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

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will note, as I did in my speech, that there are many reports from the Auditor General outlining the issues we have had with implementing treaty rights for indigenous peoples of Canada. They have never been followed through on.

The argument I was making throughout my speech is that we do not actually enforce the mandate of the executive of the Crown to fulfill treaty obligations. I do not believe another officer of Parliament would lead us to better objectives.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his explanations. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill and believes that it gives parliamentarians a tool to put pressure on the executive branch in the event that it fails to meet its obligations.

I understand what my colleague is saying. We should be able to expect the government to do its job and we, as MPs, could apply pressure. However, let us consider the example of the Auditor General of Canada. She is the one who informed us last October that when people were calling the Canada Revenue Agency, they were getting accurate answers only 17% of the time.

Why does my colleague not think it would be beneficial to have another tool that could keep us more informed as parliamentarians?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what lies behind my opposition to this is that we, as individual members of Parliament, have so much more power than I think almost any of us even attempt to exercise. If this bill is successful, all the powers outlined in Bill C-10 for the actions of the commissioner, the officer of Parliament, would be for what we as members of Parliament already can do.

If we care about seeing treaties operationalize, and in the context of British Columbia this is so important right now, first and foremost we have to devote ourselves as MPS to holding the minister accountable. We can do that through the tools we have already. It is up to us, the elected people. We should not dismiss our responsibilities.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can feel the hon. member's frustration with regard to what has gone on. Does he see a pattern over the last 10 years? This is just an extenuation of what has gone on with things not being accounted for when it comes to the Liberals dealing with certain things, specifically things in the Indian Act. How is this going to make anything better?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I were standing here today and the Minister of Indigenous Services was before Parliament saying that they had signed multiple treaties that were going to empower young indigenous Canadians to start businesses, have access to their resources and have better certainty for home ownership. However, we are not there, and we have not seen any of that in the last decade. That is unfortunate.

I do not believe in establishing another officer of Parliament because it will lead to more red tape. Again, in the last 10 years, there have been no treaties signed. Why not? Where has the minister been? The minister has not done their job.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why does the member oppose this commissioner?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the establishment of another officer of Parliament because it would degrade the work we should be doing as members of Parliament and would not take concrete action to hold the minister accountable for their responsibilities to sign treaties. There is no consequence for not signing treaties in this bill.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise. Once again I would like to take 30 seconds to thank the wonderful people of Northumberland—Clarke for sending me here again, for a third time. It is a privilege of a lifetime and an honour of a lifetime to work for them here in the House of Commons.

Of course, we are here today to talk about Bill C-10. I will go over it relatively briefly, as there has been debate already on this very important bill.

Bill C-10 would establish the independent commissioner of modern treaty implementation as an agent of Parliament. It would create the office of the commissioner to support this role. The mandate of the commissioner would be to conduct reviews and performance audits on federal government institutions' activities related to implementing modern treaties, comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements with indigenous peoples post-1970s, and to monitor and report on how well the federal government fulfills its obligations, commitments and relationships under these treaties.

It would aim to promote accountability; rebuild trust between the Crown and modern treaty partners, indigenous groups and self-governing first nations; and address long-standing, for more than 20 years in many cases, calls for better oversight and implementation of treaty promises.

The commissioner would report the findings to Parliament to help ensure that the government's actions would align with its treaty obligations. The commissioner would not have enforcement powers and would focus on independent reviews, auditing and reporting, rather than on direct intervention.

Of course, Conservatives support modern treaties, and if someone has been reviewing the debate, they would see that my comments would be squarely within the Conservative argument. Of course, we believe in these debates and we believe in the treaties, but we believe ultimately in enforcement; the government needs to take action to rectify wrongs as opposed to having another level of bureaucracy. Let us face it: After a decade of Liberal rule, if agencies, bureaucrats and offices were to create solutions, we would be living in the best economy in the world.

The reality is that, despite the Prime Minister's promises, we languish near the bottom of the G7 economies, even though we have many different government agencies, including a housing agency and a national projects office. I might take a moment to pause and discuss the national projects office. I worked closely with my Liberal counterparts to legislate the creation of the national projects office, but here we are, nearly a year later, at least eight months, and as of yet no projects have been approved. Because of an Order Paper question, we know that the government has spent close to a million dollars, and probably more, because the answer is a little dated now, yet no projects have been approved

There has been a pattern over the last 10 years. The so-called new government is continuing the ways of the so-called old government: If in fact there is a problem, it creates a new government office. Ronald Reagan once said that the closest thing to eternal life in this world is a government office. Despite the fact that we do not have results, we just get more and more government offices that spend more tax dollars without getting results. In fact in some cases we get the exact opposite of the outcome we want, which in this case is the administration of treaties in accordance with legislation and in accordance with the path towards truth and reconciliation. This is because, as we build more and more bureaucracies, the truth gets more and more obscured.

We need to hold civil servants accountable. That starts with the government, quite frankly. We need parliamentarians to step up and not be afraid to criticize the government and not be afraid to criticize the actions of their civil servants and hold them accountable if they are not taking the necessary actions and steps of treaties as we go forward.

Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. In the span of six years, the former Conservative government negotiated five modern treaties. The Liberals have negotiated none in ten years in office. The Office of the Auditor General has conducted over two dozen reports, including audits, since 2005 into treaty negotiations and matters that affect indigenous people.

Rather than demanding accountability from “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals propose creating new layers of bureaucracy and spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it. I might say, it is a particularly poor time to spend funds that could go directly towards the implementation of treaties. Money could go directly towards helping or assisting first nations, for example in making sure that every indigenous child has access to clean drinking water, which was a pledge made in 2015 by the Liberal government. The Liberals committed that, within five years, every indigenous child would have access to clean drinking water. Here we are in 2026, and that pledge still has not been made good on.

The first step towards truth and reconciliation is the truth part. The second part is living up to our promises, our commitments. If we commit to anyone that we are going to do something, it is the very basis of human nature, of any type of code of morality from any religion, or any secular code, that we need to live up to that commitment. We are here in 2026 talking about a promise that was made in 2015. Before implementing another level of government bureaucracy, why do we not just live up to the promises made in the House to first nations peoples?

Too often, whenever the Liberals see a problem, they see a government agency they need to create. The Liberals should in fact look back at their own track record. Between 2015 and 2017 alone, they created a web of entities: the modern treaty implementation office, assessment of modern treaty implications, performance networks, oversight committees and the reconciliation secretariat.

The government has a very poor record when it comes to modern treaty interpretation and enforcement. The government is, quite frankly, not getting it done. The answer is not another level of bureaucracy. It is not another set of regulations. It is simply the same thing that I am sure all parliamentarians try to instill into their children: that when they make a promise, they live up to that promise. That is what the government has to do. No matter how many levels of bureaucracy are stacked on, it does not necessarily mean that the promises will be lived up to.

What we require are ministers and senior officials who take ownership of their legal duties and processes, whether under modern treaties, self-government agreements or historical agreements. A commissioner will not change the culture; accountability will. In fact, I have written letters to multiple ministers, several about local indigenous issues. The great Alderville First Nation is within boundaries of the Northumberland—Clarke riding. Its people have forwarded issues, and I have still not had a response to those issues.

Instead of responding to Parliament, the accountability that exists in the House, the Liberals are just going to try to obscure and move things over to another bureaucracy, saying, “Look over there. We don't want this responsibility. We don't want this accountability.” Instead they are going to put it on another bureaucracy that will without doubt spend millions, if not more, of Canadian taxpayer dollars without actually making life any better for indigenous people.

We need a government that lives up to its promises and truly walks us down the path of truth and reconciliation, making life better for all Canadians, making life better for all indigenous peoples, making life better for all children across the land and making sure that every indigenous child has access to clean drinking water.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned that there is no enforcement capability in this agency, while at the same time he is bewailing what he considers the creation of a bureaucracy. I would suggest that if enforcement were incorporated, that would mandate an enormous bureaucracy.

In truth, there would be no bureaucracy around the position. This is all about using the bureaucracy of the House of Commons to hold the government to account. The role of the agency would be to be a tool of Parliament so Parliament can be kept informed on an ongoing, live basis of situations that need action and so the House can hold the government to account.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the head of those bureaucracies is the minister. If the minister feels as though they are not getting results, she should walk down to the office and fire them.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the new office will be useful because it can provide us with information on treaty compliance.

However, I wonder whether it should also have coercive powers to ensure treaty compliance. Does my colleague think that is a good idea?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if government officials are not respecting the treaties, then the minister, through accountability, has to hold those folks responsible. If that means finding new people, then do it. If that means firing people who are not actioning the implementation of the treaties, then do it.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is centred around accountability in terms of the minister or the government not honouring or respecting treaties, yet it is already written into the provisions. One of the most powerful and most senior institutions the government has is the Auditor General, who says the government should respect treaties, but the government ignores that. There are oversight committees that have been talking about exactly what is contemplated in this bill, and the government ignores it.

To my colleague, I agree, but does this add or take away from the frustrations that first nations are experiencing in treaty bands today?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member would be in a much better position to answer his question than I am. From my experience of talking to the first nations who are located within the riding of Northumberland, one of their big frustrations is the fact that they cannot get answers. They get pushed from one bureaucrat to another. They seek nation-to-nation communications, clarity and answers. They do not need another bureaucracy. They do not need another federal office.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to multiple speeches today, it seems like the main objection is that this creates an additional bureaucracy, but that is ignoring the fact that this is actually built in consultation and collaboration with indigenous leaders and indigenous rights holders.

What would the member say to those indigenous rights holders who are asking for this legislation?