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

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, that is something I outlined in my speech: how Parliament would not have the oversight it should. We will look at that in committee and hopefully get some amendments.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the government is taking an important step toward reconciliation with first nations today.

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the late Jim Aldridge, a distinguished lawyer, tireless advocate for modern treaty rights and friend to the Bloc Québécois. Throughout his career, Mr. Aldridge helped shape our legal and political understanding of modern treaties, particularly through his work with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, or the modern treaty coalition. His commitment to establishing a fair and respectful framework for treaty holders continues to inspire this debate and sheds light on the very meaning of the bill that we are discussing today. His approach was based on the simple but profound idea that a treaty is not a memory of the past, but a living promise that will shape the future.

Jim Aldridge firmly believed that treaty implementation should be guided by transparency, accountability and institutional co-operation, the same principles that underpin Bill C-10, which is before us today. His intellectual and legal endeavours helped pave the way for what we are discussing here: an independent commissioner to monitor Canada's commitments and to report to both Parliament and indigenous peoples.

This debate bears the mark of his legacy. The concept of modern treaties is a path forward that will bring considerable benefits if we follow it. This type of agreement has enabled many indigenous communities to grow and to come up with new ways of seeing relationships between the first nations, Inuit, Métis and governments.

I want to talk about the first modern treaty, the groundbreaking one from Quebec. I am referring to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was signed in 1975 in response to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Calder, when the court recognized the concept of aboriginal title to land for the first time in Canadian law. It was the first time the ancestral rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people were recognized.

Many people consider the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to be the first modern treaty. Getting this treaty signed was not easy, but it helped advance the cause of first nations and Inuit people in Quebec. This modern treaty has been enhanced many times over the years as a result of various agreements and other legislation. The last major enhancement was the peace of the braves agreement signed in 2002 by the late Bernard Landry and his counterpart Ted Moses, the grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement created a framework for land management between the Quebec, Cree and Inuit governments to enable indigenous communities within the territory to participate in the development of their land while preserving important traditional cultural activities, including hunting, gathering, fishing and trapping grounds. The agreement also provides a framework for education.

The James Bay Native Development Corporation was also created in partnership with Quebec to promote economic development and to give indigenous communities a say in the region's future development while being mindful of the environment. It also gave first nations and Inuit a voice in the administration of justice and social services. In short, the scope of this agreement broke new ground and served as a model for other treaties across Canada. Once again, Quebec was ahead of the curve. We were the first to start down that road.

For the Bloc Québecois, reconciliation has always been at the heart of our commitment to indigenous people. We feel it is crucial to make things fairer between us. Modern treaties like the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are an incredible example of what we can accomplish when we take the time to talk and reach out to one another and when we swap the nation-to-nation or government-to-government negotiations for lasting partnerships in order to jointly build an open, free and informed dialogue where we understand one another and do things together.

That is also why the creation of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation is a policy that will move us forward and that we support. It is an example of co-creation and co-development, the result of engagement with more than 130 groups, including indigenous modern treaty partners, indigenous groups negotiating modern treaties, sectoral agreement holders, national indigenous organizations, and provincial and territorial governments.

Since Quebec first set out on this path, Canada has followed suit. Today, 26 modern treaties have been signed, with 18 of them containing self-government provisions. The treaties touch on numerous matters of particular concern for first nations, Inuit and Métis people. First, they strengthen indigenous governance by recognizing it and by working in partnership with it in various sectors. This acknowledges the jurisdiction and wishes of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

In addition, the treaties help improve first nations, Inuit and Métis management of land and resources, by recognizing their rights and by empowering them to implement policies for better managing wildlife and resources while respecting the environment and the ancestral cultures and traditions of indigenous peoples. They support indigenous culture, language and heritage. This point really resonates with me as a Quebecker, because the preservation of our language and our culture is important to us. It is just as important to first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It is important to revitalize indigenous languages, help first nations, Inuit and Métis people preserve their traditional knowledge, and help them express their identity and tell their stories. Cultural exchanges are vital to our society. There is something special about going to see the Rouyn-Noranda hockey team play and having the game start with a drumming performance, for example. It makes a real impact and creates a magical experience.

Modern treaties also create more economic development opportunities for indigenous people. This helps them develop the tools they need to support their businesses and contribute to the Quebec, Canadian and international economies. It also leads to improved social development, especially in health and education, allowing first nations, Inuit and Métis communities to ensure that all of their residents can receive the care they need.

Lastly, modern treaties help communities play a role in protecting the environment. Caring for the Earth and protecting it is central to their culture. The concept of thinking seven generations ahead is about ensuring that we leave something tangible for those who come after us. These treaties touch on numerous points and help redefine our relationships.

As the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I have also observed the impacts of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the peace of the braves agreement. The development of the Cree communities of northern Quebec has been significant. These communities have been able to further their economic development and meet the needs of their residents for everything from education to sports facilities, and this has improved the situation immensely. This partnership between Quebec, the Cree, the Inuit and the Naskapi has propelled these communities forward. That is why my dream is to see a modern treaty signed with the Anishinabe communities in my region. This would finally ensure the long-term development of the communities in my region by giving them the necessary power to develop the land, in partnership with local non-indigenous residents. I hope this message will be heard. I believe our reconciliation lies along that path.

Let us now turn back to Bill C-10, which was introduced by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Generally speaking, this bill will create the office of commissioner for modern treaty implementation, whose role will be to oversee the implementation of treaties and act as a watchdog for first nations. This is a commendable step. It represents major progress for many indigenous peoples. However, it does not relieve Ottawa of its responsibilities towards first nations that are not covered by modern or numbered treaties. The primary purpose of this role is to ensure that the government fulfills its own obligations, that it honours its own commitments, particularly those around the nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationships embodied in these treaties. This reflects a will to change the culture of governance.

For too long, treaty implementation has suffered from a lack of follow-up, a lack of consistency across departments, and a lack of mechanisms for measuring actual progress. The result is that even decades after the signing of some modern treaties, indigenous partners still have to fight to get what they were promised. Bill C‑10 seeks to break that cycle.

It seeks to establish a framework where promises made are promises kept, where accountability becomes an institutional requirement rather than a favour. The goal is to make treaty implementation predictable, measurable and public, so that citizens, governments and signatories can track progress together.

This position will therefore ensure greater transparency and accountability. However, the fact that this position is needed in the first place demonstrates that the government needs oversight in order to successfully carry out its reconciliation efforts. We saw this with Bill C-5, where first nations were consulted hastily without obtaining their free, prior and informed consent. Failures such as this demonstrate that, despite the government's fine speeches, it continues to fail to provide high-quality services to the indigenous communities under its responsibility.

Even now, in 2025, many communities are still under boil water advisories, if they even have access to running water at all. The same thing applies to the housing shortages affecting so many communities, if their land base is even recognized. Although these situations may seem far removed from us, they are affecting indigenous communities in my riding. However, the arrival of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation will not lead to any improvements in this regard for the Anishinabe people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue because, as I mentioned earlier, they have no modern treaties. This once again shows how important it is that action be taken to improve this situation.

One key aspect of this bill is the commissioner's independence. I applaud that important fact. The person appointed to this position will serve a seven-year term, renewable only once. In this way, the commissioner will be able to act without necessarily fearing repercussions. The same process exists for other independent roles, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Privacy Commissioner and other similar positions.

However, I would like to stress that the appointment must be made after leaders of the various political parties in the House have been consulted. The intention is good, but it would be useful to look at what Quebec is doing in terms of appointments to similar positions. For example, in appointing the French language commissioner, the National Assembly of Quebec must hold a vote and two-thirds of its members must approve. This is also important for the Auditor General. In my opinion, it ensures that the persons appointed have the absolute confidence of the House. It might also be worthwhile for appointments to positions such as this to have the support of at least one other recognized party in the House. This would demonstrate the independent nature of the position.

The other thing that we should consider is access to information. I think it is crucial that the commissioner have access to all of the information they need to accomplish their mission. That is something that I would like to work on during the study of the bill. At the very least, I would like to ensure that the wording gives the commissioner the power to request and receive documents. It would not be good if departments were able to circumvent this power by citing an out-of-court agreement or by claiming that a document cannot be disclosed for various reasons. In my opinion, we must ensure that the wording of the bill does not prevent the commissioner from fully performing their role.

Another issue that I would like to look at during the study of this bill is its impact on provincial jurisdictions. As I explained, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed by the Government of Quebec and first nations and Inuit. Thus, if the commissioner is to fulfill their role, they must focus solely on federal responsibilities. They cannot infringe on provincial areas of jurisdiction. I look forward to hearing from the various witnesses on the issue to ensure that everyone's jurisdictions are respected in this bill.

As my remarks will show, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of the bill. We are simply pointing out elements that we want to reflect on with all stakeholders in order to improve it. However, I still have concerns about the role the government wants to play. The last budget, which was a very long time ago, provided $10.6 million over four years to establish the commissioner's office and functions. However, with the cutbacks the various departments are being asked to make, we have to wonder how much will really be earmarked for the commissioner. The commissioner must have the money they need to do their work. The November 4 budget must therefore confirm these amounts. Fortunately, a simple calculation shows that the government has already saved the first $2.65 million from budget 2024-25. I really hope that this money will remain in the same budget line to ensure the longevity of this new office. I know that indigenous organizations share our concerns.

We now move on to the most important aspect of this bill: how the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation will operate. Indeed, when they are preparing their reports, the commissioner will adhere to the same principles as the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and the Auditor General of Canada. Federal institutions will have the same requirements as those imposed by the Auditor General of Canada. This is excellent news because the federal government will not be able to hide from its own failures.

I would also like the government to maintain the principle of committee appearances. I believe that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs will also play an increasingly important role.

Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the commissioner will not have any enforcement powers. This means that the commissioner will identify deficiencies and the aspects of modern treaties that the federal government fails to fulfill, but the commissioner will not be able to step in or take any action. The various departments that work with first nations, Métis and Inuit will have to take action.

However, reports tell the real story of the implementation of and compliance with treaties. They will determine the level of Canada's true commitment to indigenous peoples. This will lead to accountability and give parliamentarians who care about first nations, Métis and Inuit a tool to call for meaningful action.

Indigenous partners, including the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Assembly of First Nations are calling for some adjustments, including the presence of a permanent indigenous advisory committee. It would also be important for results to be accessible in indigenous languages to ensure communities take ownership of the results. These organizations are asking for a shared tool that helps ensure transparency and not a one-way report from the government to Parliament. I would therefore like to make some amendments to improve this bill.

I want to acknowledge the consultation and co-creation process that the department went through to put this legislation together. As I said, it is a step in the right direction. It is a meaningful step, and I hope it will build trust between the government and indigenous peoples.

In closing, I would like to once again pay tribute to Jim Aldridge, who dedicated his life to promoting the understanding that the implementation of treaties is the cornerstone of a just and lasting people-to-people relationship. His work requires us to go further and turn words into action.

That is the ideal that Bill C‑10 must live up to. It is not just about creating a position; it is about rebuilding trust between the Crown and the signatories, trust between institutions and people and trust that promises will be honoured.

Treaty signatories are clearly not asking for something symbolic. They want a tool that will produce real change, a mechanism to ensure that modern treaties, the foundations of our federation, finally become living, visible realities respected by all.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I think in terms of the legislation, I believe it is ultimately a reality today because of the advocacy of indigenous leaders. This is not something just any political party has been advocating for, but it is something that is long overdue. Ultimately, if we respect the issue of nation to nation relations and indigenous community leaders, this is the type of legislation that will make a positive difference.

I wonder if my friend can continue to add to his comments when he makes reference to indigenous partnership, even in the development of the legislation we have today.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I talked about that in my speech.

We know the idea of consultation is fragile. Bill C‑5 showed us how the government can worm its way out of things. How can anyone think that merely sending a letter and giving certain indigenous communities—not all of them, just some of them—five days could possibly make them feel they have been consulted? That is where things can go awry, and that is why this commissioner position is so essential.

Again, this is about modern treaties. The government must be willing to improve living conditions as well and implement modern treaties faster for those who do not currently have them.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the independence of this commissioner, should the agency be created. I wish to point him to subclause 28(2), which examines how the commissioner, should the agency be formed, reports. His or her report would go to the minister first, then to the Speakers of both chambers, the Senate and the House. I question that chain of events.

As the Auditor General does, this new commissioner could compel documents and look into reports, but they could not force the government to do anything. We have tons of reports that do not get implemented. Given that we have already had a whole slew of Auditor General reports, what faith does this member have that this new agency, this new commissioner, would actually have a different effect?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of my colleague's interest in indigenous affairs, but also in public accounts. His question seems to allude to an amendment that we are going to study and that I am obviously inclined to support.

Having watchdog positions whose role it is to bring things out into the open is essential in any democracy. All parliamentarians and the public, especially indigenous, Metis and Inuit communities, have a responsibility to take a hard, critical look at this government's actions and, above all, its inaction.

I have no doubt this will be a useful tool considering that, over the course of our daily activities, we lack the ability to go and check what has or has not been done or follow up on every recommendation. Personally, I welcome this initiative.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his very cogent and interesting speech. If the past is any indiction, I would say that we have often seen the government roundly criticize the reports of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was at least able to inform the House of the government's excesses. My concern is that the first nations commissioner will suffer the same fate.

I would like my colleague to tell us about the possible impact of this new commissioner's reports to the House.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe in this function of independent officers, in those who have a comprehensive view of the work of the House, who rise above partisan politics and who emphasize accountability. To me that is fundamental.

In our work, raising these issues also helps us to better understand the reality of what is happening on the ground in our own constituencies. All too often, it is upsetting. The government may have good intentions toward indigenous people, but then it only allocates funds to build two housing units even though two housing units per community is not enough, considering the growth of the indigenous population and the fact that we are in the midst of a housing crisis.

We need to be able to have more robust mechanisms in place in order to deliver what the public expects.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that as we go through the debate on the legislation, and I will make reference to a specific example momentarily when I stand up to speak to it, for the government, it is about not only the documents that we sign off on but also the reality of how we are supporting indigenous communities. If we take a look, in terms of the last number of years, we will see that the financial support has been there. I will cite a couple of examples shortly, but I am wondering if the member would not recognize that we have provided financial resources and have been moving forward on the whole idea of reconciliation, particularly the 94 calls to action.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that will allow me to make further points. The problem is not that the amounts are not announced in a transparent manner by the government. The problem is the actual application of these funds. Standards are being imposed that do not apply to the reality of first nations and northern communities. This means that, in the current context, billions of dollars announced in budgets that make the Liberals look good and show that they are sensitive to the issues are not actually being spent. These funds go back to the Treasury Board, and the situation on the ground does not improve. I am not saying that this is the case everywhere, but it is what we are seeing in many cases.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the member just said. It is about implementation, and his colleague from Jonquière brought up the exact same point I was trying to make. The Auditor General has a whole library of reports on where the government is failing on a whole range of points, whether it is related to weather, clean water or something else. It is already there. This goes back decades, for 150-plus years. The government is not living up to its treaty obligations, whether modern or otherwise. If the Auditor General, independent from Parliament, tables this report, why does he have confidence all of a sudden that this new commissioner will actually be able to force the government to do something that it has not done for 150-plus years?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our positions can change here in the House.

I was indeed inclined to support the speedy passage of this bill because of the clear consensus that has emerged, because first nations have been calling for it and it was co-created, and because the commissioner is independent and there will be ways of implementing it.

I find the points that my colleague raised in his speech to be particularly relevant. I now think that we need to study this bill in more depth in committee and hear from witnesses. I am very curious to see what amendments will be proposed to improve this bill, especially by the Conservative Party. I already have a few in mind, and I think that the work that we do in committee must be as rigorous as that of my colleague.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also share the view my friend just mentioned. We are still not at the point that we are absolutely certain this would actually change anything. We would be creating a bureaucracy starting at about $2 million and change every single year for the next five years. When we compare it to other offices like it, we are in the tens of millions, so I do not accept that the cost would stay the same.

Again, it is about results. I think what we can do is support that modern treaties need to be implemented once signed. We can forget the photo op, although I know all politicians like to do that. We can do the photo op, but we should ensure the treaty is implemented. We have the Auditor General's report and we have all these departments looking after it. Has anyone been fired because of that? The answer is probably no. Maybe we should start there first.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes. I will learn the name of his riding since we work together fairly often. I like to see him working hard, persevering and getting down to business. That is what we will have to do.

As for the question that he raised, I completely agree with him on the principle. Accountability rules are fundamental in our democracy. I am aware that the commissioner will not make the decision that the minister failed to make in the past. Crown-Indigenous Relations needs to make the creation of new, modern treaties a priority so that everyone has access to equal opportunities.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak to yet another very important piece of legislation that the government has presented to members of the House. As with previous legislation, I would encourage members to get on board with recognizing where it is coming from and see the benefit of having legislation of this nature become law.

There are a number of things I would like to express.

In dealing with the legislation itself, it is important for us to realize how, in essence, it came into being. We did not see bureaucrats sitting around a table ultimately dictating something from the federal government. In fact, there has been extensive work done to ensure it comes from the leadership within the indigenous community. The legislation reflects issues that were ultimately raised by indigenous leaders.

We have this legislation before us today in good part because of the commitment to improve that nation-to-nation relationship we often talk about. It is a significant step toward reconciliation. Even though it is not part of Murray Sinclair's calls to action, I believe that, if we capture their principles and essence, this could have very easily been a 95th call to action. It is a very powerful statement that will become reality if, in fact, we can get it passed through the House of Commons.

In listening to the comments thus far, I am very much encouraged by those from the Bloc. I have some reservations with regard to the Conservatives, and I would like to address those head-on.

In the questions and answers that were posed, I believe that maybe there is some flexibility and some room to see potential changes to the legislation that would satisfy the Conservatives, at least in part. I think we need to, at the very least, explore that possibility.

I would suggest that one of the ways we can best explore that possibility is this: After hearing a number of hours of debate on the legislation, some would like to see a smaller number of hours of debate and allow it to go to the committee, where we could hear first-hand from indigenous leaders and other stakeholders. We could hear what it is the Conservatives might say that could improve the legislation.

Let me start off by addressing what seems to be the primary concern of the Conservatives. Two points come to my mind. One is cost and the other is the federal Auditor General.

I will deal with the issue of cost. I could probably spend a little while talking about the cost of not taking actions such as this to all of us. All one needs to do is take a look at the last federal election. There was an issue that came up at every other door. If I raised it, it was 95% of the doors I knocked on. It was a concern about trade, Trump and tariffs, if I can put it in the form of the three Ts. It meant a great deal no matter what the person's background, whether they were from a first nation or anywhere else. It had to do with the impact this is going to have on us economically and socially.

That is why I think the position of the Prime Minister was the right position at the time. He recognized that, if we are going to grow collectively into the future, we need to have one Canadian economy. That is not possible without indigenous leaders at the table. When we talk about nation-to-nation relationships, having both direct and indirect input is of critical importance. We saw that in a very tangible way after the election. We had ministers and others dealing with many different stakeholders, whether provinces, territories, indigenous leaders or others, in order to see what we can do to build upon one Canadian economy.

I do not think it is a coincidence. We can look at the first modern treaty, which has already been cited once or twice now. It was for the James Bay project in northern Quebec. That modern treaty enabled indigenous community members and people living in Quebec to benefit immensely. It was because of that agreement. It enabled the parties at the table to develop an economic opportunity that would never be where it is today were it not for having a modern treaty.

That is why I say we get a lot of benefit when we recognize the true value of modern agreements and these treaties. They are critically important. They are part of the Constitution. There is a constitutional mandate that everyone who lives in Canada has to respect and act upon. A modern treaty is like a living document that needs modifications. Yes, it would be wonderful if all first nations were incorporated into a modern-day treaty. I think it is important that we continue to work in that direction. As the minister commented in her introduction, these are not documents that are made overnight. We need to recognize that it takes time to make these modern treaties a part of reality.

Let us look at the preamble of the legislation. I do not often refer directly to the legislation, but I think it is worth noting what is stated in the preamble. It is relevant to what we should be talking about today.

It states, “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and the Métis through renewed nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership”.

It also states that “modern treaties are part of the constitutional framework,” which is something I have already made reference to, “and represent a distinct expression of that reconciliation”. It also states that “modern treaties are intended to establish a mutually agreed-upon and enduring framework for reconciliation and ongoing relationships between the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples”.

It goes on. I am not going to read all of it, but I want to emphasize a couple more points, which members should refer to.

It states:

Whereas modern treaties are intended to strengthen the health, dignity, well-being and resilience of Indigenous peoples, to create enduring relationships between modern treaty partners and to advance national socio-economic objectives that benefit all Canadians;

I want to emphasize that one because the Prime Minister has been pushing to build one Canadian economy. Earlier in September, we had an indication of five major projects. We are talking about 60 billion dollars' worth of economic opportunities. That is “billions” with a “b”. If we factor in the indirect contributions, it is a whole lot more. I can tell members that if it was not for indigenous leadership, a number of those projects would not be possible. Indigenous leaders, businesses and entrepreneurs are at the table, along with others, to ensure that we build a stronger, healthier economy and social fabric in our nation. It might have been encouraged through some of the actions of President Trump, but I can say that these are real projects.

Let us look, for example, at LNG in British Columbia and who the proponents are for that particular project. Reconciliation is about a lot more than just saying, “Sorry”. It is about dealing with opportunities, remembering the past and going forward to build a stronger and healthier economy for all people in Canada. We can talk about the copper mines we are expanding through the five megaprojects. There are particular projects in western Canada where I focus that are critically important to all of us.

Continuing on with the preamble of the legislation, there is one last area I would like to quote.

It states:

Whereas the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements;

I want to highlight those aspects because I genuinely believe that Bill C-10 is all about the creation of an agent of Parliament who is there to recognize the obligations of Parliament.

The two primary concerns, it seems to me, that the Conservatives have about the bill are with respect to the cost factor. The critic said that, when dealing with the costs, we are talking about several million dollars. I made reference to building an economy and how, through reconciliation and having agreements, we are able to achieve an economic success we might not have if we did not have that sort of relationship.

When we think of the agent of Parliament, let me suggest that it is well worth the few millions of dollars that it would cost to put it into place.

The other argument being used is about the issue of expertise. As the critic for the Conservative Party made reference to, we have the Auditor General and the Auditor General should suffice. I would ultimately argue that this is not the case. Having the agent of Parliament being proposed through Bill C-10 is very different from having the Auditor General deal with the situation.

Let me give members an example of that. I am a very big fan of Murray Sinclair. My home province is Manitoba, the birthplace of Murray Sinclair. I have been an MLA and am now a member of Parliament, and I have been in politics since 1988. I got to know the late Murray Sinclair and saw first-hand the impact that this individual had on our nation in whatever role he played. I especially got to know him a little better when he was appointed a senator.

Let me suggest why I raise Murray Sinclair. It is because across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, Murray Sinclair's report on the state of indigenous people in Canada and the relationship between the different levels of government has been widely accepted and supported. When Murray Sinclair made the report back in 2015, with its 94 calls to action, I was sitting in the third party. This was back in 2014, going into 2015, a few years ago. At the same time, Murray Sinclair made it very clear that these 94 calls to action were of the utmost importance in dealing with reconciliation. Even though Bill C-10 technically is not one of those calls to action, I believe that if Murray Sinclair could have a 95th, this would likely be it, because it is about accountability and transparency.

If it were not for Murray Sinclair, his life experiences and the knowledge he brought to the table, we would not be where we are today. I would suggest to the Conservatives to take a look at the type of individual who will be filling this particular position. This commissioner, an independent agent of Parliament with an incredible background who is appointed for seven years, cannot be replaced by the Auditor General of Canada. Murray Sinclair demonstrated that very clearly.

The purpose of my standing today is to show the Conservative Party that the merits of this legislation, at the very least, deserve to be brought to the committee stage, where the Conservatives can then deal in more detail with their concerns. Let us recognize that this legislation is good, solid and should pass—