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

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member used some deeply meaningful words: transparency, responsibility, accountability, listening and collaboration. All of these are very important if we want to make progress on some of the major projects that the Canadian government is trying to implement.

All of these major projects are going to transform our economy, create more, better jobs for our children, young people and others, and lead to a cleaner economy and environment. None of this is possible unless we work respectfully with indigenous peoples and respect their rights specifically.

As my colleague mentioned several times today, the purpose of the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation is to ensure that the Canadian government has all the tools, including oversight tools, to ensure that its relations with indigenous peoples support other federal initiatives.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be back in the House with my colleagues and to have the opportunity to discuss the major global issues and serious challenges that our country is currently facing.

Today, we are here to discuss Bill C‑10. Bill C‑10 proposes to create a new officer of Parliament, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Their role would be to assess whether the terms of modern treaties are being met and to report their findings to Parliament. By conducting audits and reporting their findings to Parliament, the new commissioner would be able to highlight areas where the federal government can improve its performance in modern treaty implementation.

There is common ground when it comes to the core principle that treaty rights must be respected and that the process of reconciliation must move forward.

The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. They also recognize that much work remains to be done to advance those rights, including self-determination and self-government.

What the Conservatives disagree with is the mechanism proposed in Bill C-10. The Conservative Party believes that, rather than creating more bureaucracy, the ministers and departments responsible for negotiating and implementing treaties should do their jobs. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts regular audits of modern treaty negotiations, self-government agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlement. The Conservatives firmly believe that the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiations and implementation should simply fulfill their responsibilities rather than creating a new position. The projected cost for the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation is $10.6 million over four years, with approximately 15 full-time employees.

The debate on Bill C-10 is about how to ensure the implementation of modern treaties and hold the federal government accountable. The importance of this accountability is clear: All commitments made under modern treaties must be honoured.

The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The disagreement is not about the goal, but rather how to achieve it.

In conclusion, the Conservatives believe that the solution is not to create a new body or add a new bureaucratic structure. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts audits on modern treaties and their implementation, and several federal initiatives and offices already exist in this area. Rather, the responsibility lies with the ministers and departments already in charge of negotiating and implementing the treaties. They need to step up and do their job. That is why the Conservative position is to oppose Bill C-10.

I hope that was clear. My French is a bit rusty, so I will continue a bit in English.

That was not the conclusion of my speech; it was just the conclusion of the French part. I am sorry to get members' hopes up.

It is good to be back in the House, the people's House, during what is certainly a tumultuous time for our country and for the world. We are discussing Bill C-10, which deals with modern treaties but which also speaks to the kind of architecture we use as a country to hold the government accountable and to challenge or constrain government decision-making. I think this is an important conversation to be having now in the context of broader debates about the nature of our institutions and how we use them.

Of course, we are having this debate in the context of an escalating trade war between Canada and the United States. It was in the context of the further escalation of that trade war that Conservatives called for the early reconvening of Parliament so that we could come together and work through, debate and discuss the issues that were before the House and that are before the country. We would have brought what was clearly the business of the nation before the House. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to do that, but that underlined, I think, a difference in philosophy about the role of Parliament in response to these events.

In the context of threats to our country, there are obviously the fundamentals on which all of us agree. I guess we do have, respectfully, some separatists in the House, but most of us are here out of a devotion to the strength and unity of Canada. We are here because we love Canada. We disagree about the mechanisms, the processes and the policies that are in the national interest, but most of us are here because we deeply love this country.

As I think about the idea of love and of loving one's country, I am drawn to that famous line from The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky reminds us that “love in [reality] is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams.” There are many different things he means by that, but centrally I think he means that our love for our country requires sacrifice from us. It requires hard things. It also requires us to challenge decisions out of a desire to strengthen and to prod our country in a positive direction.

The engagement of parliamentary institutions, the use of parliamentary institutions, is the tool by which we are able to draw on the ideas and experiences not just of members of Parliament but, through them, of all of their constituents. We spend time in our ridings hearing from Canadians about their priorities, their concerns and how they would like to see us respond to the issues of the day. Then we come together here in the central chamber of Canadian democracy to propose constructive ideas, to challenge each other and to hold each other accountable, especially to hold the government accountable, for the decisions we make, all with the goal of positively prodding our country in a constructive direction.

Socrates used to describe himself as the gadfly of Athenian democracy. Canadian democracy needs its share of gadflies to—

[An hon. member]

Let's go for the hemlock.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some members across the way say they would like me to meet an end similar to that which Socrates met, but I know that is meant in good humour. He saw himself as a gadfly at the hindquarters of Athenian democracy, which meant he was biting away, annoying the great beast that was Athenian democracy, in hopes of prodding it in a constructive direction.

Sometimes during times of national crisis the role of the opposition is challenged. People ask why it does not just agree with everything the government says, but it is out of love for this country and out of loyalty to this country that those who have been directed by the voters into this role of opposition challenge the government in a positive, constructive direction, at least as they see it. Of course, there are going to be different views about what that positive, constructive direction is, but we deeply revere in our tradition this idea of a loyal opposition.

This is why I think it would have been the right decision for Parliament to come back early, to identify the many areas that we agree on in terms of Canada's national interest and also to ask the government questions about its strategy, about its priorities and about the choices and trade-offs it is considering.

It is also why we have asked for more information about the nature of negotiations, about the things that were on the table and about the costs associated with countertariffs. When more parliamentarians have that information, when the public has that information, it allows for constructive deliberations about the choices and trade-offs that are involved. It is not because we do not share an ultimate objective. Of course, in many respects we do share an ultimate objective. However, this institution exists so that we can challenge each other based on our shared love for this country. In the face of these challenges, I would encourage the government to recognize the importance of Parliament, to share information with Parliament and to bring these issues to Parliament for a thorough discussion and debate, because this is how and where the best decisions get made.

I say this because I think there is some evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister would prefer a kind of corporate governance model to a parliamentary democratic model for shaping the direction of the country. He would prefer to tell parliamentarians in his own caucus, as well as in other parties, to just trust him about the decisions he is making because, as chairman of the board, he is going to make those decisions and why not let him do it.

Our parliamentary democracy exists for a reason. It exists because the prodding, directing, encouraging, challenging and accountability are part of the process of getting to good decisions. Parliamentarians are not just individuals putting our own ideas forward. We are reflections of the values, objectives and ideas of our constituents. That is why Parliament matters. That is why it is important. That is why we should resist efforts by the Prime Minister to shift us from a parliamentary democracy model to a model of corporate governance.

I would remind the House that parliamentary democracy is also essential during times of crisis. We have a record of many of Winston Churchill's great interventions in the House of Commons. He felt the importance of coming to the House, even during Britain's darkest hour. In the face of these challenges, again, this institution is important.

Members across the way are eager to hear about how these points relate to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is actually another example of the government trying to alter the structure and directions of our institutions in ways that move us away from the focus on parliamentary and ministerial accountability. It wants to see this proliferation of external new bodies that do not really have any powers. They would have the power to criticize or commend the actions of the government in relation to modern treaties, but this obscures the fact that the responsibility for implementing these treaties, for acting in accordance with the treaties, is the responsibility of the government and of the ministers charged with implementing them.

The House of Commons, as well as its committees, is the place where members of Parliament can and should challenge the government on its actions with respect to our adherence to those treaty obligations. Therefore, the best thing for accountability and for ensuring that action is taken in accordance with these treaties is not the proliferation of external bureaucracy with, frankly, limited tools and a limited capacity to hold the ministers accountable, but for the government to actually take Parliament more seriously, for ministers to provide substantive responses to substantive questions, for ministers to make themselves more available at committee, and for the Prime Minister to address the Canadian House of Commons as soon as possible after a breakdown in negotiations with the United States, not to address the European Parliament before addressing the Canadian Parliament.

I think it is great for the Prime Minister to be engaging internationally, but the fact that he addressed these issues at a foreign parliament before addressing them at the Canadian Parliament demonstrates why it would have been so much better if the Canadian Parliament had been convened—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member. I have a point of order from the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The colleague across the way and I had the wonderful privilege of being classmates together at Carleton University a number of years ago and debated quite often.

If I am not mistaken, I do believe the debate before us is on Bill C-10, and although I am enjoying some of the observations the member is making, I have not heard the word “treaty”, the word “commissioner” or the bill referenced in the last 10 minutes. I wonder if maybe there is a point to be made on that front.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I understand it is the first day back from the summer break and the member is making a point of order about the germaneness of the debate.

The member has been referring to governance models going back and forth and giving examples. It is germane to the debate. I will let the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan continue.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member is a new member in the House. He is not as new as he once was. I do welcome him back.

On a serious point to that member, I heard from some of his constituents about a private member's bill that I put forward in the House. It is Bill C-290, on the theft of religious items, because I know there have been some thefts of mezuzahs. There has been real concern in the Winnipeg Jewish community about that, so I have been meaning to call him about it. I would recommend he have a look at Bill C-290. I hope that the bill, which seeks to address the issue of theft of religious items, is something that could be an area of cross-party co-operation. That definitely is not related to Bill C-10.

What I am underlining in this speech is simply that, in the midst of challenging times for our country, in a context where it is important for us to come together and agree on the fundamentals of defending the Canadian national interest, the robust debate that happens in Parliament, the requests for information and the process of holding government ministers accountable are important processes of helping us collectively make better decisions. To love this country is also about loving and working through its existing institutions and recognizing the value of the heritage we have in the establishment of these institutions.

As it relates to Bill C-10, it is about saying that the core of accountability is not external to Parliament; it is right here in Parliament. It is the obligation of ministers to uphold our obligations under modern treaties and other treaties. It is to come before the House to defend their actions, to respond to questions from opposition members about them, to do so here within the House and to do so before its committees. We need to have a strong Parliament, a strong Parliament for a strong Canada and a united Canada in the face of various challenges.

I was thinking about these challenges just today, looking at the news and comments from the American administration about buying potash from Belarus. This was really striking to me because Belarus is systematically involved in the theft of children from Ukraine. It has been well established by human rights groups that Russia and Belarus are involved in stealing children from Ukraine. This is actually an issue that the first lady of the United States has been quite active in and vocal on, trying to get children who have been stolen from Ukrainian families returned to their families.

How in the world did we get to this point where the American administration is talking about buying potash from Belarus instead of trying to restore the relationship with Canada? This is a baffling point to be at. It underlines the need for us to bring the case directly to the American people, to say that we need to have partnerships among like-minded democracies. This ridiculous economic attack on our country makes no sense from a strategic perspective for the United States. Why would we want to buy potash from a regime that is intentionally and systematically stealing children?

These are the challenges we face. These are the kinds of challenges that need to be addressed in our Parliament through debate, through discussion, through collaboration and also through disagreements, but to defend the interests of Canada.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the quality of my colleague's French. He has nothing to worry about. His French was very good. I would also like to reassure him that our Prime Minister listens to his caucus. I think that is very important.

I am going to stick to Bill C-10.

The government wants to move things forward. I know my colleague is doing his job, but it is important to note that some Conservative members have, in the past, delayed the passage of legislation affecting indigenous peoples. What assurances can the Conservatives give us that this time their party will work to pass the bill quickly and without unnecessary delay to help modern treaty partners in their ridings?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I think this makes it clear that we generally all share the same goal when it comes to advancing indigenous rights. However, we disagree on this bill. Conservatives do not believe that this is the ideal mechanism for advancing and defending the rights of indigenous peoples.

Instead, we should be focusing on existing mechanisms, namely accountability within the parliamentary context.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague as well. I see that it is much easier for our interpreters to interpret from French to English, because my colleague speaks English very quickly. I also want to wish everyone, including my colleague, a good start to the session.

My question is this: Considering that no such commissioner position existed and that all of our commissioners tell us at our meetings that they lack sufficient enforcement powers and can do nothing but make recommendations, why not take this opportunity to create a commissioner position ourselves, and lead by example by introducing more coercive measures?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the commissioner would not have the power to ensure that the government's actions are consistent with its obligations. Other mechanisms already exist, such as the courts, for example, where indigenous peoples can demand that the government comply with the agreements.

In my view, this is a fundamental problem with Bill C-10. How can the government justify a commissioner position? He will not have the powers needed to guarantee results.

What, then, is the purpose of creating this post?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's excellent speech, he covered a lot of important information regarding Parliament and the way we act. One of the foundations of our parliamentary system, of course, is ministerial responsibility, whereby a minister is accountable to Parliament for the administration of their department and the decisions it makes.

We heard the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations this morning in her opening speech on this bill state that the implementation of modern treaty commitments would not be done through her department; rather, it would be passed on to the commissioner instead. I wonder if my colleague would like to opine on the decision of the Liberal government to say that ministers would not be responsible anymore and unelected commissioners would be.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is another excellent point from my colleague. This is precisely the issue. Through this bill, which sounds nice on the face of it, “Oh, we are creating this new commissioner,” the structure of the new position is to try to reduce the accountability, the pressure and the demands on the shoulders of the minister, while not really giving the commissioner the power to address the issues that are brought before him or her.

It is kind of a diffusion and a weakening of the accountability structures that are supposed to exist within our system. Sometimes with this kind of legislation, when there is a nice-sounding top line, we have to look underneath it and ask, “What is this bill actually doing? What are the effects of it going to be?”

As my colleague illustrates, this reflects a kind of preferred corporate governance-oriented model that the Prime Minister wants to apply to this country that in fact weakens the structures of our parliamentary democracy as they are supposed to exist.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member gave the government credit for actually bringing forward this legislation, well, not really credit, but he attributed it to them. I would not go that far.

This legislation is a result of pressure from modern-day treaty nations that have called for this, because of the government's failure to implement treaties and dragging its feet. That is what this is about, and it includes the Maa-nulth first nations in my riding. I also think about nations in my riding that have signed agreements with the government that are not modern-day treaties, like Tla-o-qui-aht. The government is dragging its feet on promises it has made.

We hear the government constantly talking about nation-building. Does my colleague agree that nation-building is signing modern-day treaties, signing agreements with indigenous peoples, and that fast-tracking that should be a priority for the government? That is good for the economy. That is good for nation-building.