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

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, that is what we see with Liberal government throughout its now 11 years of history. There is a lack of accountability, a lack of getting the job done, more announcements, more photo ops and more of the Liberals' trying to convince Canadians that they are doing the job, but they are not. We just need them to get the job done and get the treaties negotiated.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today. This is the first time that I am rising this fall, and I realized this morning that this is the 11th year that I have had the privilege and honour of coming to the House to serve the people of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. I want to give a shout-out to them. I met people all across my immense riding this summer, and I want to assure my constituents that I am still passionate and enthusiastic about representing them. That is what I will do during this parliamentary session, which certainly looks like it will be a very exciting and busy one, even though it may not seem that way yet. I imagine there will be some twists and turns.

I represent a huge riding where 15% of the population is indigenous. Of course, seeing as I am the critic for indigenous and northern affairs, this bill is of particular interest to me. I am therefore pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The Bloc Québécois said right from the start that we support this bill. Now, at third reading, following the study in committee, we still support this bill, which I must point out is the result of a request from first nations and Inuit.

This bill reflects these communities' request for a commissioner or some structure to serve as their watchdog for modern treaty implementation. This is something they have been asking for for years—more than 20 years, in fact. Today's topic of discussion is something that has been called for for decades. If I may briefly digress, I would point out that the same can be said of practically all bills and topics brought before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs: that they have been called for for decades. That is a really long time to wait for results. Now, having reached third reading, we are on the verge of achieving a result. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill, despite the criticism we heard in the speeches. Obviously, we are here for the same purpose: to critique the bill by analyzing its weaknesses.

First nations and Inuit have been calling for the creation of a body to hold the federal government accountable, because some of its obligations have been objectively unmet. This has been going on for decades. It is discouraging for first nations and a waste of their resources, which is obviously something we would like to avoid. I will come back to that later. The bill to create the position of commissioner for modern treaty implementation would help reduce these delays, or at least, that is our hope, and that is the intent of the bill. It would ensure that less time, resources and energy are wasted on processes that should be conducted not necessarily quickly, but efficiently.

I think we all know that we would not be discussing this bill today if the federal government were actually fulfilling its obligations. First nations and Inuit are simply asking for what is rightfully theirs. They are being told that the government is going to work on modern treaties and sign treaties and that this work will continue for several years to come. If the government had been committed to this and had worked diligently, always in consultation with first nations, treaties would have been signed faster and there would have been no need to go to court, for example, to resolve certain issues. I would say that this bill is a step in the right direction, specifically toward delivering the accountability required of the government when signing a treaty and ensuring seamless implementation of modern treaties.

Obviously, even beyond this specific bill, the Bloc Québécois supports self-determination for nations. We know that this bill is the result of a commitment to reconciliation, which we also agree with. This is one measure that could improve the situation. We still hear about colonialism and assimilation today. This is something the government can do to break the cycle. Based on that principle alone, without going into the details of the bill itself, this is another reason why the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, that is, to move the government away from its paternalistic approach, which, obviously, dates back to the beginning of Canada's history and even before that.

In committee, we heard testimony about the bill from several first nations. Naturally, they are all in favour of this bill being passed, particularly given that it was co-drafted. First nations and Inuit were consulted when the bill was being drafted in order to ensure it reflects their wishes and expectations. Several organizations told us that the federal government is stepping back from implementing treaties or is only implementing them in part. That is why they want a commissioner. The government is failing to honour its own commitments to first nations and Inuit communities. They want to cast off the shackles of colonialism, but they cannot because the government that should be helping them is in fact putting obstacles in their way. I am paraphrasing, but that is what we were told in committee.

I just realized that I am only on page three out of 10, and I may not have enough time, so I will have to cut my speech short.

In short, the testimony we heard leaves the impression that the federal government is signing treaties to try to satisfy first nations or that, at the very least, it is working on drafting treaties, but the work is extremely slow. As I was saying earlier—and I will say it again, because it is important—the issue of money often came up in committee. Communities have to pay thousands of dollars to take the federal government to court in hopes of winning their case. As I said, that takes a lot of resources, both financial and human, and it really gets the communities' hopes up.

People sometimes forget this, but these communities do not have millions of inhabitants. They are sometimes very small communities that obviously do not have the same resources as the federal government. This is really David versus Goliath. They are like dwarves going up against giants. It is very difficult for first nations or Inuit communities to see these extremely demanding legal proceedings through to the end. These communities sometimes have a fairly small population, and, as I was saying, they do not have all the necessary means. As I said, these cases can sometimes drag on for decades. It is easy to imagine the consequences that these legal costs can have on the communities. These are financial choices that they also have to make.

First nations and Inuit also pointed out in committee that the commissioner will not have any enforcement powers. The Bloc Québécois also raised that same criticism of this bill. Yes, the commissioner is there to act as a watchdog for treaty implementation. They can shine a light on shortcomings, such as departments' lack of understanding or the government's inability to act in the best interests of nations that want to be able to use their resources to help, but that is not enough. The commissioner cannot force the government to act.

The trouble is that, although the commissioner can draw attention to what is not working, there is not necessarily an immediate solution. In fact, this goes beyond the government's mere willingness to act, even though we agree that, without this willingness, there would be no results at all. There is work to do on understanding modern treaty implementation, as we heard at committee. Aside from the government itself, the departments are also involved. As one might expect, treaty implementation does not only involve the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Department of Indigenous Services. Multiple departments must address the issues at the same time. This is often done in silos, which means that interpretations differ from one department to the next. Since the interpretations are different, the work is not done in the same way. Obviously, their approaches should be harmonized, but that cannot happen at the end either. That also causes delays.

I mentioned the government's willingness, but it is a question of finding solutions to ensure that departments can work together. They are already working together to a certain extent, but interpreting the treaties themselves is a huge problem. I do not wish to speak on behalf of civil servants, but this means hours of extra work for them. We need to find solutions that enable dialogue and harmonization. As I said, that is exactly what needs to happen so that treaties can be implemented more quickly and efficiently. The trouble is this silo mentality.

As we can see, there is a willingness that may be symbolic, to a certain extent. As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, there are issues or difficulties that are already on the table, but the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs is already aware of them. We will share some of the shortcomings in a report. However, there is still work to be done, whether it be to give the commissioner an enforcement role or to address the issue of harmonizing different departments' interpretations, amongst other things.

In closing, I humbly reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for Bill C-10. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous and northern affairs. It is a special role, because it means acting as spokesperson for another nation within a government that is obviously a colonialist government. It is still a colonial government in the eyes of first nations and indigenous peoples. Being their spokesperson requires me to display humility and to be willing to set aside or suspend my biases in order to try to understand what they want. It requires me to speak on behalf of those communities, which, in this case, are asking for a commissioner who can defend their interests and expedite treaty implementation.

We support the establishment of this office. We do not support creating yet another agency with more expenses and more red tape, as some of my colleagues have incorrectly said. We just need to know what is happening. First nations and Inuit want to know. They are asking us to shed light on what is happening.

As I said earlier, if this can push the government to act more promptly and effectively, then we are certainly on board. That is what first nations and Inuit are asking for.

To conclude, I hope that all the parties will agree with the bill so that we can pass it. We have been discussing it for more than one Parliament. That shows just how long certain processes can take. There is still work to be done to establish the office itself, but I hope it will be set up in the coming years so that modern treaties can be implemented faster, with the simple goal of improving the well-being of first nations and Inuit communities.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my colleagues back to Parliament.

The modern treaty implementation bill has clear support and key partners. Our government evidently wants the bill to be implemented efficiently. According to my colleague's speech, the Bloc Québécois shares that desire.

However, there seems to be more hesitation from the official opposition. I would like to ask my colleague whether her party, which is also part of the opposition, will continue to put pressure on the official opposition to ensure that no procedural delays or tactics are used to further delay the passage of this bill. I think it is time to pass it. There are clear expectations from the treaty partners. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been seven years since I have sat across from a majority government. I imagine it should be pretty easy for the government to pass legislation quickly. However, it is important to listen to the opposition parties.

Even though I do not necessarily agree with everything my colleague says, the fact remains that this bill could use some improvement. I would also like to remind members that, irrespective of the bill, the government must be willing to move forward on modern treaties. It is not only the commissioner who must push this forward. If the government were willing to do so, there would be no need to even vote on this bill.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. We have had the pleasure of sitting together for 11 years already. I am also very proud that the name of my riding includes an indigenous name: Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

I listened very carefully to the remarks of my colleague, who is always well informed and always in touch with the constituents she represents in the House. She mentioned that she agrees with the principle of first nations self-determination. I would like to hear her point of view on this in more detail. How far could this go? Would that mean a first nation could become a self-governing country?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this has no bearing on the bill, but yes, there are modern treaties. As a Bloc Québécois member, I leave it to the Government of Quebec to reach its own decision in this regard. Personally, I believe that no country can be developed without the first nations, even a country like Quebec. My colleague is well aware that I am a sovereignist. The first nations have a tremendous role to play. I also believe that the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador wants that too. First nations need to be part of every discussion. As I see it, that is extremely important. We have an opportunity to rewrite history in way that is fair, equitable and mindful of culture and language.

My colleague knows that the Wendat nation is reviving its language. When a language comes back to life, it affects culture too. Obviously, I see this as a promising sign. I believe that sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples are important for both Quebeckers and first nations, but there are ways to work together, maybe even to create a country together.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I too have had the opportunity to work with her for 11 years, and it has been an honour.

I think there is a bit of consensus on this bill. However, unless I am mistaken, this is at least the second, if not third, version of such a bill. Since this is a government bill, I do not understand why it could not be developed, finalized or passed in previous Parliaments.

I am aware that it died on the Order Paper, but why did it die on the Order Paper? There was a Parliament from 2019 to 2021, and then another from 2021 to 2025. It seems to me that this bill could have been passed sooner, particularly if there is consensus. I wonder whether the government is actually serious or whether it just wants to tell indigenous people that it has introduced a bill. I want to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him in turn on his 11 years of representing the citizens of Rivière-du-Nord so diligently and passionately.

Of course, I too am wondering why this bill keeps reappearing in a new form. The government is always the one that drafts it, and there is relative consensus, as I believe the bill will be passed. We have to wonder why it has not been passed more quickly. This always results in delays for first nations and Inuit. In this case, Bill C-10 is causing further delays, and the government is fully aware of that. I do not wish to speculate on the government's intentions, but I hope that this time will be different. It is up to the government to prioritize consideration of the bill, the debate and the vote. If it wants to, it could ensure that the bill does not die on the Order Paper at the end of the current parliamentary session.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for her work on this file and at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. It has been a pleasure working with that individual on this piece of legislation.

As she would have heard in the committee process, this piece of legislation is not expected to stop the number of court cases being brought before the government right now. It is a mechanism, basically, to name and shame government departments that are not living up to their word. We agree on this side of the House that governments of all stripes over many years have not lived up to their word with indigenous peoples, but yet we do not see in this piece of legislation a mechanism that has some kind of accountability when these failures do happen. The Auditor General has outlined report after report about failures within the department, but nothing seems to change.

Would the member opposite like to see some kind of teeth in this legislation that could actually hold departments accountable?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I may not always agree with my official opposition colleagues, but that is what I said in my speech. I said that the lack of teeth is what could ultimately give us an additional structure but that we do not know exactly what it might contribute, besides calling attention to the government's shortcomings.

We hope this will not be necessary and that the government will simply meet its modern treaty implementation obligations. However, we are going a step further, though it will do no good unless the government is on board. Naturally, as MPs, we can keep working in committee or in the House to ensure that these treaties are implemented effectively.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question along similar lines to the one my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord just asked. He asked why we are on the umpteenth version of this bill. I would like to know why this bill is the oldest one still before the House. This is Bill C‑10, but we have now progressed beyond Bill C‑30.

There does not seem to be any filibustering, and there is a general consensus about it. Does my colleague think that the government's failure to prioritize Bill C‑10 sends the wrong message? I am talking about the fact that it has taken so long to put it on our agenda. Twenty-four bills have been referred to the Senate since this Parliament began, while this bill is still before the House.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Saint-Jean asked me that question, as it allows me to add something I was not able to mention earlier.

As I see it, yes, this does raise some concerns because, on top of that, the government currently has a majority, so it could prioritize certain issues and pass legislation very quickly. Again, I do not want to speculate about its motives, but I have noticed that its interest in first nations seems like lip service. We are talking about this bill, but another bill, one dealing with water, was introduced in June just before the summer adjournment. We have been waiting for that bill for several Parliaments now. Once again, this same government has drafted and reintroduced the bill several times, but in the end, the bill never makes it to the floor for debate, never completes the legislative process and never gets sent to the Senate.

I think the government is showing that it has good intentions, but once again, it is not following through. The government needs to take action, but in my view, this might be just window dressing.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back here with our colleagues of all sides. I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

We are all treaty people. This is something we sometimes say in our communities. This is something we sometimes say in the House of Commons. This is something we say to each other in classrooms, hopefully in boardrooms, in places across Canada. The question is, what do we mean by that? How do we animate those words? Regardless of when a person or their family arrived on this land, all of us live within relationships that were shaped by treaties. We are all immigrants, except for the first peoples of this place. Treaties are living arrangements. They are a recognition that indigenous peoples were and remain self-governing nations with which Canada must maintain an ongoing relationship. Today, at this third reading, Bill C-10 asks us to strengthen those foundations.

Long before Confederation, indigenous nations entered into treaties and diplomatic relationships with European powers and later with the Crown. These agreements were often understood by everyone involved, including indigenous peoples, as commitments to share land, to coexist peacefully, and to maintain enduring nation-to-nation relationships. In fact, we use those words often in our own land acknowledgements. We refer to these treaties explicitly. We talk about what those treaties were committing to.

The treaty relationship was not meant to be temporary; it was meant to last. It was a commitment that was signed. These were oaths that were made, commitments made, and yet, as we know, the history that followed was marked more often by broken promises, unilateral decisions, exclusion from governance, and policies of displacement and assimilation.

Many treaty commitments were delayed, others ignored. Some were interpreted, incredibly narrowly, by governments. Indigenous peoples, later nations, and others spent generations advocating, organizing, litigating, cajoling and negotiating, simply to have those existing treaties which, yes, were decades or centuries old, to be honoured; agreements that were signed for generations to come.

The good news is that in this era, treaties continue to be signed. Yes, we are getting a bit better, hopefully, at recognizing those treaties or reacting to the litigation that results in the recognition of those treaties. In this era, in the modern era, modern treaties, sometimes called comprehensive land claim agreements, reflect contemporary realities while building on long-standing indigenous rights and relationships to the land, including rights that are recognized in the charter and in other pieces of legislation.

Since the 1970s, dozens of these agreements have been concluded across the country, particularly in northern Canada and British Columbia, addressing matters such as self-government, land management, resource sharing, environmental stewardship and economic development, but the challenge is, as it was, implementation. Indigenous treaty partners have repeatedly pointed out that signing an agreement is only the first step. An agreement on paper means little if governments fail to follow through consistently and transparently. That is where Bill C-10 comes in. Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation and an accompanying office to support that work. The commissioner would review and audit how federal institutions are fulfilling Canada's obligations under modern treaties and would report publicly on findings.

I hear some mention on the other side about bureaucracy, about process, but this is actually about accountability. I think our forefathers and foremothers would have wanted some further accountability on the treaties that were signed. Is it not possible that those treaties that were signed decades and centuries ago would have been less honoured in the breach and more honoured in the practice if we had had a commissioner, if we had some institution that was a bit removed from government, that was answerable to Parliament, to call for accountability on the treaties that had been signed? Treaties that, yes, are decades or centuries old, but that represented real, enduring commitments that were being made by all parties, not just for themselves, not just for the people that they represent, but for the future generations that they were binding. That is what treaties are. They are binding commitments across generations as well as peoples.

I believe this piece of legislation, and my colleague, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, has done an excellent job outlining some of its benefits, including in this era, is going to be a very important piece of accountability, a very important piece of the framework that we need to continue on this reconciliation journey, to continue to honour not only the spirit, but also the meaning, of what it means to all be treaty people.

This legislation also gives me an opportunity to speak a bit about how this issue relates to our riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. Those who are more veterans of this place know that the name of the riding used to be Parkdale—High Park and through the federal electoral boundaries commission, the decision was made and adopted to add the name Taiaiako'n.

What is Taiaiako'n, and where is Taiaiako'n? It is a settlement near what is now Baby Point, in the northwest corner of our riding, in a beautiful corner of west Toronto, just along the Humber River, and it has been a place of commerce, fishing and recreational activity for millennia. It was part of something called the Carrying Place trail, an important trading route that linked Lake Ontario to the upper Great Lakes.

Taiaiako'n has been settled or inhabited in some way since at least 6000 BCE. There have been millennia of continuous human settlement in this beautiful part of west Toronto. It is a former Iroquois village, but many different inhabitants, the historical record suggests, have been there over the years. The record shows the presence of the Seneca, the Haudenosaunee under the Iroquois, the Wendat peoples, the Mississaugas, the Anishinabe and, much more recently, French Canadians. It is an important commercial space, place of exchange and place of dialogue.

As I have learned from conversations with community members, historians and indigenous knowledge keepers, the story of Taiaiako'n is neither simple nor singular. In the English reckoning, there are different spellings of the word Taiaiako'n. There are also different pronunciations. Some pronounce it Taiaiako'n. We in the riding have chosen to pronounce it as Taiaiako'n, but there are multiple ways to speak about this community, this beautiful part of west Toronto that is now part of the Baby Point neighbourhood. The archaeological record continues to show a really significant presence of indigenous peoples and a variety of indigenous settlements all the way along the trail and the river, including what we believe are some burial mounds in High Park.

All of this is the story of the indigenous presence in west Toronto. All of this is the story of Taiaiako'n. All of this is the story also of reconciliation. As I mentioned, there are multiple different ways of pronouncing our riding's name. There are different stories about who was there when. A lot of good research has been done, including by the City of Toronto and by the Taiaiako'n Historical Preservation Society.

Just to refer to the ongoing connections of these ideas and these practices in our riding, I want to point out to constituents and people across west Toronto the opportunity to gather in our riding on Wednesday, September 30, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, when at the Dundas Roncesvalles Peace Garden, starting at 3:30 p.m., there will be the sixth annual Orange Shirt Day walk in commemoration of that very important day, and we will walk south from there. The event starts at 3:30 p.m. eastern time. The walk starts at around 4:15 p.m. eastern time.

Too often we look for a singular story, but indigenous knowledge systems frequently teach us to value multiple perspectives, multiple voices and multiple ways of understanding the same place. We continue to be enriched through events connected to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, through events related to Indigenous History Month, including through the variety of activities that continue to happen in Toronto, particularly in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, and work by groups like the Taiaiako'n Historical Preservation Society, organizations such as the High Park Nature Centre, and by people such as Abby Bushby, those of the Dundas Roncesvalles Peace Garden, and young spiritual elder Philip Cote, who has enriched my understanding of these issues significantly.

This bill would create the legal underpinning of the values we all espouse, a further legal underpinning to follow from the charter, the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which has been adopted by the House and reflected in the calls to action and recommendations. These emerged from the commissions for which indigenous peoples, along with allies, fought for tirelessly to establish and were eventually recognized in the House through really significant and important reports on missing and murdered indigenous women and on the disaster of residential schools.

This bill creates part of the legal underpinning to live our values and respond to some of that advocacy, to those stories, to what we heard in those reports, and to build on what we committed to, whether it was in 1982, in 2006-07 or decades or centuries ago, or whether it is with new treaties that are going to follow. It strengthens the nation-to-nation relationships that are essential to Canada's future.

For that reason, I am pleased to support Bill C-10 at third reading. I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives on this side of the House agree with the diagnosis that governments of all stripes have failed indigenous peoples for way too many years. Even in the member's speech, he listed a number of areas that the government is working on. For all of those areas the member outlined in his speech, the Auditor General has released report after report on the continuous failures within various government departments when it comes to indigenous peoples.

Given this legislation, which was commented on at committee as having no teeth to actually enforce ongoing failures, what mechanisms does the government have in place to ensure accountability?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. We create these structures to drive accountability. The existence of officers of Parliament is a very important structure to create accountability.

The existence of the Department of Indigenous Services has helped in responding to some of the issues that were identified, especially those around clean drinking water, something that I recall working on when I was working in the Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne's office, knowing that the response was not fast enough and that we needed some pressure, yes, from the inside but also from the outside to respond. It is that combination of institutions, along with the commitments we make in Parliament when we decide to endorse a piece of legislation like this, that is part of the solution.