canadians, and whose role is to ensure that government programs and policies uphold the law and meet Canada's obligations. Bill C-10 would create a new, cabinet-appointed office to audit and monitor federal departments, effectively outsourcing a core ministerial responsibility.

I am not kidding. The government is creating an office to monitor whether it does the very job taxpayers elected it to do. Taxpayers pay ministers close to $350,000 every year, yet the ministers have the audacity to outsource their responsibility to commissioners they appoint. The Liberal government is taking outsourcing, obviously, to another level. This is simply circular accountability, where ministers evade ownership of the consequences of their decisions. This so-called independent commissioner would likely become a shield for government, allowing ministers to deflect responsibility and accountability from treaty implementation and land rights. The proposed arrangement raises some fundamental questions. If a minister's duty is to ensure compliance, why is an independent office needed to check that they are doing their job?

In short, and in closing, while the spirit of the bill aims to improve accountability and transparency, it actually risks the opposite by allowing ministers to abdicate their duty to Parliament and hide behind the commissioners. This is why any discussion of oversight must focus on holding ministers directly accountable. We must ensure the commissioner's work supports, rather than substitutes, democracy and responsibility.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:40 p.m.

Liberal

John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of interesting points made by the member opposite. In particular, I take her point about property rights and economic stability.

She noted, at the beginning of her comments, that the bill on the commissioner for modern treaties was built and developed with the support of, and in consultation with, indigenous rights holders and indigenous communities across Canada.

I wonder how she would respond to them, in that the bill would implement specifically what they have been asking for.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2026 / 1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Madam Speaker, the important issue is one of reconciliation. If we implement a system that blocks accountability and allows the ministers to deflect responsibility, it would not lead to reconciliation.

It is very important that, with Bill C-10, people recognize that this system would ensure that the minister would appoint a commissioner, and that the commissioner would then be accountable to the same minister who appointed them. This would deflect the responsibility of the cabinet, which is supposed to be accountable for reconciliation in this country.