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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois welcomes this bill. This is a step in the right direction. I only hope that it will not be a repeat of the situation with the Commissioner of Official Languages. Although numerous complaints have been filed over the past 50 years, it seems like things are moving backwards instead of forwards.

In my colleague's opinion, what will make this position more effective, even though it lacks teeth?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this commissioner because the legislation marks an important step in advancing reconciliation by promoting transparency, fairness and the implementation of modern treaties. If the bill were able to move to committee, where it could be hashed out and finalized, we would see a step forward in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing I take issue with is that Conservatives do not recognize the true value of having an agent of Parliament who would be appointed for seven years based on the expertise and intelligence brought to that position. Instead, they somewhat believe that we should not worry; the Auditor General can cover it all, marginalizing the desire of indigenous leaders who are advocating for this.

I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to that. At the end of the day, the community would like to see this and other opposition parties are in support of it. It is only the Conservatives who seem to be in opposition to it.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are over 30 organizations in support of this commissioner. Over 150 groups and communities have come together to support it. This is being done in partnership with any and all indigenous communities. I am sure this is the right step forward.

Treaties strengthen and reinforce self-determination by ensuring that indigenous people lead decisions that affect them in areas like land stewardship, cultural protection, resource development and participating in land management decisions. They are only as strong as their implementation, and I think we can see to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the long and short of it is that over six years, the Harper government signed five modern treaties, and over 10 years, the Liberals have signed zero. I can understand why indigenous leaders are calling for this. It is because the government continues to fail.

The member opposite talked about programs. The Auditor General addresses them, but nothing has been acted upon. What is different?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the modern treaties that were introduced by Paul Martin and signed by Stephen Harper. Today, there are up to 27 modern treaties covering over 40% of Canada's land mass. Major development infrastructure projects depend on partnerships with indigenous modern treaty partners in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.

I rise today to address a matter at the heart of our nation's identity: the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples. The relationship is grounded not merely in history but in honour. Its strength is proven not by grand speeches or new offices but by actions, by the promises we keep and by the commitments we fulfill. For many years, we have preached reconciliation, yet without accountability, reconciliation remains a hollow promise, an unfulfilled vow that betrays the trust of our indigenous partners.

The Liberal government's proposed Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, is little more than a distraction. It is a bureaucratic shield to obscure a decade of broken promises to indigenous peoples. This new treaty commissioner would tell us nothing that the Auditor General and countless indigenous leaders have not already made clear: that the government continues to fail indigenous peoples.

Today, I will speak plainly about the state of modern treaty implementation in Canada, what progress we have seen, what failures persist and how we can address these challenges without piling on more costly bureaucracy at a time when Canadians can scarcely afford it. However, before I discuss implementation, let me clarify what is meant by modern treaties and self-government agreements.

A modern treaty is a comprehensive land claims agreement negotiated between a first nation, Inuit or Métis group and the Crown, meaning the federal government and sometimes provincial governments. These agreements resolve long-standing disputes over land ownership, resource rights and governance within a defined territory. The scope of a modern treaty includes land, resources, financial compensation and governance rights, and it often incorporates self-government provisions. However, not all modern treaties are full self-government agreements. Once implemented, modern treaties carry the weight of federal law, typically replacing or clarifying rights under historic treaties.

A self-government treaty, often embedded within a modern treaty, recognizes an indigenous government's authority to make laws over areas such as education, health, culture and local services, with powers akin to those of municipal or provincial governments. The scope focuses on political authority and administrative powers rather than on only land or resources. Legally, self-government provisions are binding and implemented under federal law. They can exist as part of a modern treaty or as a stand-alone self-government agreement. This distinction is vital. Implementation is not about creating new offices or adding layers of bureaucracy. It is about ensuring the Crown and its departments respect the legal authority already established in these agreements.

Consider, for example, the Whitecap Dakota self-government agreement, which passed with Conservative support in 2023. This is not a full modern treaty and outstanding issues remain, issues that I understand the government continues to delay. I ask, then, exactly how a future commissioner of modern treaty implementation would magically motivate the government to resolve these matters.

As we have heard before, we know progress is possible. Former prime minister Harper and the Conservative government negotiated five modern treaties in just six years: the Tlicho first nation's land claims and self-government agreement in 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 Déline Final Self-Government Agreement in 2015. In contrast, over the past decade, the Liberals have not negotiated a single modern treaty.

Let me be clear. The Conservatives wholeheartedly support modern treaties. We stand with indigenous communities seeking to break free from the outdated Indian Act. What we cannot support is the misguided belief that spending more taxpayer dollars compensates for a lack of accountability within government bureaucracy. Who has been held responsible for these failures? How has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations addressed this debacle internally? Would a report from a new commissioner's office change anything when dozens of Auditor General reports on the government's mishandling of indigenous affairs have been ignored?

The Office of the Auditor General has conducted regular audits on treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-government agreements and treaty land entitlements. These include the 2005 report on meeting treaty land entitlement obligations, the 2006 report on federal participation in the British Columbia treaty process, the comprehensive 2013 “Audit of the Implementation of Modern Treaty Obligations” and the 2016 report 3, “Implementing the Labrador Inuit land Claims Agreement”.

Since 2015, the Auditor General has also produced 14 other reports on related issues facing first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. While the government continues to ignore the Office of Auditor General's reports and audits and continues to ignore treaty partners, it had the impertinence in 2023 to propose a collaborative modern treaty implementation policy. This might seem like progress, especially with 70 treaty negotiations currently stalled, but two years later, the policy remains unimplemented.

The critical point is this: Implementation is not about new policies, new offices or new spending. It is about whether current officials fulfill their responsibilities, whether existing departments are held accountable, and whether existing laws and commitments are enforced.

Now we hear of a new commissioner for modern treaty implementation, which would be a multi-million dollar bureaucracy tasked with monitoring, overseeing and reporting on implementation. It would not be accountable to Parliament. The commissioner, alongside the government and treaty partners, would decide when and how audits are conducted, leaving Parliament without the authority to initiate reviews of the government's handling of modern treaties. Reports would be tabled weeks after the minister receives them, further eroding accountability.

With respect, this is the wrong approach. To negotiate modern treaties, we do not need another commissioner, another office and more bureaucrats. The Liberals should learn from their past mistakes. Between 2015 and 2017, they created several new entities to address land claim implementation issues: the modern treaties implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat.

Despite these six entities, no modern treaties have been finalized. The six entities are specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure the implementation of treaties. Are we to believe that a seventh entity, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, would be the solution?

Perhaps the answer lies not in creating more agencies but in holding accountable those who failed to fulfill their existing duties. It is time to start firing those who fall short. What we need are ministers and officials who take on the responsibilities and obligations they already have, whether with respect to modern treaties, self-government provisions or historical agreements.

Since the 1970s, Canada has pursued modern treaties to move beyond the numbered treaties of the past. These comprehensive agreements establish self-government, define resource rights and confirm judicial authority.

Today, over two dozen modern treaties are in force across Canada, from Yukon to Nunavut, British Columbia, Quebec and Labrador. These agreements represent some of the most advanced models of indigenous government in the world, yet the reality is uneven. Others remain mired in administrative barriers, forced to renegotiate and litigate rights they believed were secure. For many indigenous governments, treaty implementation has meant delays. Departments apply treaty commitments inconsistently, and fiscal transfers are often structured to preserve federal control rather than empower indigenous economy.

Last, what Canadians and first nations communities, Métis and Inuit have seen for far too long is that the government is great at building bureaucracy but is not really great at getting things done.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have consistently heard the spreading of false information, with opposition member after opposition member trying to give the impression that, for example, the Whitecap Dakota Nation does not have a treaty agreement.

One just needs to take a look at the Manitoba Métis Federation. There are also three treaties that are waiting for consent in the province of British Columbia, the member's home province. When the member talks about the five Harper agreements, 2006 was the year Harper became prime minister, and that was the first agreement, so I can assure the member that Paul Martin had a lot more to do with it than Stephen Harper did. That is not to mention the other two treaty agreements that were signed off on just a couple of years later. The member knows full well that it takes time to get the agreements in place. There are another six agreements that are getting closer to being signed off on.

My question is related to Bill C-10: Why will the Conservatives not support an independent agent of Parliament to take care of and advocate on behalf of the agreements?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it really comes down to building bureaucracy versus building actually real things and getting real things done. I think there has been ten years' worth of examples. Even just recently, there was a supposed housing announcement in Ontario, but it was all a big facade. There was not anything actually there. It is something that the government created.

The government is great at building facades and building bureaucracy. Again, first nations, Inuit and Métis communities are looking for it to actually get things done.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, based on what I understand from this bill, the mechanism of tabling reports in the House and requiring the audited federal institutions to respond is similar to the mechanism for the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. It sounds like it will become increasingly more difficult for the government to avoid taking responsibility for its shortcomings.

What does my hon. colleague think of this?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all I would say is similar to what I said before. There are already agencies that have been established. The Auditor General has done many reports, as I said in my speech. There are already mechanisms in the country, in the government for that matter, and the bureaucracy to actually get the things done. Establishing a separate, whole other bureaucracy once again would only make it look like it is doing something when it really would not be doing anything.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member from British Columbia had to say. He did an amazing job pointing out some of the concerns we have with the piece of legislation.

I do want to take issue with the member opposite, the member for Winnipeg North, who rose on his feet just a few minutes ago to talk about the treaties. He took issue with the number of the modern treaties signed by Stephen Harper. Whether he wants to say there were five or there were four, that is still four more than the Liberals have signed in 10 years, so I think we did a pretty good job.

The member opposite also talked about a Manitoba Métis Federation treaty. There is no treaty. There is no treaty on the Order Paper. Has the member brought legislation forward? Again, the Liberals are taking credit for things that still have not happened. That brings me to my colleague's point that everything is a facade.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the shadow minister and I serve on INAN together, the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We have served on that committee for several years now.

We often see Liberals trying to look busy. They try to look like they are getting something done. Indigenous communities have heard only hollow and empty promises without any delivery. Then Liberals stand up today in the House as if they are finally going to get going on all the things they have been promising. They have been in government for 10 years, and still there is nothing, a big goose egg in terms of a modern treaty. Despite what the member said, talking endlessly in the chamber, there really is not much there in what he says.

I think what indigenous communities are looking forward to when a Conservative government takes office is that we will actually get things done.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague says that the commissioner position is a distraction.

Would he be willing to amend the bill to give the position more teeth? What would he be willing to do to exert more pressure for a real implementation of modern treaties?